SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
It was not.
Deal made on hours of training for co-pilots
- Thread starter CFIscare
- Start date
It was not.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Goldmember
Well-Known Member
On Paragraphs: I'm from Kentucky, we believe in serving in the Army, not grammar school ha ha 
Goldmember
Well-Known Member
On Captain: NOBODY is arguing you the guy had poor fundamentals. NOBODY is arguing pilots need EXPERIENCE. There is a difference between EXPERIENCE and HOUR ACCUMULATION.
Matt13C
Well-Known Member
I have no experience flying for Gulfstream, so I have no first hand knowledge of how their operation functions. I have read a few posts and stories regarding them and it seemed that the FO's were not treated as equals. That isnt my issue with them though. My issue is people paying for their job or even working for free under the label "internship" which some people seem to favor to build hours. All it does is allow management to abuse pilots and further decrease pay schedules.
TXaviator
Well-Known Member
problem is, not every guy with X hours, is the same quality of pilot.
how do we measure that?
But don't you see? Window dressing is required after every major accident, so the public will feel that something is being done, no matter how worthwhile or worthless it is.
CFIscare
Well-Known Member
Which makes flight instructing even better. You are forced to learn how to make decisions by yourself.
I'd argue that the overarching cause was that the captain wasn't watching his airspeed - if he doesn't let it get that low, he doesn't find himself in a stall. We could possibly chalk that up to poor fundamentals, but I'd tend to chalk that up to just being dead tired and having your attention wander when it shouldn't be wandering.
But unless there was another amendment to the bill since the last GovTrack version was put up (and I didn't hear of one), the only thing we're getting out of it in relation to a fatigue is a new study, plus fatigue risk management plans at the carriers. So while we're all focused about crew time and such, fatigue is, once again, being given lip service to. That's the real shame here.
With great difficulty - no easy answers to that question. But it would be the most effective solution. And of course the government wants to go for the easy road just to show that they are doing something. We shall see how wise of a choice that turns out to be when we get 300-hour guys hunting for icing because they need to build up that time.
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
The 1500 hour rule was never intended to be a fix all- it was just intended to curb the 250 hour/bridge agreement hiring concept.. to make it impossible, to deter the foolish and over eager from trying to go down that path.
It was designed to engineer an environment where due diligence to the fundamentals was required to ratchet up through the ranks. $100,000 and a pulse and a ticket is a bad idea. This was designed to make the 250+ wonder hire economically unfeasible. Spend a few hundred hours or so flight instructing, etc.
The Colgan 3407 survivor families didn't come up with this idea. They got wind of it after the Remember 3407 Project started a letter writing campaign to Congress. The American Eagle ALPA MEC got wind of it and ran with it.
The Remember 3407 Project started here. It was 2 JC members, among a small forum of others giving ideas. The 2 members hammered out a thought process and a bullet list of items they wanted addressed, with proposed solutions.
The 1500 hour rule was one of the big proposals.
I know this for certain, because I run the Remember 3407 Project.
As for American Eagle ALPA, yes, I'm a member, but no, I had nothing to do with that letter campaign. The leadership there got wind, and ran with it. I might note that many senior captains considered the concept a good idea- this was their call.
So yeah.. as far as the original source of the rule.. the buck stops here. It was my idea. Not entirely, but I'm the only one around to take the responsibility (be it credit or blame, or whatever.)
It was never intended to be a magic fix for the training problems. Just a little bump to make sure flight schools couldn't find it quite so easy to sell regional airline jobs to pilots freshly out of the chute.
As for the icing thing, that wasn't my idea, or even my suggestion.
The 'multi-crew' thing is a joke. It'll wind up being your CFI sitting in the left seat while you throw a gear handle from the right. Whoopee. I used to do that for kicks in a Duchess- my CFI would play FO and I'd play Captain- he'd critique me later. (This, as a regulatory thing, was not my idea.)
If you have any questions, I'll gladly field them here.
sixoneseven
Well-Known Member
Agreed.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
I don't see why this has to be a "joke".
CRM is a well researched area in academia. There are plenty of accredited colleges with courses based on the concepts developed from this research. Actually, it's so well developed that other fields, such as medicine, are looking to CRM/Human Factors researchers and developers to implement some of the concepts developed for aviation into their specialty.
The sad fact is, outside of a narrow sliver of training in the civilian world, there is really no defined knowledge course built on the decades of experience for students desiring to be professional pilots.
We are thin on theory. I'm not saying experience should be cut, but a true course of study on areas relevant to being professional pilots. If you add a well developed CRM skillset to the other skills pilots learn, you are providing pilots with a higher-level of functioning in a crew environment.
There is such a safety-net added when proper CRM is implemented that it would be a fallacy to omit proper training from a professional pilot's development track. Allowing it to be watered down to an "endorsement" or some 1 day schtick is just as bad as when CRM classes start, and pilots go to sleep.
