CNN Video: Safety Rule Could Create Pilot Shortage

That's still a true statement. It's possible to get some piston airplanes certified for flight into known icing, but few actually are.

Most freight airplanes are. Hell, TKS is certified to go into severe! I don't think heated wings are even certified to do that.
 
Most freight airplanes are. Hell, TKS is certified to go into severe! I don't think heated wings are even certified to do that.

That doesn't make sense. By definition, 'severe' anything is beyond the airplanes ability to deal with it. In other words, 'severe' icing means icing beyond the capability of the airplane's anti-ice system.

Why would anybody certify that? That's just dumb.
 
That doesn't make sense. By definition, 'severe' anything is beyond the airplanes ability to deal with it. In other words, 'severe' icing means icing beyond the capability of the airplane's anti-ice system.

Why would anybody certify that? That's just dumb.
I think there is going to be change in icing severity definitions because of this. For now, I believe tests have shown TKS is pretty darn effective! I would love to fly with TKS to try it out!
 
I think there is going to be change in icing severity definitions because of this. For now, I believe tests have shown TKS is pretty darn effective! I would love to fly with TKS to try it out!

If the system changes, so be it, but I'd like to see the rules finalized before we just throw it out there. I'm not overly familiar with the TKS system, but I'd like to see it done and proven before it become standard equipment on prop turning airframes because it's marketable.
 
Hey....that is why I can live with the structured programmers getting a reduction off the 1500. If certain experiences are guaranteed to be had...great! Hopefully that does not mean watching some power point...I am talking actual flight experience...how the university does that, who knows? Buy a Navajo?

We all know that's not going to happen. They'll throw them in a simulator and call it a day, and the FAA will be satisfied with that. The only way to truly get experience is to get out there and fly for a living. Expecting someone to get their first job already having such experiences is unrealistic.
 
I should say, certified for known severe and SLD(ie FAs and pireps). It's certified, but it's still scary. It never let me down on max flow. Normal flow is interesting. It doesn't keep it clean, but it chunks off at different thicknesses depending on the severity. I had it to where it was building up to around an inch before falling off one night. I decided "screw that!" and threw it on max flow. :smoke: IIRC, it was my company(FLX) that did the testing on the caravan. I'll look for pics. They went up in freezing rain for 19 minutes. The protected surfaces were clear and the unprotected had over 3 inches of ice on it. It's definitely effective.
 
We all know that's not going to happen. They'll throw them in a simulator and call it a day, and the FAA will be satisfied with that. The only way to truly get experience is to get out there and fly for a living. Expecting someone to get their first job already having such experiences is unrealistic.

I dunno, make everyone fly freight first and earn the valuable experience before flying pax. ;) I am curious to see how a current gen pilot handles the day when everything hits the fan. CFI in glass->automated regional jet->automated heavy airliner just doesn't sound like quality experience all around. IMHO of course. Thoughts?
 
Almost all pilots who have flown 135 freight have a reasonable amount of time in ice.

All of this is missing the point. It's not realistic to expect every new airline pilot to first have flown part 135 in icing conditions, even if every 135 airplane in the country was certified for FIKI conditions. The demand for pilots is too high at part 121 carriers for every pilot to first be funneled through these other operations to gain experience first. Pilots are going to have to continue to come predominantly from an instructing background. And that background isn't conducive to collecting a bunch of actual instrument time, or any time in icing conditions. There is some experience that pilots simply aren't going to have yet when starting out at an airline. We just have to accept that and find ways to deal with it.
 
If the system changes, so be it, but I'd like to see the rules finalized before we just throw it out there. I'm not overly familiar with the TKS system, but I'd like to see it done and proven before it become standard equipment on prop turning airframes because it's marketable.
If the system changes, so be it, but I'd like to see the rules finalized before we just throw it out there. I'm not overly familiar with the TKS system, but I'd like to see it done and proven before it become standard equipment on prop turning airframes because it's marketable.


