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

Ziggyfuzz said:
Yes but with better training methods and checking standards, and a lot more time and education to think over their mistakes between missions. Not at all like a modern cookie cutter 141 flight school. /quote]
As was said earlier by hacker its nearly impossible to run a civilian school in the same manner. We're talking a revenue generating operation versus. a government one.
Click to expand...
 
Ziggyfuzz said:
One of my gigs is as an examiner, I have yet to fly with a guy at 250 hours (ish) that I would want to have in the right seat with me or anyone else. Basic flight skills are indeed lax these days, this has permeated modern flight training like a cancer. Couple that with a lack of operational experience (like richman speaks of) and you have an accident waiting to happen.
Click to expand...
I think some of this to blame is the safety culture and a lot of the CYA rules flight schools put into place. And trust me I'm all for safety, but when you have a whole myriad of rules restricting what you can and cannot do on a training mission it tends to limit the amount of operational experience a CFI can expose the student to.

As an example one of the best and most memorable training flights I ever had was during my commercial training. My instructor took me to his friend's private airstrip and told me not to tell anyone at the school that we were there. It was my first time at an actual short field with trees on both ends and a large hill on the departure end. We spent an hour or so there doing touch n go's in a piper arrow. It was some of the best exposure I had as a student and gave me a boost of confidence that I don't see in many students today. If I ever run into that instructor again I will most definitely buy him a beer because IMO it is experiences like this one that make us better aviators.
 
Mike H said:
So you're saying 10000 hour pilots never crash? Sure sounds like it
Click to expand...

3407, Lexington, and the "Let's Four One Oh It, Dudes" flights all had Gulf Streamers up front.

How in the world can anybody possibly argue that developing fundamentals over a longer period of time isn't important when these three crashes were caused by pilots who short changed the traditional method of developing fundamental skill sets?

The only plausible argument I can come up with, is that those that think these rules are superfluous stand to lose out from the rules when it comes to career advancement.
 
jtrain609 said:
3407, Lexington, and the "Let's Four One Oh It, Dudes" flights all had Gulf Streamers up front.

How in the world can anybody possibly argue that developing fundamentals over a longer period of time isn't important when these three crashes were caused by pilots who short changed the traditional method of developing fundamental skill sets?

The only plausible argument I can come up with, is that those that think these rules are superfluous stand to lose out from the rules when it comes to career advancement.
Click to expand...
So what you are saying is, they had hazardous attitudes?

;)

(Edit: My point, is that there is/was obviously something wrong with that place, and it produced substandard airliner drivers.)
 
Autothrust Blue said:
So what you are saying is, they had hazardous attitudes?

;)

(Edit: My point, is that there is/was obviously something wrong with that place, and it produced substandard airliner drivers.)
Click to expand...

As Hacker has pointed out, it's not about attitude, it's about short changing the learning process.

Would you expect a doctor to be able to get through medical school and be as high of a quality of doctor if they did not have a undergraduate degree studying a pre-med subject? No, of course not. The foundational education would be lacking. Could some people fake their way through? Sure, but that's not how we train anything in life.

Or another analogy would be there are SOME guys that could get through WITHOUT undergraduate pilot training in the Air Force, but regardless, everybody goes through it create a foundation of knowledge.

Programs like Gulfstream don't provide for that foundation, and training through your commercial certificate sure doesn't create that foundation.
 
jtrain609 said:
Programs like Gulfstream don't provide for that foundation, and training through your commercial certificate sure doesn't create that foundation.
Click to expand...

Thinking back, I learned a whole lot of things the hard way my first 100 hours or so single-pilot. Not sure how that experience can be duplicated if the only single-pilot experience someone had were their student solos.

And don't get me wrong, I've learned a lot instructing over the last few years too, but in generally different areas.
 
Another perspective on the 1500 hour rule is what affect there is on CFI experience. I'm not arguing this would be a reason for passing the law in the first place, but maybe a side benefit?

Back when airlines could hire down to 250 hours, especially around 2006/2007, some flight schools were absolutely drained of CFIs, much less experienced CFIs. It seemed the CFIs still at the schools didn't much care because they already had a class date and weren't going to finish their current students anyways. The brain drain that took place took years and a Great Recession to fix.

If we have instructors stick around longer than two weeks, won't we have a better learning environment for our future pilots?
 
at1024 said:
I think some of this to blame is the safety culture and a lot of the CYA rules flight schools put into place. And trust me I'm all for safety, but when you have a whole myriad of rules restricting what you can and cannot do on a training mission it tends to limit the amount of operational experience a CFI can expose the student to.

As an example one of the best and most memorable training flights I ever had was during my commercial training. My instructor took me to his friend's private airstrip and told me not to tell anyone at the school that we were there. It was my first time at an actual short field with trees on both ends and a large hill on the departure end. We spent an hour or so there doing touch n go's in a piper arrow. It was some of the best exposure I had as a student and gave me a boost of confidence that I don't see in many students today. If I ever run into that instructor again I will most definitely buy him a beer because IMO it is experiences like this one that make us better aviators.
Click to expand...
Thats great! Still doesn't mean you are or were ready for the responsibility. What was so great about that experience? That it boosted your ego? (Confidence) Confidence is great and all, but when it is coupled with lack of good decision making (which is a cornerstone of airmanship), that kind of confidence makes one deadly.
 
block30 said:
Another perspective on the 1500 hour rule is what affect there is on CFI experience. I'm not arguing this would be a reason for passing the law in the first place, but maybe a side benefit?

