So about that 1500 hour rule...

Democrats have largely opposed changing the training rules, and they have joined the Biden administration in targeting what they call corporate malfeasance in the airline industry.
Click to expand...
Interesting
 
"The issue itself has been long-running and freighted with emotion, considering that the 1,500 rule requirement stems from changes Congress made to shore up gaps in aviation safety revealed by a 2009 regional jet crash outside of Buffalo, N.Y. —"
 
I think 1500 hrs is a good thing. But I don't think it bore any relationship to Colgan. Because it didn't. So that is always a silly argument/defense.
 
///AMG said:
I think 1500 hrs is a good thing. But I don't think it bore any relationship to Colgan. Because it didn't. So that is always a silly argument/defense.
Click to expand...

There was a basic lack of flying skills that contributed significantly to that incident that certainly may not have existed had the CA spent a little more time gaining experience prior to the airlines.

He had 625hrs total when he got hired at Colgan (and that includes a fair amount of right seat 1900 time at Gulfstream). I don’t think it’s silly to entertain the idea that an additional 900hrs of experience before moving to an automated environment would have made a difference.
 
zmiller4 said:
There was a basic lack of flying skills that contributed significantly to that incident that certainly may not have existed had the CA spent a little more time gaining experience prior to the airlines.

He had 625hrs total when he got hired at Colgan (and that includes a fair amount of right seat 1900 time at Gulfstream). I don’t think it’s silly to entertain the idea that an additional 900hrs of experience before moving to an automated environment would have made a difference.
Click to expand...
And how many did Conrad Aska have when he got hired? At any of his 7 different airlines. All post 2011.

Sometimes people aren't supposed to be pilots. No matter how many hours they have. And its hard for us to say that because we all want people to succeed in this business and experience what we get to experience.

I'm in favor of the law but I find it hard to correlate its affect on airline safety. When we look at the corporate side most of our accidents have very experienced crews on board. Yes, more experience makes one a better/safer pilot. I'm only saying that the law as and when it was written was a feel good, do nothing law. We're the only ones with it. And yet airlines around the world aren't crashing airplanes every month.
 
The only profession I can think of where the ACTUAL PROFESSIONALS argue AGAINST things that make one well qualified, experienced, and highly trained.

WHY would pilots WANT someone with less than 1500 hours flying an airliner?!
IMG_5910.jpeg
 
This is coming from Regional Airline Association and the growing list of communities losing air service (I work with several of them)
 
Wardogg said:
And how many did Conrad Aska have when he got hired? At any of his 7 different airlines. All post 2011.

Sometimes people aren't supposed to be pilots. No matter how many hours they have. And its hard for us to say that because we all want people to succeed in this business and experience what we get to experience.

I'm in favor of the law but I find it hard to correlate its affect on airline safety. When we look at the corporate side most of our accidents have very experienced crews on board. Yes, more experience makes one a better/safer pilot. I'm only saying that the law as and when it was written was a feel good, do nothing law. We're the only ones with it. And yet airlines around the world aren't crashing airplanes every month.
Click to expand...

I suppose there's not enough data to show that the rule improved safety, if you don't count the fact that there hasn't been a single fatal accident involving pilot error since.

I absolutely disagree with the assessment that it was a "do nothing" law. It forced regionals to start paying professionals professional money and improved the QOL for all of us. Because of these changes, regional pilots are less likely to show up to work fatigued, stressed, hungry, and distracted, and that's pretty much the IMSAFE checklist.
 
Murdoughnut said:
This is coming from Regional Airline Association and the growing list of communities losing air service (I work with several of them)
Click to expand...

That's what happens with privatization. Bumping profits by underpaying pilots is not how to solve that problem.

Edit: I meant deregulation, not privatization.
 
Last edited:
Y'know, when the ATP rule was passed, I was, like many low-time pilots, a bit chagrined by the whole thing. I mean, prior to that rule, lots of my peers were getting hired with low time, and passage of that bill didn't make me unsafe, did it? I understood the rule, even though I didn't like it. Felt a little unfair, and even moreso when I was teaching R-ATP qualified candidates but couldn't qualify myself.

There's a lot of you guys here who got hired at low time who now command large aircraft. None of you guys are dangerous.

I will admit though, through the lens of 20/20 hindsight, that had I gone to the right seat of a jet at <500 hours I would have struggled. The experience I gained doing other stuff - instructing, flying a turboprop, lots and lots of XC in my airplane - was incredibly valuable, and I've come around to thinking that an ATP should be the *minimum* mostly because I'm an average pilot and I suspect being somewhere in the middle, an ATP is at least a known-quantity benchmark to measure my skill.

I'm not sure about the collegiate carve-out; I've taught R-ATPs who were sharp, and some who were as average as me; I think it has more to do with the person than the credential. But whatever. That's the rule.

