NAFI opposed to 1500 hour rule

SpiraMirabilis · Dec 30, 2009

That never happened when you needed 3000 hours to get hired by a commuter.

scooter2525 · Dec 30, 2009

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.

I tossed up a poll that addresses such issues. Looks like it has fallen to the wayside...

http://forums.jetcareers.com/general-topics/100193-hr-3371-a.html

DenverPilot8 · Dec 30, 2009

If only I could sleep my way to that first airline job.......

amd87 · Dec 30, 2009

Firebird2XC said:
Agreed.

I am FOR the ATP requirement to become a 121 FO. I appreciate all the work you've done for the industry through the 3407 project and working with the media to better our profession. However, don't you find it fairly hypocritical that you were hired at Colgan with 300 some hours, but now demand that an ATP be required?

If this rule is passed, would you be willing to resign from your current airline to CFI for another 1000+ hours, then fly as a freight dog for a year to build that X/C time, and eventually reapply at your current position? (you know, after "paying your dues" like the rest of us?)

I've been instructing for a few years now and meet ATP mins., so if this bill passes it won't burden me at all (other than checkride costs)... I think this new legislation would be a good thing for the airline industry. But don't you feel like you're "pulling up the ladder" since you reaped the benefits of low minimums, yet now insist on them being higher?

buddabreath1 · Dec 30, 2009

If there is enough money behind not setting the rule then it won't be set.

amd87 said:
I am FOR the ATP requirement to become a 121 FO. I appreciate all the work you've done for the industry through the 3407 project and working with the media to better our profession. However, don't you find it fairly hypocritical that you were hired at Colgan with 300 some hours, but now demand that an ATP be required? If this rule is passed, would you be willing to resign from your current airline to CFI for another 1000+ hours, then fly as a freight dog for a year to build that X/C time, and eventually reapply at your current position? (you know, after "paying your dues" like the rest of us?)

That just sounds like a piss and moan scenario and before you get your panties in a bunch screaming I have xxxxx amount of hours, it still sounds like your pissing and moaning.

amd87 · Dec 30, 2009

buddabreath1 said:
If there is enough money behind not setting the rule then it won't be set.

That just sounds like a piss and moan scenario and before you get your panties in a bunch screaming I have xxxxx amount of hours, it still sounds like your pissing and moaning.

Of course I'm pissing and moaning....just like many of the 250 hour wonders from 3 years ago are pissing and moaning about how an ATP should now be required. My pissing and moaning is in no way directed toward those who were hired either with an ATP or more than ATP minimums prior to the hiring spree. By the way: "your" is the possessive form of "you", "you're" means "you are". I figured a lawyer would know that.

Firebird2XC · Dec 30, 2009

amd87 said:
I am FOR the ATP requirement to become a 121 FO. I appreciate all the work you've done for the industry through the 3407 project and working with the media to better our profession. However, don't you find it fairly hypocritical that you were hired at Colgan with 300 some hours, but now demand that an ATP be required?

If this rule is passed, would you be willing to resign from your current airline to CFI for another 1000+ hours, then fly as a freight dog for a year to build that X/C time, and eventually reapply at your current position? (you know, after "paying your dues" like the rest of us?)

I've been instructing for a few years now and meet ATP mins., so if this bill passes it won't burden me at all (other than checkride costs)... I think this new legislation would be a good thing for the airline industry. But don't you feel like you're "pulling up the ladder" since you reaped the benefits of low minimums, yet now insist on them being higher?

I don't consider it hypocritical. I was in the training world when I stumbled across a chance to interview with an airline.

I never expected to get the job, largely because of my low Total Time.

I might at this point note that I have nearly 900 additional hours of flight time as a non-pilot crewmember on UH-60 Blackhawks. My position included direct interaction with the pilots, at times telling them how, where and when to place the aircraft. My position high intensity operations in day, night, and NVG (night vision goggle ops) in all weather, all environments, and in peace and in war.

When we landed, they pilots handed me the logbook, and I went to work doing maintenance on the aircraft.

I flew countless training events and had a front-row seat to some of the world's best crew-coordinated flight instruction.

Then I got out and went to work in the airline world.

I have a stack of 1st year probationary reports extolling my skills and habits as "top of his class", "ready for immediate upgrade" and "Captain material". A check airman I flew with wrote me a letter in which he stated that "[he] is who you want next to you when something goes wrong."

I got hired with very low times, and yes, at first glance that contradicts my current stance on hiring.

