So question about the 1,500 Hour Rule.

C

ClearedToTakeoff

Well-Known Member
First let me state a few things:

a) I have less than 1,500 hours
b) I am all for this bill with one change.

I agree with this bill. I have been instructing now for about 9 months, gaining around 800 dual. I'm right around 1,000 hours right now. And let me tell you, my basic flying skills are much better than they were when I got my first instructing job at 232 hours. I don't admit to knowing it all, or even a surface of it all, but I'm just stating in the 800 hours since getting my job, though I rarely touch the controls anymore, I've learned far more in this 800 hours than all of the training previously.

But here is my problem with this bill: Cross Country Time.

I'm all for needing 1,500 hours total time. But the issue I have is the current proposed bill requires an ATP license, which requires 500 hours of cross country time to a point (not a landing, just a straight line distance) more than 50nm away. As an instructor, I get about 3-6 hours of cross country time a month. So lets assume that the 232 hours I showed up to my job with I gained 200 hours XC PIC time (we know that's way wrong, but I don't feel like digging in my log book and this number is MORE than generous) So now I have 300 hours of XC PIC time to go, accumulating 3-6 hours a month this means 50-100 MONTHS of instructing. ie (4-8 years of instructing). So if I continue instructing at a company I enjoy working for and thrive at, I'll be about 4200-8400 hours Total Time (well above the 1,500 hour Total Time listed) before I meet my cross country time.

Now; your counter debates:

a) Get your 135 minimums and get a job flying bank checks. Sure but I'd argue I'm learning more instructing private and instrument pilots in the soup. Are you really learning more by flying the same routes night after night after night, talking to the same controllers that you soon ask how the wife and kids are?

b) Get a job instructing at a pilot mill and get XC much quicker. And not have fun at work? I enjoy working at this FBO I currently work at and the students that show up are much better than entitled pilots (such as my self lol) who are there to learn to fly for fun. The private pilots I teach are there only to be a private pilot, not to be an ATP pilot. So I have to teach them all I can now, because they might not be back to another instructor except for Flight Reviews. The Instrument pilots I'm teaching are individuals who recognize that the marine layer is real issue where we live and causes problems especially in the summer months. So they are learning to really fly in the soup incase they are stuck out somewhere on a Sunday afternoon needing to get home for work. They want to learn to fly in actual, not because it's a stepping stone to building more time towards a Commercial License.

c) Well back in the day, no one got their first air carrier job until they were 3-4k hours total time, so what makes you so special at 1,500 hours? Well I don't have an argument for this one, you're right. I don't know. But I'm also assuming the training and simulation we undergo now allows us to see and react to more scenarios now than our counterparts did back in the "old days".

So my recommendation: If you're going to pass this new legislation requiring an ATP to become a first officer at a 121 airline, I am all for it.... if you change the definition of cross country for the ATP Certificate to mirror that of the requirements for a 135 operation.
 
The point of 1500 hours is to largely avoid pilot-mill type First Officers. The cross-country time requirement isn't too difficult a thing.

I find it interesting that you support the bill in all facets with the exception of the one part you find personally inconvenient.

We've got a good many past and present freight dogs- I'd wager they have some input on the things you'll see flying freight.

I've been flying 121 for nearly three years now, and I can tell you this- no two flights are every exactly the same. There's always something, however, minor, that makes it unique. Sometimes it's those minor things that really need your attention.

Learning to distinguish them from the countless other things that you encounter is part of the maturing process for any aviator.
 
Firebird2XC said:
The point of 1500 hours is to largely avoid pilot-mill type First Officers. The cross-country time requirement isn't too difficult a thing.

I find it interesting that you support the bill in all facets with the exception of the one part you find personally inconvenient.

We've got a good many past and present freight dogs- I'd wager they have some input on the things you'll see flying freight.

I've been flying 121 for nearly three years now, and I can tell you this- no two flights are every exactly the same. There's always something, however, minor, that makes it unique. Sometimes it's those minor things that really need your attention.

Learning to distinguish them from the countless other things that you encounter is part of the maturing process for any aviator.
Click to expand...
Very true. Yes it is the most inconvenient aspect for me, but it's also a topic I've seen not discussed at all.

Why is it fine for a 135 first officer to be able to count the flight to the next door airport as cross country time and now gets to fly around some of the most powerful people in the world? What makes that definition of XC worse or better than the ATP version?
 
ClearedToTakeoff said:
Very true. Yes it is the most inconvenient aspect for me, but it's also a topic I've seen not discussed at all.

Why is it fine for a 135 first officer to be able to count the flight to the next door airport as cross country time and now gets to fly around some of the most powerful people in the world? What makes that definition of XC worse or better than the ATP version?
Click to expand...

