Article: FAA won't back 1500 hour requirement

3enginejock said:
First of all why 1500 hours? Why not 2000, or 5000. You can only learn so much outside of a job. Like I said before this law if it passes will only pad the pocket books of places like Gulfstream because people will just buy their way to 1500. Training is where its at not hours. Weed people out by increasing our standards in general. Make becoming a pilot a bit more challenging.
Click to expand...

1500 hours came from ATP minima. It's been suitable for captains for years. Why not first officers? FOs have been required crew for decades. Recognizing a trained FO as something more than a legally required 'assistant' is long overdue.

You can't weed people out by making training 'more challenging' because the puppy mill pilot schools will just find a new way to sell the 'fast track'.

It needs to be more difficult to become an AIRLINE pilot.. not just a pilot. Allowing for 1500 hours before a 121 hire allows a pilot to mature and spend some time making decisions as an actual pilot, not just a student.


3enginejock said:
This wont create a shortage. If you remember before Spring/Summer 2008 regionals didnt hire people with 250 hours, not usually atleast. 1000+ was the norm with a bit of multi. You didnt see regional FO's getting paid more then did you? This 250 hour wonder thing pretty much ended by the end of summer 2008, and its looking to return to the 1000+ hour minimums to fly a regional. And I can without a doubt say that pilot pay will most likely not increase.
Click to expand...

The reason the minima came up was because the hiring boom was ending. There were still large numbers of applicants waiting in the wings.

When the baby boom generation/Vietnam pilot generation starts retiring in droves in the next few years, we're going to see a massive hiring wave.
Establishing a minimum requirement for hiring will make it impossible for airlines to hire 'wet-ticket' pilots that have just been through some 90 day meat-grinder. Actually forcing airlines to competitively seek new hires will force the issue of poor work rules, poor pay, and something far more important- intentional turnover.

Regional airlines have a long history of intentional encouraging pilot turnover. They WANT us to leave after a few years. It keeps pilot expectations and other costly items suppressed. We need to face the fact that the airlines have hoodwinked us all into chasing a fading dream.

This will let things focus on the 'new major airlines' - the so-called regional airlines of today.

3enginejock said:
The main reason we are paid so low is because their are thousands of pilots out there that want your job no matter how bad you might think your job is.
Click to expand...

... and they're young, hungry, and quick to jump because they don't realize how short they sell themselves by showing up with minimal qualifications and accepting anything they're handed as a result.

Our push to raise minimum standards for airline pilots takes care of this, too.

Those who reach the point where they can apply to an airline will have earned it, and value it. They'll expect more, and in time, get more.

The self-entitled 'me first' types that think they bought the job and take no responsibility for their career progression will fall away.


Of course.. if making the changes that have been proposed will make no difference... why are the airlines fighting tooth and nail to avoid them?

They're the experts on their business. They seem to think there's a serious implication there.

Funny, huh?
 
Firebird2XC said:
1500 hours came from ATP minima. It's been suitable for captains for years. Why not first officers? FOs have been required crew for decades. Recognizing a trained FO as something more than a legally required 'assistant' is long overdue.
Click to expand...

Here's my problem with the arguments presented so far - where is the empirical data showing that a change to 1500 hours for FOs would increase safety. How many recent airline crashes involved FOs with less than 1500 hours? Colgan Air Flight 3407 did not and it is the impetus for the 1500 hour proposal.

Other accidents during the last 10 years in the US that the 1500 hour rule would not have prevented:
Continental Airlines Flight 1404
Delta Connection (Shuttle America) Flight 6448
Comair Flight 191
Southwest Airlines Flight 1248
American Eagle Flight 5401
American Airlines Flight 587
Southwest Airlines Flight 1455
American Airlines Flight 1420

Accidents in the last 10 years in the US that the 1500 hour rule might have prevented:
Air Midwest Flight 5481
 
It's not necessarily 'accident prevention' as much as it is mandating a more realistic experience level.

The right seater shouldn't be seen as an intern, or congressional page. They're an important part of the crew and 49% of the vote in the cockpit.

I'm a product of a pilot mill myself and this statement won't endear me to many of my friends, users and friends who are users, but a sub-1000 pilot in the cockpit of a airliner is something that needs to come to an end.

It's not a magic bullet that's going to save the profession.

