1500 ATP Minimums for 121

Nah, it won't be that ugly. Once there is a financial incentive to separate from the military and pursue commercial aviation, it'll take care of the age 65 retirements.

There will never a shortage of pilots, only a shortage of pilots who are willing to do the job for the low levels of compensation.
 
Nah, it won't be that ugly. Once there is a financial incentive to separate from the military and pursue commercial aviation, it'll take care of the age 65 retirements.

There will never a shortage of pilots, only a shortage of pilots who are willing to do the job for the low levels of compensation.

A-effing-men.

We can only hope that we see this regulation to actual implementation. It would be nothing but good for the industry.
 
My most recent flying company sent out a link to the actual summary of the bill.

Summary states that all airline pilots must hold an ATP. So, those with 1500+ TT and a Commercial will have to pay for another checkride.

http://transportation.house.gov/Med...t/Airline Safety and Pilot Training Intro.pdf

Going to be a couple more years slugging it out for those CFIs wanting to move on and up, combined with competing with previous military aviators and the other assortment of professionals that might be willing to line up when the supply/demand curve reappears.

And, that just means - for many CFIs at least, that they'll be paying for their ATP now and most likely it'll be ATP-SE (you know, costs and all).

The price of entrance continues to increase. . . good, and bad. . .just depends on which side you're on.
 
How much would it cost to include the ATP ride, as part of the final checkride? Thus only requiring all the ATP requirements, but not the actual ticket for hire.

I know that in the last round of hiring CAL did not require the ATP, but required all requirements to be met, and then the ATP would be given as part of the ride. (as a full type and ATP was required for all FOs to be an IRO under IACO rules) I'm not sure if anyone was hired without an ATP, but it was on the table.
 
Let's not forget that there are other requirements for the ATP other than just 1500TT. There are night and cross country requirements as well. IMO, all this really does is up the experience level of those applying for jobs. Sure, you can have the same hour 1500 times, but you're gonna have to do something else to get the 500 XC and the night requirements.
 
I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to structure the whole hiring and training game behind Compass's structure.

You need all minimums met and during training as an FO you get your ATP and PIC type. I would imagine it cuts down training costs also.

I still think the age 23 rule is for the birds though.
 
Compass does that (and it's in the pilot contract, BTW) because they give EVERYBODY a PIC type at that company.
 
Should we change the FAA commercial hour requirement while we are at it?
No, because then nobody could get a job doing aerial survey, banner towing, launching meat missiles, pipeline, etc. Plus, it is a prerequisite to the CFI.

Commercial means you can get paid to fly. ATP means Airline Transport Pilot.
 
No, because then nobody could get a job doing aerial survey, banner towing, launching meat missiles, pipeline, etc. Plus, it is a prerequisite to the CFI.

Commercial means you can get paid to fly. ATP means Airline Transport Pilot.
that.
 
No, because then nobody could get a job doing aerial survey, banner towing, launching meat missiles, pipeline, etc. Plus, it is a prerequisite to the CFI.

Commercial means you can get paid to fly. ATP means Airline Transport Pilot.

Yep. We have to get started somehow... Although I would be in favor of more comprehensive examinations. The current commercial knowledge and practical tests are a joke.
 
Nah, it won't be that ugly. Once there is a financial incentive to separate from the military and pursue commercial aviation, it'll take care of the age 65 retirements.

There will never a shortage of pilots, only a shortage of pilots who are willing to do the job for the low levels of compensation.

Well, that might be an issue since so many of mil aviators are getting typed in UAVs! :D

I don't think there will ever be a "shortage" and age 65 will be a small bump in the road if even that.

I think that it's a waste of time to have 1500 (or ATP) as a min. I don't envision the 250 hour wonder SJS happening again.
 
Well, that might be an issue since so many of mil aviators are getting typed in UAVs! :D

I don't think there will ever be a "shortage" and age 65 will be a small bump in the road if even that.

I think that it's a waste of time to have 1500 (or ATP) as a min. I don't envision the 250 hour wonder SJS happening again.

