Exception for ERAU Students ATP, only 1,000 hours

Dr. O said:
Many of the Western Industrialized European countries train their airline pilots ab initio in an academic program that takes them from high school right through to the right seat of an airliner. 99% will never be a CFI or freight dogs or banner tow pilots.
Many will never again sit behind a piston engine after their initial flying from first solo through the instrument qualification. Some of these countries have it so that the first time the young first officer makes an actual flight in an RJ or bus it will be his first flight as first officer, the type rating up to that takeoff being performed on simulators.
Click to expand...
Do you think that this is the way it should be here?
 
Clip4 said:
The FAA allows reduced hours for Part 141 schools, its the same thing on a larger scale.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. You don't need to go to an aviation college and get your PPL at the college's flight school to get it at 35 hours.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone in this thread actually attended an AABI accredited collegiate aviation program or is intimately familiar with the curriculum in said programs? Just curious.

At Purdue we were inundated with a LOT of aviation knowledge and experience, IMO. It was set up so that we were able to obtain a lot more than just a fundamental understanding while not out in the industry quite yet. Once again, I believe it comes down to individual aptitude. There were plenty of folks in my classes that just didn't put forth any effort and it showed. For those of us that did put forth the effort, I feel like we definitely went out into the industry with some seriously good knowledge and experience.

We can argue both sides until we are blue in the face but what it comes down to is that the FAA issued the final rule and well... it's final. (For now).
 
So we are supposed to bow down before the final ruling? Or not criticize gov't decisions? We are simply pointing out that someone at riddle blew someone at the faa and the decision is not based on safety or ability.
 
ClimbnSink said:
So we are supposed to bow down before the final ruling? Or not criticize gov't decisions? We are simply pointing out that someone at riddle blew someone at the faa and the decision is not based on safety or ability.
Click to expand...

Check out the NPRM comments. There were a LOT of opinions the FAA ignored in creating the final rule.
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
Has anyone in this thread actually attended an AABI accredited collegiate aviation program or is intimately familiar with the curriculum in said programs? Just curious.

At Purdue we were inundated with a LOT of aviation knowledge and experience, IMO. It was set up so that we were able to obtain a lot more than just a fundamental understanding while not out in the industry quite yet. Once again, I believe it comes down to individual aptitude. There were plenty of folks in my classes that just didn't put forth any effort and it showed. For those of us that did put forth the effort, I feel like we definitely went out into the industry with some seriously good knowledge and experience.

We can argue both sides until we are blue in the face but what it comes down to is that the FAA issued the final rule and well... it's final. (For now).
Click to expand...

Is it worth it what you paid to go to Purdue? To me, it wasn't. I got the same credentials you did while doing it part 61 for a hell of a lot cheaper. What is the residual value of a preferrential hiring position for a 25K job? Is it 100K in debt? That's up to the individual to determine.

Just like in the military, the University is there to rake money to maintain the machine, not to do anyone favors. That's why online degrees plague today's military installations, selling washed out diplomas in pretty much anything. It's a self-licking ice cream cone. In the case of the military, said useless degrees get people the ability to promote and keep their $120K+ paying officer jobs. In the civilian aviation case, it gets you a regional FO position. Not quite the same math.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Could you imagine, American Affirmative Action applied to full ride ab initio airline hiring. Boom.:eek:
Click to expand...

Check your history, it came down pretty hard on United Airlines back in the late 80's early 90's. Back then you almost HAD to be a minority to get hired by them.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Check your history, it came down pretty hard on United Airlines back in the late 80's early 90's. Back then you almost HAD to be a minority to get hired by them.
Click to expand...

those minorities were already screened by gravity and 1,500 hours.
 
Art VanDelay said:
There was no 1500hr requirement back then.
Click to expand...

they were already rated at least. pre employment aptitude testing is illegal in america(cuz itz racist.) fire up ab intitio training schemes in america and you will get a whole barrel of smoking metal. and no one will be able to speak the truth about it. Would be kind of funny to watch.
 
