Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5813470/

Topic: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: Gonzalo
Posted 2013-07-10 09:25:43 and read 11658 times.

According to Reuters FAA says co-pilots will need 1.500 total time as a Pilot, up from 250, for passenger and cargo.

http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/federal-aviation-administration

Will this make a big difference ?

Effect on the smaller regional carriers across US ?


Rgds.
G.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: flight152
Posted 2013-07-10 09:48:07 and read 11559 times.

Thanks for the news flash; but this has been ongoing since the crash of Colgan 3407 in Feb 2009.

Moving on.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: silentbob
Posted 2013-07-10 09:54:23 and read 11528 times.

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
Will this make a big difference ?

Effect on the smaller regional carriers across US ?

yes, it will make a difference. There are a lot of quality pilots that will not be able to meet those minimums and regional airlines are already scraping the bottom of the barrel in order to fill their rosters. I know at least one company is hiring people that would have never even been interviewed before the change. The regional industry will be radically different in a couple years.

Quoting flight152 (Reply 1):
Thanks for the news flash; but this has been ongoing since the crash of Colgan 3407 in Feb 2009.

The specific proposal was only made about 18 months ago and became official well after that.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2013-07-10 09:55:43 and read 11518 times.

Quoting flight152 (Reply 1):
Moving on.

   Old news really.

Part of the slow NPRM regulatory process.

FAA Proposes Higher Co-pilot Qualifications (by indiansbucs Feb 28 2012 in Civil Aviation)

=

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: 93Sierra
Posted 2013-07-10 10:31:36 and read 11362 times.

Just another rule being passed by idiots with no idea about the circumstances. This rule was passed as a result of the colgan crash, yet this rule would not have done anything to prevent it..... Stupid fo that raised the flaps that ultimately let to her demise had around 2000 hours if I remember correctly. This is such a stupid rule...... My blood boils every time I think about it. My light at the end of the tunnel got moved so far back because of this. I hope people understand the difference between quality and quantity because our idiot lawmakers and the unions that lobbied them ( alpa) should have done more than to just pass a pointless rule.....

Sorry for the rant

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: jfklganyc
Posted 2013-07-10 12:13:22 and read 11159 times.

Why delete?

It is old news that it was passed...but it is now being implemented.

And that is a huge deal right now and going forward.

Regionals will be the first to be effected: see current threads on Eagle flying by Republic.

Things will get worse as we go forward:
-thousands of vietnam era pilots retiring per year for the next decade
-high cost of training coupled with low RJ pay turning off the pipeline over the last few years
-pipeline getting further jammed by new high time entry requirements

Perfect storm is brewing. Good time to be a commercial airline pilot. Bad time to be a regional operator

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: atcsundevil
Posted 2013-07-10 12:48:13 and read 11037 times.

Quoting as739x (Reply 4):
Mod's, please delete thread. Old new and depressing!
Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 5):
Just another rule being passed by idiots with no idea about the circumstances.

  

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 6):
Why delete?

Because most of us would rather live in denial and believe this isn't actually happening. Because it's stupid.


As stated previously, this isn't new news and the fact that it is being implemented attests to the stupidity that exists in Washington. This won't fix anything because they're grasping at straws. There are ways to improve the problem of poorly trained flight crew, but this isn't one of them. All this is doing is making it even more expensive and insurmountable for pilots to be hired by airlines without regard to where they've received their training.

When I was in college, I shared most of my classes with friends in the Professional Flight program -- I watched some of my best friends struggle just to reach the 500 hour mark (and realistically beyond, as most regionals tend to look for more time) given their immense accumulated debt only to be hired by a regional with a starting salary of $20k/year. Despite *only* having 500 hours, they took numerous CRJ systems courses which included Level D time. They've all turned into outstanding commercial pilots without having to spend an additional 3-5 years as a flight instructor to reach 1500 hours.

I agree that a policy should punish students who have gone through some types of programs, like those who value getting paid and cranking out students who have been taught to pass tests rather than fly airplanes. For pilots with bachelor's degrees in the profession having spent four years in intensive training to be required to meet the same blanket standards is an injustice to them and completely pointless.

All this serves to do is to kill the dream of some aspiring pilots and cause a gap in hiring for regionals leading to a pilot shortage.