But. Yeah. That and three bucks will get you an americano....

(edited for clarity)
 
Fixtur said:
That's what happens with privatization. Bumping profits by underpaying pilots is not how to solve that problem.
Click to expand...

Airlines never underpaid pilots. Pilots accepted low paying jobs.

I get the point for sure, but I'm working with several markets right now to launch Part 135/380 scheduled charter service from airlines like Contour, Southern Airways Express, etc. who are paying first officers low wages and have no shortage of candidates. And these carriers are the only salvation for some of my client markets, who will never see Part 121 regional service return. It's essentially a work around a segment of the industry has found that works quite well. How much should we pay someone to sit right seat in a Caravan?
 
And I should say, while I'm on the subject, that Republic's (and others) "pilot shortage" is a result of poor retention. Some is to be expected (why stay at a regional when AA is knocking?), but there are plenty of people who would be happy to stick around at a regional if it were made worth their while. They might not be able to compete strictly on pay, but that only part of the calculus.

Seems like most regionals are doing everything they can to make pilots want to jump ship. So of course people are leaving at the first opportunity.
 
Murdoughnut said:
Airlines never underpaid pilots. Pilots accepted low paying jobs.

I get the point for sure, but I'm working with several markets right now to launch Part 135/380 scheduled charter service from airlines like Contour, Southern Airways Express, etc. who are paying first officers low wages and have no shortage of candidates. And these carriers are the only salvation for some of my client markets, who will never see Part 121 regional service return. It's essentially a work around a segment of the industry has found that works quite well. How much should we pay someone to sit right seat in a Caravan?
Click to expand...
Not as much as someone sitting right seat in an E170, for sure, but enough that they can live. More if you want them to stick around.

(Edit: Steps off soapbox.)
 
Wardogg said:
Sometimes people aren't supposed to be pilots. No matter how many hours they have. And its hard for us to say that because we all want people to succeed in this business and experience what we get to experience.
Click to expand...

I have no issue with this at all. I’d bet that every flight instructor has stories about students that just didn’t have what it takes to be a professional pilot, whether that resulted from some innate cognitive struggles or an inherent laziness making memorizing airspace untenable.

But setting a minimum requirement for airline pilots *is not* a “do nothing” law.

Requiring someone to obtain 1500hrs isn’t going to weed out all of the people unsuited to be professional pilots, but it will weed out a lot of them.

killbilly said:
Y'know, when the ATP rule was passed, I was, like many low-time pilots, a bit chagrined by the whole thing. I mean, prior to that rule, lots of my peers were getting hired with low time, and passage of that bill didn't make me unsafe, did it? I understood the rule, even though I didn't like it. Felt a little unfair, and even moreso when I was teaching R-ATP qualified candidates but couldn't qualify myself.

There's a lot of you guys here who got hired at low time who now command large aircraft. None of you guys are dangerous.

I will admit though, through the lens of 20/20 hindsight, that had I gone to the right seat of a jet at <500 hours I would have struggled. The experience I gained doing other stuff - instructing, flying a turboprop, lots and lots of XC in my airplane - was incredibly valuable, and I've come around to thinking that an ATP should be the *minimum* mostly because I'm an average pilot and I suspect being somewhere in the middle, an ATP is at least a known-quantity benchmark to measure my skill.

I'm not sure about the collegiate carve-out; I've taught R-ATPs who were sharp, and some who were as average as me; I think it has more to do with the person than the credential. But whatever. That's the rule.

But. Yeah. That and three bucks will get you an americano....

(edited for clarity)
Click to expand...

Extraordinarily well said.

When I got hired at my first airline I hat ATP mins minus maybe 60-100hrs of cross country time. With an ATP requirement, I would have instructed another few months and gotten the time—which then for me was multi and commercial training, and I’m not ashamed to admit that I learned something every hour I instructed at that point.
 
Fixtur said:
I suppose there's not enough data to show that the rule improved safety, if you don't count the fact that there hasn't been a single fatal accident involving pilot error since.
Click to expand...
Which, thankfully, is why I don't ever see it going away. But the government will government so who knows.

zmiller4 said:
Requiring someone to obtain 1500hrs isn’t going to weed out all of the people unsuited to be professional pilots, but it will weed out a lot of them.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with this. But it might also weed out someone that should be but doesn't have the means to complete. I always thought I could have been a NASCAR superstar, but my pocketbook had other plans. Doesn't mean I can't wheel.

I know, I know, pay your dues. Again, I am all for the law. I just don't think it correlates to the 121 safety culture the way it is made out to be. In my opinion, if there were 100 puzzle pieces that put together make us the safest airline operators in the world, it might work out to a quarter of 1 piece. But what do I know. I'm just a out of work airline pilot masquerading as a corporate pilot. ;) Excuse me, I have to go analyze this months C-FOQA data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top