ClimbnSink said:
they were already rated at least. pre employment aptitude testing is illegal in america(cuz itz racist.) fire up ab intitio training schemes in america and you will get a whole barrel of smoking metal. and no one will be able to speak the truth about it. Would be kind of funny to watch.
Click to expand...

Then how do the military and the FAA get away with it ?
 
Art! How ya been ?
How's the import/export business? Or did you ever resolve which way to go on that?
Import vs. export?
 
hindsight2020 said:
Is it worth it what you paid to go to Purdue? To me, it wasn't. I got the same credentials you did while doing it part 61 for a hell of a lot cheaper. What is the residual value of a preferrential hiring position for a 25K job? Is it 100K in debt? That's up to the individual to determine.
Click to expand...

Getting your credentials at a university has other advantages. To stay with the Purdue example, you can get a world-class engineering or business degree while also getting pilot credentials. Tuition at Purdue this year is $9900/year, which is only $2k more than it was when I was a student in the 90s. An additional $38k gets you PPL, IR, CPL, CFI, CFII, MEL, and a Phenom Type rating. The school is staffed almost entirely by retired senior captains, corporate chiefs, air traffic controllers, and airline executives. My commercial ground was taught by an SR71 pilot; in turbine systems class I got to fast taxi a 727 with my professor, who was the former chief of maint. for Delta (I think it was Delta). I got to participate in some of the early research into plant-based jet fuels. I wasn't even in the Aviation school, I was an engineering student. The aviation students got even more opportunities.

If you were a chief pilot and needed to staff your department with young people who may one day take over your position, which is far more business than flying, would you choose someone with a legitimate business degree, who already had turbine time, or would you choose someone from the local FBO? The average starting salaries for Purdue engineering and business grads are often multiples of a new CFI, some fields coming close to the $78k spent on school (room and board not included, because those expenses exist whether you go to school or not). For me, it was well worth it. I didn't choose to fly as a career, I do it on the side. If I had chosen that route, I would have been eminently more employable.

I am not sure of the validity of either the 1000 or 1500 hr rules or the relative merit of the 141 process, but to dismiss the real benefits of a university aviation education simply because that university is associated with a 141 system is disingenuous (IMO...and we all know about those).
 
bbchien said:
Yes. When a certain professor that you and I hold in common, comments about it, it's really quite colorful.....
Click to expand...
I'm dying to know who this is, but since I've not taken a Purdue AT course since the 90s, it may be someone else entirely that you're referring to. At least when they went full Cirrus they got rid of the remaining non-Arrow PA-28s and sold some of them to the FBO so we can rent and fly them now.

If you want to be an engineer, computer scientist, or have an interest biology and do your ratings on the side while studying for your degree, there isn't much worse you could do than apply to Purdue.
Getting your credentials at a university has other advantages. To stay with the Purdue example, you can get a world-class engineering or business degree while also getting pilot credentials. Tuition at Purdue this year is $9900/year, which is only $2k more than it was when I was a student in the 90s.
Click to expand...
Spot on. Since it's a land grant uni you get a break for being a local, if your luck is such.

There's nothing wrong with having non-aviation credentials.
 
Last edited:
Suppose we eliminated licensing completely, and let the airlines hire whomever they wanted, but held the airlines accountable for each breach of operating rules. Whom would the airlines hire and would safety really suffer? Some of the comments concerning the recent Aseana crash pointed out that the crews spend extremely little time actually flying the aircraft, and a lot of time with the autopilot on just monitoring instruments. Their time in the air counts toward ratings, but it seems to be almost meaningless, compared to the actual time spent manipulating the controls. Hours are very countable and countable things make for easy enforcement, but they may have very little to do with actual proficiency.
 
Frank said:
Suppose we eliminated licensing completely, and let the airlines hire whomever they wanted, but held the airlines accountable for each breach of operating rules. Whom would the airlines hire and would safety really suffer? Some of the comments concerning the recent Aseana crash pointed out that the crews spend extremely little time actually flying the aircraft, and a lot of time with the autopilot on just monitoring instruments. Their time in the air counts toward ratings, but it seems to be almost meaningless, compared to the actual time spent manipulating the controls. Hours are very countable and countable things make for easy enforcement, but they may have very little to do with actual proficiency.
Click to expand...

