Well, that depends, what was her hour level when she got hired ? How much exposure had she received ?Obviously having a 1500-hour minimum requirement would have made a 2200-hour copilot safer.
Depends on a lot, but one of the most unrelated factors to safety is hours in the logbook.Well, that depends, what was her hour level when she got hired ? How much exposure had she received ?
Agreed...People get way too wrapped around the axle about when they can LOG PIC...they need to be more concerned about BEING PIC. Unfortunately it requires far too little time by yourself in an airplane to get a Commercial or ATP...Especially since the FAA defined "solo" as "OK to have an instructor along" for some of it.Can only offer my own experiences on this topic. I get tired of hearing the BEST way to build time to 1500 hrs is by being an instructor. I was one - single, multi & instrument. But I learned far more flying myself or an owner's family, friends, or co-workers in all kinds of weather, single pilot operation, than I ever learned flying students hardly ever being more than 100 miles from home and rarely touching the controls. Sure I logged PIC with the students but what was I learning?
Amazing how many captains are offended by copilots trying to learn from them.Became a much more proficient pilot when I was single pilot. And when I was fortunate enough to fly something BIG, I learned from the PIC. Hard to believe it doesn't work the same way in 121 flying.
The comments are unbelievably ignorant. Politicians must love stupid people.
Yet we have pilots flying fighters and tankers with very little flying before that and we trust them. 250 doesn't mean anything. How do you know many current new hires haven't been through a cloud?I think 1,500 is an arbitrary number. I don't think 1,500 is a minimum number for safety. However, I do not think 250 hour pilots have the decision making, experience and skill set yet to safely pilot an airliner with 50-100 people behind them. I personally would like to see an hour requirement (750? 1,000?) in conjunction with an experience requirement (3 years as a pilot?) including higher requirements for instrument time and night time. Many of the CURRENT new-hires at regionals have never flown through a cloud in their 1,500 hours. That is scary. You can relax the hour requirements while enhancing safety by using other experience requirements.
You all are correct though, in that you learn a lot by just flying. Unfortunately that is what a lot of airline-bound people are missing. They get their CPL at 190 hours, their CFI at 200 and then they instructor in the same 172s and Seminoles for the remaining 1,300 hours. I have learned a TON by instructing.. but I've also learned a ton by traveling and making my own mistakes.
Yet we have pilots flying fighters and tankers with very little flying before that and we trust them. 250 doesn't mean anything. How do you know many current new hires haven't been through a cloud?
Yet we have pilots flying fighters and tankers with very little flying before that and we trust them. 250 doesn't mean anything. How do you know many current new hires haven't been through a cloud?
The problem with that comparison is that the discrimination that goes on in the military in order to place that young man and woman into that position is in no way comparable to regional airline hiring. Not trying to cast aspersions on regional airline pilots, but military ab initio is NOT the metric to use to judge the merits of regional airline hiring. IF you had ab initio in the regionals, and IF they were allowed to exercise the kind of vetting we exercise in the military, you'd have so many attrited pro-pilot-dreamers/cubicle workers sitting at home all triggered and butt hurt it would make your head spin.
The bar is just not that high to get a regional job, from a vetting perspective. To be completely fair, it demonstrates that you don't need to be a fighter pilot to do the former successfully, which is my point. But do not make the logical fallacy of suggesting that because fighter pilots are put in that position with less than 1000 hours, that the aggregate population of regional airline pilots are outright capable of handling a fighter pilot's job given the same allowance of hours.
Now as to this thread's original point, I don't care about the safety angle frankly, when it comes to these barriers to entry. If the oligarchs can rent-seek, so can we as proles. It's America, land of Nimbys, middle men, Sooners, hyphenated-americans and F-U I got mine. So then, get what you can when you can. I hate the fact it's like that but I can wish in one hand and s--t on the other, see which one fills up first. This "capitalism for the proles and socialism for the owners" is BS. Fight fire with fire. Higher barriers to entry yields higher salaries for those in the seat. Hate da game, not da player. Doctors do it, so can pilots.
I wasn't really comparing them. The point I was making was that we trust a military pilot with a fighter or tanker with little experience and send them through the training without any issues. We don't trust the person with the same little experience to fly an airliner to go through the tough airline training. The training is completely different for both but both are thorough and tough. Kind of weird that your company avoids regionals due to safety reasons. A majority of the accidents and incidents involve GA and corporate aircraft.Comparing a new military pilot to a civilian 250 hour wonder is like comparing a Ferrari to a moped. A 250 hour wonder shouldn't be mentioned in the same paragraph with a new military pilot.
