Well, with no one to lobby for those who didn't get aviation degrees, it seems like it. So under the proposed rules someone with an associate's in aviation could go to a regional at 500 or 1000 hrs, but someone without an aviation degree but has Part 135/91 turbine experience would have to have 1500 hrs. If it's really about safety, and the program is supposed to bridge the gap, I don't understand why any pilot can't just go through the program and gain the hour credit.
Alpa endorsed hour reduction plan.
- Thread starter Wardogg
- Start date
Well, with no one to lobby for those who didn't get aviation degrees, it seems like it. So under the proposed rules someone with an associate's in aviation could go to a regional at 500 or 1000 hrs, but someone without an aviation degree but has Part 135/91 turbine experience would have to have 1500 hrs. If it's really about safety, and the program is supposed to bridge the gap, I don't understand why any pilot can't just go through the program and gain the hour credit.
av8tr1
"Never tell me the odds!"
Because far too many put far too much stock in the idea that a degree makes you better than one without.
Inverted
mmmmmm wine
I don't know why everyone gets so bent out of shape on the 4 year degree requirement and takes it so personally. It is a standard that has been set, period. This is no different than most industries, a 4 year degree, no matter what the field is required for employment. It is required to be an officer in the military, and it doesn't matter the degree. When my wife managed a horse barn they required a degree. She is an english major...
Nobody would argue that having a degree makes you a better pilot, but the industry, as well as many other industries, has chosen that level of standard as means for employment. Think having an ATP issued during a type rating makes you a better pilot? We spend too much time bitching about the rules instead of trying to meet or exceed the standard.
I will also say that it is extremely ironic to have people complain about the 4 year degree requirement when we are in the mist of fighting for high wages and keeping a professional standard level of hours and experience. Instead of doing that, use the 4 year degree to prove that we are well educated, well qualified, and well deserving of professional wages.
Nobody would argue that having a degree makes you a better pilot, but the industry, as well as many other industries, has chosen that level of standard as means for employment. Think having an ATP issued during a type rating makes you a better pilot? We spend too much time bitching about the rules instead of trying to meet or exceed the standard.
I will also say that it is extremely ironic to have people complain about the 4 year degree requirement when we are in the mist of fighting for high wages and keeping a professional standard level of hours and experience. Instead of doing that, use the 4 year degree to prove that we are well educated, well qualified, and well deserving of professional wages.
z987k
Well-Known Member
I guess my only problem with this proposal, and the current R-ATP for people who already demonstrate terrible decision making by spending 4x on aviation what it costs otherwise, is they are saying exactly that. A degree somehow makes you a better pilot. Which we all know isn't true.
I have no argument for an employer requiring a degree because they think it gives them better applicants, more well rounded people, etc. That's fine, and honest.
An experience reduction for a degree is asinine.
JDean3204
Well-Known Member
All of this has absolutely nothing to do with safety. Certain powerful people are crying because they cannot find cheap labor anymore, other people in the scam that is 4 year aviation colleges are crying because they don't want to see their class sizes drop due to the pathetic notion that the 1500 hr rule is the biggest barrier in the industry.
I get more and more fed up of hearing the cries of greedy business bastards stating this shortage stemmed from the hour requirement. No it didn't, it stemmed from their selfish approach to lining only their pockets in an already marginal business, while paying professional pilots less than the lady who spit in their breakfast burrito at Jack in the Box. Now they have an issue with staffing, and are really hating paying pilots a bit closer to their worth. It makes them cringe knowing only 6 years ago they had their pick of pilots to fly for peanuts and now pilots will only go to the regionals that pay a decent wage, the fact that pilots have choices now once they are qualified kills the bottom feeders.
So what's the fix? Oh yes, we have to roll the 1500 rule back. This allows the misconception that the barriers to the industry are too high to continue. Once we see ERAU and UND charging rich kids 200k to sit in that jet at 500 hrs TT, this will all be fixed! Because we all know that it takes way too much work to build 1500 hours prior to the airlines. I know I thought my time slugging it out would never end, I mean 18 months was just so brutal. If only I could have gone to ERAU and get on at 500 hours, I would be so much further in my career right now!
The only people that will benefit from this will be those greedy schools and regional management, but hey they have had it hard lately they deserve a break..