Back when airlines could hire down to 250 hours, especially around 2006/2007, some flight schools were absolutely drained of CFIs, much less experienced CFIs. It seemed the CFIs still at the schools didn't much care because they already had a class date and weren't going to finish their current students anyways. The brain drain that took place took years and a Great Recession to fix.

If we have instructors stick around longer than two weeks, won't we have a better learning environment for our future pilots?
Click to expand...
And you know what...2005-2007 was when I really started to see a drop in the quality of aviator coming out af ANY flight school.
 
block30 said:
If we have instructors stick around longer than two weeks, won't we have a better learning environment for our future pilots?
Click to expand...

Haven't flown with too many new CFI's, but yeah - that's a really valid point. I remember it being strange when a flight school had me get a checkout with one of their CFI's. He had about 1 hour in type, and was pretty much lost, asking me what to do. Everyone needs to start somewhere, but if you are going to churn through CFI's, at least have the newbies stick to primary training for a bit :)
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Is that because the quality of students dropped or the quality of instructors dropped?
Click to expand...
I would have to say it was the quality of instructors, who themselves are a product of the FAA. Since, in my region, the FAA does ALL initial cfi checks...
I was once giving a checkride to cfi who was getting his MEI. i was being observed by a fed as it was my renewal month. Unfortuneately I had to bust the guy on his lesson planning which falls under FOI (another discussion for another thread) On an add-on ride that is not a required task, tho an examiner has the right to test anything, FOI is tested by default since you must have a lesson plan prepared for multi engine topics. After all was said and done, I was chided by the fed for "making an already difficult ride, tougher". Gimme an f'n break man, it was totally fair. He then wanted to find out who did the guys initial cfi ride. I think he was basically telling me that I made his buddy at the fsdo look bad for busting him on something he should've been busted on the first time and didnt want me to do that anymore!

Long and short of it, the faa helped create the problem that congress is trying to fix, I do however think the ATP rule is a good start, though it may not be the catch all to getting more refined and experienced aviators in to the right seat of an airliner.
 
I'm concerned about the mentoring and experience sharing of our CFIs primarily. Having flight schools headed up by really green instructors who are headed out the door to a regional begets big problems. I've seen it. To a lesser extent I'm concerned about a CFI's commitment to their job...that is if they know they are going to instruct very briefly, that CFI probably won't care as much.

I get the impression when I say these things people think I'm onery, crotchety, elitist, etc. No. I care about our future pilots-private and professional.
 
jtrain609 said:
So how do you explain the situation at Republic where folks simply aren't showing up to the class dates they've been offered?
Click to expand...


They were offered interviews at other shops, with better something, and took it. The guys at Lakes probably only had the one offer. Seems logical.
 
Cessnaflyer said:
If Great Lakes has no problems getting people I don't think the rest with jets and large turboprops would have a problem.
Click to expand...


This. There wil always be people who meet the minimum requirements. And sometimes you get desperate for work. Hell, people are still willing to pay to sit in that seat!
 
block30 said:
I'm concerned about the mentoring and experience sharing of our CFIs primarily. Having flight schools headed up by really green instructors who are headed out the door to a regional begets big problems. I've seen it. To a lesser extent I'm concerned about a CFI's commitment to their job...that is if they know they are going to instruct very briefly, that CFI probably won't care as much.

I get the impression when I say these things people think I'm onery, crotchety, elitist, etc. No. I care about our future pilots-private and professional.
Click to expand...
Both good points I agree with, and I too get the he's just a cranky harda***" thing...usually only coming from those of the Millenial Generation. I must add tho, in the past 3 months I have had two of my applicants thank me for busting them on their rides when they came for the re-check. One of them stormed out of the room after his bust....
 
Ziggyfuzz said:
I would have to say it was the quality of instructors, who themselves are a product of the FAA. Since, in my region, the FAA does ALL initial cfi checks...
I was once giving a checkride to cfi who was getting his MEI. i was being observed by a fed as it was my renewal month. Unfortuneately I had to bust the guy on his lesson planning which falls under FOI (another discussion for another thread) On an add-on ride that is not a required task, tho an examiner has the right to test anything, FOI is tested by default since you must have a lesson plan prepared for multi engine topics. After all was said and done, I was chided by the fed for "making an already difficult ride, tougher". Gimme an f'n break man, it was totally fair. He then wanted to find out who did the guys initial cfi ride. I think he was basically telling me that I made his buddy at the fsdo look bad for busting him on something he should've been busted on the first time and didnt want me to do that anymore!

Long and short of it, the faa helped create the problem that congress is trying to fix, I do however think the ATP rule is a good start, though it may not be the catch all to getting more refined and experienced aviators in to the right seat of an airliner.
Click to expand...

I think it's partially that (even though I never did my initial CFI with the FAA, they're too busy in Florida and farm it out) and partially simply instructors who were instructing for 200-400 hours and moving on. There were always brand new instructors that were still learning how to teach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top