Freelance Pilots | Hacker News Reader

Freelance Pilots

romansnitko.com

49 pointsprot36 comments

Falls apart right here: "Imagine David. David is an airline captain lincenced to fly B737, B747-400, B-747-800 and any B777" There may be pilots who have flown 737, 747, and 777 before, but there are none (or practically none) who are current in all three at once. To get your currency back in a particular airframe could be as simple as a single check ride with a qualified (and current) pilot if it's only been a few weeks since you've flown last, all the way up to a review test and multiple check rides if they haven't flown in that airframe in quite a while.

And how did David get qualified in each of said airframes? An airline wanted David to fly a different route that used a different plane so they PAID for him to get the training and get certified. That would not happen in a freelance system.

There would likely be a freelance community around each type of plane, especially the smaller commuter varieties, but each pilot would basically be restricted to a single airframe until he/she could afford to pay for certification in a bigger and more lucrative jet on their own.

Would the FAA allow such a system to arise? Probably not. The status quo of having airlines schedule crews on routes that they are familiar with (with the occasional change) seems safer than having every single flight be with a crew that is unfamiliar with their route.

I don't think the system where airlines sponsor pilot's education/certification is the only viable one. Other institutions, such as banks, can offer student loans. Another point you made about the fact that pilots cannot fly multiple airplanes is simply false. The older the pilot is, the more chances there are he flew multiple types of aircraft working for different companies. I know at least one who flew b737 of various models, b757, b767 and then b777 and he's nothing out of the ordinary.

> Another point you made about the fact that pilots cannot fly multiple airplanes is simply false.

He didn't say this anywhere.

Apologies, you're right. But I don't think he's right about the fact that a pilot cannot fly three types of aircraft either.

OP is right. You can get qualified on multiple aircraft types, but to maintain currency is a different topic altogether. In the US for example, at least for private pilots, you need at least 3 take offs and landings in the last 90 days in the aircraft (category/class/type-rating) to be able to carry passengers. Then there's extra requirements for night currency and instrument rating currency.

I would imagine the airlines have even tougher currency requirements. That said, it's probably possible to maintain currency in several aircraft types depending on the frequency and how the jobs are scheduled.

Other institutions, such as banks, can offer student loans.

The incoming US student loan crisis shows why this is not a great idea.

One case is Boeing training Captains are sometimes qualified to fly with multiple airlines, and multiple types. They have to be qualified for the operating procedures of that airline. The Boeing pilots are mainly used for training roles (supervising or safety pilot observer) and don't actually fly the jet on scheduled flights.

Some maintenance contractors have pilots who are qualified and current on several types, but its likely they are Part 91 flights only and may not be line qualified for Part 121 scheduled flights.

I can't see "freelance" airline pilots being more than a rare edge case.

The article was written by somebody who knows very little about airlines:

- an airline has to have pilots at the gate on time, guaranteed

- each airline has its own operating rules and checklists

- planes and airports have unique combinations of Cat III landings

- airline pilots are route-checked. they don't fly random routes.

- most major airlines have unions, so freelancers are not allowed.

However, he could be describing ferry pilots or Netjet pilots or some other non-scheduled route.

To be fair, the author addresses some of these points at the end:

> The only two reasons this system is not widespread now are regulations and unions. I'm more than convinced had regulations allowed for such a system and had not the unions had so much power, you'd see this happening already.

…… of course, he's ignoring the fact that many of these regulations are there for very good reason.

Yes, those are the kind of regulation you can revisit, the good kind. If you can solve the issues another way you change them.

Regulations that exist for no good reason are there for the whim of someone.

This makes little to no sense. Flight schedules are worked out months in advance, it's a carefully planned system where many pilots fly particular routes only, and often back and forth. There's no way it could work with pilots signing up for arbitrary flights to whatever destinations mere hours before takeoff, unless there was a huge surplus of pilots waiting at all airports who are willing to constantly go to random places and have no certainty about where they might be tomorrow. It would be massively inefficient. I doubt any current pilots have unplanned 15 hour downtimes because they have to wait around for the right flight to come along. I just don't believe that many pilots want to bounce around randomly, never knowing what's happening beyond the next flight. The article also seems to ignore the existence of short domestic flights.

Passengers more freedom in deciding what's safe for them

This seems to be creating a problem where one doesn't exist. Today most people accept that any pilot on an established airline will be considered safe, and you don't have to give it any more thought. I don't think any airline will want to advertise varying levels of safety...

And yeah the Bitcoin product placement seems totally unnecessary.

Passengers more freedom in deciding what's safe for them

No, this is totally in line with the Bitcoin "do your own risk assessment" product placement: a total disregard of how hard it is for the end user to work out what's safe or not.

I have my certificate and know many career pilots. I can for aure say that pilots want a schedule more than anything. When they're on the road so much all they look forward to is getting home. Leaving that up to the mercy of a free market wouldn't work for a majority of career pilots. Many young pilots do charters and it's basically slave labor like this... The charter co's will only fly the jet home if the leg is paid for. So these guys end up spending a lot of time doing nothing while they wait for new legs to be booked. And those legs will turn into many stops before coming home. It's grueling work but pilots do it to build a lot of hours. Number one complaint is not knowing when they're going home.

