House, Senate pass 1500 rule, Rest rules, and more

jhugz said:
You just don't get it. You don't have your CFI and don't understand how much you learn in those 1000+ hours of dual given. It amazes me looking back at the type of pilot I was when I started CFI'ing and the quality of those previous hours.
Click to expand...
You know, the Mormons make the same argument regarding young men who go off to be missionaries for their church, how much more mature they all are when they come back. Nevermind that most people go through the same maturation in those same first few years of adulthood, missionary or not. It happens whether you're in college, or the Army, or in the workforce, or on a church mission. It still happens, regardless of which path you take. Same goes for flying.

But just like a white person will never know what it's like to be black, you'll never know whether it was CFIing that made the difference or not; you only know the path you took. Because you're a CFI, you don't understand how much I learned in those 1000+ hours of non-CFIing--yet, arrogantly, you think you do.

In psychology, that's called egocentrism.
 
aloft said:
You know, the Mormons make the same argument regarding young men who go off to be missionaries for their church, how much more mature they all are when they come back. Nevermind that most people go through the same maturation in those same first few years of adulthood, missionary or not. It happens whether you're in college, or the Army, or in the workforce, or on a church mission. It still happens, regardless of which path you take. Same goes for flying.

But just like a white person will never know what it's like to be black, you'll never know whether it was CFIing that made the difference or not; you only know the path you took. Because you're a CFI, you don't understand how much I learned in those 1000+ hours of non-CFIing--yet, arrogantly, you think you do.

In psychology, that's called egocentrism.
Click to expand...

It seems very odd that you are comparing religion and race to pilot experience and career paths. Why anybody would go down that road is beyond me, unless they were intentionally trying to start some kind of flame war....

Anyway, Jhugz was merely responding to your own comments about CFI experience levels. You went down that road first, so deal with it and quit whining.
 
This is my take. The 1500 hour although unnecessary may be a good thing. I believe having been in 121 land, that the problem lies in the training/PC time. They expect you to go there, pass the little profile with no failures. I think there should be more emphasis in giving you out of the norm events in the sim after the PC, i.e. show you a severe stab stall, upset maneuvers or whatever event you'd like to see, things that are really outside the box.

For you CFI stall loving individuals, by the way I have all 3 and I've learned a lot so I know they are very valuable, but stalling in a 172 is not going to prepare you more than the other guy. I propose something better, I think everyone should have 200 hours of hard core aerobatics, now you really have a great understanding of being outside the normal envelope and can react to it. Give me any 2000+ hour CFI and I can put him in a situation that he will not have clue how to recover.

It all boils down to training and knowing as an individual what your weakness are and working towards improving, regardless of what road you took.

By the way I flew with Marvin and he was a great/safe pilot, never had a single concern regarding his abilities. After watching the video recreation, my best guess is that basically they were both really tired, distracted with the ice on the wings and basically weren't in their game, and messed up terribly. Best thing to take from that crash is that it could happen to you too, so don't be overconfident, regardless of how many hours you have under your belt.

I read a study somewhere that compares fatigue to alcohol and basically they are both about the same with regards to human performance.
 
aloft said:
The reason 3407 crashed was obviously an improper response to an unexpected wing stall.
Click to expand...

Oh really? So I guess the FDR and NTSB report are in error? Little did I know that the best method to recover from a tail stall was to pitch up 30 degrees and hold it there all the way down to the ground.

The reason they suffered a wing stall was a fatigued crew missing the fact that they'd forgotten to put the power back in after the autopilot leveled off from a descent. But that's not the complete story.
Click to expand...
No, that's not the complete story. There's a long list of poor decisions that occurred that night.

