Article: FAA won't back 1500 hour requirement

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...

Crash stats only go so far- it completely forgets all of the 'almost' events that never made the news because an on-the-ball captain intervened.

Some of the things I've heard on the line about low-time new hires.

One guy couldn't handle a 20 knot crosswind 30 degrees off the nose... in a 40000+ lb jet.

One guy never wanted to fly- he just wanted to do the radios. He was AFRAID of the jet.

One gal nearly put the airplane in the water outside of Boston (or New York.. I forget..)

One CHECK AIRMAN said he really wondered how some guys were making it through IOE- he said he earmarked a few records to get a second look. He told me about one character that, "If something had happened to me, we all would have died. The First Officer couldn't land the airplane without help."

A good one, overheard in the crewroom, from a check airman: "We're giving flying lessons out here."

My PERSONAL favorite- I got called in on a Reserve period to fly to CVG. I was supposed to deadhead back- we were taking the plane to another crew that had a mechanical.

When I got there, the outbound captain poked his head in and said, "leave your stuff on the flight deck.. if you're legal, you're flying back with me."

I was, so I did. He briefed me on the way back.

Apparently, his FO was an IOE student that had just had 60+ hours of IOE.. (It only requires 25.. if you need more than 30 you're an idiot...). He'd 'been through' several check airmen already.. and was belligerent, insubordinate, and excused all his mistakes with "I've never flown a jet before!" Best part? Couldn't master the part of "the nose is down, if you don't pull the power out, the plane will go faster... then overspeed."

The check airman had had enough. He benched him. I'm assuming the offending FO was fired. We had a pleasant flight back to my base, though.


Why are these instances relevant? This is just ONE carrier, with highly seasoned captains and a very aggressive, thorough training program. I've seen others- this is a good one. Imagine what might be happening elsewhere.

THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. There are two pilots in the flight deck of an airline aircraft for a REASON. These things should NEVER HAPPEN.

Yet, they do.

1500 hours is not a magic bullet, but it will separate a lot of wheat and chaff. It's a step, and a valid one.
 
Firebird2XC said:
THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. There are two pilots in the flight deck of an airline aircraft for a REASON. These things should NEVER HAPPEN.

Yet, they do.

1500 hours is not a magic bullet, but it will separate a lot of wheat and chaff. It's a step, and a valid one.
Click to expand...

I know we disagree on this, but the above examples should have been weeded out during the selection process. Drawing from my experience, I started with a class of 20, of which only 4 of us had >1500 hours and only 2 of us had any jet time at all. More than half didn't even have 500 hours yet. For each person in that class of 20, 3 were rejected during the interview process. One person did not make it through training and one person retook the check ride. In over a year of flying after training, I had yet to hear of any of the low timers having difficulties or unable to handle the airplane. I know this because I took the time to mentor some of these guys and followed up with captains that they flew with. I couldn't find anyone who complained!

Sure there are bad apples, but I can say with confidence that I would ride with any of my company's low time FOs and not worry about how they'll handle it when the *#x% hits the fan. Several of them post here on a regular basis too.

The focus should be on better training, better selection and appropriate fatigue management, not a random number!

BTW, during both of my type rating check rides, I bore witness to the red screen of death, not once, but twice. Both of those guys had over 2000 hours!!! Ok, I'm out of hot air, carry on!
 
gtpilot said:
BTW, during both of my type rating check rides, I bore witness to the red screen of death, not once, but twice. Both of those guys had over 2000 hours!!! Ok, I'm out of hot air, carry on!
Click to expand...

I'd just observe that if rocking the sim prevented accidents, there wouldn't be any. Flying is a lot more than memorizing flows and dealing with predetermined "emergencies" (how's that for a contradiction in terms?). I know at least one ex-freightdog who crashed the sim like a planespotter in FS2004 (he eventually pulled it together after realizing that flying a sim isn't flying an airplane) but is a better pilot with more real-world knowledge than any 3 Riddleaces put together. If passing the MCAT made you worthy of the Mayo Clinic, we wouldn't have a health care crisis, either. Pick any profession and ask yourself whether, all other things being equal, more experience doesn't equal more ability. It never ceases to amaze and amuse me that low time guys want to be treated like the second coming and refuse to tip their "lessers", but quaver at the notion of getting their hands dirty actually making decisions and flying in weather in those scary "little planes". If it's really so easy a caveman could do it, we all "deserve" to be paid like cavemen. You want to earn the respect of the curmudgeons? Get scared in an airplane, preferably a few times. It makes "aeronautical decision making" or whatever the vogue term of the week is, like all cliches when tested, grow teeth and get real big in your head.
 
gtpilot said:
I know we disagree on this, but the above examples should have been weeded out during the selection process. Drawing from my experience, I started with a class of 20, of which only 4 of us had >1500 hours and only 2 of us had any jet time at all. More than half didn't even have 500 hours yet. For each person in that class of 20, 3 were rejected during the interview process. One person did not make it through training and one person retook the check ride. In over a year of flying after training, I had yet to hear of any of the low timers having difficulties or unable to handle the airplane. I know this because I took the time to mentor some of these guys and followed up with captains that they flew with. I couldn't find anyone who complained!