I get more and more fed up of hearing the cries of greedy business bastards stating this shortage stemmed from the hour requirement. No it didn't, it stemmed from their selfish approach to lining only their pockets in an already marginal business, while paying professional pilots less than the lady who spit in their breakfast burrito at Jack in the Box. Now they have an issue with staffing, and are really hating paying pilots a bit closer to their worth. It makes them cringe knowing only 6 years ago they had their pick of pilots to fly for peanuts and now pilots will only go to the regionals that pay a decent wage, the fact that pilots have choices now once they are qualified kills the bottom feeders.
So what's the fix? Oh yes, we have to roll the 1500 rule back. This allows the misconception that the barriers to the industry are too high to continue. Once we see ERAU and UND charging rich kids 200k to sit in that jet at 500 hrs TT, this will all be fixed! Because we all know that it takes way too much work to build 1500 hours prior to the airlines. I know I thought my time slugging it out would never end, I mean 18 months was just so brutal. If only I could have gone to ERAU and get on at 500 hours, I would be so much further in my career right now!
The only people that will benefit from this will be those greedy schools and regional management, but hey they have had it hard lately they deserve a break..
tcco94
Future GTA VI Pilot
This still won't attract people to go to college (which is always increasing its cost) and pay $200/hr to rent a 172. $60,000+ for flight training at most Universities and students graduating well above $100,000 in debt. Also, what happens to all the instructors currently time building.
Now do we create an instructor shortage? This problem manifested itself so many years ago, and these "solutions" to fix it are in all the wrong areas. Can you really blame someone for not wanting to spend so much time and money to become an airline/part 135/91 pilot? I totally understand why they don't. I mean I have a massive passion for it and love my job dearly. Not a lot of people I run into feel the same way other than "airplanes are cool".
Now do we create an instructor shortage? This problem manifested itself so many years ago, and these "solutions" to fix it are in all the wrong areas. Can you really blame someone for not wanting to spend so much time and money to become an airline/part 135/91 pilot? I totally understand why they don't. I mean I have a massive passion for it and love my job dearly. Not a lot of people I run into feel the same way other than "airplanes are cool".
av8tr1
"Never tell me the odds!"
Because this isn't that type of profession. Being a pilot is a trade. The problem is that we have degraded the concept of a trade in this country. A trade is just as important as a degree but somehow we have decided tradesmen are worth less than those with a degree. Our skill set requires actual experience that can't be found in textbooks. Knowledge is NOT what is lacking, its experience that can only be found on the job DOING the trade. "Generally" anyone can be taught how to do the most basic functions of our skill (Hell they taught me to fly helicopters). Knowing the right time to use it takes years of experience.
It takes years to become a master tradesman, much longer than it takes to become degreed even at a master level. But somehow the tradesman has been belittled. A tradesman focuses on becoming the best at a particular skill. A degree is someone's idea (not necessarily knowledgeable in the specific field of study) of a "well rounded" educated individual. Our collegiate system has become a bastardization of knowledge and in reality is a indoctrination camp for ideas that have no place in the real world. And usually requires studies in areas that have no basis in the skill required. And still after all that work in earning that degree still don't have the skills to do anything useful in the industry.
Whereas the average pilot with a fresh pilot certificate generally has the basic knowledge to do the job but not the experience to make the right decisions. Thus our "Apprentice" or "Journeyman" with his/her skill can learn from a master tradesman. That is a skill based system. And leads to experts in a specific skill set.
Case in point every Computer Science degree who came to work for me right out of college usually needed nearly 6 months of retraining to learn how to work in the real world of computer technology and usually had their heads full of useless ideas that would never work in the real industry. Very early in my IT career I worked at Martin Marietta (before it was Lockheed Martin). We were doing computer upgrades of an early windows version. I forgot to remove the rem statement that would launch Windows from the autoexec.bat file. Simple mistake with an easy fix. Well the employee in question was the programming department head who freaked out because she didn't know how to get into windows from a command prompt and came screaming around the corner that I had lost all her files (I was in the next cubical over). This was a woman with a masters degree in computer science and years of experience working with a Unix command line. We were literally writing the code for the space shuttle program. But she lost her chit becuase she didn't know how to use a MS Dos command line.
A degree does not give you the experience to make good decisions in the cockpit. Only time learning from a more experienced pilot will give you the tools and experience to make the right decisions. You can't get that from a degree program.
I took a year of a aerospace science degree program. I wouldn't get in an airplane with some of those "professors"on a VFR day just to stay in the pattern.
chrisreedrules
Master Blaster
I don’t think this is going to really do much to solve the regional staffing problem.