It's not going to magically make aviation safer.

In my humble opinion, it's an aberration to think that requirements to fly part 135 cargo in a Piper Lance under IFR is far above and beyond that to fly as second-in-command of a 777-300.
 
Even being one that is builing time to eventually fly 121, I agree with the 1500 hour rule. I do not agree with a lot of the "fast track" type cirriculums. I believe that every pilot should spend more time making decisions in the right seat alone rather than making the 250 (which a lot is dual anyways) gaining a few more hours then hiring right on as an FO at 600 hours. I think it is a good deal bumping the mins. Instead of lowering mins to find pilots, employees will now have to raise pay in order to get the pilots they require, eventually putting more money in our pockets and ensuring safer flights for pax.
 
gtpilot said:
Here's my problem with the arguments presented so far - where is the empirical data showing that a change to 1500 hours for FOs would increase safety. How many recent airline crashes involved FOs with less than 1500 hours? Colgan Air Flight 3407 did not and it is the impetus for the 1500 hour proposal.
Click to expand...

While none of the incidents you posted had sub-1500 hour pilots in the cockpit, several of them (including Colgan) had folks who were *hired* with way below the minimums.

There's no doubt that flying for an airline builds experience tremendously....but it's not necessarily going to give you the same type of experience that a varied GA or military background will. There's a basic experience and ability level that you really ought to have in order to fly 121 that the vast majority of people simply can't get in 250hrs of training. A 1500hr requirement may not have definitely prevented Colgan's accident, but if the captain had spent more time doing the type of flying that a lot of people consider "irrelevant" to airline flying, it might have made all the difference.
 
zmiller4 said:
While none of the incidents you posted had sub-1500 hour pilots in the cockpit, several of them (including Colgan) had folks who were *hired* with way below the minimums.

There's no doubt that flying for an airline builds experience tremendously....but it's not necessarily going to give you the same type of experience that a varied GA or military background will. There's a basic experience and ability level that you really ought to have in order to fly 121 that the vast majority of people simply can't get in 250hrs of training. A 1500hr requirement may not have definitely prevented Colgan's accident, but if the captain had spent more time doing the type of flying that a lot of people consider "irrelevant" to airline flying, it might have made all the difference.
Click to expand...


You just completely made that entire thing up and you know it :).
 
zmiller4 said:
While none of the incidents you posted had sub-1500 hour pilots in the cockpit, several of them (including Colgan) had folks who were *hired* with way below the minimums.

There's no doubt that flying for an airline builds experience tremendously....but it's not necessarily going to give you the same type of experience that a varied GA or military background will. There's a basic experience and ability level that you really ought to have in order to fly 121 that the vast majority of people simply can't get in 250hrs of training. A 1500hr requirement may not have definitely prevented Colgan's accident, but if the captain had spent more time doing the type of flying that a lot of people consider "irrelevant" to airline flying, it might have made all the difference.
Click to expand...

It surprises me it took 5 pages for somebody to actually come out and say this.

If you're an instructor, you know about the building block method of learning. If your foundation is faulty, then everything you build on it is worthless. The ability to fly a perfect ILS while following the flight director takes about 2 sim sessions to develop if you're a slow learner.

Perfecting stalls? Steep turns? Landings? Visual approaches? All the stuff you learn as a flight instructor? THAT STUFF IS IMPORTANT AND YOU CAN'T JUST SKIP IT! You don't really know anything about any of that stuff after you pass your commercial ride, and sitting in the right seat of a jet doesn't continue to expose you to the edges of the flight envelope.

Solid stick and rudder skills are developed while flight instructing, as is decision making, crew coordination, and a host of other things. You develop and solidify those things in the first 1,500 hours, and then once you get to the airlines you can start worrying about the other things that you will build on your foundation.

But without that foundation, you're asking for trouble. THAT is why you want 1,500 hours. If you think you can get it in 250 hours, you probably have 250 hours or less and have never done any primary flight instruction.
 
jtrain609 said:
...sitting in the right seat of a jet doesn't continue to expose you to the edges of the flight envelope.
Click to expand...

