1500 hr rule going away??

PhilosopherPilot said:
With what money/revenue? The regionals are already losing money. The majors are going to have to cough up more money, but not before a bunch of people are out of a job.
Click to expand...

And, the line is of cost/benefit is rapidly drawing closer, especially as regionals fly bigger and bigger planes. It is very possible that raising costs to a level that will eliminate the RJ level "shortage" (and I don't think we are actually there yet anyway) will tip the scales in favor of the brand carriers simply taking the flying back in house.
 
Mark815 said:
It honestly blows my mind. Unlike some other careers, the pay for pilots is listed all over the web. Pay scales aren't a secret, and there's no negotiation, so what you see is what you get. I just don't understand it, why is it never mentioned? I understand it's not common public knowledge, but the information is readily available, nobody is trying to hide it, yet it never comes up.
Click to expand...

Bedford said during the video that "we've tried to raise FO pay by 25% and the pilots voted it down." That was his stance during the whole hearing.
 
BobDDuck said:
And, the line is of cost/benefit is rapidly drawing closer, especially as regionals fly bigger and bigger planes. It is very possible that raising costs to a level that will eliminate the RJ level "shortage" (and I don't think we are actually there yet anyway) will tip the scales in favor of the brand carriers simply taking the flying back in house.
Click to expand...

I've been saying this for a while now. I don' think we're all that far from the tipping point at which the majors to put the new "regional jets" (E-Jets, and whatever else comes down the pipe which is of far greater than 50 seat capacity) onto their own certs, crew them themselves, and stop essentially paying twice for maintenance, crew scheduling, dispatch, etc as they do with the regional/ outsourced model.
 
mrivc211 said:
This. The colgan families are very politically connected. Won't happen.
Click to expand...
That's probably true. But the logic just doesn't makes sense to me. The pilots involved in the Colgan crash would be qualified under today's rules. So it wouldn't have prevented anything...

The FO involved apparently commuted the night before. I know pilots that still do that even with the new rest rules and what not.

Perhaps this is the right thing to do. Reduce the amount of hours but increase training intensity. An emphases on quality over quantity may prove to be effective.

Either way...don't just drop the hours to fill seats. Not safe.
 
jgheggie said:
That's probably true. But the logic just doesn't makes sense to me. The pilots involved in the Colgan crash would be qualified under today's rules. So it wouldn't have prevented anything...

The FO involved apparently commuted the night before. I know pilots that still do that even with the new rest rules and what not.

Perhaps this is the right thing to do. Reduce the amount of hours but increase training intensity. An emphases on quality over quantity may prove to be effective.

Either way...don't just drop the hours to fill seats. Not safe.
Click to expand...
It would have required the pilots to go gain much needed experience outside the airline world before they ever got there. Probably learning proper stall recovery along the way.
 
jgheggie said:
That's probably true. But the logic just doesn't makes sense to me. The pilots involved in the Colgan crash would be qualified under today's rules. So it wouldn't have prevented anything...
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. The theory is that in the hours those pilots would have had to have flown to get to the 1500 hours in order to be 121 qualified, they hopefully would have gotten the skills needed to keep them out of trouble. The issue is that 121 Airline flying is VERY routine and keeps the pilots well inside the performance envelope. Flight instructing, repetitive pattern work, flying into small airfields in mountainous terrain while VFR and things like that build skills in areas that you will, as long as everything goes well, never see nor need during 121 operations. Flying from Chicago to Denver or Charlotte to Montgomery on a normal day (and even during bad weather) doesn't teach a pilot very much about aerodynamics and if they haven't already gotten that knowledge (ex: you need to break a stall before you can fly out of it and, flaps can increase your lift so removing the lift when already very slow--and stalling--isn't a good idea) before they get in that sort of operations, they probably aren't going to get the knowledge there. 99.9% of the time that's fine and it won't matter, but for that .1% of the time when you need the knowledge and don't have it, people will die.
 
FWIW, our CEO BB came back with his weekly letter on the intranet talking about his appearance at the hearing. He admitted he didn't speak very clearly or very well at all about the topic at hand, nor did he mean to be the lightening rod, though whenever anyone in management talks about Part 117 or the 1500 hr rule that's exactly what happens. His argument is basically that's its not just the hours but the experience that makes the pilot. But of course we've beaten that argument to death. 1500tt isn't that much flight time anyways...

To be honest I'm actually one of the few here that likes him. That said, I do have some serious disagreements with what he says on certain issues but I respect that he does care about the company and he thinks about more than just furthering his career. He probably could have moved on to a lofty position at a mainline carrier awhile ago if he wanted too (although there are rumors that is currently in the works). He also seems to be very successful about picking up more flying for us, he managed to fanagle the Ceasar's flying and after the Airways flight went away at CHQ last year the 145s pretty much went straight to the paint shop to get widgets on they're tails. At least he's no Frank Lorenzo.

