CNN Video: Safety Rule Could Create Pilot Shortage

Dugie8 said:
So, where do you suggest people be forced to go to gain dual engine failure experience and water landing experience with no engnies, turbine disc failure and complete loss of hydraulic experience?

We can't argue on one hand that we want pilots with a light years worth of depth of experience but have no realistic way of gaining it. Folks like Hacker, Boris, UAL, etc are the exception, they were all born aviation gods with thousands of hours of turbine PIC (SPIFR TO BOOT!!!!!!) but for the rest of the mere mortals on the 3rd mudball from the large fusion generator, what's the plan? Only the above mentioned get the gold star and the rest get to beg at the table for scraps?
Click to expand...

Wow. I didn't realize that asking pilots to have a greater depth of experience than present 250/ comm was asking people to make "lunar landings" and have "no realistic way of gaining that (experience).". I guess my time spent in the military earning the money to fly, and then years of instructing and then 135-ing aren't real.

As I said before on the United thread, "It's MY (RJ) seat (that my parents bought for me), and I need it NOW!" ......Rolleyes...
 
P.S. let's keep the pilot market flooded with dirt cheap labor. You know there is a pilot shortage and all, don't want management to have to come up with a......plan!!!
 
I don't think anyone disagrees that 250 is not enough experience. I didn't apply for jobs at 250 hours even though back then I could have, why? I didn't feel like I was ready for that kind of responsibility, and I didn't like what the companies that were hiring at that level had to offer anyway.

It's tough for me, and I'd gather for anyone, to argue against this rule because I do agree that experience is necessary, nobody disagrees that experience is necessary, what I have a problem with is that, as written, this rule has very little to do with experience and everything to do with hours when hours had very little to do with the accident in question, and I don't even think that experience had much to do with the accident, except that the captain had low time in type. I think that he probably could have done 1500 more hours of only stalls and this accident still would have happened.

If we got anything good out of it it was a look at the rest rules... although there are other elephants still in the room unfortunately.

I use humor to deal with it, hence my previous posts, unfortunately it looks like it's not going to be rewritten to be meaningful, so it's the game I'll have to play, and play it I will, I'll try to make the most of it.
 
trafficinsight said:
I don't think anyone disagrees that 250 is not enough experience. I didn't apply for jobs at 250 hours even though back then I could have, why? I didn't feel like I was ready for that kind of responsibility, and I didn't like what the companies that were hiring at that level had to offer anyway.

It's tough for me, and I'd gather for anyone, to argue against this rule because I do agree that experience is necessary, nobody disagrees that experience is necessary, what I have a problem with is that, as written, this rule has very little to do with experience and everything to do with hours when hours had very little to do with the accident in question, and I don't even think that experience had much to do with the accident, except that the captain had low time in type. I think that he probably could have done 1500 more hours of only stalls and this accident still would have happened.

If we got anything good out of it it was a look at the rest rules... although there are other elephants still in the room unfortunately.

I use humor to deal with it, hence my previous posts, unfortunately it looks like it's not going to be rewritten to be meaningful, so it's the game I'll have to play, and play it I will, I'll try to make the most of it.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
Come on guys, freight is great! One time, I flew a Chieftain, inverted, through a thunderstorm with severe turbulence, severe icing, and severe awesomeness while Boris was puking his guts out next to me. Then I was running a little low on fuel, so I did some air to air refueling with a company Metro and then landed in a tornado. The winds were so strong that I landed BACKWARDS!!!

And THEN things got interesting...
 
jtrain609 said:
Come on guys, freight is great! One time, I flew a Chieftain, inverted, through a thunderstorm with severe turbulence, severe icing, and severe awesomeness while Boris was puking his guts out next to me. Then I was running a little low on fuel, so I did some air to air refueling with a company Metro and then landed in a tornado. The winds were so strong that I landed BACKWARDS!!!

And THEN things got interesting...
Click to expand...

*sigh*

You know train, you don't need to exaggerate. Im doubting the inverted part of the story here.

Seriously.

:)
 
MikeD said:
*sigh*

You know train, you don't need to exaggerate. Im doubting the inverted part of the story here.

Seriously.

:)
Click to expand...

You know what? You're right, I need to come clean.