An interesting point.

The current 1500 provisions don't really address the disparity between 121 and 135 operations at all- the point was to address the disparity between the 121 Captains and First Officers. An FO can rapidly find themselves as Captain by default, and should be prepared to act as such.
 
Firebird2XC said:
An interesting point.

The current 1500 provisions don't really address the disparity between 121 and 135 operations at all- the point was to address the disparity between the 121 Captains and First Officers. An FO can rapidly find themselves as Captain by default, and should be prepared to act as such.
Click to expand...
Which is my point, should this rule be passed, will we see a change in definitions?
 
ClearedToTakeoff said:
a) Get your 135 minimums and get a job flying bank checks. Sure but I'd argue I'm learning more instructing private and instrument pilots in the soup. Are you really learning more by flying the same routes night after night after night, talking to the same controllers that you soon ask how the wife and kids are?
Click to expand...


I've never instructed but have flown freight long enough not to be a freight puppy and I can argue I learn more flying freight then sitting in the pattern "talking to the same controllers that you soon ask how the wife and kids are"... ;)

Just saying, flying to different locations, in the wx at all hours and learning regs similar to what you will be using (I imagine, someone who has gone 135 to 121) in the 121 world would certainly be a good addition to your pilot experience.
 
In my opinion the 1500 hour rule is pointless. If anything I think cross country PIC time is more important then total time. And even 1500 is too much more like 500 is fine. Accidents can happen at any hour amount. The question is really the quality of training. I think the FAA should look into scenario based training. If a pilot wants to work for an airline the FAA should do what they are doing in europe where you have to pass like 14 exams to get your frozen ATP. Then throw them in a sim for 50 hours of scenario based training. Then only then can they fly for an airline. This sounds alot better then, "oh you need 1500 TT." again in my opinion. :)
 
scooter2525 said:
I've never instructed but have flown freight long enough not to be a freight puppy and I can argue I learn more flying freight then sitting in the pattern "talking to the same controllers that you soon ask how the wife and kids are"... ;)

Just saying, flying to different locations, in the wx at all hours and learning regs similar to what you will be using (I imagine, someone who has gone 135 to 121) in the 121 world would certainly be a good addition to your pilot experience.
Click to expand...
I only ask about the wife... not to the point yet of asking about the kids. :p

But yes, you do get some great real world experience. So not really discounting that... it's more, I love what I do currently and not really looking to change jobs just to get a certain time in my logbook to get me my first 121 job... so who's to discount the type of learning that occurs with instructing?
 
I have to agree with scooter on this one.

135 is the next step in learning. Once you get your 1200tt you can then fly in the soup and the next 300 will all be quality cross country that will get you to a solid 500 xc at the same time that you reach 1500 tt.

Being a cfi and flying a lot of overnight/similar routes (not freight, but very similar) I think that each has their own traits that you can take from and learn a lot about.

As Sully said in his book, "Every hour of experience is like making a deposit in the bank that you will sometime need to make a withdrawl from. You just hope that the bank account has enough experience to make the withdrawl when that day comes."
 
Not all 135 simply requires 1200TT. Only the freight operators. Passenger operators often require an ATP themselves.
 
jspeed87 said:
In my opinion the 1500 hour rule is pointless. If anything I think cross country PIC time is more important then total time. And even 1500 is too much more like 500 is fine. Accidents can happen at any hour amount. The question is really the quality of training. I think the FAA should look into scenario based training. If a pilot wants to work for an airline the FAA should do what they are doing in europe where you have to pass like 14 exams to get your frozen ATP. Then throw them in a sim for 50 hours of scenario based training. Then only then can they fly for an airline. This sounds alot better then, "oh you need 1500 TT." again in my opinion. :)
Click to expand...
How much do you know about the JAA exams? A good bit of them are garbage.

Also you can do 1,000 hours in the sim doing scenario based training and it will all mean nothing when the poop hits the fan. The sim is after all just a big video game.

They only way to fix the problem is eliminate the number one cause of pilot error, fatigue, and to set a base line of hours for both CA's and FO's.
 
dasleben said:
Not all 135 simply requires 1200TT. Only the freight operators. Passenger operators often require an ATP themselves.
Click to expand...

Specifically scheduled passenger operations operating multiengine equipment.

Then its required to have an ATP.

