1500TT minimums ?

[tiredcfi]

Has anyone noticed (for the most part) that the people in favor of 250hr 121 FOs are the ones that have or are currently working in that capacity and that everyone else is in favor of higher minimums as well as advancing the profession??

 

[Boris Badenov]

Has anyone noticed (for the most part) that the people in favor of 250hr 121 FOs are the ones that have or are currently working in that capacity and that everyone else is in favor of higher minimums as well as advancing the profession??

I've seen a couple of dudes who have more than 1500 hours who think the ATP rule is incorrect. I've seen zero dudes who have actually commanded a turbine-powered aircraft in shall we say "challenging" circumstances for hour upon weary hour upon weary hotel room who think that it's incorrect. But that's not exactly Scientific. *shrug*

 

[juxtapilot]

I've seen a couple of dudes who have more than 1500 hours who think the ATP rule is incorrect. I've seen zero dudes who have actually commanded a turbine-powered aircraft in shall we say "challenging" circumstances for hour upon weary hour upon weary hotel room who think that it's incorrect. But that's not exactly Scientific. *shrug*

Would you support the ATP rule with the age requirement waived?

 

[Boris Badenov]

Would you support the ATP rule with the age requirement waived?

Yeah, if there were a PIC requirement as well. Say 500 PIC (instruction no countee)

 

[juxtapilot]

Yeah, if there were a PIC requirement as well. Say 500 PIC (instruction no countee)

Well that's a little nuts... 21 yr/w 500 pic =23 yr w/o? Maybe it's the makers but this sounds nuts and ridiculous sir.

Ehh, lets just make it 10,000 hr minimums, and require a year as an apprentice at the TSA. That will keep the people safe!

 

[Boris Badenov]

Age is a secondary concern, bubba. But whatever your age, it's going to make a difference to how you drive the airplane if you're the guy who signs the paperwork and upon whose head the brown helmet falls if something goes wrong. Don't know how to convince you of this, other than to sound like your parents and tell you that "someday you'll understand".

 

[juxtapilot]

You're probably gonna piss off a lot of CFIs with your earlier statement BTW. They are paying their dues and it's not easy. Their tickets are on the line when they're not even in the air. They take a hell of a lot of responsibility when they sign for the plane or their student. 135 is not the path for everyone. I have no interest in hauling boxes. It's too much risk, and I like my boring job way too much.

Age is a secondary concern, bubba. But whatever your age, it's going to make a difference to how you drive the airplane if you're the guy who signs the paperwork and upon whose head the brown helmet falls if something goes wrong. Don't know how to convince you of this, other than to sound like your parents and tell you that "someday you'll understand".

Well at this point we're going in circles. I've made my opinion clear and you've made yours. I obviously don't disagree that experience matters, I just think that there are more pressing issues here. For some reason the ATP rule has the spotlight, even though the more important things could be fixed right now and actually result in a direct, tangible improvement in safety.

 

[Boris Badenov]

Heh. Are you instructing ME on being a CFI? I love you (or my internet persona loves your internet persona, to be more correct), but I've been a CFI. I know all too well how much that sucks. I assure you that it wasn't any easier in the late 90s and early aughts. I'd even venture to say that it might have been tougher trying to be a CFI near DC in 2001. I've got 800 hours or so of dual given in 61 schools back when you had to beat students out from under rocks. So if if I'm in danger of "pissing off" some CFIs, I guess I'm just going to have to deal with the shame and horror. Now, remind me again of why it's terribly, terribly Wrong to "pull the ladder up" in front of these dudes who are "pissed" at me for having done exactly the same stuff they've done, and then having done other boring stuff like 135 which "doesn't appeal" to them? Lulz. That attitude is pretty much the definition of the reason to pull the ladder up.

 

[juxtapilot]

Heh. Are you instructing ME on being a CFI? I love you (or my internet persona loves your internet persona, to be more correct), but I've been a CFI. I know all too well how much that sucks. I assure you that it wasn't any easier in the late 90s and early aughts. I'd even venture to say that it might have been tougher trying to be a CFI near DC in 2001. I've got 800 hours or so of dual given in 61 schools back when you had to beat students out from under rocks. So if if I'm in danger of "pissing off" some CFIs, I guess I'm just going to have to deal with the shame and horror. Now, remind me again of why it's terribly, terribly Wrong to "pull the ladder up" in front of these dudes who are "pissed" at me for having done exactly the same stuff they've done, and then having done other boring stuff like 135 which "doesn't appeal" to them? Lulz. That attitude is pretty much the definition of the reason to pull the ladder up.

