Pilot Source Study 2018: Five Years after the FOQ Rule—New-Hire First Officer Backgrounds and their Performance in US Regional Airline Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the Pilot Source Study (PSS) 2015 was published, there was concern that the data were collected too soon after the First Officer Qualification Rule compliance date. The Collaborative Research Committee of the Aviation Accreditation Board International (AABI) voted to undertake the PSS 2018 to determine whether the results of the PSS 2015 were still valid. In fall 2018, five research teams collected 9,776 pilot records from five regional airlines and analyzed these data. In the PSS 2018, the criteria for success were: ≥90% completions and ≤1 extra training event. In rank order, the following pilots were most successful in regional airline initial training: (1) pilots who had an undergraduate GPA of 3.3 or higher, (2) pilots who graduated from college within 5 years of their hire date, (3) pilots who had either a military R-ATP (750 hours) or an institutional R-ATP (1,000 hours), (4) pilots who graduated from an AABI-accredited flight program, (5) pilots who had 1,500 or fewer total flight hours, (6) pilots who had a bachelor degree. In addition to these variables, multivariate analysis showed that the following variables provide additional prediction and classification for success: age, younger; flight instructor, yes; military pilot, yes; previous FAA failures, fewer. All four PSSs (2010, 2012, 2015, and 2018) have substantiated the 2010 ANPRM statement: ‘‘…experience is not measured in flight time alone’’.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".