We were actually traveling back in time to hang with Socrates, it's just that in order to get the Chieftain to travel through time we had to fly backwards through a tornado, and I thought if I told you guys that we did it inverted, maybe somebody would believe me.
 
jtrain609 said:
You know what? You're right, I need to come clean.

We were actually traveling back in time to hang with Socrates, it's just that in order to get the Chieftain to travel through time we had to fly backwards through a tornado, and I thought if I told you guys that we did it inverted, maybe somebody would believe me.
Click to expand...

See, that I can believe. Even the rest of the above is completely plausible. But doing all that while inverted too? Now that's starting to stretch the limits of believability.

:)
 
It's all a lie. There is no way anyone as accomplished as Boris would have ever had anyone other than himself in the airplane.

All lies...
 
block30 said:
Wow. I didn't realize that asking pilots to have a greater depth of experience than present 250/ comm was asking people to make "lunar landings" and have "no realistic way of gaining that (experience).". I guess my time spent in the military earning the money to fly, and then years of instructing and then 135-ing aren't real.
Click to expand...

It's realistic for some, but not for all. Everyone can't go into the military. Everyone can't be a part 135 pilot. Expecting everyone to have the same experience as you is unreasonable. There are many paths to an airline cockpit, and claiming that only yours is the "correct" way is elitist and unreasonable.

As I said, flight instructing is going to continue being the predominant way for new pilots to gain experience, even with the new 1,500 hour rule. In that environment, expecting people to get icing experience or a lot of actual time just isn't realistic, and it seems from your post that that's what you expect before someone can be an airline pilot. You're just not being reasonable in your expectations.
 
I'll have the 1,000 at an air carrier to be a Captain before I'll have my 1500 to be an SIC...I must be dangerous.
 
block30 said:
Wow. I didn't realize that asking pilots to have a greater depth of experience than present 250/ comm was asking people to make "lunar landings" and have "no realistic way of gaining that (experience).". I guess my time spent in the military earning the money to fly, and then years of instructing and then 135-ing aren't real.

As I said before on the United thread, "It's MY (RJ) seat (that my parents bought for me), and I need it NOW!" ......Rolleyes...
Click to expand...

R J Defense neeeeeeeet! 877 jets NOOOOOOOOOW!
 
Adler said:
I'll have the 1,000 at an air carrier to be a Captain before I'll have my 1500 to be an SIC...I must be dangerous.
Click to expand...
For me, 1000 air carrier will happen about 150-200 hours after 1500. (This assumes there isn't a major flush where I work.) I don't think I'm dangerous, but I do KNOW I have more to learn.

ATN_Pilot is right in pointing out that expecting everyone to have the same experience is patently unreasonable. In fact, I think everyone having the same experience would make this business far less interesting.

Having rather inadvertently found myself in icing conditions, in an airplane not fitted for it, I did learn a lot from the experience (namely, not to repeat it). Even in the airplane I fly now, nature can create conditions beyond the capability of the hot wings/tail/nacelles to keep the ice off...the moral of the story is "don't loiter". I'm not sure precisely how to safely and legally go out deliberately in "difficult flight conditions" in anything other than a FIKI airplane, and not a lot of folks have access to that.
 
In my experience, ice in a jet just isn't the same kind of problem that it is in a turboprop or recip. Yes, I've run in to ice the jet couldn't keep up with (esp. the rather hinky and cobbled-together Beatchjet tail deice system), but with jet performance you almost have to be TRYING to stay in it. But we're not just about jets, we're talking about airliners. There are plenty of 1900s out there running around for whom ice is a real, present, and persistant threat. And I really don't think we want to go down the road of suggesting that jet pilots don't "need" turboprop skills...
 
Boris Badenov said:
In my experience, ice in a jet just isn't the same kind of problem that it is in a turboprop or recip. Yes, I've run in to ice the jet couldn't keep up with (esp. the rather hinky and cobbled-together Beatchjet tail deice system), but with jet performance you almost have to be TRYING to stay in it. But we're not just about jets, we're talking about airliners. There are plenty of 1900s out there running around for whom ice is a real, present, and persistant threat. And I really don't think we want to go down the road of suggesting that jet pilots don't "need" turboprop skills...
Click to expand...
Wasn't about to, either—in fact, I'll probably wind up flying a turboprop airliner before it's all said and done, something I eagerly look forward to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top