I'd add a caveat to that...it *very rarely* exposes you to the edges of the flight envelope. There are times in 121 flying when you can do everything right and still get into situations where your background of stick and rudder flying can either save you and your passengers (reference Sully) or kill everyone.
 
zmiller4 said:
I'd add a caveat to that...it *very rarely* exposes you to the edges of the flight envelope. There are times in 121 flying when you can do everything right and still get into situations where your background of stick and rudder flying can either save you and your passengers (reference Sully) or kill everyone.
Click to expand...

True enough. I only had one night like that in the jet.
 
It's a good debate but this rule even if it does pass won't affect any of us right now. Demand for pilots is way down, you won't see airline mins below 1500 for a very long time, assuming they actually start hiring next year! Most if not all airlines will only be hiring for attrition the next couple of years, plus with all the backlog of qualified pilots that have 1500 anyways. Even if you have 10 hours right now, you'll have 1500 way before any significant movement in the industry or by the time 1500 rule does go into effect.
 
It's been my experience that the "fast track" schools have pretty much a similar method for training. Now, I've done some instructing in a "get your rating quick" cirriculum, and, frankly, it scared me. Not sure about ATP and the others, but I'd wager they follow a similar pattern: train the student to the point you can check the boxes for the rating, then spend a few flights essentially doing a gouged checkride from the examiner he's gonna be flying with. Rinse, repeat. That's not training someone to be a pilot, that's training them to pass a checkride.
 
Socal321 said:
It's a good debate but this rule even if it does pass won't affect any of us right now. Demand for pilots is way down, you won't see airline mins below 1500 for a very long time, assuming they actually start hiring next year! Most if not all airlines will only be hiring for attrition the next couple of years, plus with all the backlog of qualified pilots that have 1500 anyways. Even if you have 10 hours right now, you'll have 1500 way before any significant movement in the industry or by the time 1500 rule does go into effect.
Click to expand...

Good. There's not a thing wrong with that. There will be some more basic flying experience in the new-hires.

You're right on the mark about pilot mills kellwolf. A wet 250 commercial of training composed of nothing but training to pass a specific checkride makes said pilot about 10% useful to me in the cockpit in a difficult/emergency/trying situation. I can cover that 10% on my own if I run the checklist and talk on the radio myself too.
 
gtpilot said:
Here's my problem with the arguments presented so far - where is the empirical data showing that a change to 1500 hours for FOs would increase safety. How many recent airline crashes involved FOs with less than 1500 hours? Colgan Air Flight 3407 did not and it is the impetus for the 1500 hour proposal.

Other accidents during the last 10 years in the US that the 1500 hour rule would not have prevented:
Continental Airlines Flight 1404
Delta Connection (Shuttle America) Flight 6448
Comair Flight 191
Southwest Airlines Flight 1248
American Eagle Flight 5401
American Airlines Flight 587
Southwest Airlines Flight 1455
American Airlines Flight 1420

Accidents in the last 10 years in the US that the 1500 hour rule might have prevented:
Air Midwest Flight 5481
Click to expand...

Air Midwest 5481 had nothing to do with the pilots. The elevator was not property rigged. It's kind of hard to fly an airplane when you have no elevator input.:cool: Get your facts straight before you post.
 
Socal321 said:
Air Midwest 5481 had nothing to do with the pilots. The elevator was not property rigged. It's kind of hard to fly an airplane when you have no elevator input.:cool: Get your facts straight before you post.
Click to expand...

I misread the NTSB report regarding the weight and balance portion. Besides, if pilot error had nothing to do with that accident, it only helps my argument - that means there were no part 121 accidents in the last decade that the 1500 hour rule would have averted. I was just trying to be fair! :p
 
This thread makes me glad I fly alone. Lets compromise. You can fly with me at 250 hours, but you aren't allowed to touch anything until 2k or so. Deal?
 
Boris Badenov said:
This thread makes me glad I fly alone. Lets compromise. You can fly with me at 250 hours, but you aren't allowed to touch anything until 2k or so. Deal?
Click to expand...

That's the perfect way to ensure that the 250 hour wonder is as good at 2000 as he is at 250...

They might as well pencil-whip the book...
 
cencal83406 said:
That's the perfect way to ensure that the 250 hour wonder is as good at 2000 as he is at 250...

They might as well pencil-whip the book...
Click to expand...
Much better if he lights matches in front of the FO's face while they are shooting a partial panel approach to minimums...after flying through a thunderstorm. That's how Ernie Gann trained...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top