I have heard from first hand accounts TKS is VERY effective. 'specially for the notorious V-a-n! ;)
 
I dunno, make everyone fly freight first and earn the valuable experience before flying pax. ;) I am curious to see how a current gen pilot handles the day when everything hits the fan. CFI in glass->automated regional jet->automated heavy airliner just doesn't sound like quality experience all around. IMHO of course. Thoughts?

I think it already happened with the Air France deal.
 
All of this is missing the point. It's not realistic to expect every new airline pilot to first have flown part 135 in icing conditions, even if every 135 airplane in the country was certified for FIKI conditions. The demand for pilots is too high at part 121 carriers for every pilot to first be funneled through these other operations to gain experience first. Pilots are going to have to continue to come predominantly from an instructing background. And that background isn't conducive to collecting a bunch of actual instrument time, or any time in icing conditions. There is some experience that pilots simply aren't going to have yet when starting out at an airline. We just have to accept that and find ways to deal with it.


I think we've dealt with it in the past by making them be FO's first ;)



Sent from 1865 by telegraph....
 
I think we've dealt with it in the past by making them be FO's first ;)

Yeah, pretty much the way I look at it, but some of the guys around here seem to expect a newhire FO to practically have a lunar landing logged before being allowed to fly a CRJ from the right seat. You know, despite the fact that many of them got hired with under 1,000 hours themselves.
 
Yeah, pretty much the way I look at it, but some of the guys around here seem to expect a newhire FO to practically have a lunar landing logged before being allowed to fly a CRJ from the right seat. You know, despite the fact that many of them got hired with under 1,000 hours themselves.


Makes me wonder how much airline experience one is supposed to have before they can get their first airline job ;)
 
Makes me wonder how much airline experience one is supposed to have before they can get their first airline job ;)

Well that'd bring it round full circle like everything else. Must have X experience, yet we are the only possible way to acquire said experience.
 
Actually I'm reminded of a couple job postings I've seen for non aviation jobs.

"Entry level X"

"5 years experience required"

Methinks you don't understand the meaning of "entry level" ;)
 
The only way to truly get experience is to get out there and fly for a living. Expecting someone to get their first job already having such experiences is unrealistic.

I don't think anyone is disputing that point. In fact, I think that's the actual goal of the 1500-hour rule.

I think the point of discussion is as to if that "first job" should involve 50-70 paying passengers being behind you.
 
Makes me wonder how much airline experience one is supposed to have before they can get their first airline job ;)

It's not "airline experience" that's needed. It's aviation experience...judgment...airmanship. Something that can be built in any kind of airplane, but requires exposure to as many different types of situations and conditions as is humanly possible.

Let's not forget that any monkey can horse around an airplane from point A to B. The vast majority of aircraft hauling people and things around in a 121 operation are very easy to fly, and most of the circumstances they fly into don't require any significant level of judgment or skill (from a basic competent professional pilot perspective, of course) to safely resolve. The FMS and autopilot do the majority of the actual maneuvering of the aircraft anyway. It's usually a very safe and boring business.

The reason that there are two guys sitting in the front of the airplane are for when stuff does not go according to plan. In order to deal with those instances, pilots must have a deeper "experience bag" to reach into than when things are going fine. This is why we know names like Haynes and Sullenberger, because they had catastrophic problems that they were able to solve using their airmanship. Airlines are hiring people to be there when things go bad and ensure that the passengers arrive safely and the iron arrives undamaged.
 
So, where do you suggest people be forced to go to gain dual engine failure experience and water landing experience with no engnies, turbine disc failure and complete loss of hydraulic experience?

We can't argue on one hand that we want pilots with a light years worth of depth of experience but have no realistic way of gaining it. Folks like Hacker, Boris, UAL, etc are the exception, they were all born aviation gods with thousands of hours of turbine PIC (SPIFR TO BOOT!!!!!!) but for the rest of the mere mortals on the 3rd mudball from the large fusion generator, what's the plan? Only the above mentioned get the gold star and the rest get to beg at the table for scraps?
 
Back
Top