NAFI opposed to 1500 hour rule

Would you want to deal with a surgeon who had never seen a scalpel 90 days ago? [/QUOTE]

I wouldnt want that surgeon, but, like all jobs they had to start somewhere. Somewhere along the line there was a first, where they had an experienced surgeon oversee the newbie to make sure nothing went wrong. Not saying 1500 TT is a bad idea, or even a good idea. But the path from private to right seat cloudy right now for alot of good reasons.

First, it can cost alot to get your CFI. Second, you need to find students to teach(ultimately this is a big pyramid scheme). Down the road there is going to be a need for 135 pilots, corporate pilots, etc. Eventually, I forsee a demand for pilots to grow because of this bill, but what happens when they have to cancel flights because there arent enough qualified pilots to fit in the 1500 hour rule to replace those retiring? This rule will be retracted just like the age 60 rule was changed. Two pilots up front with 1500 hrs are better than having a 250 hour in the right seat, but does it make it more safe than it currently is? Has there been a study that shows having a 250 hr pilot as a FO being a direct cause to an increase in accidents?

IMO this legislation is on based on fear. People are trying to tie safety to TT. I think training has alot to so with safety, and they dont just hire a 250 hour pilot and throw them in the right seat and see if they sink or swim. They go through weeks of training, and once they are fit in the eyes of their instructors they are let go, but let go with someone with 1500+ TT...usually considerably more. All this hype, and hee haw I think in several years, maybe a decade will be mute. I highly doubt that this bill will increase wages enough to convince pilots to switch from 135 to 121, or even a boost to QOL.

Anyways. I'm off to deice. Ive only got a high school degree and 200 hours in the bucket, does that make me want to be any less safe and competent to make sure my aircraft are clean of contaminants? You have to experience the job, to build the knowledge and experience to do the job well. Once I have built 1500 hrs CFIing, it doesn't mean I can fly a regional jet any better, but I'll be wickedly awesome demonstrating PTS standards on all the private/commercial maneuvers.

Safe flying folks.
 
crazyjeep said:
Would you want to deal with a surgeon who had never seen a scalpel 90 days ago?

I wouldnt want that surgeon, but, like all jobs they had to start somewhere. Somewhere along the line there was a first, where they had an experienced surgeon oversee the newbie to make sure nothing went wrong. Not saying 1500 TT is a bad idea, or even a good idea. But the path from private to right seat cloudy right now for alot of good reasons.

First, it can cost alot to get your CFI. Second, you need to find students to teach(ultimately this is a big pyramid scheme). Down the road there is going to be a need for 135 pilots, corporate pilots, etc. Eventually, I forsee a demand for pilots to grow because of this bill, but what happens when they have to cancel flights because there arent enough qualified pilots to fit in the 1500 hour rule to replace those retiring? This rule will be retracted just like the age 60 rule was changed. Two pilots up front with 1500 hrs are better than having a 250 hour in the right seat, but does it make it more safe than it currently is? Has there been a study that shows having a 250 hr pilot as a FO being a direct cause to an increase in accidents?

IMO this legislation is on based on fear. People are trying to tie safety to TT. I think training has alot to so with safety, and they dont just hire a 250 hour pilot and throw them in the right seat and see if they sink or swim. They go through weeks of training, and once they are fit in the eyes of their instructors they are let go, but let go with someone with 1500+ TT...usually considerably more. All this hype, and hee haw I think in several years, maybe a decade will be mute. I highly doubt that this bill will increase wages enough to convince pilots to switch from 135 to 121, or even a boost to QOL.

Anyways. I'm off to deice. Ive only got a high school degree and 200 hours in the bucket, does that make me want to be any less safe and competent to make sure my aircraft are clean of contaminants? You have to experience the job, to build the knowledge and experience to do the job well. Once I have built 1500 hrs CFIing, it doesn't mean I can fly a regional jet any better, but I'll be wickedly awesome demonstrating PTS standards on all the private/commercial maneuvers.

Safe flying folks.
Click to expand...

Its not that you want to be unsafe. Nobody really wants to be unsafe. Its that at 200TT you haven't seen enough of flying to be truly safe. You may get lucky, and never wind up in a situation where you have show your proficiency, but I don't want you taking that chance with my familiy on board of a jet. First and foremost, you need stick and rudder time, so that stall spin and low speed maneuvering awareness is ingrained into your head. You don't get to explore that edge of the envelope as a RJ FO, you do as a CFI, you may as a cargo guy, I know we do as VFR 135 guys. Next you need to be doing trips to places. At 200hrs, you can't have even been that many places. You cannot have physically traveled to more than maybe a dozen to 20 airports unless you're actively trying to go out and get hundred dollar hamburgers during your time building phase. Most people I know did a lot of the same routes over and over again during their time building phase.

