FAA retools rules to keep pilots trained, refreshed

[C150J]

The guy with 4,000 hours who failed a few checkrides, and has average performance at work, or the guy with 1500 hours who has never failed an FAA ride and shows above average performance.

For a non entry-level position, I'd have to throw the 1,500 hour guy's application into the waste basket. I'd want someone who has been through at least 2-3 icing and thunderstorm seasons before considering them for a seat in a professional 121/135 cockpit. In this case, I would investigate why the 4,000 hour guy failed, but I most likely wouldn't hold it against him. Now, two likable 4,000 hour guys with similar recs and similar credentials? I'd have to make a decision somehow, and would possibly use the fails as a filter.

In addition, people are failing to acknowledge that someone's current performance can possibly mitigate past failures. Check airman letters, additional duties, and the like can all tilt the scales in favor of making a hiring decision. There are a good number of police officers with DUIs, bad credit, or other skeletons in their closets - does that make them all terrible cops? Not really. What matters is what they did after the fact. Sure, a pattern warrants investigation, but I don't think it should automatically disqualify.

 

[mtsu_av8er]

Because after a couple of beers and looking at a little bit of porn, 18 hours is kind of a waste of resources!

Were you in my hotel room last night?

 

[Firebird2XC]

And that is where my concern comes in. If there truly is a shortage, that gives airlines leverage in getting the FAA and Congress to make changes in their favor again. Maybe a bridge program like they have in Europe where pilots are hired at minimum wage until they reach the mins required to crew the ship which would be even worse, in my mind, than ATPers with SJS. people would literally be jumping right into a jet, bypassing the training environment entirely.

If some sort of bridge program like that were to develop, I'm sure there would be detractors fighting it every step of the way.

 

[derg]

Were you in my hotel room last night?

Dude, we've been through this. We're probably related and I know how you think!

 

[pullup]

Then again, Ambian, you might be my best friend:




I'd hate to 1) have crew mates that I'd have to, ahem, wake up to :blowkiss::love::tease: and 2) be an HR person.




I'm just sayin'....

I so have that. Ask my wife, she says it's so creepy.

 

[Number1atNumber2]

Good call. The more experience you have, the more checkrides taken, the greater the chance of a failure at some point. I also think that the notion that hours is synonymous with experience is not entirely true. Don't want to open that can of worms so I'll leave it at that.

I will say that I'd hate to see guys discouraged from getting their CFI due to the high failure rate. Checkride-discrimination (perceived or real) will tend to favor the rich kids who got their time from their parents, and never bothered to get their CFI/II/MEI.

The other thing I'd add to this is we also have to consider the checkairmen that have hard-ons for giving failures over minor things. Not all checkairmen are equal.

 

[BillPerryCFI]

For a non entry-level position, I'd have to throw the 1,500 hour guy's application into the waste basket. I'd want someone who has been through at least 2-3 icing and thunderstorm seasons before considering them for a seat in a professional 121/135 cockpit. In this case, I would investigate why the 4,000 hour guy failed, but I most likely wouldn't hold it against him. Now, two likable 4,000 hour guys with similar recs and similar credentials? I'd have to make a decision somehow, and would possibly use the fails as a filter.

I will agree to a point but this is also the problem with the industry...everyone learns from experience and experience is coincident to hours...not really true if you don't compare the level to which each of those pilots utilized his hours to make the experience worth while. At the point when someone has 10,000 hours, yeah it's pretty much assumed he's seen a lot. But in your example it just goes in the basket assuming they don't have any valid experience.

Lets say the guy with 1500 hours spent the majority of the last couple years and 1,000 or so hours teaching instrument and multi engine commercial students..flying a majority of it at night in/near/and around thunderstorms...has had multiple encounters with severe turbulence, mountain waves, and unforecast winds. Lets also assume the same guy has done a fair amount of flying in the midwest winters...icing, snow, sleet, rain...been through ice, had airplanes covered in it. How is that valid to just waste basket that resume based on hours alone?

I'll bite that the guy with 4,000 hours is assumed to have some of that just by virtue of him having 4,000 hours, but isn't that like assuming because someone is rich means he knows how to manage his money...not always the case.

 

[OldTownPilot]

4000 hours is not the same as 1 hour 4000 times. You have to look further than X number of hours to determine the overall experience level of a pilot.

 

[Matt13C]

If some sort of bridge program like that were to develop, I'm sure there would be detractors fighting it every step of the way.

Detractors yes, doesnt mean it wont/cant happen. Pay was slashed, benefits cut, flying outsourced...all had detractors but all happened regardless.

It is really the only logical step I can see if the FAA ups by a large number the min hours to fly 121.

As much as I disagree with the mentality, SJS folk keep flight schools in business. All you need to do is look at the current situation to see that. Flight schools are drying up, those still in business are raising their rates substantially making it even more cost prohibitive. Those of us trying to do training conservatively, paying as we go and maybe taking out small loans, are seeing that route become increasingly difficult. Throw in the age 65 rule which will soon start forcing pilots into retirement and a new FAA rule mandating 1500 hours to step foot into a cockpit and it is the perfect storm for a pilot shortage and a bridge program.

Sure, now that the airlines are not hiring people who are already there and have a seniority number scream raise the bar. Logic is there arent many jobs, it will dry up the pool of applicants and the airlines will be forced to pay more.

