What are those ""things?" THAT is what needs to be trained on. What I am saying is that the mere requirement of 1500 hours might not address those "things." Therefore the ATP is not the vehicle for what we are trying to accomplish.
FAA Releases NPRM for 121 Pilot Mins.
- Thread starter FlyGuy9k4
- Start date
What are those ""things?" THAT is what needs to be trained on. What I am saying is that the mere requirement of 1500 hours might not address those "things." Therefore the ATP is not the vehicle for what we are trying to accomplish.
Champcar
Well-Known Member
I doubt there is any correlation between "Foundation" and accident rates. Pilots from all walks of life have and will continue to buy the farm. This was just a easy one for the FAA and Congress to jump on and say "see we are doing something."
It goes both ways, in a sense.
Jtrain: Agree that starting out in the big leagues very soon, you start with a very small "SA bag-o-tricks" to be able to rely on when things don't go exactly by the book or how they should. Not that those guys (low-time/SJS) are necessarily unsafe, but for situations outside the norm, they're behind the power curve vis-a-vis relevent prior experience, from the get go. It's difficult to say that ALL are unsafe, but moreso could be said that the rest of them just haven't been put into the situation yet where this was needed, others have been. So the ones that haven't had an event have been building that necessary experience, using the pax in the back as basically test subjects......the pax having no idea.
Champcar: That foundation can't be truly defined due to the low number of events that occur, but the lack of experience is and aforementioned near-empty "SA bag" is still there. At the same time, there likely is merit to the FAA doing something now just to say they're doing something. Cynical, I know; but they're also the ones who have let things get to where they are now.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
121 training isn't "bad," it's simply not geared to weed out what you think it's designed to weed out.
Goldmember
Well-Known Member
Another cool thing I like about this thread is the idea that you should instruct, then get a VFR 135 gig, then IFR 135 gig, then 121 gig. Well, as I see, you just got 4 jobs, pretty tough to do in these times to even get one job. Where are all these magical jobs? And if I got one to build time the way you think I should, why would I ever go to an airline, I'll be in year 3 pay at the 135 and probably be content to stay there. Oh, this is the spot where people will say "then the airlines will have to raise pay to attract new talent..." ...yeah right.
Then that's a problem with 121 training. For the same reason, 1500 hours does not mean that this will weed people out.
A guy could have 10,000 hours in a Cessna 152 as a flight instructor and an ATP. Does this mean this guy has seen everything that you think a new 121 hire should have?
Without knowing the quality of the training or the quality of the hours, the 1500 ATP requirement is meaningless. All it does is weed out those SJS types who don't want to build (or buy) 1500 hours.
Trip7
Well-Known Member
Not many people got hired at 250. Most were hired in the 400-800hr range. And if they were hired at 250 they came from a University program or well known Flight Academy.
A few, but that is the exception not the norm. (From what I've heard from the ASA training dept). The main complaint most captains and check airmen have are visual approaches.
The learning curve definately becomes less steep as time goes on, but if you aren't still learning you're doing it wrong.
I can honestly say that after every 100 hour block I could look back and find things that I'd learned that made me a better pilot. Some things were stick and rudder related skills, some were systems knowledge, some were mechanical failure issues, some were weather related, some were interpersonal skills for cockpit coordination, some were IFR system knowledge related, some were ATC capability related, some were geographically driven issues, some were FAA regulation reated, some were aircraft performance related...and there were others too!
Goldmember
Well-Known Member
Getting rid of the "I want it now" SJSers would be very nice, I may have to change my stance on this rule!
I agree, it is attractive in that way.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
I just read 3.
Why in the world would a pilot need an "endorsement" if s/he completed an approved 121 training program? There is a record already. OR is the FAA pimping more Jet U courses, for $5,995?
I don't favor the endorsement. Reread why I support that.
I'm not going to restate my opinions, because I have done so, at length a few times already.
I'll summarize quickly:
Flying at an air carrier is not flying Part 91. It is not single pilot. The training required does not differentiate.
There is a difference between an academically accredited institution (read Purdue University) and a non-accredited "academy" (read JetU). There really shouldn't be an issue with this one.