You bring up some very good points....

40 years ago all the "old timers" from Pam Am / TWA/ etc that retired with 25,000-35,000 hours, earned their wings the old school way... Now a days if a captain retired with 20,000 hours, you have to wonder how many of those were logged while baysitting the A/P, FMS... It is a whole new world out there kids...:yes::(
 
gasfiltered said:
you can get a world-class engineering or business degree while also getting pilot credentials.
Click to expand...

But you won't qualify for the 1000 hour minimum unless you double-major.
 
All other arguments aside I think even the 1000 hrs would be rather difficult for a person to graduate with in only four years while going to school full time.
 
Headspace said:
I'm dying to know who this is, but since I've not taken a Purdue AT course since the 90s, it may be someone else entirely that you're referring to. At least when they went full Cirrus they got rid of the remaining non-Arrow PA-28s and sold some of them to the FBO so we can rent and fly them now.
Click to expand...

MG. He was there back then.
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
MG. He was there back then.
Click to expand...
Have chatted with him but not at length.
But you won't qualify for the 1000 hour minimum unless you double-major.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I am mistaken but I was under the impression that students don't graduate with 1000 hours even in the program, rather they are set up to get jobs where they can build up to 1000 hours.

Is that not the case?
 
N801BH said:
40 years ago all the "old timers" from Pam Am / TWA/ etc that retired with 25,000-35,000 hours, earned their wings the old school way... Now a days if a captain retired with 20,000 hours, you have to wonder how many of those were logged while baysitting the A/P, FMS... It is a whole new world out there kids...:yes::(
Click to expand...
Yep, you got it right here. Flying a DC-3 was just a big ol Cub with 2 engines. The time and experience in single motors and navigation/communication/decision making was appropriate.
Taint that way anymore. Computer controls and decisions are required skills in modern airlines that make raw pilotage skills a negative transfer.

Art VanDelay said:
I'm an architect now !;)
Click to expand...

Oh yeah. Heard about that. But I thought that kinda went flat.
Still doin it?
 
nosehair said:
Yep, you got it right here. Flying a DC-3 was just a big ol Cub with 2 engines. The time and experience in single motors and navigation/communication/decision making was appropriate.
Taint that way anymore. Computer controls and decisions are required skills in modern airlines that make raw pilotage skills a negative transfer.
Click to expand...
Maybe what we need is a new setting on autopilots that has a real pilot fly and the autopilot would only take over if the plane flew out of designated parameters, in which case the autopilot would record the excursion, and someone would be informed at the end of the flight, when the data would automatically download. If the autopilot were to take over when not appropriate, the flight crew could pull the circuit breaker and would be required to file an incident report at the next arrival. The autopilot could have a conventional autopilot setting to be used when one of the crewmembers needs to leave his station, or when other emergency require flight crew attention.
 
denverpilot said:
Jean asked me to post this. Heh.

ymy8ener.jpg
Click to expand...

I posted that on this board a month ago, without the picture. Someone must have taken it and ran with it.
 
I've met a few guys from riddle, and I've met a few guys from Purdue. The folks from Purdue were nice, respectful, and knew their stuff.

The kids from Riddle were like barking dogs, being as loud as they good about how awesome of pilots tey are. I only know ONE person who went there that isn't like that.
 
Frank said:
Maybe what we need is a new setting on autopilots that has a real pilot fly and the autopilot would only take over if the plane flew out of designated parameters, in which case the autopilot would record the excursion, and someone would be informed at the end of the flight, when the data would automatically download. If the autopilot were to take over when not appropriate, the flight crew could pull the circuit breaker and would be required to file an incident report at the next arrival. The autopilot could have a conventional autopilot setting to be used when one of the crewmembers needs to leave his station, or when other emergency require flight crew attention.
Click to expand...

Says someone who obviously does not understand the true value of a properly used autopilot.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Says someone who obviously does not understand the true value of a properly used autopilot.
Click to expand...
Here is the problem I am thinking about. Pilots rely on the autopilot and while doing so, their skills become rusty so that the skills are not available when needed in an emergency. Further, some pilots who have grown up with autopilots may never get those skills. I have no problem with using the autopilot at some times, even perhaps most times, but if we don't have pilots hand fly for significant periods of time, how can we be sure they have the skills when they are needed?