Not at all. I'm just saying that it's not an easy job to be an instructor. Saying that they need more time as a pilot in command verses all many hours they have put in as an instructor might be a little insulting. I am sure you are of the opinion that instruction is a great experience as well. Instructing is a different kind of experience than PIC experience. If we're going to go that far then we should rule out survey flying because maybe that's not the kind of experience we want to be included in the pilot in command column. Or maybe we don't like survey flying or jump pilot Flying or whatever else you can think of. It could end up being that vicious circle where you need the experience but to get the experience you need to get the experience but you can't get the experience without the experience.

My whole beef with this isn't actually with the ATP rule it's with the idea that it's more important than training or any of the other factors that have contributed to accidents and actually killed people. They've killed lots of people and we're completely ignoring it.

It seems that we are trying to impose the ATP rule because in reality we want improvement in quality of life. Instead of just saying that we want to increase in quality of life people are putting it under the guise of Safety which, again, is deluding the actual important issue. That is my concern.

Am I more experienced now then I was 500 hours ago? Yes. Am I more useful to a captain now that I was 500 hours ago? Yes. Was I dangerous 500 hours ago? No. Because my training was excellent. But the unfortunate fact is that training elsewhere may not be as good as the training I went through. And I'm not just talking about airline training I'm talking about the whole deal. Private Pilot through ATP.

But perhaps in 5000 hours I will see this whole thing differently. Then again people told me that if I were hired with 500 hours I would be scared of the airplane and I would feel incompetent and I would be a burden to the cap. I don't feel I've been any of that. It's not a difficult job if you follow the procedures and you do what your training has taught you to do it. Part 135 I believe I has had stricter requirements because that flying is a lot different than 121.

Ask me in 5 years about what I am saying now and maybe my opinion will have changed. Just at this point we're not looking at the whole picture. That's my concern. The ATP won't make it any less safe. Obviously. My concern, again, is that the attention is in the wrong place.Ihope you can understand why I have the opinion I have on this.




Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

@juxtapilot- You're still missing the idea of the multi-layered approach. Not one thing will help mitigate what contributed to the recent accidents. And, I think you're misplacing where the focus is- it is primarily on the new rest rules, the ATP is just a side deal of that. It is you that is thinking that is the focus of the new laws.

And yes, you'll change your mind in time. Heck, I would have been all for it when I was a 1000 or so hour pilot. Although... the age thing for the ATP would have delayed my entry into the airline world by a month and a half.

 

[Boris Badenov]

Certainly I understand it. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. Ultimately, the best gauge that we have of a pilot's skill is his/her total time and time as PIC. That's not me talking, that's the Insurance underwriters. And I can guarantee you that they're way, way more versed and cognizant of the various factors involved than either of us.

Me, I was born Awesome. But by the numbers I'm just a sort of middle-of-the-road dude. I know to the deepest fiber of my being that I'm the greatest pilot who has ever sucked down air and I could land the space shuttle inverted on an aircraft carrier with my eyes closed. But it's not me that I need to impress. The upside is that you also do not need to impress me.

 

[jtrain609]

I've been in school for what is normally a full time, three year program. Three years, full time, for a chance to take the bar. Is it too much?

No, it's not enough.

But some folks could pass the bar with less education. None the less, we require them to complete the program.

Doctors spend four years in med school, plus another few years in residency. Is it too much?

No, it's not enough.

Because when they're done there's still a fellowship and then they're always learning.

Could some be competent doctors with less? Sure, but we make them complete the program anyway.

Would you want a surgeon who did half of med school, half of residency, and no fellowship cutting you open?

No, and they wouldn't want a pilot with less experience flying them around.

We're professionals, and instead of complaining about how hard it is to be a professional, we should be stepping up to do more, be better, and not complain about what are in the end paltry entry requirements. Frankly, if we think getting this much time is hard or bad, we shouldn't be vested with the responsibility of professionals. Did some of us make due with less? Sure, but that doesn't make it acceptable.

The fact is some of our colleagues killed some people, and now we need to fix the problems they've left. We can complain about it, which will do nothing but embarrass our professionalism, or we can move forward with the solutions that have now been thrust on us.

I chose to move forward.

 

[Vector]

I've been in school for what is normally a full time, three year program. Three years, full time, for a chance to take the bar. Is it too much?

No, it's not enough.

But some folks could pass the bar with less education. None the less, we require them to complete the program.

Doctors spend four years in med school, plus another few years in residency. Is it too much?

No, it's not enough.

Because when they're done there's still a fellowship and then they're always learning.

Could some be competent doctors with less? Sure, but we make them complete the program anyway.

Would you want a surgeon who did half of med school, half of residency, and no fellowship cutting you open?

No, and they wouldn't want a pilot with less experience flying them around.

