Industry voice: Is total flight time the best way to measure pilot competency?

Pros

So, what is increasing the amount of hours for airline transport pilots (ATPs) good for? Here are the main points:

1. A standardized benchmark

Implementing an hour-based rule like this helps set the standard across the industry. Airlines can’t deviate from this rule. This means you won’t have airline A requiring X amount of hours, and airline B requiring Y amount of hours.

2. Exposure to diverse flying experiences

The 1,500-hour rule gives the route to joining the airlines more variety. The plan for any USA-based aspiring pilot: get through basic training, then get about 1,250 additional hours to get the ATP certification in whichever way you find the most interesting, rewarding, or useful.

Compared with Europe, for instance, this gives cadets a much wider set of experiences than their commercial pilot’s license – instrument rating (IR), multi-crew cooperation (MCC), jet orientation course, type rating, joining the airlines.

3. Experience to lean on

That increased variety in flight experience, as well as the sheer amount of it compared with new pilots in Europe or other parts of the world, can provide something to lean on when things get tricky. Experience you wouldn’t have had if you’d gone straight from an integrated training course to flying as a regional first officer – this is the most given reason as to why the 1,500 rule increases flight safety.

4. Cultural integration

Many new pilots often decide to use the need to build about 1,250 hours to get experience in multiple parts of the world, in lots of different types of operations.

Many new pilots often decide to use the need to build about 1,250 hours to get experience in multiple parts of the world, in lots of different types of operations

Even if you were to go down the flight instructing route (which is still the most common one), you would have to deal with lots of different people from all over the world. This is a huge benefit for any pilot.

5. Public confidence

As a passenger, or a politician, who might not know anything about aviation, it sounds like a pretty good deal. What would you rather have:

    A) Pilots in the cockpit with at least 1,500 hours?

    B) Pilots in the cockpit with at least 250 hours?

This is something that’s hard to dispute, and is also why it’ll be hard to ever remove this requirement, as there will likely be strong public backlash.

Cons

So, what is the bad side of the 1,500-hour rule?

1. Skill misalignment

The question is, does that extra non-airline experience really add to the levels of flight safety in an airline operation? If you’re an expert (and experienced) in bush flying, does that make you a safer first officer than someone who has been trained specifically to enter an airline flight deck at 250 hours?

Does that extra non-airline experience really add to the levels of flight safety in an airline operation

2. Financial barriers

It isn’t a secret that starting your flight training, whether for helicopters or fixed-wing, can be very costly. This problem is made a little easier with integrated schools in Europe, which often have partnerships with banks and airlines that are willing to be the guarantors, provided students pass their intake selection process.

3. Delays in career entry

The pilot supply pipeline in Europe is extremely efficient. Airlines are often part of flight school selection processes, and get a say in who should and should not get placements.

This makes the careers of European airline pilots much more straightforward than those of students in the USA. After flight school in Europe, it won’t be long until you’re on the flight deck, sometimes straight into long-haul flying as a second officer, as happens at KLM and many other airlines.

In the USA, you’ll need to bridge that gap from 250 hours to 1,500 hours by yourself. That means freedom, but it can also mean jumping into the deep, moving countries, and less job security.

4. Pilots forming bad habits

That block of 1,250 hours can offer a wide selection of experiences. This unfortunately tends to come with bad habits as well. For both rotary and fixed-wing multi-crew operators in the UK, for instance, they often prefer pilots straight out of flight school. This allows them to train their habits, flying techniques, and crew resource management (CRM) in the way they want from the start.

Having someone join your company with a wealth of experience offers benefits. However, for pilots who need to get used to flying bigger airplanes or helicopters, this can present a lot of issues compared with brand new graduates.

5. Inhibits diversity

For similar reasons to the ones we discussed in point 2, airlines, operators and banks have an easier time to facilitate career paths if pilots can get hired straight out of flight school. This in turn makes the entire career path much more accessible to lots of different demographics that otherwise might not have had the opportunity or financial means to become a pilot.

Being able to just fork out $100,000 plus and then go on an (often poorly paid) adventure to bridge the gap to 1,500 hours is a wildly different career path from the prospect of getting hired by an airline straight out of flight school. This can keep women, for example, who tend to have more risk-averse personalities (in general), from the industry – women who might otherwise have made great pilots.

What can be used to predict pilot competency?

So what’s the solution here? Well, as you probably already know, there’s no ‘solution’ quite yet. The fact is that none of the skills we’re going to list here are as easy to measure as simply looking in someone’s logbook and assuming it’s all 100% accurate and relevant to the position on the

Especially for the helicopter industry, where different operations vary massively compared with different types of airlines as an airline pilot, flight time shouldn’t be the only metric to determine a pilot’s competency and eligibility for a position

table.

However, especially for the helicopter industry, where different operations vary massively compared with different types of airlines as an airline pilot, flight time shouldn’t be the only metric to determine a pilot’s competency and eligibility for a position. It unfortunately requires time to assess properly, which is the main downside of not simply listing a total flight time requirement.

Until we find a way to quantify these in more obvious and objective ways, it will be hard to change anything. It is still very common that pilot X with fewer hours than pilot Y could be much better for the job, but doesn’t get the position or promotion.

If we zoom in on what makes a good pilot, these are the main traits that are linked to pilot competence:

• Knowledge
• Application of procedures
• Flight path management
• Problem-solving and decision-making
• Workload management
• Communication
• Leadership/teamwork
• Situational awareness
• Experience.

So, only experience is covered by looking at someone’s logbook. Someone could be massively experienced, and, while that ticks one box, what about the other eight?

For now, these are not easy to put as an objective ‘number’ on your CV. You can’t say “My flight path management skills are 8/10”. You’ll probably raise a lot of eyebrows if you do put that on your CV. What does “8” mean, what does the 10 mean? It’s undefined and super subjective.

To test and quantify these properly, the most effective methods will remain:

• Scenario-based assessment
• Flight simulator assessment
• Technical knowledge assessment
• Flight school performance insights
• Cognitive ability assessment
• Personality assessment.

Conclusion

Total flight time has been the main metric for pilot competency for decades now. However, as aviation evolves, it might not be as accurate as various other aspects that make a pilot competent or incompetent.

While total flight time remains easy to quantify and has a long-established history of what is considered ‘good enough to be applicable’, by itself it is quite limiting in what it can predict.

While total flight time remains easy to quantify and has a long-established history of what is considered ‘good enough to be applicable’, by itself it is quite limiting in what it can predict

The 1,500-hour Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rule highlights this ongoing debate, with pros like having a standardized benchmark for positions and promotions, but some complex downsides that might not be obvious at first glance.

A more holistic approach to pilot assessment that incorporates scenario-based assessments, flight simulator evaluations, and personality assessments alongside just looking in a pilot’s logbook could prove to be well worth overall flight safety across the industry!

The full version of this article can be found on pilotswhoaskwhy.com.