Sure there are bad apples, but I can say with confidence that I would ride with any of my company's low time FOs and not worry about how they'll handle it when the *#x% hits the fan. Several of them post here on a regular basis too.

The focus should be on better training, better selection and appropriate fatigue management, not a random number!

BTW, during both of my type rating check rides, I bore witness to the red screen of death, not once, but twice. Both of those guys had over 2000 hours!!! Ok, I'm out of hot air, carry on!
Click to expand...

We disagree because you still don't get it.

The airlines don't care about stewardship, or standards, or a really effective 'weeding out' process.

They want what's fast and cheap.. and if they're short and cutting corners gets them there, they'll do it. What I stated above is just proof of that.

We need to raise the minimums to apply standards where the airlines repeatedly fail to do so.
 
Firebird2XC said:
Crash stats only go so far- it completely forgets all of the 'almost' events that never made the news because an on-the-ball captain intervened.

Some of the things I've heard on the line about low-time new hires.

One guy couldn't handle a 20 knot crosswind 30 degrees off the nose... in a 40000+ lb jet.

One guy never wanted to fly- he just wanted to do the radios. He was AFRAID of the jet.

One gal nearly put the airplane in the water outside of Boston (or New York.. I forget..)

One CHECK AIRMAN said he really wondered how some guys were making it through IOE- he said he earmarked a few records to get a second look. He told me about one character that, "If something had happened to me, we all would have died. The First Officer couldn't land the airplane without help."

A good one, overheard in the crewroom, from a check airman: "We're giving flying lessons out here."

My PERSONAL favorite- I got called in on a Reserve period to fly to CVG. I was supposed to deadhead back- we were taking the plane to another crew that had a mechanical.

When I got there, the outbound captain poked his head in and said, "leave your stuff on the flight deck.. if you're legal, you're flying back with me."

I was, so I did. He briefed me on the way back.

Apparently, his FO was an IOE student that had just had 60+ hours of IOE.. (It only requires 25.. if you need more than 30 you're an idiot...). He'd 'been through' several check airmen already.. and was belligerent, insubordinate, and excused all his mistakes with "I've never flown a jet before!" Best part? Couldn't master the part of "the nose is down, if you don't pull the power out, the plane will go faster... then overspeed."

The check airman had had enough. He benched him. I'm assuming the offending FO was fired. We had a pleasant flight back to my base, though.


Why are these instances relevant? This is just ONE carrier, with highly seasoned captains and a very aggressive, thorough training program. I've seen others- this is a good one. Imagine what might be happening elsewhere.

THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. There are two pilots in the flight deck of an airline aircraft for a REASON. These things should NEVER HAPPEN.

Yet, they do.

1500 hours is not a magic bullet, but it will separate a lot of wheat and chaff. It's a step, and a valid one.
Click to expand...
Very good post. Interesting read with those IOE stories. Scary to think what else has happened out here.
 
Firebird2XC said:
Apparently, his FO was an IOE student that had just had 60+ hours of IOE.. (It only requires 25.. if you need more than 30 you're an idiot...). He'd 'been through' several check airmen already.. and was belligerent, insubordinate, and excused all his mistakes with "I've never flown a jet before!" Best part? Couldn't master the part of "the nose is down, if you don't pull the power out, the plane will go faster... then overspeed."
Click to expand...

As an aside, not all carriers use 25 hours for IOE. Pinnacle does 25 for "normal" candidates, and 50 hours for sub-1000 hour candidates.

So, not *everyone* who goes over 30 hours is an idiot...
 
cencal83406 said:
As an aside, not all carriers use 25 hours for IOE. Pinnacle does 25 for "normal" candidates, and 50 hours for sub-1000 hour candidates.

So, not *everyone* who goes over 30 hours is an idiot...
Click to expand...


Good point and you are correct. Allow me to redefine my statement.

The required minimum to be signed off IOE at my carrier is 25 hours. Those that actually require in excess of that in order to be signed off are idiots.

If your carrier requires a greater number for IOE based on a predetermined criteria, that's different.

If you can't sufficiently handle an Embraer 145 after 25 hours, you're a moron. This airplane might as well have training wheels welded to the fuselage.
 
Doug Taylor said:
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.
Click to expand...

Doug, I appreciate you providing insightful remarks like this one while the rest of us (myself included) are busy trying to shove our own opinions down each other's throats!
 
In response to Doug's post.

The requirement to fly a Piper Lance under IFR 135 is because you would be the captain of that Piper Lance, or the PIC. In order to be PIC of that 777 you need to have much more hours than 135 IFR minimums. Well not much more I guess the minimum would be 1500 ATP, but I dont know anyone that is Captain on a 777 with 1500 hours.

Its rediculous to compare 121 SIC requirements to 135 PIC requirements. In order to be SIC under 135 you only need to have your Commercial Multi.
 
3enginejock said:
In order to be SIC under 135 you only need to have your Commercial Multi.
Click to expand...