We're professionals, and instead of complaining about how hard it is to be a professional, we should be stepping up to do more, be better, and not complain about what are in the end paltry entry requirements. Frankly, if we think getting this much time is hard or bad, we shouldn't be vested with the responsibility of professionals. Did some of us make due with less? Sure, but that doesn't make it acceptable.

The fact is some of our colleagues killed some people, and now we need to fix the problems they've left. We can complain about it, which will do nothing but embarrass our professionalism, or we can move forward with the solutions that have now been thrust on us.

I chose to move forward.

Your post would be accurate and timely if the vast majority in this line of work thought of themselves as professionals. I am afraid that is not the case and there in lies the problem. I could be wrong but that is my assessment.

 

[FlyChicaga]

JTrain, you are comparing apples to oranges. You are talking about people who are spending years in school--training--in preparation to go out and obtain a professional position. A pilot can spend less than a year obtaining all their certificates and ratings in an abbreviated program, then be sent out to TEACH other people how to fly with NO experience. Shouldn't our CFIs be the most experienced of all? How can you effectively teach someone when you have no experience to draw from?

Why is it that airline pilots consider themselves at the level of doctors and lawyers, but can obtain all the requirements to get hired in 12 months? Then get spoon-fed in the airline training program? So to fix the problem we push an arbitrary number of hours and age to fly an airliner, when we have done nothing to fix the underlying problem?

 

[grkero]

At 250 hrs with a multi commercial, I thought I was pretty fricken cool. Then I got my CFI and laughed at how accomplished I thought I was. Now I have 1000 hrs and I hate everything

I can say now that I am much more prepared for the next level than I was at 500 hrs, just because I have seen more as far as failures, real diversions, people throwing up all over the airplane, etc. I do, however, see how much the type of experience can vary. Most of my CFI experience has been VFR. I just now started teaching IFR. I don't work at a private-to-commercial pilot factory so I do private pilot and a TON of flight reviews and general currency flights. I wish I did more Instrument and commercial training. I feel like my current TT would be more quality at this point if that were the case.

I wish I could get in something earlier to build more experience flying an airplane more complex and faster than a 172. I feel like I get real complacent flying 172s for the past 800 hrs. We don't have a twin at my school so I never wanted to get an MEI, but now I think I should to remind me there are more difficult airplanes out there to fly.

Anyway, I'm rambling now but my point is experience does matter. But the rate MEANINGFUL experience occurs seems to plateau a little bit in a job such as mine. And as juxtapilot says, pulling the ladder up on these people is ridiculous. It's very frustrating because the way congress handles everything else these days, I don't feel comfortable with them getting involved in aviation.

 

[dasleben]

And yes, you'll change your mind in time. Heck, I would have been all for it when I was a 1000 or so hour pilot. Although... the age thing for the ATP would have delayed my entry into the airline world by a month and a half.

I've had an ATP for a few years, and I still don't support it in its current state.

I'm all for an increase in experience in the cockpit, but the 1500 rule is completely arbitrary. Is a guy with 1500 hours flying lines VFR any more prepared for a 121 environment than a 750 hour pilot who's been teaching multi instrument? It's about the type of experience, not the total hours.

I mean, heck, I feel that my SPIFR time was foundational to me as a pilot. Should we require some SPIFR 135 experience before moving into 121, just because I feel it was valuable? What about all the perfectly competent pilots I know who've never done it?

Time means nothing; experience means everything.

 

[jtrain609]

I've had an ATP for a few years, and I still don't support it in its current state.

I'm all for an increase in experience in the cockpit, but the 1500 rule is completely arbitrary. Is a guy with 1500 hours flying lines VFR any more prepared for a 121 environment than a 750 hour pilot who's been teaching multi instrument? It's about the type of experience, not the total hours.

I mean, heck, I feel that my SPIFR time was foundational to me as a pilot. Should we require some SPIFR 135 experience before moving into 121, just because I feel it was valuable? What about all the perfectly competent pilots I know who've never done it?

Time means nothing; experience means everything.

EVERYTHING is arbitrary when we set requirements, is that not clear?

What you're advocating for eventually becomes a situation where there are NO hour requirements; pass the checkride when you can pass the checkride.

Is that a pathway forward?

 

[USMCmech]

It's about the type of experience, not the total hours.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Clearly your average military pilot is a better flyer at 500 hours than I am with with 3000. And even though I just passed my ATP checkride in a light twin, I don't know squat about flying a jet.