Airline pilots should be well versed in the theory of Human Factors, CRM/TEM, High speed aero, Turbine theory, Advanced meteorology, and basic part 25 aircraft systems and performance. Not the teach the written crap (although that's the only way to measure that knowledge right now).
So, again, to clarify. I am AGAINST pilot mill "academies" that try to pass themselves off as an institution of higher learning. None of them have tenured professors, nor have done the research projects required. They may scan through a book real quick written by them, but an 8 hour or 1 week class on CRM is not the equivalent of learning it in an accredited academic institution.
And if the practical experience in a crew environment isn't clear why I feel it's important, I can't help that.
I think everyone is getting their panties in a wad under a proposed endorsement. The FAA is looking for opinions, and a variety of angles.
I submit that there needs to be separate training track for anyone who wants to work in a crew environment in 135/121 or 91k. There is a huge difference between a part 121 international heavy pilot and a guy who pops around in his single on the weekends. There is a huge spread on the spectrum, yet the training environment doesn't effectively cover both.
A big problem at the commuters, with certain pilots, is the lack of theoretical knowledge. This manifests itself in improper flap useage because they don't understand how swept wings work, not understanding the environmental factors shaping up over the course of a flight, not sure how bleed systems work (seriously I saw this first hand), among a litany of other things.
The thing was, they all flew fine stick and rudder. They just didn't understand the operating environment. I spent lots of time in recurrent ground school teaching basic theory.
I spent one 2 person ground school with two checkairmen, who I regard very highly, and we spent a few hours talking about basic turbine theory. Requested by them.
In my mind, that is all knowledge one should have prior to operating in the airline environment.
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
The same way they did back before airlines starting hiring guys with less than 2000 hours. There are some that were hired back in the 90s that will tell ya that 1500 is low time. Before the "boom" of 06-07, 1000 was pretty much the norm for hours. When things got tight it shot up well above that. And there are other jobs other than CFI out there. You just have to hunt for them rather than hope you stumble across one. For me, I really enjoyed teaching, but it's not for everyone.
Everyone also keep in mind there are OTHER boxes to check for the ATP. It's not a 1500TT and you're good. If all you do is fly circles in the pattern on a Saturday afternoon for 1500 hours, you're not gonna meet the OTHER requirements......
jhugz
Well-Known Member
I'm all about ways to increase pilot wages, which I feel shouldn't take a rule like this to do. This is not an ALPA/IBT bash-fest but why should it take a regulation like this to finally increase our pay to a reasonable level? Why do we still have 14+hr duty days? What are we paying for?
Now before I get slammed I know ALPA has done some amazing things for QoL and work rules but if they can't fix something as unsafe as longggg duty days in a reasonable amount of time I just have to wonder.
As for the 1500 rule I feel it will change nothing for safety. I've learned a lot over my past 500 hours of instruction. I have a much better instrument scan, my decision making process is much better, etc. However that all happened in about the first 200 hours. I learn something new everyday don't get me wrong but my personal progress has definitely plateaued for flight instruction.
This rule is a cheap fix and won't do much to improve airline safety. If you really want to improve safety in the airlines you need to increase sim sessions, increase IOE sessions, and in general the airlines need to invest more money in training new hires, recurrent, & upgrades instead of cutting corners.
Also these duty days need to be adjusted. I remember working a 14 hour duty day as an F/A and remembering how exhausted I was on the last leg. I couldn't even imagine the fatigue on the pilot sides of things.
Just my 2 cents.
Now before I get slammed I know ALPA has done some amazing things for QoL and work rules but if they can't fix something as unsafe as longggg duty days in a reasonable amount of time I just have to wonder.
As for the 1500 rule I feel it will change nothing for safety. I've learned a lot over my past 500 hours of instruction. I have a much better instrument scan, my decision making process is much better, etc. However that all happened in about the first 200 hours. I learn something new everyday don't get me wrong but my personal progress has definitely plateaued for flight instruction.
