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

[Mike H]

In the future, my prediction is that the majors will establish a part 142 ab intro training program in order to insure a steady supply of pilots for their company. That program, if and when established, will change how professional flight training is done. I would expect the airlines to lobby the FAA and Congress for a reduced number of hours, or a new pilot rating, in order to get pilots into the right seat, provided the 142 requirements are met.

I don't usually agree with you about anything, but you're on to something here. Wanna bet the reduced hours the airlines will demand-errr, I mean lobby the FAA & congress for (only for graduates from their programs, of course) will be somewhere between 350 to 500?

Any bets that these ab initio programs will be pay-to-train rather than earn-while-you-learn?

 

[Autothrust Blue]

I don't usually agree with you about anything, but you're on to something here. Wanna bet the reduced hours the airlines will demand-errr, I mean lobby the FAA & congress for (only for graduates from their programs, of course) will be somewhere between 350 to 500?

Any bets that these ab initio programs will be pay-to-train rather than earn-while-you-learn?

This is how a good chunk of the rest of the world does things, too.

I won't say whether or not I think it's better, mind you.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

While I have yet to sit left seat in something that requires a crew(at least for the purposes of logging PIC), I have yet to year a captain mutter anything but this. Seems they all like a guy who has cfi'ed vs. One who hasn't, with a few rare exceptions to the guy logging SIC.

 

[JordanD]

I actually thought you weren't old enough. But ultimately your inability to communicate your actual intended statement is what hobbles you, not your age. And FYI- people on the receiving end of the 'House' shtick never think it's funny. But everybody watching at home does. Cheers.

Heh, your inability to communicate without sounding like a pompous Summer's Eve doesn't do you any favors.

I hope one day I think I'm as badass as you think you are.

 

[dasleben]

Lot of "Huggies School of Networking" going on in this thread.

 

[Boris Badenov]

Any bets that these ab initio programs will be pay-to-train rather than earn-while-you-learn?

Nah, when people pay to train, they expect a return on their investment. I suspect the ab-initio stuff will be more "train to indentured servitude". Some sort of ginormous training bond combined with very low pay.

 

[ClarkGriswold]

And I respect that is your experience. So far mine has been the opposite.

I think a lot of the difference could be corporate culture and how FOs are trained. Where I am, there seems to be no emphasis on SIC duties and responsibilities, thus we end up with new pilots that have no clue and therefore their prior experiences take over.

In my opinion, the whole ATP rule and who is better qualified is a circular argument. Every person is going to have a different opinion on what is better.

Pretty sure these people you speak of are just being know it all Dbags. Nothing to do with being a CFI or not. Doesn't take a genius to figure out how being a FO works, unless you're a, wait for it.....DBAG.

 

[mshunter]

Really, what's tough about what I said? Enlighten me.

 

[JustinS]

Not sure what will ultimately happen, but you can be sure that the structure will be more developed within the next few decades. I'm curious for all the left seaters in here talking about who has the "right stuff" for the right seat. What exactly do you feel would be adequate experience to be allowed to sit in the right seat? It seems like no matter what, somewhere along the way, some company will have to give a pilot a chance to get the experience they need to build toward that right seat. How do you propose they do it if you don't like what you're seeing sit to your right hand side? Just curious.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Not sure what will ultimately happen, but you can be sure that the structure will be more developed within the next few decades. I'm curious for all the left seaters in here talking about who has the "right stuff" for the right seat. What exactly do you feel would be adequate experience to be allowed to sit in the right seat? It seems like no matter what, somewhere along the way, some company will have to give a pilot a chance to get the experience they need to build toward that right seat. How do you propose they do it if you don't like what you're seeing sit to your right hand side? Just curious.

I need the job to get the experience to get the job to get the experience to get the job (...)

Edit: if you don't like what/who you see in the right seat, you might want to go to work for the interview team.

 

[JustinS]

I need the job to get the experience to get the job to get the experience to get the job (...)