To be SIC under 121 you only need your commercial Multi.


Until VERY recently this wasn't a big deal because nobody in their right mind would put a guy with only 250 hours in a jet airliner. However, when the airlines realized that they could get away with it, and they would not have to pay pilots what they were worth, they did exactly that. The only screening or standards were "Can this guy pass the SIC checkride?".

Who cares if the safety margin has been cut to the minimum, we can underbid the other guy.


I really wish the insurance companies would put heir foot down about this minimum. They do so in corporate flying, and their exposure is much greater on the airlines.
 
Not that I'm on the side of the corporate machine here but it appears that one big point has yet to be made in this discussion. Suggesting that the airlines hired 250 hour SJS nubiles as seat fillers to skirt some kind of cost issue is just plain wrong. They hired 250 hour SJS nubiles because they had no choice. At the peak of the last hiring craze there just were not enough unemployed qualified candidates on the street to fill all of those right seats. And last I knew, not a single US air carrier has a sliding scale pay rate that is dependant on the new hire's total flight experiance. 250 hours or 3000 hours the cost to the airlines for initial training, IOE and salary was the same regardless. And point in fact, far more expensive to hire low-time people because it obviously generated higher training costs due to higher fail rates. I think one would be hard pressed to find a single airline management or HR department that was happy about having to bring in the low timers that they had to hire just to stay operational. And the problem is when the economy and hiring all cycles back to growth mode the same problem will present itself again. The only way an airline will be able to avoid taking kids that never even flipped a burger for minimum wage before into the right seat will be to reduce capacity, as they have already done, and stay small once the economy recovers, which some of the airlines might actually do. Considering all of that, it is no surprise at all that the ALA and RLA lobbied heavily, and apparently successfully against the stricter minimums.

Will they be that smart? Doubtful. Considering all of that, it is no surprise at all that the ALA and RLA lobbied heavily, and apparently successfully against the stricter minimums.
 
USMCmech said:
To be SIC under 121 you only need your commercial Multi.


Until VERY recently this wasn't a big deal because nobody in their right mind would put a guy with only 250 hours in a jet airliner. However, when the airlines realized that they could get away with it, and they would not have to pay pilots what they were worth, they did exactly that. The only screening or standards were "Can this guy pass the SIC checkride?".

Who cares if the safety margin has been cut to the minimum, we can underbid the other guy.


I really wish the insurance companies would put heir foot down about this minimum. They do so in corporate flying, and their exposure is much greater on the airlines.
Click to expand...

Well frankly, I do not see why there needs to be any minimum hour requirement to be an SIC 121 or 135. There have been zero accidents at the 121 airline level that have been proven to be caused by low time SIC's. Why has there been so much hate toward them? My guess is because some people are upset that they needed to have 5000 hours and a shuttle landing just to land a job flying right seat in a turboprop and some young punks managed to land one at 250 hours during a small period of time in 2008.

Really, its not that big of an issue. There are MUCH more important things to be fighting for.

That rule will probably end up being taken out of the bill completly or toned down quite a bit before it passes. Airlines dont support it and the FAA doesnt support it. Unfortunatly, business runs America. The airlines deep pockets will prove to be more powerfull than all our yelling.
 
RightSeatGirl said:
At the peak of the last hiring craze there just were not enough unemployed qualified candidates willing to work for peanuts on the street to fill all of those right seats.
Click to expand...


Fixed it for you. There are plenty of experienced pilots, just not many willing to get treated like a dog for 25k/year.
 
3enginejock said:
Well frankly, I do not see why there needs to be any minimum hour requirement to be an SIC 121 or 135. There have been zero accidents at the 121 airline level that have been proven to be caused by low time SIC's. Why has there been so much hate toward them? My guess is because some people are upset that they needed to have 5000 hours and a shuttle landing just to land a job flying right seat in a turboprop and some young punks managed to land one at 250 hours during a small period of time in 2008.
Click to expand...
Short version:
Someone being paid to be in the right seat of a turbojet aircraft should be an asset to the team. That takes experience.
 
SteveC said:
Short version:
Someone being paid to be in the right seat of a turbojet aircraft should be an asset to the team. That takes experience.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

If I wanted to still be teaching basic flying and decision making, I'd still be an instructor. I'm all for mentoring FOs, showing them better ways to operate the aircraft, tricks of the trade, gotchas to watch out for on the paperwork and things that will generally make them a better CA when the time comes. It helps a little if they don't already think they know everything, too. However, I should NOT be teaching how to land airplanes in a cross wind, play "What's this mean?" on an approach chart and be teaching basic radio phraseology. As an aside, you XJ guys that sign off on frequencies with "SEE YAAAAAAAAAA!" and sound like you're in pain? I laugh at you. Not because you're funny, but because you're sad. Joe, if you do this, I laugh double at you. :)
 
kellwolf said:
As an aside, you XJ guys that sign off on frequencies with "SEE YAAAAAAAAAA!" and sound like you're in pain? I laugh at you. Not because you're funny, but because you're sad.
Click to expand...

I agree I think the see-ya thing is really weird.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top