On Demand Cargo
1200TT for IFR plus some other requirements
500TT for VFR

On Demand Pax
1200TT for IFR plus some other requirements
500TT for VFR

Eligible On Demand Operator
ATP, and 2 pilot crews (135.4)

Scheduled Service (401 Certificate)
Single Engine: Commercial
Multi Engine: ATP (135.243a1)
 
ClearedToTakeoff said:
I agree with this bill. I have been instructing now for about 9 months, gaining around 800 dual. I'm right around 1,000 hours right now. And let me tell you, my basic flying skills are much better than they were when I got my first instructing job at 232 hours. I don't admit to knowing it all, or even a surface of it all, but I'm just stating in the 800 hours since getting my job, though I rarely touch the controls anymore, I've learned far more in this 800 hours than all of the training previously.

But here is my problem with this bill: Cross Country Time.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing with continuing to instruct: you may have learned a lot in your first 9 months of instructing, but I suspect you'll see diminishing returns going forward. I seriously doubt you'll learn as much in your 2nd 9 months as you did in your first, and even less in your 3rd 9 months, and so on. In other words, you've probably gotten nearly all you're going to get out of instructing at this point, or very soon thereafter.

Thing Two: despite the fact that you have students trying to kill you, the training environment is not particularly taxing on an instructor. Your job is to train your students, not push your own limits--and quite often, that's where your own growth takes place. In most instances, you are not pushed to get that XC flight done in marginal conditions, and are therefore probably not exposed to conditions/situations you wouldn't take a student into (which probably includes a sizeable buffer to your own personal minimums). In other words, the safety demands of the training environment minimize the demands on your skills/judgment, which limits the benefit to your own development as a pilot.

In this thread and elsewhere I always hear the CFIs and pilot-mill types say say self-serving things like "it's quality of training, not experience, that counts". Well, yes and no. Quality training is important, but it isn't AS important as developing sound aeronautical judgment. Problem is, you can't teach good judgment. As the old saying goes, "Good judgment comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgment".

At this stage of your career, seeking out opportunities to develop that judgment should be your top priority.
 
aloft said:
In this thread and elsewhere I always hear the CFIs and pilot-mill types say say self-serving things like "it's quality of training, not experience, that counts". Well, yes and no. Quality training is important, but it isn't AS important as developing sound aeronautical judgment. Problem is, you can't teach good judgment. As the old saying goes, "Good judgment comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgment".
Click to expand...

How do you get experience when there's no flying to be done? There are already relatively few vacant CFI positions, and aside from the rare few, most are not flying as much as they'd like to be.

There are currently 79,000 certified flight instructors, and over 91,000 commercial pilots in the United States. (I realize pleanty of the commercial pilots have non-CFI jobs, but on the same note, many of those 79,000 CFI's are not active)

There is a surplus of certified flight instructors already, not to mention when adding nearly 12,000 more to the mix (those looking to build the time). As the amount of CFI’s goes up, the amount of hours they fly a year will go down. This will make it even harder than it already is to amass the required total time. How are we supposed to build experience, with less opportunities to fly?
 
Maybe I missed something, but how are you flying 100 hours a month and only logging ~5 hours of X-C? Aside from the basic X-C requirements for Private, and particularly Instrument ratings, if you care as much as you claim to about your students, you should be taking them farther than the 20 miles away from your airport to fly an approach back into that airport.

In terms of your experience, there are pros and cons to all of the various types of flying that we do. Being a CFI is great experience, but it's a whole different scenario teaching a student to fly the 172 in the soup than it is flying the Baron through known icing, around or through convective activity, all by yourself, to places more than 50 miles away. Just like it's a different story sitting in the right seat of a CRJ flying 600 mile legs. Ideally, we can all experience all of it. However, the point is that you must have opportunity to push your own limits.

For the record, I am very much in favor of the 1500 hour rule, and would be even if I weren't about to get my ATP.
 
Adler said:
How do you get experience when there's no flying to be done? There are already relatively few vacant CFI positions, and aside from the rare few, most are not flying as much as they'd like to be.

There are currently 79,000 certified flight instructors, and over 91,000 commercial pilots in the United States. (I realize pleanty of the commercial pilots have non-CFI jobs, but on the same note, many of those 79,000 CFI's are not active)

There is a surplus of certified flight instructors already, not to mention when adding nearly 12,000 more to the mix (those looking to build the time). As the amount of CFI’s goes up, the amount of hours they fly a year will go down. This will make it even harder than it already is to amass the required total time. How are we supposed to build experience, with less opportunities to fly?
Click to expand...


With patience. With the slowdown in the industry and a possibility of regulatory change as well, there will be an unavoidable logjam at the front door. In this case, it's in the low time commercial pilot segment.

Take a note from many users here- notable those like CitationKid, et al, and note that it's not impossible to get ahead with a little hustle.

Flight instructing was always seen as the next step for a newly minted commercial pilot, but was that because so many wanted to do that or because it was simply the lowest hanging fruit?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top