1500hr Rule - Do you think the industry will adjust? If so, how?

Firebird2XC said:
.. so what exactly don't you agree with? The seniority system? Or age requirements for a certificate?
Click to expand...

Age requirements for above 18 for the ATP. A CDL is 18 in most states, a Drivers license is 16 (17 is close enough for a private), why is the ATP 5 years after when in the rest the world it's 21?

You could fly a cargo 1900/ EMB-110/EMB-120/BE99 or any other one of these airplanes perfectly safely with a commercial carrying cargo. These were all regional airplanes with people in the back before, who says that you're unqualified to fly the exact same 1900 at Lakes or Silver, or any other company for that matter at age 18 to 23?
 
ppragman said:
No, I'm 24, with an ATP, and not interested in working for the airlines - doesn't even effect me at the moment - that said, I don't think there should be any legal requirement other than experience. Just because you were born a few years prior to another guy doesn't mean you're inherently more qualified - which is what this law says. And realistically, while I think if you're flying a "big plane" passed 65 you've probably not made the best life choices - I have to concede that that's a somewhat arbitrary line as well.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I am against arbitrary standards for age, period. Instead, we should be doing cognitive testing to determine ability and judgment along the entire range. I think that age 18 is a logical base number, as under that the person is a child, but there should be no upper limit, just determine everything from 18 onward based on a REAL physical that includes a real cognitive and neurological exam on a regular basis (which could reasonably increase in frequency past age 60). Some people would be mature enough and have enough SA to pass it all at age 18 (many likely would not) and some people might be good to fly in their 80s (but the vast majority would not). The only arbitrary line would be age 18, and I am not sure I could argue that even that one is justified if we can test maturity levels through brain scans and cognitive testing (which we pretty much can).
 
seagull said:
I agree with you. I am against arbitrary standards for age, period. Instead, we should be doing cognitive testing to determine ability and judgment along the entire range. I think that age 18 is a logical base number, as under that the person is a child, but there should be no upper limit, just determine everything from 18 onward based on a REAL physical that includes a real cognitive and neurological exam on a regular basis (which could reasonably increase in frequency past age 60). Some people would be mature enough and have enough SA to pass it all at age 18 (many likely would not) and some people might be good to fly in their 80s (but the vast majority would not). The only arbitrary line would be age 18, and I am not sure I could argue that even that one is justified if we can test maturity levels through brain scans and cognitive testing (which we pretty much can).
Click to expand...

But what would the insurance carrier say?
 
ppragman said:
Age requirements for above 18 for the ATP. A CDL is 18 in most states, a Drivers license is 16 (17 is close enough for a private), why is the ATP 5 years after when in the rest the world it's 21?

You could fly a cargo 1900/ EMB-110/EMB-120/BE99 or any other one of these airplanes perfectly safely with a commercial carrying cargo. These were all regional airplanes with people in the back before, who says that you're unqualified to fly the exact same 1900 at Lakes or Silver, or any other company for that matter at age 18 to 23?
Click to expand...

I see your point. Ultimately, though, that comes down to the double standard regarding PAX airplanes and cargo airplanes. The Feds don't care if a 19 year old commercial pilot hauling checks plows into a mountain. But they think it's just so terrible if he takes somebody else with him. Ergo, they want somebody just a leeeeettle older in the Captain's seat. At least, I'm forced to make that connection.

It could be because they viewed it that way- or because back in the day, airliners really only had a Captain and a Co-pilot 'apprentice'. They looked to the Captain to be the only decision maker, and thought little of the FO. At the time, perhaps younger people were viewed as less responsible. People seem to grow up faster these days- so maybe that requires a second look.
 
Well, you could look at private pilots and break it down by: number of crashes per 100,000 flight hours by those under 25 and those over 25. It might give you a good idea of whether older age actually makes one a better aeronautical decision maker.
 
thevideographer said:
Well, you could look at private pilots and break it down by: number of crashes per 100,000 flight hours by those under 25 and those over 25. It might give you a good idea of whether older age actually makes one a better aeronautical decision maker.
Click to expand...

Well, here's a parallel- car insurance companies give you a discount when you hit 25, or get married. Apparently, as you get older, you become a safer, less risky driver. I'd assume the general behavior trends applies, but readily admit pilots aren't entirely the same as your average automobile operator.
 
thevideographer said:
Well, you could look at private pilots and break it down by: number of crashes per 100,000 flight hours by those under 25 and those over 25. It might give you a good idea of whether older age actually makes one a better aeronautical decision maker.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet that there are many more pilots over the age of 25 than under, thus skewing the numbers because those over 25 will operate a much larger number of legs for whatever sample size you choose. My guess is that the results would be that those over 25 account for a huge number of crashes per year simply because there are more of them.
 
jtrain609 said:
I'm willing to bet that there are many more pilots over the age of 25 than under, thus skewing the numbers because those over 25 will operate a much larger number of legs for whatever sample size you choose. My guess is that the results would be that those over 25 account for a huge number of crashes per year simply because there are more of them.
Click to expand...

You misunderstood the post. If you take a 100,000 hours flown by people under 25, and compare it to 100,000 hours by people over 25, which group had more crashes per 100,000 flight hours? That gets rid of the variable of how many hours each group is flying.
 
thevideographer said:
You misunderstood the post. If you take a 100,000 hours flown by people under 25, and compare it to 100,000 hours by people over 25, which group had more crashes per 100,000 flight hours? That gets rid of the variable of how many hours each group is flying.
Click to expand...

I get that. But who has 100,000 hours in anything unless they're flying really long flights?

You'd have equipment changes. License changes. Things change. How do you adapt?
 
PeanuckleCRJ said:
I found it particularly amusing when I was delivering a brand new 450,000 dollar Saratoga... then went to the car rental place and was denied the ability to rent it because I was 20.
Click to expand...

Never seen an aviation insurer care about pilots being young. If the actuarial tables had any correlation, they would know.
 
Firebird2XC said:
I get that. But who has 100,000 hours in anything unless they're flying really long flights?

You'd have equipment changes. License changes. Things change. How do you adapt?
Click to expand...

Isn't the idea that you take the entire 121 pilot population under 25 and see how many accidents they're involved in per 100,000 hrs of flight time vs. the 121 population over 25? This is how accident stats have been taken in aviation for as long as I've been around.
 
Firebird2XC said:
Sophistry. Economic and industry factors likely put much older pilots in fatal crashes simply because younger pilots didn't have an avenue.
Click to expand...

I don't think that deception is the goal of asking about age factors in accidents. Looking at accident rates by age seems like it would be very relevant in determining the effectiveness of ATP age limits.
 
zmiller4 said:
I don't think that deception is the goal of asking about age factors in accidents. Looking at accident rates by age seems like it would be very relevant in determining the effectiveness of ATP age limits.
Click to expand...

It would, if all pilots were operating like type equipment with similar experience levels at all ages.

When I was 16, I drove a 2 axle car with a V6 engine. Now that I'm 34, same thing. For many pilots, the nature of the aircraft they might operate as a student pilot at 16 and a professional career pilot at 34 would most likely be greatly varied.
 
bronco21016 said:
Isn't the idea that you take the entire 121 pilot population under 25 and see how many accidents they're involved in per 100,000 hrs of flight time vs. the 121 population over 25? This is how accident stats have been taken in aviation for as long as I've been around.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is assuming that all other cockpit crewmembers are created equal.

How do you know if the problem was the individual, or the crew dynamic? Sampling from real world events would seem to be fraught with endless additional variables.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top