But I digress.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: catiii
Posted 2013-07-10 13:35:52 and read 10918 times.

Some new interesting stuff in the rule, including:

A requirement for a pilot to have a minimum of 1,000 flight hours as a co-pilot in air carrier operations prior to serving as a captain for a U.S. airline; and

A requirement that F/O's have a type rating on the airplane they're flying.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: T5towbar
Posted 2013-07-10 14:06:56 and read 10830 times.

The crappy pay and the debt load you carry after schooling kills those dreams of being a pilot nowadays. The regionals will eventually pay more because of the new rules. Like others on this and the other thread about American Eagle, how are the regionals are staffing their current flying now?

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: modesto2
Posted 2013-07-10 14:09:57 and read 10819 times.

While I agree that this new law has its flaws, I also see some merits. It's nearly impossible to pass a "perfect" law that comprehensively addresses all the issues with pilot training, experience, etc... But the line must be drawn somewhere and while it leaves some in an unfavorable position, the law is designed to address safety, not granting the wishes of aspiring pilots. Life is about tradeoffs, so I understand the concern about potentially hiring 1500 hr FOs with questionable flying records and skills just because they meet the requirements that so many others do not satisfy. On the other hand, I have concerns about 500 hr FOs with perfect flying records sitting in the right seat. Again, the line must be drawn somewhere. Should the FAA require 10,000 hr for all airline pilots? Probably too much. Should the FAA require 100 hr for all airline pilots? Probably too little. So where should the line be drawn? We return to the debate of quality vs. quantity of flight time. One pilot may have 1500 hr total time with 100 hr multi-engine time while another candidate may have 1000 hr total time but 300 hr multi time. Who's better? The problem is "quality" is so subjective and varies so greatly that the FAA is left with no choice but to implement seemingly arbitrary quantitative requirements that are difficult to justify. However, they need to start somewhere, and I think 1500 hr is perfectly reasonable.

To add some context to my opinion, a large regional carrier hired me in 2006 when I only had 560 hr. Why'd I do it? Because it was the fastest way to an airline. Admittedly, I wasn't the most experienced pilot, but I learned quickly and enjoyed four years of flying before my resignation. Yes, it would've been a much longer road to the right seat if I had needed 1500 hr but again, this debate should be focused on the law's implications towards safety. I was lucky, but I've also had plenty of challenges in my career, too. With time, the market will learn to adjust, and life goes on...

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: Gonzalo
Posted 2013-07-10 14:24:26 and read 10751 times.

Quoting modesto2 (Reply 10):
Should the FAA require 100 hr for all airline pilots? Probably too little. So where should the line be drawn? We return to the debate of quality vs. quantity of flight time. One pilot may have 1500 hr total time with 100 hr multi-engine time while another candidate may have 1000 hr total time but 300 hr multi time. Who's better? The problem is "quality" is so subjective and varies so greatly that the FAA is left with no choice but to implement seemingly arbitrary quantitative requirements that are difficult to justify. However, they need to start somewhere, and I think 1500 hr is perfectly reasonable.

Couldn't the whole flight time requirement system be replaced by a combination of "time/cycles" ? A 600 hrs pilot flying short trips between islands in a remote and stormy place like Alaska or the Pacific Ocean should have much more ( difficult ) landings and take offs, and probably a better performance in airmanship compared with a 1.500 hour pilot flying 4 hour legs between paved runways in the sunny fields of California. Just Asking....

Rgds.
G.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-07-10 16:51:25 and read 10551 times.

Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 4):
This is such a stupid rule...... My blood boils every time I think about it. My light at the end of the tunnel got moved so far back because of this.

On the other hand, the regionals may be very different when you get there because of this law (and the resulting inability to find pilots). And that could very well be the best thing for you.

-Mir

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: Stackhouse007
Posted 2013-07-10 17:09:08 and read 10489 times.

As stated above, this has been known for a long time but since this latest accident, the media is pulling it out again. Personally, I think this rule is pointless for multiple reasons. I am working on my ratings and yes, this will make the road much longer but you should see what these flight schools are like. Rather than pilots building time as a first officer with a small carrier, now they are stuck in a Cessna 172 or whatever they train in, flying from A to B as much as possible to get the time. Yes, they get more hours, but the experience is not being built like it use to be. Accidents are not happening because a pilot has less than 1,500 hours...