However, It will all come back when airlines NEED to hire. The number of CFI jobs will be a fraction of what it was, there are limited banner towing, traffic watch or jump pilot jobs and most freight companies require 1200-1500 tt to apply. Students wont be rushing back into the airport for lessons because costs even at an FBO will be so high keeping CFI jobs down, financing for ATP will be non-existent but that wont matter because schools like ATP wont be able to cater to the fast route crowd when they can no longer market the zero to hero in 90 days path.

 

[C150J]

I will agree to a point but this is also the problem with the industry...everyone learns from experience and experience is coincident to hours...not really true if you don't compare the level to which each of those pilots utilized his hours to make the experience worth while. At the point when someone has 10,000 hours, yeah it's pretty much assumed he's seen a lot. But in your example it just goes in the basket assuming they don't have any valid experience.

Lets say the guy with 1500 hours spent the majority of the last couple years and 1,000 or so hours teaching instrument and multi engine commercial students..flying a majority of it at night in/near/and around thunderstorms...has had multiple encounters with severe turbulence, mountain waves, and unforecast winds. Lets also assume the same guy has done a fair amount of flying in the midwest winters...icing, snow, sleet, rain...been through ice, had airplanes covered in it. How is that valid to just waste basket that resume based on hours alone?

I'll bite that the guy with 4,000 hours is assumed to have some of that just by virtue of him having 4,000 hours, but isn't that like assuming because someone is rich means he knows how to manage his money...not always the case.

I can totally see and agree with your points. However, unfortunately or not, the insurance companies measure SAFETY by hours for a very specific reason: there is a statistically significant correlation between pilot hours in the AIDS (FAA accident and incident database) and fatal crashes. There is a negligible correlation between checkride failures and accidents/incidents, per the FAA's study in 2006 of ~15,000 cases.

Interesting sidenote: from my work in our operation's safety program, I can definitively tell you that the majority of egregious errors are committed by guys with less than 2,000 hours.

Bottom line: I think you're very correct in your assertions, but I think there has to be a middle ground to appease the metrics. I'd agree with 2,500 versus 4,000 hours in your first example, but 1,500 statistically won't make the cut.

 

[jynxyjoe]

I keep on seeing this thread title and i've been wanting to do this a while and I can no longer help myself.

FAA retools rules to keep pilots trained, refreshed.
now make it an equation
FAA retools = rules to keep pilots trained, refreshed.
now divide out the "re"
FAA tools = rules to keep pilots trained, freshed
divide out tools
FAA = (rules to keep pilots trained, freshed)/tools
Logically the FAA rules are usually junk so lets remove them from the equation by making them variable named "r" and invert with a -1
FAA = (r-1tools/1)-1
now bring it back to the other side of the equation and if I haven't lost you...

FAA r-1tools

 

[Speed Pilot]

jynxyjoe.......have a beer and find a woman.

 

[ladder360]

If some sort of bridge program like that were to develop, I'm sure there would be detractors fighting it every step of the way.

Detractors yes, doesnt mean it wont/cant happen. Pay was slashed, benefits cut, flying outsourced...all had detractors but all happened regardless.

It is really the only logical step I can see if the FAA ups by a large number the min hours to fly 121.

As much as I disagree with the mentality, SJS folk keep flight schools in business. All you need to do is look at the current situation to see that. Flight schools are drying up, those still in business are raising their rates substantially making it even more cost prohibitive. Those of us trying to do training conservatively, paying as we go and maybe taking out small loans, are seeing that route become increasingly difficult. Throw in the age 65 rule which will soon start forcing pilots into retirement and a new FAA rule mandating 1500 hours to step foot into a cockpit and it is the perfect storm for a pilot shortage and a bridge program.

Sure, now that the airlines are not hiring people who are already there and have a seniority number scream raise the bar. Logic is there arent many jobs, it will dry up the pool of applicants and the airlines will be forced to pay more.

However, It will all come back when airlines NEED to hire. The number of CFI jobs will be a fraction of what it was, there are limited banner towing, traffic watch or jump pilot jobs and most freight companies require 1200-1500 tt to apply. Students wont be rushing back into the airport for lessons because costs even at an FBO will be so high keeping CFI jobs down, financing for ATP will be non-existent but that wont matter because schools like ATP wont be able to cater to the fast route crowd when they can no longer market the zero to hero in 90 days path.

The ship pilots tried this for similar reasons. Didn't turn out quite like they were planning...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31805052/ns/us_news-life

I keep on seeing this thread title and i've been wanting to do this a while and I can no longer help myself.

FAA retools rules to keep pilots trained, refreshed.
now make it an equation
FAA retools = rules to keep pilots trained, refreshed.
now divide out the "re"
FAA tools = rules to keep pilots trained, freshed
divide out tools
FAA = (rules to keep pilots trained, freshed)/tools
Logically the FAA rules are usually junk so lets remove them from the equation by making them variable named "r" and invert with a -1
FAA = (r-1tools/1)-1
now bring it back to the other side of the equation and if I haven't lost you...

FAA r-1tools

Nerd.

 

[jynxyjoe]

jynxyjoe.......have a beer and find a woman.

Have one. She left for work. If I start drinking now I won't get anything done.