Advisory Panel Considers ATP Hour Reduction

wheelsup said:
I'm gonna catch a lot of crap for this but after working at the regionals with guys from various backrounds, I'll take a fairly new out of training lower time ex-CFI F/O over an ex-mil guy any day. I just was never that impressed with their flying and CRM skills. YMMV.
Click to expand...

Single seat guys, yes. Multi crew guys were mostly pretty good, although getting away from the whole "mission" philosophy sometimes took a bit of time.

Helo guys were great, with the notable exception of @deadstick :)
 
Leer-n-pilot said:
I'm training FOs right now whose flight time vary between 500-1500 hours from a variety of backgrounds. Some CFIs, some not.

There is a tremendous difference between a kid with 600hrs or a kid with 1500hrs regardless of how they got there. What I've found is the sub-1500hr pilots haven't ever scared themselves in an airplane.
Click to expand...

What if it's an "adult" with 600hours vs. a "kid"?

I'm not asking this to be sarcastic - this is a question in good faith. Is the age of the pilot in question a defining factor, in your opinion, as an instructor? Does a lower-time, older applicant display a different level of flying acumen then a younger one? Does it even matter? What has your experience been?
 
I'm at the point in career where every new guy is a "kid". It's not a negative pejorative per se, I understand it might be in bad taste.

These "kids" range in age from 23-29. All of them should be capable of acting like an adult. Should be. Some of them have been willing to work hard initially but none had any stamina. Their work effort quickly tails off and they have to be told simple things more than once: control lock goes in the captains map pocket, red gear goes in the upper door.

Does age make a difference? I don't know, I haven't had the chance to compare a newbie with gray hair to a newbie with a permission slip.
 
Leer-n-pilot said:
I'm at the point in career where every new guy is a "kid". It's not a negative pejorative per se, I understand it might be in bad taste.

These "kids" range in age from 23-29. All of them should be capable of acting like an adult. Should be. Some of them have been willing to work hard initially but none had any stamina. Their work effort quickly tails off and they have to be told simple things more than once: control lock goes in the captains map pocket, red gear goes in the upper door.

Does age make a difference? I don't know, I haven't had the chance to compare a newbie with gray hair to a newbie with a permission slip.
Click to expand...


Given my brief stint in a training department, it is impossible to loop people together. You have 23 year old CFIs who are insanely sharp and make you question your knowledge level, 45 year old career change guys who you question their ability to get dressed in the morning, the low-time wonder, the 5th airline guy, the middle aged corporate guy giving regionals a try, the guy who can quote the AOM but gets too nervous to pass a checkride, etc... Everyone has had their own path and 98% of then make it through airline training and become perfectly fine airline pilots.
 
If you like the 1500 hour rule or not I think its here to stay. Its been set as the benchmark. Any effort to lower the required hours and thus reduce the amount of experience in airlines crews is going to be viewed by the flying public as making flying less safe. No one at the FAA and certainly no elected official wants to put their name on a rule change that makes flying less safe.
 
killbilly said:
What if it's an "adult" with 600hours vs. a "kid"?

I'm not asking this to be sarcastic - this is a question in good faith. Is the age of the pilot in question a defining factor, in your opinion, as an instructor? Does a lower-time, older applicant display a different level of flying acumen then a younger one? Does it even matter? What has your experience been?
Click to expand...
http://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/issues/34_14/features/Old-Or-Young_10883-1.html

This is not a comment towards training pilots at an airline/135...but a professor of mine wrote an article about this (for CFIS) about 2 years ago that appeared on Aviation Safety. He said he spent almost a year or something on his research, but it was very interesting.

Pretty much his data states (from a 5year period): 78% of fatal accidents during training occured with a CFI older than the millennial age.

I think many people jump to conclusions at the thought of a pilot being 23 years old because most 23 year olds are still having beer pong competitions going into their super senior year in college. Hell the 19 year old CFIs probably freak people out too but from my experience in the CFI world...a lot of the younger guys are more sharp and definitely professional. Of course this is all bias opinion so some may disagree.

When I graduated college I felt like the 1500 rule was stupid (because I didn't want to instruct). After almost 700 dual given a year later and a few months from 121 time, I feel like it was the best decision for me as I definitely was not ready a year ago. So I think the 1500 hours should stay from my experience, it accomplished what it was intended to do (and the R-ATP for that matter).
 
A bit of a tangent...

The problem with the rule is that a Citation X (MGW 36k) SIC with a CPL who is upgrading to PIC at a 135 operation must go do this $5000 class. This goes for all the Lear 3x/4x and Citation 500/525 pilots in the 135 world. Their training doesn't satisfy the new ATP rule because some Congressional aide thought that only airline pilots need an ATP.

If anything productive can come from a change, it would be this. I remember when there was an different written for 121 and 135. I could see something like an ATP-135 that doesn't count for 121 ops or something like that because, as sombody wrote earlier, nobody is going to put his or her name on piece of legislation that results in a perceived reduction in safety.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top