But, how exactly do you weight the different types of experience? Is an hour of crop dusting more or less valuable than an hour of instruction? How about the military guys who flew F-15s in combat vs the C-5 crews who are basically flying a 747? When Astronaut Hoot Gibson retired from the Navy and NASA with three space shuttle flights and who knows how many carrier landings, was he qualified to fly 737s for Southwest?

The more skilled and more broad experienced a pilot is, the better. But how exactly do you force the airlines to hire such pilots instead of the cheaper and very inexperienced Gulfstream grads?

 

[jtrain609]

JTrain, you are comparing apples to oranges. You are talking about people who are spending years in school--training--in preparation to go out and obtain a professional position. A pilot can spend less than a year obtaining all their certificates and ratings in an abbreviated program, then be sent out to TEACH other people how to fly with NO experience. Shouldn't our CFIs be the most experienced of all? How can you effectively teach someone when you have no experience to draw from?

Why is it that airline pilots consider themselves at the level of doctors and lawyers, but can obtain all the requirements to get hired in 12 months? Then get spoon-fed in the airline training program? So to fix the problem we push an arbitrary number of hours and age to fly an airliner, when we have done nothing to fix the underlying problem?

Yeah actually, I don't. Many folks SAY they could get through law school or med school with no problem, and that it'd be easy and then they'd be makin' phat cash and stackin' that ched.

But in my experience, most of us wouldn't make it through the first week of law school, let alone the first semester.

And since I doubt you've been through professional school, allow me to explain the differences between what I've seen in law school, and what I've seen as a part 121 pilot:

Law school: You take very, very, very complex material, you don't teach it. You basically have people teach it to themselves, and then in class you're grilled in front of your peers. You will eventually be backed into a corner by your professor, and you will be told to sit down, because they've found the end of your knowledge and you can't answer their next question. The basic assumption is that you take very smart people, don't give them any guidance, and let them come up with a solution. The testing? Each class has one test per semester, it is your entire grade. It's almost always an essay. One semester I wrote over 15 pages in 4 hours. You are basically doing a checkride, 5 times per semester, for 6 semesters on an incredibly complex subject. Fail one of these and you're likely done. Summary; law schools don't know how to teach, but they deal with very, very complex material. Students gain experience quickly because if they don't, they fail out.

Part 121 flying: You take reasonably simple material, and you give people a path to success. Put simply, airlines know how to teach, and they're fantastic at it. You provide systems that allow people to manipulate data in meaningful ways that produces results. You empower decision making. You are tested, but you are given assurances that if you do the right thing, you'll do well. And most do! They do well because the system works, and the platforms that we're given to work within, well, they work. Summary; airlines know how to teach, and give people the tools to do well.

Frankly, I think it's the fact that the system works SO well that airline pilots start to think that ANYBODY could do this. As a converse to what I said above, most of my colleagues in law school would wash out of part 121 training as soon as they hit the sim, and most certainly once they hit the line. They can't make decisions, and they don't know how to do anything but reinvent the wheel. Because we're given the tools to succeed, and a proper structure to work within, airline pilots start to think that this is easy, that there should be no requirements, that the roadblocks put in the way are BS.

And when we say those things, we're wrong.

The system will save us 95% of the time. You follow the QRH, you fly out of a bad situation. You follow the rules, and things work. We don't have to use our depths of experience to extricate ourselves from our bad decisions because the system does not allow us to make bad decisions. This has jaded us. We don't realize that our experience works as a buffer for when things hit the fan, and you need to use superior skill to remove yourself from poor decision making. This trap that we've fallen into has produced some very, very, very basic crashes. Why would ANYBODY stall a transport category aircraft the marker, or think it was a good idea to "Four One Oh it, dude," or not crosscheck your runway? Did they system fail all these guys? Yes, it did; it didn't put enough emphasis on basic skills BEFORE getting into the cockpit of an airliner, and it told people that they could shortcut their most important years of flying airplanes, when those fundamental skills are developed.

Those cracks in the foundation were covered up by a system that works, and if they had more time to fix the cracks in the foundation BEFORE they jumped in part 121 flying, we might have had different results.

 

[jtrain609]

Also, I've got to add one more thing:

We look like fools when our colleagues crash aircraft, and then we go on ranting about how higher requirements are bad. We argue among ourselves about how an undergraduate degree isn't necessary. We argue about how hour requirements are a fool errand. We argue about how every roadblock that is put in place is unacceptable, won't accomplish anything, and does nothing but harm us. Instead of clamoring for higher standards, some among us want the standards lowered to the point that flying an airplane is like scoreless soccer.

In this job, there is a score being kept; it is the number of lives us and our colleagues take because of our poor decision making, and for when our skill set is not up to par. It is, in the end, the only score that matters, and anything we can do to put barriers in place to prevent that number from going up is a good thing.