Would not hesitate to jump in an airplane with a newly winged military pilot, yet our department will not fly on regional carriers for safety reasons. No need being in a transport where the Captain is single pilot.
Yet we have pilots flying fighters and tankers with very little flying before that and we trust them. 250 doesn't mean anything. How do you know many current new hires haven't been through a cloud?
See the comparison I made between airline training and military training. They're not the same but both are tough and thorough and should weed out the bad eggs. No one has any issues sticking a 200 hour wonder kid in an F16 but everyone doesn't like the 200 hour wonder in a CRJ.That is comparing apples to oranges. Yeah, they're still fruits but not from the same tree. Sorry, going to ATP for 9 months(!) is not the same as going through military flight training and serving for years.
Looks like some airlines are padding a few pockets.
Wish it was just honest and they had a online ordering menu you could just see how much it cost to make " elected" officials do what you want them to do.
Private ATC vote: $25,000
Civil asset forfeiture vote: $12,000 plus 10% of stuff stolen lol
The airlines are not hurting for mainline pilots. Even the carriers themselves admit this. The problem is entry level pilots. Why are folks not entering the profession. Like many over things, it's the Internet.
Why the Internet? It still is not a long time ago, the regionals treated their pilots poorly. Yes, today a new hire can expect to make 50-60K with bonuses. Here's the open question, why rely on a bonus program to generate a living wage? It's because the moment they don't have to pay them, bonuses will be cut, double occupancy rooms during training will come back and so will all the other things that made regional flying suck.
What's the fix? Living wages day one. I'm not talking pie in the sky ALPA. The reality is that a new pilot will have to live in a major city and service at least 100-150K of debt. Since my wife (a nurse practioner) is still paying her loans off, I know it will take 1000-1500 per month to service that debt. The next thing is a guaranteed flow to the affiliated mainline carrier. American has warmed up to this, but the others only offer half measures.
Reguatory wise, I think that if anything should drop, it would be the FAR 135 minimums, not the 121 regs. This would open up a path to gain real world flying experience. What many don't know is that one must have 1200 hrs. to fly as a 135 PIC in IFR. By lowering this, especially for those college grads, they can go fly cargo for a year or two and get the real world flight experience that the advocates of the 1500 hour rule envisioned.
Reguatory wise, I think that if anything should drop, it would be the FAR 135 minimums, not the 121 regs. This would open up a path to gain real world flying experience. What many don't know is that one must have 1200 hrs. to fly as a 135 PIC in IFR. By lowering this, especially for those college grads, they can go fly cargo for a year or two and get the real world flight experience that the advocates of the 1500 hour rule envisioned.
Lets be realistic here. No airline was ever hiring 250 hour commercial pilots, that was the first falsehood the families for 3407 and the pilot unions were throwing around. Yes legally speaking you can get your CPL at 250, but no one would hire you at that point. The lowest I ever saw getting hired by the airlines was 500 TT, 100 multi, and that was just before 9/11. Companies couldn't afford to insure lower time pilots, but that is another topic for another day.
The safety claims being thrown around by the media are all hype too. Aviation has had an incredible safety record for the last decade or longer, before the new rules took effect. As pointed out already, the pilots in 3407 would not have been affected by the new rule, because they were both 2200 hr+ pilots.
The biggest proponents of the 1500 hour rule were the pilot unions. They saw an opportunity to manufacture a pilot shortage, which would drive up wages. They used the tears of the families of 3407 for leverage politically, and got the law passed. And it worked.
135 cargo has a bad enough reputation as it is...and if they change "the FAR 135 minimums", it would also allow for "getting real world flight experience" as single pilot PIC carrying passengers under IFR.Reguatory wise, I think that if anything should drop, it would be the FAR 135 minimums, not the 121 regs. This would open up a path to gain real world flying experience. What many don't know is that one must have 1200 hrs. to fly as a 135 PIC in IFR. By lowering this, especially for those college grads, they can go fly cargo for a year or two and get the real world flight experience that the advocates of the 1500 hour rule envisioned.
That said, I don't think the rule ends up changing. Someone politician is going to realize that relaxing safety regulations, followed by an accident, is going to end up with a lot of blood on their hands.