The product the companies I worked for, however, was not solely the product of a 'pilot mill'. It included all of the above. I might add that my own personal flight training included self-required training far above and beyond that which many pilots ever get.

Long story short- yes, I was low time. Was I the 'average' pilot-mill low time pilot?

Nope.

Have I heard countless horror stories about low time pilots fresh out of pilot mills, who, unlike myself, were NOT a product of a hugely varied aviation background spanning nearly a decade? Yep. Tons of them.

Will I quit my job? Nope. No more than I'd ask all the others who have already been through the trial-by-fire and proven themselves.

Will I continue to fight for realistic expectations of newly minted pilots with no other experience in the aviation world? Yes I will.

I stand by my position and my efforts to raise the bar for training at the airlines.

I will not martyr myself for that effect. I understand your point, but that's reactionary and extremist in my eyes.

Trip7 · Dec 30, 2009

Firebird2XC said:
I don't consider it hypocritical. I was in the training world when I stumbled across a chance to interview with an airline.

I never expected to get the job, largely because of my low Total Time.

I might at this point note that I have nearly 900 additional hours of flight time as a non-pilot crewmember on UH-60 Blackhawks. My position included direct interaction with the pilots, at times telling them how, where and when to place the aircraft. My position high intensity operations in day, night, and NVG (night vision goggle ops) in all weather, all environments, and in peace and in war.

When we landed, they pilots handed me the logbook, and I went to work doing maintenance on the aircraft.

I flew countless training events and had a front-row seat to some of the world's best crew-coordinated flight instruction.

Then I got out and went to work in the airline world.

I have a stack of 1st year probationary reports extolling my skills and habits as "top of his class", "ready for immediate upgrade" and "Captain material". A check airman I flew with wrote me a letter in which he stated that "[he] is who you want next to you when something goes wrong."

I got hired with very low times, and yes, at first glance that contradicts my current stance on hiring.

The product the companies I worked for, however, was not solely the product of a 'pilot mill'. It included all of the above. I might add that my own personal flight training included self-required training far above and beyond that which many pilots ever get.

Long story short- yes, I was low time. Was I the 'average' pilot-mill low time pilot?

Nope.

Have I heard countless horror stories about low time pilots fresh out of pilot mills, who, unlike myself, were NOT a product of a hugely varied aviation background spanning nearly a decade? Yep. Tons of them.

Will I quit my job? Nope. No more than I'd ask all the others who have already been through the trial-by-fire and proven themselves.

Will I continue to fight for realistic expectations of newly minted pilots with no other experience in the aviation world? Yes I will.

I stand by my position and my efforts to raise the bar for training at the airlines.

I will not martyr myself for that effect. I understand your point, but that's reactionary and extremist in my eyes.

Its about selection not quantity of hours. There are many pilots out there that are excellent at 400-600hrs. Its about creating a interview process that differentiates these excellent pilots from weaker ones. Also, the countless about of horror stories is an exaggerated. Had one Check Airman at ASA say that in doing IOE out of the world's busiest airport he has yet to find a pilot that wasn't safe.

400-600hr pilots are not needed right now in today's economy, but if the supply does dwindle down again as in the past, it can be safely.

Firebird2XC · Dec 30, 2009

Trip7 said:
Its about selection not quantity of hours. There are many pilots out there that are excellent at 400-600hrs. Its about creating a interview process that differentiates these excellent pilots from weaker ones. Also, the countless about of horror stories is an exaggerated. Had one Check Airman at ASA say that in doing IOE out of the world's busiest airport he has yet to find a pilot that wasn't safe.

400-600hr pilots are not needed right now in today's economy, but if the supply does dwindle down again as in the past, it can be safely.

I agree that selection does in fact make a difference.

However, history has demonstrated that the airlines are completely willing to do away with any selective criteria in order to fill seats with warm bodies.

The number of hours is more about the lack of stewardship at the airlines, not the actual ability of a 1500 hour pilot vs. a 300 hour pilot.

If the airlines actually used and adhered to a criteria that guaranteed a higher caliber of a new hire pilot, then this would be unnecessary. As they have repeatedly demonstrated that low cost is more important to them than actual ability, we must act on their behalf in order to better things overall.

amd87 · Dec 30, 2009

Firebird2XC said:
I don't consider it hypocritical. I was in the training world when I stumbled across a chance to interview with an airline.

I never expected to get the job, largely because of my low Total Time.