People are trying to tie safety to total time, because safety is tied to total time. There's no substitute for experience. None. Training only goes so far, you need actual time sitting in the airplane making decision to make it when the poop hits the fan.
 
crazyjeep said:
First, it can cost alot to get your CFI. Second, you need to find students to teach(ultimately this is a big pyramid scheme).
Click to expand...

There will always be students. Not everyone wants to be an airline pilot. Plenty of private owners will need BFRs/IPCs/Instrument tickets. Or people like me that just want to tow gliders.
 
You're missing the point. 1500 hrs in the pattern prepares you no more than the 50 hr CRJ course is going to prepare you.
Click to expand...


if you did 1500 hours in the pattern, you would not have ATP minimums. I keep reading from the anti-1500 hour people about 1500 hours spent in the pattern, but what about the requirement for 500 hours beyond 50 NM? Plus 100 hours at night, 75 actual/simulated instrument conditions and being 23 years old
 
clrTaG said:
if you did 1500 hours in the pattern, you would not have ATP minimums. I keep reading from the anti-1500 hour people about 1500 hours spent in the pattern, but what about the requirement for 500 hours beyond 50 NM? Plus 100 hours at night, 75 actual/simulated instrument conditions and being 23 years old
Click to expand...

And there's the rub. You need to have experience to get an ATP certificate, flying around the patch teaching primary students probably won't do it in 1500TT.
 
clrTaG said:
if you did 1500 hours in the pattern, you would not have ATP minimums. I keep reading from the anti-1500 hour people about 1500 hours spent in the pattern, but what about the requirement for 500 hours beyond 50 NM? Plus 100 hours at night, 75 actual/simulated instrument conditions and being 23 years old
Click to expand...

Correcto.

I know I'm being a broken record and I may ultimately be wrong, but 2010 is going to be a lot different than 2006 in terms of hiring minimums.

Meeting ATP minimums isn't really all that difficult if you're focused and driven.

If that hurdle is too high, there's even higher hurdles around the corner on your career path.
 
Firebird2XC said:
There'd be fewer students because the pilot mills can't get people to write a check with the belief that they'll skyrocket to 777 CA status in a few years. With a real time and effort investment required, those looking to make easy money will go elsewhere. Those truly dedicated to the idea of flying for a living, albeit a less immediately profitable one, will continue.
Click to expand...

I see, I with you there.
I was really only thinking of my own situation. :)
 
It seems to me... and I apologize in advance if this is a mischaracterization... but the vast majority of the people who are claiming that the 1500 hour rule is so pointlessly pointless that it is practically a sphere are people with much less than 1500 hours.
 
mooneyguy said:
Reported by AVWEB.

Requiring 1500-hour ATP certificates for all Part 21 pilots could actually reduce safety according to the National Association of Flight Instructors. In a news release and briefing paper that debunks the impetus behind congressional resolutions that equate the hours required to obtain an ATP with competence in the cockpit. "The emphasis should be on training and quality of training, not just on total flight experience," said NAFI Executive Director Jason Blair. " In most accidents over recent years, this [1,500-hour] requirement would have made no difference at all.

The briefing paper notes that obtaining an ATP requires no additional training beyond that required for multi and IFR ratings and that aspiring airline pilots will almost certainly accumulate the hours necessary for the new regulation in light aircraft, with little applicability to the demands of an airliner cockpit environment. "The result of this proposal will be to increase the number of hours a pilot has gained in experience prior to employment in a Part 121 Air Carrier job, but not necessarily improve the skill sets such a pilot possess, in fact, the potential exists to degrade safety with this proposal," Blair said.




I am curious if this new rule (if it becomes law) would do nothing but bring back things like PFT or make the safety pilot thing a big thing again, like it was for the mutli time in the last hiring wave.

I can just see people buying C150's putting two people in them and and let them play the safety pilot thing. Climb out pull the power back and you can hover in place all day with enough head wind, you wouldn't even have to go anywhere.

Hours in a plane does not always mean experience!
Click to expand...
Zero hours in a plane is equals less experience. If you force people to have a measly 1500 hours most will get it in a way where they will build real world experience. Over all that is not alot of flight time, but its to much rent a plane or buy time. Yes there should be a time requirement and yes they should look at fatigue. Correct me if I'm wrong I thought the Buffalo crash was on day 1? I think the ATP should be higher than 1500 TT as well. In experienced people say time doesn't matter. Personally I could see coinciding the min 121 hire time with 135 at 1200TT and set the ATP to 2000 or 2500. It would reduce the odds of the CFI to captain in 3 months phenomenon. Most low time people(<1500) would atleast have one year under their belt before being a CA. The CA ultimately is the PIC so they should have the experience to succeed and the tools(better qualified FO's).