Perhaps what I am contending is that using an autopilot almost all the time may not really be proper use of the autopilot.
 
My problem is this. The whole rule was made due to supposed lack of experience thus a 1500 hour mandate. So how does sitting in a classroom, even if its learning crm or whatever= time in the cockpit. It makes no sense if cockpit time is what this rule is all about. Period.
 
CaptLabrador said:
My problem is this. The whole rule was made due to supposed lack of experience thus a 1500 hour mandate. So how does sitting in a classroom, even if its learning crm or whatever= time in the cockpit. It makes no sense if cockpit time is what this rule is all about. Period.
Click to expand...

Well, let me ask you this - does the Military exemption of needing only 750 hours make sense to you or do you feel that is unfair as well ?
 
Frank said:
Here is the problem I am thinking about. Pilots rely on the autopilot and while doing so, their skills become rusty so that the skills are not available when needed in an emergency. Further, some pilots who have grown up with autopilots may never get those skills. I have no problem with using the autopilot at some times, even perhaps most times, but if we don't have pilots hand fly for significant periods of time, how can we be sure they have the skills when they are needed?

Perhaps what I am contending is that using an autopilot almost all the time may not really be proper use of the autopilot.
Click to expand...

Thing is, it is mostly a bean counter issue. The autopilot can fly the airplane MUCH more efficiently than a human can.

I understand the proficiency thing. But most of the guys I fly with will hand fly from takeoff until, well, whenever, and from about 7,000 feet on down.

Having said that, when one is hand flying at low altitudes, one has to divide one's time flying the airplane and looking for traffic.

Another thing, if one is hand flying in IMC, at least where I work, one has to have at least 4000 feet RVR and something above normal ceiling to do the approach.
 
Frank said:
Here is the problem I am thinking about. Pilots rely on the autopilot and while doing so, their skills become rusty so that the skills are not available when needed in an emergency. Further, some pilots who have grown up with autopilots may never get those skills. I have no problem with using the autopilot at some times, even perhaps most times, but if we don't have pilots hand fly for significant periods of time, how can we be sure they have the skills when they are needed?

Perhaps what I am contending is that using an autopilot almost all the time may not really be proper use of the autopilot.
Click to expand...

That's kind of why it's important for them to have ESTABLISHED that BEFORE they start flying planes that you just babysit. The Colgan crew were put into fancy airplanes BEFORE they had really built up a foundation of experience. As I have said all along........
 
Art VanDelay said:
Well, let me ask you this - does the Military exemption of needing only 750 hours make sense to you or do you feel that is unfair as well ?
Click to expand...

Needing 750 hours for what? And it's not about how much time whether its 750, 1000, or 1500. It's about the point of the whole rule. It's there because apparently it's all about time in the cockpit and sitting in a classroom is not time in the cockpit. Thus congress is stupid and erau has good lobbyists.
 
CaptLabrador said:
Needing 750 hours for what? And it's not about how much time whether its 750, 1000, or 1500. It's about the point of the whole rule. It's there because apparently it's all about time in the cockpit and sitting in a classroom is not time in the cockpit. Thus congress is stupid and erau has good lobbyists.
Click to expand...

Military aviators need only 750 hours for a restricted ATP. I'm asking you if you think that is fair ?
 
I really don't care. I know people that fly f-22s and military training is consistent, rigorous, , it also requires knowing very technological systems, and requires a lot of time in the cockpit so I really don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with a rule that doesn't address the problem and allows stupid special exemptions.
 
CaptLabrador said:
I really don't care. I know people that fly f-22s and military training is consistent, rigorous, , it also requires knowing very technological systems, and requires a lot of time in the cockpit so I really don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with a rule that doesn't address the problem and allows stupid special exemptions.
Click to expand...

Ok, so compared to Part 61 training you don't think the University experience is (to use your words) "consistent" and "rigorous" and that the Aero University Grad is not exposed to technological systems ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top