Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

What is the point of hour building?

Obviously it is needed to meet the ICAO totals required for the issue of various licenses/ratings, but it is mostly nonsensical because you can hour build in a C150 (even as an instructor who rarely flies the plane, and rarely flies beyond a small radius) towards an ATPL and a job in a multi pilot jet.

The result is a distortion in the GA training business which is flooded with way too many hour-building instructors who eat each other’s lunch, and IMHO it depresses the standard of GA training because there is so much competition.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

That is exactly what the purpose is: To get the minimum hours required for the next license.

The trick with the instructor is mostly something which happens in the US. I don’t think in Europe that is possible even, as you need sufficient hours already before you can be an instructor.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

There is no point in hour building and nobody ever planned that there should be. There are however certain thresholds in aviation training which assume that experience can be related to hours flown. Back in the days of the 700 hour CPL then many pilots gained the necessary hours by instructing, which they could do on a PPL. The hours gained were actually good experience. The introduction of the requirement to have a CPL in order to instruct (ICAO Annex 1) and the almost coincident introduction of the 200 hour BCPL then CPL meant that hours gained instructing were no longer of any use to obtain a CPL. From this emerged the hour builder or rather hour waster flying around in circles to obtain sufficient hours to undertake the next course leading ultimately to a modular CPL and then IR. The process is much better structured by doing the IR first followed by the CPL, making better use of the time whilst offering a financial saving, but few follow that route. When it comes to instructor training there are noticeable differences between Integrated and Modular course graduates, in the main, the level of single engine experience of Integrated students is much lower than the hour builders. Gaining hours as an instructor now serves no purpose in therms of hour building, in fact too many hours can be an issue; it does however keep CPL/IR holders current whilst they wait for a job vacancy. The cost of instructor training and the possible rewards means there is a noticeable shortage of instructors. The days of the hour building instructor are long gone. A quick look at CAA statistics show a 75% reduction in licence issues in the last 21 years. Fewer recreational pilots, less instructors required, no progress into commercial instructing, the aviation tree is diseased from the inside out!

Peter wrote:

… towards an ATPL …

Luckily in today’s integrated ATPL courses, the nonsensical “hours building” flying up and down the Florida coast with a couple of flying school buddies during a two week holiday is not longer required. There are still some countries where airlines insist on a minimum number of hours before they will take a new co-pilot. But most European airlines are happy to put 150-hour-frozen ATPL holders in the right hand seat of their Airbuses and Boeings. Some crashes like AF447 have been attributed to the lack of basic flying skills of this kind of pilot, but I doubt that “hours building” like that Florida holiday or instructing at PPL level would have developed those skills. Many more airliner crashes were caused by experienced pilots who had “built” a lot of hours during their career.

EDDS - Stuttgart

Hour building is very much alive and well in the USA, you need 1,500 hours and an ATPL with a Multi to be flight deck crew in a Part 121 operation.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

what_next wrote:

I doubt that “hours building” like that Florida holiday or instructing at PPL level would have developed those skills.

If you do proper ab initio flight training, you need to be fit in hand flying skills. But if an hour builder has the necessary devotion to be the best instructor he can be, might be questionable after all.

mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

Hour building is one of the first things I look for when hireing a pilot.

I need someone who can get into a Cessna 150 fly say 150 miles take some photos of say a wind turbine and come back again. Which to me is a task that should fall in the remit of any cpl/IR holder.

But no. I have cpl/ir holders who have never flown in the UK at all. Never flown In cloud. Never done a MATZ penetration. Never operated from an uncontrolled airport. Dont have an sep rating. Have only flown one type of SEP and one type of MEP. Have never once leaned an aircraft engine. Have no idea what type of oil to put in the aircraft let alone how to put it in. And have never fueled an aircraft themselves or pulled an aircraft in and out of a hanger. Or know how to tie an aircraft down if parked outside.

Now I know alot of people we say that they never ment or wanted to be flying GA and the world famous ATO which charged them 100 grand on the promise of an airline job have trained them to be airline pilots. But they are not and they hold a cpl/ir and really should be able to do basic flying tasks such as this.

Last Edited by Bathman at 21 Mar 13:06

I think min hours req are a great thing and I was in favor of the FAA change of rules. It’s already had an impact. Now for the first time in decades there’s a real, actual shortage. Granted, this shortage is mainly for bottom feeders, but it is changing the industry for the better in the US. The days of paying $16K/year for a FO (Colgan) and demanding them to pay for their own type ratings are over. And those who rely on a business model based on getting free labor, should not be in business. This month Republic Airways went out of business, just precisely because that was their whole business model. Good riddance. Airlines in the future will have to pay a living wage and pay for training, just like it should be.

In Europe, the nonsense continues as it was in the US. FO’s who have barely been outside the 150, Multi Crew licenses, no real world experience is the norm. Europe is also full of bottom feeding airlines, who have built there whole business model on this assumption. The best thing that could happen to Europe is a min hour requirement. I also don’t think initial hours built in airlines count for as much as real flying – what skills except procedure are you learning when the autopilot gets engaged or disconnected at 400ft? This is precisely why AF447 guys etc can’t recognize a stall – because they’ve never flown normal GA aircraft. All their experience is an a sheltered and automated 2-man crew cockpit. At least a CFI and hour building that way, has you mastering that part thoroughly before you’re let lose on carrying people.

Do your really want to send your granny on a flight where the FO has 250hrs, of which half were in a cheap desktop simulator? That’s the reality today.

Last Edited by AdamFrisch at 21 Mar 13:52

Never done a MATZ penetration

I would not be able to say that with a straight face

It’s like “Class G but have to use the radio” penetration! Or the famous “cross channel checkout”

And have never fueled an aircraft themselves or pulled an aircraft in and out of a hanger. Or know how to tie an aircraft down if parked outside.

Pretty normal if going for an airline job, I would think? There is zero interest in GA.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

There is an article linking lack of interest in GA with deteriorating stick and rudder skills of ATPs. I tend to agree and in my view, if you are looking for a flying job the money for an A320 type rating is better spent in a D120 and a couple barrels of proper fuel.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/how-airline-pilots-lost-the-basic-skills_b_9415270.html?section=india

mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany
27 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top