Actually, there are those that are saying that flight training activity is at an all-time low, and that when the next hiring wave starts, the well will run dry much, much quicker. The urge to seek out of the 250 hour wonders will re-occur.

If we preempt that phenomenon with a raised hiring requirement, we'll see a definite gasp and sputter of many recruiting departments.
 
Your comment has little to do with flight "experience" and more to do with personality. Some people are more adamant about what they think, others more timid. What happens is that a captain will disregard what the low-time F/O has to say because he doesn't value his input. "What the hell do YOU know, you've only got 'X' hours."
Most pilots are type A personalities, whatever that means. It doesn't matter about your personality type if you have no knowledge base to back it up. Both the captain and the first officer should be, in theory, experts.

When you have some guy who still has his temporary paper CPL, just off IOE he has an insufficient aviation experience base to make informed decisions. What happens is two fold:

1) Will a 250 hour FO question any decisions by the captain? -- Unless what the captain is doing is breaking an obvious limitation then I do not think so. The absolute best you can expect is that he or she will couch everything in a question 'Does this seem like a normal rate of ice accumulation?' rather than 'The ice is accumulating faster than our deice equipment can remove it. We should do something.', etc.

2) If your airline consistently hires low time pilots the captains expect inexperience and to a greater or lesser degree feel that they're on their own. At least with FOs they havent flown with consistently. When your airline is large and employs PBS you may not fly with the same person very often. This may create the impression 'This guy is a moron until he proves otherwise' when it should be 'This guy is a professional until he proves otherwise'.


The relative experience or inexperience level in aviation, for better or for worse, is measured in flight time so this is our metric. It isn't a perfect one, but it is what we work with.

Inexperienced FOs destroy CRM. This isn't the 60s, the co-pilot is more than a gear puller and flap handle operator. Most of these FARs were written back then though, so a CPL only requirement to be a co-pilot made sense if all your responsibilities entailed doing exactly what the captain god said, shutting your mouth and putting the gear up at positive rate and down at landing checks.
 
Actually, there are those that are saying that flight training activity is at an all-time low, and that when the next hiring wave starts, the well will run dry much, much quicker. The urge to seek out of the 250 hour wonders will re-occur.

If we preempt that phenomenon with a raised hiring requirement, we'll see a definite gasp and sputter of many recruiting departments.

The decrease in flight training activity while true, will not be as important.

You WILL not see a hiring boom at the entry level on a mass scale like you did from 1999-2007 again. If there is one, I'd say 2020 something or later.

For that to occur again, you would need a niche to open up like the 50 seat RJs. I don't see where that is going to occur. What you will have is the next gen props replace a majority of the 50 seat jets.

There is no room for organic growth in the domestic market, probably for 10 years anyway. If there are changes I can see upscaling equipment, meaning less flights, thus a less total body count.


YMMV, and I'm probably wrong, but that's how I see it.
 
The decrease in flight training activity while true, will not be as important.

You WILL not see a hiring boom at the entry level on a mass scale like you did from 1999-2007 again. If there is one, I'd say 2020 something or later.

For that to occur again, you would need a niche to open up like the 50 seat RJs. I don't see where that is going to occur. What you will have is the next gen props replace a majority of the 50 seat jets.

There is no room for organic growth in the domestic market, probably for 10 years anyway. If there are changes I can see upscaling equipment, meaning less flights, thus a less total body count.


YMMV, and I'm probably wrong, but that's how I see it.


You may be right, but I'm not sure about next-gen props. It may in fact be larger jet equipment that takes center stage. 70+ seat 'RJs' seem to be all the rage at present.

There won't likely be much niche growth, but there will be a mass retirement. The only thing that would really forestall this sort of hiring wave would be one of the majors, say, United or US Air, going under.

If things continue as normal, either way, the reality of the airline world as it is now will shake out a few folks, and when attrition and regular growth cycles resume there will be seats to be filled, and there won't be quite so many eager applicants to fill them. They were tapped out before, they'll do it again.

Of course, my crystal ball is a bit cloudy these days, and as you said, YMMV.
 