I might at this point note that I have nearly 900 additional hours of flight time as a non-pilot crewmember on UH-60 Blackhawks. My position included direct interaction with the pilots, at times telling them how, where and when to place the aircraft. My position high intensity operations in day, night, and NVG (night vision goggle ops) in all weather, all environments, and in peace and in war.

When we landed, they pilots handed me the logbook, and I went to work doing maintenance on the aircraft.

I flew countless training events and had a front-row seat to some of the world's best crew-coordinated flight instruction.

Then I got out and went to work in the airline world.

I have a stack of 1st year probationary reports extolling my skills and habits as "top of his class", "ready for immediate upgrade" and "Captain material". A check airman I flew with wrote me a letter in which he stated that "[he] is who you want next to you when something goes wrong."

I got hired with very low times, and yes, at first glance that contradicts my current stance on hiring.

The product the companies I worked for, however, was not solely the product of a 'pilot mill'. It included all of the above. I might add that my own personal flight training included self-required training far above and beyond that which many pilots ever get.

Long story short- yes, I was low time. Was I the 'average' pilot-mill low time pilot?

Nope.

Have I heard countless horror stories about low time pilots fresh out of pilot mills, who, unlike myself, were NOT a product of a hugely varied aviation background spanning nearly a decade? Yep. Tons of them.

Will I quit my job? Nope. No more than I'd ask all the others who have already been through the trial-by-fire and proven themselves.

Will I continue to fight for realistic expectations of newly minted pilots with no other experience in the aviation world? Yes I will.

I stand by my position and my efforts to raise the bar for training at the airlines.

I will not martyr myself for that effect. I understand your point, but that's reactionary and extremist in my eyes.

I agree my example is extremist/reactionary...and I'm sure you're an excellent pilot.

At this point I'm really just playing devil's advocate, but isn't the point you made above regarding your training and experience possible with any other sub-ATP airline applicant? Sure, most 300 hour pilots are straight out of a "pilot mill", but I'm sure most of them would feel they had individual experiences, just like you, which set them apart from the competition and make them unique.

I guess I just think it's funny how a lot of the guys hired with basically a wet-commercial are now the some of the biggest supporters of this bill.... I'm not sure I'd be as comfortable advocating hiring requirements that I personally didn't meet only a couple years ago, but that's my personal opinion.

buddabreath1 · Dec 30, 2009

amd87 said:
Of course I'm pissing and moaning....just like many of the 250 hour wonders from 3 years ago are pissing and moaning about how an ATP should now be required. My pissing and moaning is in no way directed toward those who were hired either with an ATP or more than ATP minimums prior to the hiring spree.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

amd87 said:
By the way: "your" is the possessive form of "you", "you're" means "you are". I figured a lawyer would know that.

Once I get paid to proofread my posts, then, and only then will that be caught.

Firebird2XC · Dec 31, 2009

amd87 said:
I agree my example is extremist/reactionary...and I'm sure you're an excellent pilot.

At this point I'm really just playing devil's advocate, but isn't the point you made above regarding your training and experience possible with any other sub-ATP airline applicant? Sure, most 300 hour pilots are straight out of a "pilot mill", but I'm sure most of them would feel they had individual experiences, just like you, which set them apart from the competition and make them unique.

I guess I just think it's funny how a lot of the guys hired with basically a wet-commercial are now the some of the biggest supporters of this bill.... I'm not sure I'd be as comfortable advocating hiring requirements that I personally didn't meet only a couple years ago, but that's my personal opinion.

The point isn't really made if you're comparing my overall background and personal training history with a pilot mill type straight out of Florida or Arizona.

I could detail my training history in greater detail but I don't really care to write all that out. Suffice it to say that my instructors never felt the need to hold my hand through my training. When I wasn't under instruction, I aggressively pursued new learning and training operations.

The pilot mill types? Probably not so much.

Why am I such a big proponent? Because while there may be others like myself, there are many, many more than are nowhere near capable of being a Captain.

A good First Officer is like a Vice President. The President might be calling the shots, but if he's compromised, you want a VP you know can step up.

I know I could. A good number of my peers could not. They don't belong here. Not yet, anyhow. The airline world is a horrible place to find out you still need training wheels.

I'm sure those on their way up would feel that 'their experience' would make the difference. The problem is that they really don't have an experience. Therefore it's up to those who do in fact have some experience to set the bar a little higher.

I rode a jumpseat home today. The Ex-People Express aka Continental Captain who's now with AA agreed with me. Airline jobs at any level should never be 'low hanging fruit' for the untested.

Firebird2XC · Dec 31, 2009