This rule is a cheap fix and won't do much to improve airline safety. If you really want to improve safety in the airlines you need to increase sim sessions, increase IOE sessions, and in general the airlines need to invest more money in training new hires, recurrent, & upgrades instead of cutting corners.
Also these duty days need to be adjusted. I remember working a 14 hour duty day as an F/A and remembering how exhausted I was on the last leg. I couldn't even imagine the fatigue on the pilot sides of things.
Just my 2 cents.
ahsmatt7
Well-Known Member
The "SJS" stuff is getting quite old IMO. EVERYONE who wants to go the 121 route had it when they first started out. Its funny to see how some of the people on here act like they came out of the womb with a 737 type and a logbook that has over 1000 hours in it. Its idiotic to even think that one never had SJS. What makes everyone want to fly for the airlines.....flying a jet. I have never heard anyone say they wanted to be a pilot so they could fly 135 IFR freight for the rest of their lives.
The demon that started this whole discussion is seniority. Whether we like it our not. We only add to the fire of low time guys trying to get hired. So did all the 121 pilots before us and before them and so on. Every pilot I have talked to in person has said the same thing. GET your ratings as fast as possible. You gotta get that number on the list. Once we realize that timing shouldn't matter than guys will be more inclined to go slower and get more experience along the way because they don't have to worry about being last on some list that says how they will live their life while at an airline. Like I said before, if everyone wants safety then they are going to have to sacrifice, I see nobody willing to do that. Its just the old timers and guys who got in quick and have a crap load of hours proposing all these regs on the younger guys.
You know what's funny though? After making it flying military, etc and everything I'm doing now......looking back, 135 IFR freight was more fun than I ever realized when I was actually doing it. I bet even some 121 guys that came from that route would agree. I'd love to still be doing that at least part time. Was its own brand of challenge, unique conditions, and freedom to do what you needed to do; that made it attractive.
Grass is always greener I suppose.
There are indeed alot of opposing views regarding what you mention, that need to find some form of common ground. Seniority now with no experience vs get experience and be lower on the list. Fight for higher wages vs working against lowball airlines that always have stacks of resumes waiting. "We're all in this together" turning into "I hope that airline fails...can't wait to see them fall". And likely a host of others. A good number of problems that need to be solved one way or another in order for some real progress to be made.
Because people who are looking to move up are just hoping to stumble onto a non-CFI job. Are you hunting for one of these right now?
True. But the threshold is not much higher than that. And from what it sounds like, most on this forum that are arguing for the 1500 hour rule are hoping to exclude those that just meet the current bare minimum:
§ 61.159 Aeronautical experience: Airplane category rating.
A person who is applying for an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane category and class rating must have at least 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot that includes at least:
(1) 500 hours of cross-country flight time.
(2) 100 hours of night flight time.
(3) 75 hours of instrument flight time, in actual or simulated instrument condition
(4) 250 hours of flight time in an airplane as a pilot in command, or as second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command, or any combination thereof, which includes at least—
(i) 100 hours of cross-country flight time; and
(ii) 25 hours of night flight time.
And good moral character.
Now now, i understand your emotions are starting to build up but you could be a bit more professional here. Regardless of someone's experience level they can STILL make simple mistakes. I am pretty sure the guy knows how to recover from a stall, unfortunately that night he didn't.
Take that American Airlines that ran off of the runway in Jamaica, i'm sure those guys probably have over 10,000 hrs each and you'd think they would've made a smarter choice and go for their alternate but they didn't.
ahsmatt7
Well-Known Member
I agree with you on the 135 side of things. I was once attracted to the type of flying it offers. However, I have never heard anyone tel me that's what they wanted to solely do as a pilot for their career. I have heard a myriad of other things but not 135 IFR freight. It seems like people treat it as a stepping stone....what the regionals used to be.
Of course, it's always been so. I was just musing on how funny it is to be able to "look back" now that I am where I am, and really be able to realize how good of flying it was, and how interesting and neat a gig it was.
TFaudree_ERAU
Mashin' dem buttons
Apples to oranges.
Case 1 is a lack of basic skills that may be needed at any point in time
Case 2 is poor decision making over a period of time