1) Will a 250 hour FO question any decisions by the captain? -- Unless what the captain is doing is breaking an obvious limitation then I do not think so. The absolute best you can expect is that he or she will couch everything in a question 'Does this seem like a normal rate of ice accumulation?' rather than 'The ice is accumulating faster than our deice equipment can remove it. We should do something.', etc.

To the contrary, I found that more low timers were far more vocal of abnormalities than not. Sometimes they were seeing something they weren't sure of. I was the type of guy that if I didn't know, I'd get out the book, or hand it to them to look it up.

On the other hand, I have had some real high time, well experienced guys with crappy attitudes that they ended back up at a regional and wouldn't say [crap] if they had a mouth full of it. Or, they like to think they should be CA, and are to busy trying to step on your shoes because they're above being an FO.

That's what separates the great Captains from the good in my book. The willingness to mentor, and if necessary, teach. At the new job, I am forever asking questions, as I have so much to learn still. I came into the industry with about 550 hours and have done little else but 121 Jet for the last 11 years or so. There is still a mountain of information to learn about my craft.

Of course, there is the Clueless Joe that you can't help. But that's not related to TT or anything else that I can put a finger on. Just bad chromosomes.


2) If your airline consistently hires low time pilots the captains expect inexperience and to a greater or lesser degree feel that they're on their own.

This can be true. However, I've seen this as I've sat in a disconnected cockpit with the low-timer (me) with over 6k

Inexperienced FOs destroy CRM. This isn't the 60s, the co-pilot is more than a gear puller and flap handle operator. Most of these FARs were written back then though, so a CPL only requirement to be a co-pilot made sense if all your responsibilities entailed doing exactly what the captain god said, shutting your mouth and putting the gear up at positive rate and down at landing checks.

I don't feel this is true, based on my experiences at the regional. Again, I had the fortune, good or bad, to fly with the entire spectrum of pilots from the 250 hour wet commercial to the 15000 hour furloughed Major pilot. The common factor was attitude. We all have different aptitudes and abilities, and finding and exploiting those are what make a successful CRM atmosphere.
 
You may be right, but I'm not sure about next-gen props. It may in fact be larger jet equipment that takes center stage. 70+ seat 'RJs' seem to be all the rage at present.

There won't likely be much niche growth, but there will be a mass retirement. The only thing that would really forestall this sort of hiring wave would be one of the majors, say, United or US Air, going under.

If things continue as normal, either way, the reality of the airline world as it is now will shake out a few folks, and when attrition and regular growth cycles resume there will be seats to be filled, and there won't be quite so many eager applicants to fill them. They were tapped out before, they'll do it again.

Of course, my crystal ball is a bit cloudy these days, and as you said, YMMV.

You're right that the 70-100ish seat market is the rage. However, the order book isn't over subscribed for that. Back in 2000 they were saying the 50 seat orderbook was over subscribed for forcasted needs.

The next gen props will be to replace the aging fleet and to replace some 50 seaters on markets that can't support the RJ costs.

However, there will be no "regional" aircraft fleet explosion in numbers. The numbers you will look at for the overall regional fleet in 10 years will be roughly the same as you see today.

In my estimation, even with the retirements coming in 2012, and the new duty rules and what not, you still will see, on average 4-5 years of upgrade time, just like before the RJ boom. There will be a steady attrition rate and spits and surges in hiring, but overall a more even rate of movement.

In order for there to have all the stops pulled out in hiring, you need rapid expansion. While there will be a company here or there that has that, the pace of the industry will not have that. The last time there was a major hiring wave like the last 10 years was when the majors transitioned to jets. They were hiring Commercial/instrument guys and getting their multi after being hired in a DC-3.

There was a niche, or market need that opened. I'm sure there will be one opening soon, but it will be the next gen tprops. ATR and the Dash 8 order books compared to the RJ order books show this. However, I restate, it will not be the numbers you saw over the last decade.

Thus, there will not be the balls to the wall hiring process.
 
Thus, there will not be the balls to the wall hiring process.

Nice analysis. It'll be interesting to see how it does play out over time.

