#1
Posted: 12/1/2009 18:09:59
The Tuesday, 01 December 2009 Wall Street Journal contained an article["Commuter Airlines: Questions of Safety"] beginning on page A1 and continued on page A16 discussing the safety of the industry and recent history of commuter airlines hiring pilots with only a couple hundred hours.
My question is this:
How does the safety of commuter airline pilots being hired with only a couple hundred hours compare to the the thousands of pilots who were trained to fly transports and bombers during WW2?
Consider the type and quality of training of the civilian pilots of today with the military trained pilots of the WW2 period. Also consider the age and maturity of the pilots in each group.
#2
Posted: 12/2/2009 22:29:43
So sorry to take so much time to resond...and to be numbah 1....
But first question before response....are we talking taildragger time ????
Tooky or Pierre
#3
Posted: 12/3/2009 17:06:48
Total time prior to flying the line for airline operations for civilian pilots or combat operations for military pilots,
#4
Posted: 12/4/2009 08:55:53
Consider the type and quality of training of the civilian pilots of today with the military trained pilots of the WW2 period. Also consider the age and maturity of the pilots in each group.
One must also consider that, in the minds of many, soldiers are expendable while civilians must be protected at all costs..
Cheers,
Jerry
NC22375 out of 07N
#5
Posted: 12/5/2009 09:11:51
Unfortunately, the stock pile of WWII pilots availiable for use is nearly all gone. Who can learn to fly these days? Reality is that Airline hire the best, I feel that are available. There is always Pilots and air crew leaving todays military which will be picked up.
It also can be argued that aircraft are safer, however they are more complex to operate. Navigation, comunications and flight systems are lighter and for the most part in my experence are more reliable.
Do I feel safe when I am a passenger yes.
VJ Thompson
VJ Thompson
Thorp T-18
C-GIRQ
#6
Posted: 12/17/2009 12:01:19
One of the main differences between Military and Civilian training is the possibility of washing out of Military flight training; in theory, only the best make it through. Given enough time and money a civilian pilot could retake tests and /or checkrides many times before passing. There are exceptions to every rule of course...
#7
Posted: 12/17/2009 12:53:49
Whilst reading this post, I was opening the NTSB interview summaries also posted on here. The FO started flying when he was 14, went through the military and has about 11,000 hours. The captain also has an excellent record, no military experience, vast amounts of airline experience and over 20,000 hours.
#8
Posted: 12/17/2009 16:43:12
Gerals Rosie said;
"One must also consider that, in the minds of many, soldiers are expendable while civilians must be protected at all costs.."
You might want to re-consider that. To me, a soldier is NEVER expendable. That some are "expended" in battle doesn't make them so.
Now to the OP's question. In WW2 the number and rate of washouts was about the same as today, but it has varied some in military training. The real issue with pilot quality has to do with training quality. Not all pilots are trained as well as others. Also some training/qualification programs at the airlines do not determine the individual pilot's response to emergencies as part of the weeding out process. Not everyone will respond to an emergency in the corrrect manner. This response does not guarantee successful outcomes of any individual flight. The Colgan Air Buffalo crash likely would have had similar effects as the crew did not really have an "emergency" until the situation got to the 'coffin corner". Age and maturity also have little to do with pilot quality.