For a Q400 captain in the middle of icing conditions serious enough for his FO to comment on them, I suspect he had mentally prepared himself for a tailplane-icing-induced tail stall, not a wing stall. And as I'm sure all you CFIs taught a number of times approaching zero, what's the correct action for a tailplane stall? Hint: it sure isn't "push the yoke forward to unload the wing".
Click to expand...
Another hint: Tail plane stall recovery doesn't involve pitching up to 30 degrees and holding it there. IF, as you suggest, the CA was so concerned about their icing discussion that he was in full "GO" mode for tail place icing, one would assume a briefing would take place AND the autopilot would be clicked off. That's pretty much standard practice if one is expecting some unusual icing.

As far as "unloading the wing" for a recovery, NOBODY here has suggested that method for recovering from a tail stall, so why are you suggesting anybody here has?

Unlike wing stalls and their tell-tale signs, you get no advance warning of a tailplane stall.
Click to expand...
Actually, that's not true at all. If one is hand flying, there are several tell tale signs that tail stall icing is occurring. One of the biggest indicators is that trim settings will change and elevator control feels unusually sensitive.

What you get is, well, I'll leave that for the all-knowing CFIs here to answer. Suffice to say, the dude was prepared for a departure of a different, far-more-likely nature, so I find it difficult to take him to task for misinterpreting what was actually happening.
Click to expand...
You keep mentioning that the CA was prepared for a tail stall, yet he never makes any indication whatsoever via his briefing or actions that this was the case. Please share with us what we all seem to have missed.

Bottom line, I think it's time everybody stopped flogging a couple of pilots who aren't around any longer to defend themselves. It's in poor taste.
Click to expand...
?? Nobody is personally attacking these pilots on this thread. Their actions (or lack thereof) have been called into question, but that's fair game when you screw up.

Since you don't seem to have a very good understanding of tailplane stalls, I would suggest you watch this excellent NASA video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ifKduc1hE8
 
aloft said:
You know, the Mormons make the same argument regarding young men who go off to be missionaries for their church, how much more mature they all are when they come back. Nevermind that most people go through the same maturation in those same first few years of adulthood, missionary or not. It happens whether you're in college, or the Army, or in the workforce, or on a church mission. It still happens, regardless of which path you take. Same goes for flying.

But just like a white person will never know what it's like to be black, you'll never know whether it was CFIing that made the difference or not; you only know the path you took. Because you're a CFI, you don't understand how much I learned in those 1000+ hours of non-CFIing--yet, arrogantly, you think you do.

In psychology, that's called egocentrism.
Click to expand...


Maturing or not, I have noticed it is very easy to pick those out who taught for a while vs those who did not.

Just saying, normally there is a difference, and that's not a good thing usually.
 
BobDDuck said:
Have you ever taken a 121 checkride, especially in a sim? It's one of the most straight forward, easy to game rides you will ever take. As was said before, it costs the airlines more to wash you out than keep you around.
Click to expand...

Maybe there but something like half the recent new hire class was fired here.
 
Wow thats allot of nonsense from a forum.

First off this whole bill is an overreaction to incidents unrelated strictly to F/O time but is more a question of 1. Regional Pilot Training and 2. Fatigue.

1. Simply reasoned which is indisputable, if all F/O's were not competent because of their low hours then why is the accident rate at only 7 or so in the past 10 years? That is allot of flights made and completed safely without incident. Not to mention the flights with emergencies that were landed professionally and safely.
2. European pilots are hired with 250 hours to fly A320's and the like and have an exemplary safety record. Hence my reasoning that their improved fatigue rules have improved safety of the pilot and consequently the passenger.

I will not comment or respond to those who say that stalls are not done during your Private, Instrument or Commercial etc, this is just nonsense and is not forgotten EVER.

To those who helped push through this legislation I'm sorry for your loss but you are misguided and are only seeking revenge and closure but not to provide a real solution which I already stated above.
Simply put there have been Airline accidents before relating to changes in FAA rules but never something as over reactionary as this.

To all of those who had the dream of flying professionally, I'm sorry but that dream has now just gotten allot farther from us.
 
Easton14 said:
So I'm still trying to understand the language of the whole bill....the 36 months once the act is signed thing-> does this mean the possibility of pilots with less than 1,500 getting hired still exists for the next 3-3.5 yrs?