Rumor has it the same is in store for some of the 140s and 145s we have now. We shall see.
 
jgheggie said:
As some one with 300 hrs, I think this is a slippery slope to go down. As much as I'd like to have the mins lowered and find a job, it's just not safe.
Click to expand...

Actually putting low time pilots in the right seat worked out quite well for the first 75 or so years of commercial aviation, and there's really no data to support the idea that simply multiplying minimums to sit right seat by 5 will have any impact on safety. That being said, the rule will raise wages for those of us who put in the time (hopefully). So from an economic standpoint I can get behind it.
 
z987k said:
It would have required the pilots to go gain much needed experience outside the airline world before they ever got there. Probably learning proper stall recovery along the way.
Click to expand...

BobDDuck said:
Maybe, maybe not. The theory is that in the hours those pilots would have had to have flown to get to the 1500 hours in order to be 121 qualified, they hopefully would have gotten the skills needed to keep them out of trouble. The issue is that 121 Airline flying is VERY routine and keeps the pilots well inside the performance envelope. Flight instructing, repetitive pattern work, flying into small airfields in mountainous terrain while VFR and things like that build skills in areas that you will, as long as everything goes well, never see nor need during 121 operations. Flying from Chicago to Denver or Charlotte to Montgomery on a normal day (and even during bad weather) doesn't teach a pilot very much about aerodynamics and if they haven't already gotten that knowledge (ex: you need to break a stall before you can fly out of it and, flaps can increase your lift so removing the lift when already very slow--and stalling--isn't a good idea) before they get in that sort of operations, they probably aren't going to get the knowledge there. 99.9% of the time that's fine and it won't matter, but for that .1% of the time when you need the knowledge and don't have it, people will die.
Click to expand...

You guys both make a point. I guess that's the issue with foreign carriers...ie the asiana incident at sfo. These guys were basically raised in a large jet cockpit and airline style flying. So they couldn't do something as simple as flying a visual without a slope indicator.

I guess in the end it still comes down to the hiring managers and recruiters. They are tasked with reviewing experience and logbooks. Theoretically, I can just rent a 152 and fly the bare minimum requirements to earn an ATP. Of course that's including my current multi time. Or I can fly some skydivers, some pipeline patrol, some aerial mapping gig, and get some great overall experience. It's up to the hiring managers to choose the person with the best experience.

So keep the 1500 hr rule...or toss it. Either way, it's the type of experience that will likely save your life (and others) when fit hits the shan.

...cuz fit always hits the shan
 
jgheggie said:
You guys both make a point. I guess that's the issue with foreign carriers...ie the asiana incident at sfo. These guys were basically raised in a large jet cockpit and airline style flying.
Click to expand...
There's much to be said about airline-style flying that recommends that particular style of flying (namely, doing it the same way every time, checklist use, sterile cockpit, ...). That stuff, though, is useless without (really, it presupposes that there exists) basic aircraft handling skill. It borders on the embarrassing that basic aircraft handling skills have taken such a far backseat to pushing the buttons, turning the knobs and watching the dials and that these deficiencies have been revealed in rather dramatic fashion outside Buffalo and in San Francisco.

Crisp and positive control of the airplane should be priority one, any operation.
wbauman1217 said:
Actually putting low time pilots in the right seat worked out quite well for the first 75 or so years of commercial aviation, and there's really no data to support the idea that simply multiplying minimums to sit right seat by 5 will have any impact on safety. That being said, the rule will raise wages for those of us who put in the time (hopefully). So from an economic standpoint I can get behind it.
Click to expand...
Again, aircraft handling. And a severe deficiency in the pilot certification and testing system, in my opinion.

I hate to speak ill of the dead. But, I honestly wonder, with respect to Colgan 3407 and Pinnacle 3701 specifically, just how these folks got as far as they did.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Again, aircraft handling. And a severe deficiency in the pilot certification and testing system, in my opinion.
.
Click to expand...

Right. I'm sure there's plenty of low time commercial rated pilots who aren't really comfortable with stalls/ familiar with how the aircraft handles at the backside of the power curve, etc. So in that sense it might not be a bad idea to have several hundred hours of instructing to get all that down.. Or the problem could simply be remedied with better training.
 
Last edited:
wbauman1217 said:
Right. I'm sure there's plenty of low time commercial rated pilots who aren't really comfortable with power on stalls/ familiar with how the aircraft handles at the backside of the power curve, etc. So in that sense it might not be a bad idea to have several hundred hours of instructing to get all that down.. Or the problem could simply be remedied with better training.
Click to expand...
This is what you're really talking about, of course.
ARESTI_symbols2.gif
 
wbauman1217 said:
Actually putting low time pilots in the right seat worked out quite well for the first 75 or so years of commercial aviation, and there's really no data to support the idea that simply multiplying minimums to sit right seat by 5 will have any impact on safety. That being said, the rule will raise wages for those of us who put in the time (hopefully). So from an economic standpoint I can get behind it.
Click to expand...

Do you fly for an airline?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top