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
IMO sitting right seat in a B1900 or 340 was killer experience. Especially for low timers. Those airplanes were very forgiving and while complicated vs a turbojet with FADEC etc they were like flying a larger Seneca. Plus when people messed up only a few people were put at risk.
Now we're talking about folks with little actual real world experience flying high performance equipment into all sorts of environments with 70+ passengers. Flying a jet is the easy part.
The military has a great program and can do it because they put guys into high performance equipment right off the bat. They're supervised and learn from the get go. Contrast that with spending 1000+ hours flying a 172, which I completely agree does not really prepare one for flying a jet in airline operations.
Personally I think it's just too much to ask a LCA, junior CAs and passengers to be that first introduction to turbojet flying. We are really doing doing them all a disservice.
Now if the pilot training program was reorganized and worked more akin to the military I would be all for it. MAPD started private students in Bonanzas and put a time limit on passing training, which weeded out the weaker students. The ones left were great pilots and while I never flew a jet with them I'm sure they made excellent copilots.
Now we're talking about folks with little actual real world experience flying high performance equipment into all sorts of environments with 70+ passengers. Flying a jet is the easy part.
The military has a great program and can do it because they put guys into high performance equipment right off the bat. They're supervised and learn from the get go. Contrast that with spending 1000+ hours flying a 172, which I completely agree does not really prepare one for flying a jet in airline operations.
Personally I think it's just too much to ask a LCA, junior CAs and passengers to be that first introduction to turbojet flying. We are really doing doing them all a disservice.
Now if the pilot training program was reorganized and worked more akin to the military I would be all for it. MAPD started private students in Bonanzas and put a time limit on passing training, which weeded out the weaker students. The ones left were great pilots and while I never flew a jet with them I'm sure they made excellent copilots.
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
If pilot A solo'd in under 15 hours, got their private in under 50 and has been flying a KingAir right seat while Pilot B took 100+ hours to get their PPL and has only flown as a CFI for 3500 hours, I'd take pilot A in a heart beat!
Time is irreverent, experience is what is important.
Cazadores
Well-Known Member
If 1500hrs is good, everyone should have to have it.
If education is good, everyone should get an incentive to get it.
I'm still floored no one has filed a class suit on behalf of all the part 61 pilots who got the bait and switch with HR 5900.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
If education is good, everyone should get an incentive to get it.
I'm still floored no one has filed a class suit on behalf of all the part 61 pilots who got the bait and switch with HR 5900.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
n57flyguy
Well-Known Member
Bu..bu...but any degree is a good degree!
av8tr1
"Never tell me the odds!"
You're missing the point. Both have the same in cockpit training. Say for the sake of argument they both solo at 15 hours, and pass private at 50 hours.
Pilot B has 4000 hours of actual experience.
Pilot A has 500 hours of experience and 4 years of reading books only some of which relate to aviation, likely less than 2 years of the total 4 years. Most of the other 2 years is that "well rounded" experience which includes, english, art and other electives which are required for the degree. And that's only if Pilot A specializes in something aviation related. Apparently if Pilot A studies basket weaving and took aviation electives Pilot A still gets a pass when Pilot B doesn't.
Last edited:
av8tr1
"Never tell me the odds!"
Really? How about
Exhibit A: Women's studies?
Exhibit B: Fashion Design
Exhibit C: Art History
Exhibit D: Liberal Arts? (What you couldn't make up your mind?)
Exhibit E: Any biblical study program
Not in anyway discounting any of the people who choose to the study any of these fields (well except maybe one :stir: ) but really, how valuable is any one of these degrees compared to the cost to earn the degree and the benefit to society and industry?
av8tr1
"Never tell me the odds!"
I studied Aerospace engineering. I can literally design rockets to take you to Mars. But I get no credit for it to apply to the airlines.
n57flyguy
Well-Known Member
Your offending my Special Snowflake Studies with a concentration in Biology of French Poetry Degree. See my Twitter feed, you'll be hearing from my lawyer.
#millennialaf
av8tr1
"Never tell me the odds!"
Just to really get you all hot and bothered for how useless your education was....."You're" :stir:
First of all, the requirement to have a degree to get hired at certain airlines are set by the airlines themselves. There is nothing wrong with that. Whether having a degree makes you a better pilot or not is irrelevant. If a company wants its pilots to have a degree, you get the degree or you look for employment elsewhere.
The issue here is the government giving those who got aviation degrees the benefit of earning an ATP at lower hours.