And then the 1,500 and ATP requirement to be an airline pilot kicks in for all air carriers?
Click to expand...

I am wondering the same thing :confused: Can Colgan continue hiring pilots with less than 1,500 hours after the bill is signed into law or does the 36 months only apply to current 121 pilots?
 
When I got hired, it wasn't going to be with less than 1500 hours. Getting hired in the us with less than ATP mins is not the standard. The dream of flying is right where it should be, and it should be hard to get to a 121 gig.

I really wish people would stop complaining about not getting in with 700 hours. If you really want it, make it happen like generations of pilots before us did. One of my good family friends is a retired AA captain. He didn't get into a turbine powered bird untill he had 5000+.

Seriously, earn your ratings, instruct, fly freight, build your time and then get an airline job, just like the rest of us did. It sucks, but honestly, looking back I would not trade the experiences I gained before my airline gig for anything. Anyways, airline flying isn't fun, you don't get to sight see, or cruise around. It is slow, frustrating, and repetitive. Enjoy your time building, it's the last real "fun" flying you will prob. Do for a while
 
mporio101 said:
To all of those who had the dream of flying professionally, I'm sorry but that dream has now just gotten allot farther from us.
Click to expand...


Yes, farther, but still very doable. It is not the end of the road for everyone. If you look past the hour requirement of the bill, it is a big step in the right direction, and should be celebrated. Maybe one day you can joke with your captain, and rib them about only being hired with 700 hours. Let them know that if they need any help that you are there for them.:) As much as I think the hour requirement is a marketing gimmick to pacify the people that are now terrified of low hour pilots, we don't have much choice now.

Welcome to the boards by the way.
 
I guess I see both sides of the argument when it comes to 1500 hours. What I don't like is the loophole for 'academic credit'. I'm of the opinion that there is no substitute for experience, however, everytime time the government gets involved things usually go poorly. I feel small 'mom and pop' schools will really struggle if big schools can advertise a lesser time requirement.
 
d_mckerrow06 said:
I guess I see both sides of the argument when it comes to 1500 hours. What I don't like is the loophole for 'academic credit'. I'm of the opinion that there is no substitute for experience, however, everytime time the government gets involved things usually go poorly. I feel small 'mom and pop' schools will really struggle if big schools can advertise a lesser time requirement.
Click to expand...

It already exists in the form of part 61, and part 141. Get your ratings in less hours with part 141. In that case, less is more acceptable. If experience is everything, perhaps 141 lower hour requirements should be upped to match part 61.
 
To some who think it's the end of the world don't worry...one year and some change of instructing followed by one year of flying freight/charter gave me 2000 hours. Those two years were not miserable. In fact I enjoyed those two years very much and have fond memories, good times and made some friends.

I am more worried about the mandate for the FAA to come up with a new duty/time limit rule. Like some say, be careful what you wish for. That might have airlines scheduling crews 8 hours a day 5 days a week like the rest of the working world. If you don't live in base be afraid! Be very afraid!
 
tprops4me said:
It already exists in the form of part 61, and part 141. Get your ratings in less hours with part 141. In that case, less is more acceptable. If experience is everything, perhaps 141 lower hour requirements should be upped to match part 61.
Click to expand...


Yeah, thats just my opinion. The differences between 141 and 61 are a lot less significant than 250 hrs vs. 1500 hrs.
 
d_mckerrow06 said:
Yeah, thats just my opinion. The differences between 141 and 61 are a lot less significant than 250 hrs vs. 1500 hrs.
Click to expand...

No, I agree with you that there should not be a double standard when it comes to the hours needed. It should be 1500 for everyone period. I made the 61/141 comparison, because in that case the number of hours does not matter to get you to where you can fly for hire. 60 less hours are required to get the Comm. 60 hours of experience are huge at that stage of training. What is that? About 24% less hours?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top