I've had this thought in my head about any job in life. Think about a restaurant server. There are some really good servers out there that give great customer service. Sometimes there's a new restaurant server and we get a bad experience. Do you ever think though that the good server at one point was new to the job and had to get the experience to become who they are because they were probably like that new server at some point? Then you wonder about the ones that have had the job forever and have not become good at their job and have continued to upset customers...

It makes it very difficult then to determine who is fit for the right seat it seems like...

 

[Autothrust Blue]

I've had this thought in my head about any job in life. Think about a restaurant server. There are some really good servers out there that give great customer service. Sometimes there's a new restaurant server and we get a bad experience. Do you ever think though that the good server at one point was new to the job and had to get the experience to become who they are because they were probably like that new server at some point? Then you wonder about the ones that have had the job forever and have not become good at their job and have continued to upset customers...

It makes it very difficult then to determine who is fit for the right seat it seems like...

Attitude is STILL the most effective predictor of safety, but it turns out that's very hard to legislate.

Incidentally, I didn't bother to comment on the ANPRM, perhaps I (and others?) should have.

 

[Gonzo]

I think we need to be careful about calling it the 1500 hour rule or the ATP rule. Because the way I read it, the new requirement to fly 121 is going to be an ATP, but they are going to release new requirements for an ATP. We might end up with something like the JAR ATP or maybe they will up the hours to 2000 TT or some hybrid of both.

 

[JustinS]

Attitude is STILL the most effective predictor of safety, but it turns out that's very hard to legislate.

Thanks for that insight. A person's attitude transcends how they effect not only themselves but those around them. Something to think about even when we go about our lives outside of the cockpit.

 

[pete2800]

I'm currenty flying with someone who has 1000+ as a CFI. Just like every other high time CFI I've had the pleasure of flying with recently. Think they know everything and always overstepping their bounds. FOs that were never CFIs and got practical knowledge and experience in the real world are 10x better.

You'll understand better if you ever get over to the left seat.

Yep, sounds like a case of the Captain-itis...

 

[AA34]

I think we need to be careful about calling it the 1500 hour rule or the ATP rule. Because the way I read it, the new requirement to fly 121 is going to be an ATP, but they are going to release new requirements for an ATP. We might end up with something like the JAR ATP or maybe they will up the hours to 2000 TT or some hybrid of both.

Have they set a date for release? Prior to August I assume.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

The industry is acting as if it is fait accompli, so...as far as actual outcomes, it mightn't matter what the federales do.

 

[miller_time]

Have they set a date for release? Prior to August I assume.

July 12th is the most recently estimated date in the DOT February Rulemaking report, however it was originally scheduled to be released in May. I wouldn't be surprised to see it pushed back further in next month's report. Either way it goes, the airlines will still have to redefine their training programs which will become much more in depth, expensive and time consuming.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

I think we need to be careful about calling it the 1500 hour rule or the ATP rule. Because the way I read it, the new requirement to fly 121 is going to be an ATP, but they are going to release new requirements for an ATP. We might end up with something like the JAR ATP or maybe they will up the hours to 2000 TT or some hybrid of both.

All I know is? I'll be getting that piece of paper as quickly as I can to avoid whatever they come up with.

 

[Mike H]

Mike H said: ↑

I don't usually agree with you about anything, but you're on to something here. Wanna bet the reduced hours the airlines will demand-errr, I mean lobby the FAA & congress for (only for graduates from their programs, of course) will be somewhere between 350 to 500?

Any bets that these ab initio programs will be pay-to-train rather than earn-while-you-learn?​

This is how a good chunk of the rest of the world does things, too.

I won't say whether or not I think it's better, mind you.

Just stirring the pot a little. I could be wrong, but I get the impression that many of the ALPA folks believe the 1500 hr rule is only going to increase pilot pay and decrease pilot competition. I don't think it'll do either one