I thought this was going to be a counterpoint about "so, pilots don't fly this way -- why should developers?" or something.

This sounds like the libertarian fantasy blog post awhile back where a freelance cop is shooting heroin in his patrol car, and deciding whether to take the next radio call.

New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertaria...

> had not the unions had so much power, you'd see this happening already.

It is funny that you only mention airlines (lufthansa, Air France) where pilots are organized within strong unions. And most pilots would love to work for just those airlines, because they are the last ones which pay good wages.

Very good; I can't tell whether it's parody or not.

Techies can be pretty cute.

Feel honoured, because usually they are rude to people who do not know any facts but propose solutions.

> he remembers to check his Bitcoin wallet and finds out that the pay for yesterday's flight has already arrived

Definitely parody.

This would never fly (excuse the pun). For all the practical reasons like currency on so many aircraft and the cost (being checked to line on a A380 takes 2-3 months full time - who pays for that? Simulators ain't cheap!)

Above all else, the human aspect is terrible. I'm flabbergasted the author glosses over this. A Frankfurt - Chicago - Frankfurt trip would see a pilot away for 3-4 days as it is. Factor in not getting a direct flight back and waiting 15 hours for the opportunity to fly a 1 hour flight, it's gonna be closer to 5-6 days. What spouse is going to be happy with that?! Pilots already have enough stress worrying about how to their family while away - adding in a variable time frame would be hell on earth.

"Passengers more freedom in deciding what's safe for them"

This makes it seem like reasonable defaults are absent; "safe for them" is a one-size-fits-all when we are talking about air travel.

Not really. There are airlines who hire young low paid unskilled pilots, there are pilots from various countries with different English skills, there are pilots who didn't get enough sleep last night. Then there are airports that have different standards for security, different border-control waiting time, different luggage waiting time & equipment, different ground-crew serving the airplane. All this information is obscured from the passengers, but it doesn't mean it's not affecting safety, because it is.

The differences you name can be factors in any given crash, but only in combination, because many things have to go wrong for a crash to happen.

Also, the number of crashes is so low that each crash happens under unique circumstances.

Also, people are pretty irrational about rare risks.

So such differences may affect safety, but not in a way that will affect the market price in any useful way.

Allowing individuals to adjust the safety levers means more people will die, because the vast majority of individuals who use air travel are not qualified or informed enough to make good decisions about these things. More people will die unnecessarily than under the current system.

People don't need to make those decisions. Currently, safety decisions are made by the government, which really doesn't have any competition and thus is not incentivized to improve its set of regulations. If you had 2-3 companies providing market review for the passengers, I'm pretty sure the situation would improve, not deteriorate. Perhaps some regulations simply don't make any sense and do not improve safety, but you'd never know that until you have one agency managing it.

Safety decisions are not made by the government. They are made by IATA.

Airline safety is currently in a state where it is nearly indistinguishable from perfect. Accident rates are so low that it's no longer possible to put an accurate number on the risk of taking a flight. And all of this has been done while keeping ticket prices at extremely low levels. It would be remarkable for any change to this to result in an improvement, since there's almost nowhere to go but down.

The FAA has a policy of "one safety standard for all airlines" for passenger flights.

Obviously that's nonsense, as regional and major airlines have totally different resources.

I don't fly regionals, and I tell my family not to.

Before August 2015, regionals used low-hour pilots sleeping at the airport, resulting in the Colgan accident.

After August 2015 (post-Colgan), Congress increased pilot experience requirements to ATP minimums of 1,500 hours. All of the regional airlines are in the process of closing down as a result.

Well, the other thing affecting the regionals is that while lots of people have the skills to be pilots and many even have the training, there are increasingly few who have the skills and training and are willing to put up with the wages and conditions of the regionals. And since the regionals are the only way to get funneled into the mainline structure of the big US carriers, we get the much-discussed "pilot shortage".

If by "increasingly few" you mean "virtually none" in 2016, then you're correct.

Uber for pilots! The next big unicorn!

I do think that pilots are commoditized, but not to the extent that they are interchangeable in this manner. The industry is way too heavily regulated for this to ever work, and for good reason.

Honestly, well before something like this would come to pass, there will be whole fleets of autonomous planes in the air, thereby avoiding this scenario altogether.

There are already whole fleets of autonomous planes in the air. They have autopilot. The only difference is that when something goes wrong in the air, you can't just pull over and get a tech to the plane. You need someone already in the cockpit who knows what they are doing.

Imagine how big the reserve army of pilots would have to be for this to work! Like half the world would have to be pilots. They'd make five bucks a flight.

Now imagine something better: Universal Basic Income.

My best guess? In less than 15 years most aircraft will be self-flying. It will probably start with cargo planes over ocean routes, then inland, then passengers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com