Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
You're entitled to an opinion. I'm entitled to laugh at it. What do you think insurance companies pay actuaries all that money to do?
Article: FAA won't back 1500 hour requirement
- Thread starter Clocks
- Start date
You're entitled to an opinion. I'm entitled to laugh at it. What do you think insurance companies pay actuaries all that money to do?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Depends on the airline. The majors should see very little, if any, staffing changes as a result. Some of the regionals will need to add warm bodies, especially the carriers with the really horrible work rules that allow duty days of 15+ hours. But it still won't require any mass-scale hiring.
Like I said, hiring needs won't be enormous. Until the retirements kick in again, you can expect modest hiring, in my opinion. Nothing on a large scale.
SkyFlier33
Well-Known Member
I see. Would you care to share what's so hilariously absurd that I had a mistake of writing here on this forum of true professionals? To make sure I don't make the same error in the future.
SkyFlier33
Well-Known Member
Technically, it's 2,500 plus a type, or ultimately 1,500 of non-instructional hours not including dual given or time in a non-level D simulator!
Right, maybe this should be considered by the Senate, no questions or thinking process allowed for low-time suckers until then
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Not quite sure on the syntax of the question. But I'll take a stab. Insurance companies employ geniuses (and pay them wheelbarrows full of money) to sort through the numbers and figure out what makes a pilot less likely to scratch the paint on an airplane. Aforementioned eggheads have determined, strangely, that experience in flying airplanes makes you better at flying airplanes without breaking them. I trust their commitment to the bottom line way more than I trust the opinions of the very interested parties yanking on the yokes (including me). That said, show me a guy who says he was a better pilot when he was less experienced, and I'll show you a guy I won't fly with.
SkyFlier33
Well-Known Member
Thank you for clarifying. I see your point.
I don't dare to expect you to care for my opinion on this, but just in case there's a small chance that some folks do, for the sake of having a discussion: that's exactly something I was unsuccessful in getting through in my post above. I do support the increase in the required min.level of experience for 121 FO's. I do believe experience is vital and is not something one can learn from the flying handbook or in a sim. I was merely suggesting that "1500 hours" may not necessarily warrant the proficiency of a pilot, and that other factors, like aptitude, might be important to consider.
What's interesting is that I actually was voicing my support for implementing the new rule, but looks like being "low-time" automatically disqualifies me from participating in the discussion.
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
Just making min overnights 10 hours and restrictions on flipping the clock would throw a monkeywrench the size of the Rock of Gibraltar into Pinnacle's operation.....
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Agreed!
I agree BUT, the easiest way for airlines and other aviation employers to screen for (potential) profiency is to use total time. Off the top of my head I can't think of an easily implemented, cost effective means to determine who is "qualified" (need to define that term first) to be in the cockpit of a multi-million dollar high performance aircraft. At the very least using total time is a good pre-screen device since experience is such an important part of being proficient and it is almost impossible to get meaningful experience without spending time in the cockpit.
It certainly does NOT disqualify you from participating. You were just 'collateral damage' from some shots taken at the low-time pilots that completely disregard the voices of experience on this topic. That description does not appear to apply to you.
joliet
New Member
If the 1500 rule is going to destroy all your hopes and dreams then you got into aviation for the wrong reasons, and have only been interested for the last 2-3 years.
When I started training 2500 hours instructing, another thousand flying freight might get you into a Jetstream or Saab if you knew somebody or had the right body parts.
Things changed a couple years ago, and now they are back to the way they were.
:bandit:
When I started training 2500 hours instructing, another thousand flying freight might get you into a Jetstream or Saab if you knew somebody or had the right body parts.
Things changed a couple years ago, and now they are back to the way they were.
:bandit:
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
Pretty much how it was when I started my PPL. Repalce Saab with RJ, though. I started my training in October of 2001. Grim times indeed for airline pilot career prospects. CFIs at my flight school were in the 1000-1500 hour range. The ones that had left didn't go fly an RJ. They went to fly a 210 at Flight Express.
joliet
New Member
I would guess we started around the same time 01-03 (I was in high school then, and didn't get my commercial until 07)? I guess you could throw an RJ in there. I personally had my sights set on Chicago Express with the Saab out of Midway (./droool,) and then ATA, but I can read where I wrote down once, "maybe I'll get lucky and fly a jet by the time i have 4000 hours!"
My my how nothing ever happens the way you want it to, but at least you're getting it done in one way or another!
L-16B
Well-Known Member
I'll agree with this post. I was trained on the Q by Flight Safety, NOT Colgan. We got x amount of free training slots with every Q that we bought. They trained you to pass the checkride. I heard that Colgan training is a bit tougher. I wonder how we will train for the next batch of Q's next summer, even if we do get free training slots from flight safety I would rather be trained by Colgan people...... Even our checklists were different!