IMO for 121 there should be a 14 hr scheduled duty day(extendable to 15 for unforeseen circumstances) that commences once you have got to your place of rest. Rest should end once you leave the place of rest. The rest period and location should be defined in advance to be legal.
 
NAFI won't gwt anymoreof my money if they keep putting out these narrow-minded articles.
"The emphasis should be on training and quality of training, not just on total flight experience," said NAFI Executive Director Jason Blair.
Click to expand...

How many times do I have to hear this incorrect statement? The bill is not only about having an ATP. The bill has many parts to it and "training and quality of training" is included as well as revised duty/rest hours. I would expect a large foundation to have there facts straight.

As for the possible CA at 1500 hours senario. Most companies have higher minimums for CA already. Eagle is 3000hrs/1000 Turbine.
 
They can take a side but don't lie about the facts. They are lying in there statement that this bill is only about having 1500hrs. Sounds like a story Fox News would come out with.
 
subpilot said:
NAFI won't gwt anymoreof my money if they keep putting out these narrow-minded articles.


How many times do I have to hear this incorrect statement? The bill is not only about having an ATP. The bill has many parts to it and "training and quality of training" is included as well as revised duty/rest hours. I would expect a large foundation to have there facts straight.

As for the possible CA at 1500 hours senario. Most companies have higher minimums for CA already. Eagle is 3000hrs/1000 Turbine.
Click to expand...

It's only because they don't need people to upgrade and they don't want to pay the premium on insurance. At XJ we used to be 2500TT w/1000 at company in the Saab and 5000TT for the Avro. In 2007 we had 2 1500 hr 900 CA's. They are now both off the plane due to the current course of the company, but the point is if they need to they will lower it they will. No one should be a 1500 hour captain on a 85,000lb jet especially with 0 time in type and 3-400 in part 121. Almost every time those guys flew it was a <2000 cockpit. What the public doesn't no is frightening.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
It seems to me... and I apologize in advance if this is a mischaracterization... but the vast majority of the people who are claiming that the 1500 hour rule is so pointlessly pointless that it is practically a sphere are people with much less than 1500 hours.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that statement. But, if you were in the same situation, would you not be doing the same thing?
 
Helpful advice:

The rule is probably coming.

More time flyin'

Less time complainin'

Benefits: Well, if the rule doesn't pass, you've got more hours than the next guy! :)

Like I used to scream, "Get your four year degree!" but now, I still suggest it, but I'm not going to spend the time to beat someone into submission when there are people readily willing to heed the advice so why give 'em MORE competition! :)
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
It seems to me... and I apologize in advance if this is a mischaracterization... but the vast majority of the people who are claiming that the 1500 hour rule is so pointlessly pointless that it is practically a sphere are people with much less than 1500 hours.
Click to expand...


I don't know why, but this post sounds like something Douglas Adams would write.:laff:
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I'd agree with that statement. But, if you were in the same situation, would you not be doing the same thing?
Click to expand...

I would hope that I'd see the big picture, and realize that a little extra time flight instructing for the short term might actually mean a pay increase and better upward movement in the long term. There are far too many people with <1000 hours (and I was one of them) who are more than willing to take a job at a regional, regardless of the pay rates.

And really, do you want to know the biggest difference between an ATP and a <1000 hour pilot is? Most ATPs I know are much more pay oriented than the lower time pilot. They know the value of their certificates, and don't just go wherever gets them jet time. Certainly there are exceptions (this economy being one of them), but just watch: Once the economy turns around and the regionals can't simply lower the mins to attract candidates, you'll see pay increases. It may take a while, but that's my grand hypothesis. :D

Please, just be patient. Hopefully when you get the time to get on with a regional, you'll be getting on at an airline that's actually worth working for. You'll find that the shiny jet seems a whole lot less shiny once you're on call 16 hours a day away from home, sharing a crashpad with 13 other guys for $20,000/year.
 
dasleben said:
I would hope that I'd see the big picture, and realize that a little extra time flight instructing for the short term might actually mean a pay increase and better upward movement in the long term. There are far too many people with <1000 hours (and I was one of them) who are more than willing to take a job at a regional, regardless of the pay rates.
Click to expand...

Ok. What's your idea for when we get 5 times as many flight instructors out there than we do now? When it gets to the point that people start working for free. Because, it will end up at that. Maybe its time to start looking at the MCL, and all the things it has to offer, to solve the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top