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
Oh- don't get me wrong- I'm all for CRM! I just think the requirement will be tanked. It'll be exactly as you say. They'll get to watch a video about CRM, and then they'll do 2.5 hours 'dual received in a CRM-style environment'.
I just think it'll be handled poorly if it comes about. I'd be all about it if it were done correctly.
X-Forces
Big Black Guy
Exactly.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Absolutely 100% agreed. Didn't mean to insinuate otherwise.
JOEFRIDAY2
Well-Known Member
At the risk of putting reality into the mix here and offering another point of view. Here are the facts:
1. Gulfstream Airlines has never crashed a plane even with the PFT program in place for the past 14 years. No passengers have been injured. So one can not say this is a safety issue under any stretch of the imagination. A case might even be made that Gulfstream pilots have a better safety record than other pilots while they are actually working at Gulfstream.
2. Those "250 hour wonders" that were hired, by the regionals, have not crashed a regional passenger carrying jet aircraft that was actually carrying passengers. No passengers have been injured. Since it has now been a couple of years since those 250 hour wonders have been hired one would have to conclude that they are no longer 250 hour wonders. They are now most likely pilots with 1500+ hours and would qualify to be in the cockpit under the 1500 rule.
3. The Captain of the 3407 crash had 3379 hours. The First Officer had 2,200 hours. The number of hours obviously did not prevent this incident nor contribute to this accident.
I believe that fatique and workrules contributed more to the 3407 crash than the number of hours the pilots had flown. And that is where the changes must be made.
1. Gulfstream Airlines has never crashed a plane even with the PFT program in place for the past 14 years. No passengers have been injured. So one can not say this is a safety issue under any stretch of the imagination. A case might even be made that Gulfstream pilots have a better safety record than other pilots while they are actually working at Gulfstream.
2. Those "250 hour wonders" that were hired, by the regionals, have not crashed a regional passenger carrying jet aircraft that was actually carrying passengers. No passengers have been injured. Since it has now been a couple of years since those 250 hour wonders have been hired one would have to conclude that they are no longer 250 hour wonders. They are now most likely pilots with 1500+ hours and would qualify to be in the cockpit under the 1500 rule.
3. The Captain of the 3407 crash had 3379 hours. The First Officer had 2,200 hours. The number of hours obviously did not prevent this incident nor contribute to this accident.
I believe that fatique and workrules contributed more to the 3407 crash than the number of hours the pilots had flown. And that is where the changes must be made.
deadstick
Well-Known Member
We're use to window dressing. It makes us warm n fuzzy.
In DC, it's called the A-D-I-Z. IF the gov'ment was serious about defending the downtown area, no GA would get within 50nm of DC. They WOULD have swapped Andrews and DCA. No we need to put these measures in place and crucify anybody who violates them. Q: How long would it take a Lear in the pattern at HEF or GAI to reach downtown? A: Less time than it'll take the FAA to ID the threat, communicate with the Air Force, for the AF to launch the interceptors that are on the ground at AAFB, and for those fighters to locate, ID, and engage the threat.
Window dressing....:soapbox:
Exactly. Schumer is getting ready....
There was a question about how to screen candidates. They use the hours as a litmus test because it's cheap and almost effortless. They read a piece of paper and the resume goes into one of two piles. Sometimes they don't even have to lift the piece of paper (oh the agony!) and can just click the email. Too easy.
The answer to non-window dressing reactions is money. Whether it's returning the 24-hr CAP to DC or conducting extensive screening AND TRAINING, it just takes money.
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
Correct.
Pilots not hired with wet tickets with real options in the job market will be less likely to roll over and more likely to 'vote with their feet'.
Companies with less desireable work rules will be less a part of the operation as the "just suck it up for a few years and move on" will no longer be in the same form; it won't be a matter of growing the largest segment of professional aviation with continually lower standards.
"Companies get the unions that they deserve", therefore pilots without standards get companies without standards.
We have to have standards for ourselves first. It starts with us.
It always has.
wrxpilot
New Member
True. But hasn't a Gulfstream trained pilot been involved in every regional crash in recent memory? Off the top of my head, "4-1-0 it dude!", Comair at Lexington, and Colgan 3407.
Those "250 hour wonders" were also hired in with pretty experienced captains. Had the hiring frenzy continued, you would have had the inexperienced F/Os upgrading very quickly, only to be paired with another low time wonder. The blind leading to blind comes to mind, and I don't think it would've been very pretty.
No, but the background and experience of the captain may very well have. He had very little PIC time in any type of airplane, and it would seem that he was SEVERELY lacking in fundamentals when looking at his recovery techniques. Had he spent more time practicing hundreds of stalls and other maneuvers in the low speed regime with primary students, things may have turned out much differently.
No doubt that fatigue and work rules are extremely important to safety, and likely played a large role in this accident. But I really disagree with those that would say the captain's primary training was not an issue. Clearly something wasn't right, as demonstrated by his performance that night and his numerous checkride busts.
Exactly! The hiring spree was an aberration, therefore the rule was not needed. Send in a resume now to a regional with sub 1000 hours, and see how far you get.