Didn't really read the responses, but I will categorically say the average pilot does not have the experience required for the mission.
I left that vague on purpose.it applies to MANY levels.
Yup... but not always as they should.Terrifying isn't it? Ha. And yet the missions seem to get accomplished.
Safety is not an outcome, it's a process.Terrifying isn't it? Ha. And yet the missions seem to get accomplished.
Amazing how many captains are offended by copilots trying to learn from them.
Thankfully someone else has noticed that!!
I've had many captains look at me like I'm crazy when I ask for their advice. I asked one a few days ago about which way I should vector around a line of storms and his reply was "figure it out I don't care".
I had one flying around in the lower 200s in the flight levels. I said I'm a uncomfortable flying this slow up here. He looked at me and said "you against me trying to make money over your comfort level??".
<snip>It still is not a long time ago, the regionals treated their pilots poorly. Yes, today a new hire can expect to make 50-60K with bonuses. Here's the open question, why rely on a bonus program to generate a living wage? It's because the moment they don't have to pay them, bonuses will be cut, double occupancy rooms during training will come back and so will all the other things that made regional flying suck. Mainline carriers are still a good job, but will that change as well? This history is now easily found on the Internet and the airlines can't hide it.
<snip>
I had one dip**** captain refuse to speed up. It was my go home leg. I calculated the difference in pay. It was less than $10 for the leg. I gave him 10 bucks and rolled the speed bug up to Mmo.
If you're at least around a 90 IQ and have an iPad, you can figure this out.
The problem with that comparison is that the discrimination that goes on in the military in order to place that young man and woman into that position is in no way comparable to regional airline hiring. Not trying to cast aspersions on regional airline pilots, but military ab initio is NOT the metric to use to judge the merits of regional airline hiring. IF you had ab initio in the regionals, and IF they were allowed to exercise the kind of vetting we exercise in the military, you'd have so many attrited pro-pilot-dreamers/cubicle workers sitting at home all triggered and butt hurt it would make your head spin.
The bar is just not that high to get a regional job, from a vetting perspective. To be completely fair, it demonstrates that you don't need to be a fighter pilot to do the former successfully, which is my point. But do not make the logical fallacy of suggesting that because fighter pilots are put in that position with less than 1000 hours, that the aggregate population of regional airline pilots are outright capable of handling a fighter pilot's job given the same allowance of hours.
Now as to this thread's original point, I don't care about the safety angle frankly, when it comes to these barriers to entry. If the oligarchs can rent-seek, so can we as proles. It's America, land of Nimbys, middle men, Sooners, hyphenated-americans and F-U I got mine. So then, get what you can when you can. I hate the fact it's like that but I can wish in one hand and s--t on the other, see which one fills up first. This "capitalism for the proles and socialism for the owners" is BS. Fight fire with fire. Higher barriers to entry yields higher salaries for those in the seat. Hate da game, not da player. Doctors do it, so can pilots.
I think 1,500 is an arbitrary number. I don't think 1,500 is a minimum number for safety. However, I do not think 250 hour pilots have the decision making, experience and skill set yet to safely pilot an airliner with 50-100 people behind them. I personally would like to see an hour requirement (750? 1,000?) in conjunction with an experience requirement (3 years as a pilot?) including higher requirements for instrument time and night time.
Many of the CURRENT new-hires at regionals have never flown through a cloud in their 1,500 hours. That is scary. You can relax the hour requirements while enhancing safety by using other experience requirements.
Thune Amendment Generates Emotional, Not Factual Responses
Industry could miss opportunity for a practical solution to the pilot shortage.
http://www.flyingmag.com/thune-amen...pJobID=1081419647&spReportId=MTA4MTQxOTY0NwS2
Military training would have filtered out both pilots that took over fifty lives near buffalo. Military pilots that I've known , 6, were experienced and very sharp, with lots of hours before they flew for the airlines. IE:In the clutch, both pilots near buffalo did the wrong thing causing the accident to happen. Stick shaker went off, he raised the nose , she dumped the flaps....si ....o.....Nora! The military training is designed to weed out this type and get rid of them. Some might get thru but very few.That is comparing apples to oranges. Yeah, they're still fruits but not from the same tree. Sorry, going to ATP for 9 months(!) is not the same as going through military flight training and serving for years.