In the meantime, here's something entertaining for all you fixed-wing hopefuls out there:

ATP Minimums, since everybody scratches their heads on the finer points without the book in front of them-
§ 61.159 Aeronautical experience: Airplane category rating.

top (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, a person who is applying for an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane category and class rating must have at least 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot that includes at least:
(1) 500 hours of cross-country flight time.
(2) 100 hours of night flight time.
(3) 75 hours of instrument flight time, in actual or simulated instrument conditions, subject to the following:
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, an applicant may not receive credit for more than a total of 25 hours of simulated instrument time in a flight simulator or flight training device.
(ii) A maximum of 50 hours of training in a flight simulator or flight training device may be credited toward the instrument flight time requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this section if the training was accomplished in a course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142 of this chapter.
(iii) Training in a flight simulator or flight training device must be accomplished in a flight simulator or flight training device, representing an airplane.
(4) 250 hours of flight time in an airplane as a pilot in command, or as second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command, or any combination thereof, which includes at least—
(i) 100 hours of cross-country flight time; and
(ii) 25 hours of night flight time.
(5) Not more than 100 hours of the total aeronautical experience requirements of paragraph (a) of this section may be obtained in a flight simulator or flight training device that represents an airplane, provided the aeronautical experience was obtained in an approved course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142 of this chapter.
(b) A person who has performed at least 20 night takeoffs and landings to a full stop may substitute each additional night takeoff and landing to a full stop for 1 hour of night flight time to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this section; however, not more than 25 hours of night flight time may be credited in this manner.
(c) A commercial pilot may credit the following second-in-command flight time or flight-engineer flight time toward the 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot required by paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Second-in-command time, provided the time is acquired in an airplane—
(i) Required to have more than one pilot flight crewmember by the airplane's flight manual, type certificate, or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted;
(ii) Engaged in operations under subpart K of part 91, part 121, or part 135 of this chapter for which a second in command is required; or
(iii) That is required by the operating rules of this chapter to have more than one pilot flight crewmember.
(2) Flight-engineer time, provided the time—
(i) Is acquired in an airplane required to have a flight engineer by the airplane's flight manual or type certificate;
(ii) Is acquired while engaged in operations under part 121 of this chapter for which a flight engineer is required;
(iii) Is acquired while the person is participating in a pilot training program approved under part 121 of this chapter; and
(iv) Does not exceed more than 1 hour for each 3 hours of flight engineer flight time for a total credited time of no more than 500 hours.
(d) An applicant may be issued an airline transport pilot certificate with the endorsement, “Holder does not meet the pilot in command aeronautical experience requirements of ICAO,” as prescribed by Article 39 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, if the applicant:
(1) Credits second-in-command or flight-engineer time under paragraph (c) of this section toward the 1,500 hours total flight time requirement of paragraph (a) of this section;
(2) Does not have at least 1,200 hours of flight time as a pilot, including no more than 50 percent of his or her second-in-command time and none of his or her flight-engineer time; and
(3) Otherwise meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
(e) When the applicant specified in paragraph (d) of this section presents satisfactory evidence of the accumulation of 1,200 hours of flight time as a pilot including no more than 50 percent of his or her second-in-command flight time and none of his or her flight-engineer time, the applicant is entitled to an airline transport pilot certificate without the endorsement prescribed in that paragraph.
[Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997; Amdt. 61–103, 62 FR 40906, July 30, 1997; Amdt. 61–104, 63 FR 20288, Apr. 23, 1998; Amdt. 61–109, 68 FR 54560, Sept. 17, 2003]
 
I don't think there will be a balls to the walls hiring process, but for a different reason. I don't think the next gen props will replace 50 seaters. I think the routes will simply go away. With Delta and NWA consolidating, there's a lot less need for 4 flights a day from SHV to ATL AND SHV to MEM or something similar. Also, you might see something like 4 flights a day from ERI to DTW cut back to 3 flights a day, but on bigger aircraft. Instead of a 50 seater, you see either a CRJ-700 or a -900, maybe even a (dare I even SAY it?) DC-9.
 
Back
Top