Maximilian_Jenius
Super User
MCPL, that's the future!
Bryan Bedford addresses House panel on pilot shortage
- Thread starter HJB
- Start date
“It’s not building safety into the cockpit. In fact, I fear it’s pushing us in the other direction, where you may have less qualified guys – although qualified by statute – potentially coming into these cockpits.
Do you agree that it is the companies responsibility, not the governments to make sure they hire the appropriately qualified people to fly their aircraft. If they company is just hiring people to fill the seats that have 1500 hours, but no real business being there they are opening themselves up to a huge amount of liability, a la Colgan 3407.
Do you agree that it is the companies responsibility, not the governments to make sure they hire the appropriately qualified people to fly their aircraft. If they company is just hiring people to fill the seats that have 1500 hours, but no real business being there they are opening themselves up to a huge amount of liability, a la Colgan 3407.
chrisreedrules
Master Blaster
I believe you to be right.
...and to the whole 1500 hour thing, I can 100% unequivocally say that I am a better pilot now at north of 1500 than I ever was at 300 to 750 hours. And way more professional with a much more safety-oriented attitude.
CaptBill
Well-Known Member
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Can someone point to the science that states that on the day when someone turns 65 they are medically unfit to be a Captain or First Officer of a commercial aircraft?
I've flown with 64 year olds that are in better shape than most likely everyone who has posted in this thread.
I've flown with 64 year olds that are in better shape than most likely everyone who has posted in this thread.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
Screaming_Emu
Well-Known Member
The 1500 hour rule fixed the same things as FAR 117. Amiright?
Was trying to explain the acclimated versus unacclimated rule when it comes to theaters and how a theater is the same as long as you're not more that 60 degrees of latitude (longitude? I forget).
Over beer.
Hilarity ensued.
(Yay! Two pilots couldn't recover a stalled airplane, WE DID SOMETHING!)
I'm a big fan of what 117 has done for me. Since it happened I've been able to walk to my car at the end of a trip and see straight. Honestly it's been fantastic.
That said, I understand it screwed some stuff up for a lot of other segments of the 121 world.
GypsyPilot
Mohawk Town
That's a fair point. Just institute "real" medicals and obesity limits in that case. I have no problem with that, but I bet a lot of pilots would.
Kingairer
'Tiger Team' Member
oh no. They've gotten to Seggy.
Maximilian_Jenius
Super User
He's a member of the Country Club now; he's no longer the help, standing curbside valet parking the members cars.
CFIT99
I'm probably commenting ironically...
it has done the opposite for me...my QOL already sucked not its just above commuting to reserve.
I used to hold 15-17 days off with weekends off...now I barely hold half the weekends off with min(12) days off...117 has sucked for me
I'm just bitchy because I really don't understand it that well on my side of the operation.
I trust that it's great, but this old country boy just cain't cipher it.
(Yes, I'm from the sticks)
Seggy
Well-Known Member
You are on the right path IMHO, but "real" medicals wouldn't solve much either as if it's your time to go, it's your time to go.
Pilots being more honest about their health conditions (under reporting to the FAA is the problem) and self groundings would be needed more so than increased health screenings.
70 is the new 50.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Please tell me you forgot the sarcasm tag.
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease? Pretty please?
No sarcasm here.
Yes some 64 year olds need to retire like yesterday. But the fact of the matter is age really is an antiquated way to determine retirement in our profession.
If your buddy in Herdon has any inkling on "Pulling a Prater" and extending the age limits, he will absolutely take a economic lack of interest in pursuing aviation which is manifesting itself into a staffing issue and multiply it ten-fold.
Devil's advocacy is a rich, zesty way to drive forum traffic, but please realize that it is a criminally stupid idea.
amorris311
Well-Known Member
No it is not! People who make comments like that are covering/justifying what they do in life. You want to push to have regulations push to age 70 be my guest. Age 65 was necessary for issues outside of the cockpit. Our socialist healthcare program didn't take pilots on who were age 60. After the rounds of bankruptcies there was no way for many pilots to recoup that huge expense. I understand that with your current situation you will be uber senior by the time you get to 65 but also understand that in order for this economy of ours to work we need retirements as the new workforce spools up. Enjoy life after the airlines, you have a beautiful family and I'm sure they would much rather you be around to watch their kids grow up instead of you shipping off for a 10 day Asia trip or even 3 day trips a week.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
If it is stupid, can you point to me the science that states that when you are 64 years and 364 days old you can fly an airplane at a 121 Carrier but at 65 years and 1 day old you can't fly that same airplane?
Yes some folks need to retire at 65. But some need to retire earlier based on their health as well. All I am saying it's an antiquated way to determine mandatory retirement in our profession.
This is my PERSONAL observation. Highly doubtful it will change again in the states unless ICAO changes their stance.