Just my 2 cents.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: atcsundevil
Posted 2013-07-10 17:43:58 and read 10416 times.

Quoting Stackhouse007 (Reply 12):
Accidents are not happening because a pilot has less than 1,500 hours

EXACTLY.

Incidents/accidents due to pilot error are rarely attributed to inexperience. They are almost always attributed to things like complacency, inattentiveness, lack of situational awareness, etc. None of these things relate to inexperience, but rather to poor training and oversight.

Changes do not need to be made to the amount of time one sits in a cockpit, but rather the quality of the time spent one spends in a cockpit.

Experience is a major factor when it comes to a pilot's abilities, but incidents/accidents rarely occur before that FO hits 1500 hours, which makes this policy change completely pointless.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: infiniti329
Posted 2013-07-10 18:23:38 and read 10328 times.

Could some of the regional airlines band together and take the FAA to court ? On the grounds that their requirements are too excessive and by requiring 1250 more flight hours it doesn't really improve safety? There are countless other things airlines can claim that probably can be proven in court. But the question is will anyone take that leap?O

I understand the meaning behind it but this is not the way. The pipeline for pilots is already drying up (look at the situation at MQ and RP). This rule only closes the faucet faster. Perfect example the Asiana crew had over 20,000 hrs between the two of them and still this accident happened.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-07-10 18:41:57 and read 10270 times.

For those waiting for retirements, I posted this in the Eagle thread:

For UA+AA+DL+US, mandatory pilot retirements by year, peak in a decade from now:
2013 633
2014 794
2015 836
2016 937
2017 1141
2018 1390
2019 1629
2020 1825
2021 2128
2022 2191
2023 2364
2024 2252
2025 2255

Quoting catiii (Reply 7):
A requirement for a pilot to have a minimum of 1,000 flight hours as a co-pilot in air carrier operations prior to serving as a captain for a U.S. airline; and

A requirement that F/O's have a type rating on the airplane they're flying.

Those two rules make sense. Of the rule changes, these I agree with. 1,000 hours is less than two years of experience at some airlines. I see no reason not to require that of all pilots.

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 6):
They've all turned into outstanding commercial pilots without having to spend an additional 3-5 years as a flight instructor to reach 1500 hours.

I'm not sure a bunch of bitter pilots flying anything but they want to fly for another 3 to 5 years will help anyone. Except Netjets. They'll be able to get *paying* (not paid, but paying) copilots if they so choose.

What is the minimum aircraft to gain experience? Would the Phenom 300 count?

Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 4):
My blood boils every time I think about it. My light at the end of the tunnel got moved so far back because of this. I hope people understand the difference between quality and quantity because our idiot lawmakers and the unions that lobbied them ( alpa) should have done more than to just pass a pointless rule.....

I'm sorry to hear this happened to you. I certainly wasn't for the copilot rule changes.

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 13):
Experience is a major factor when it comes to a pilot's abilities, but incidents/accidents rarely occur before that FO hits 1500 hours, which makes this policy change completely pointless.

  

This will get interesting when smaller communities start losing jet service.

Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
On the other hand, the regionals may be very different when you get there because of this law (and the resulting inability to find pilots). And that could very well be the best thing for you.

Since the regionals will still be a holding pattern for the majors, I doubt they'll change too much. What will happen is copilots with less than a thousand hours of Air carrier operations will be treated very poorly. As soon as a pilot breaks 1,000 hours of Air carrier service, they will either be offered a job as a Captain at the regional or else move up to the 'big airlines.'


Lightsaber

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: futureualpilot
Posted 2013-07-10 19:03:33 and read 10212 times.

Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 4):
My light at the end of the tunnel got moved so far back because of this.

That is a very narrow view. See the forest through the trees, requiring more experience isn't a bad thing. Believe me when I say this. I thought the same thing when I first heard about the proposal, now, thousands of hours later, I can see some merit to it. It isn't perfect, far from it, but pilots have no business flying the paying public around with 250hrs. You can and will learn more than you think possible in the time it takes to reach ATP mins. I hated hearing this when I was training and instructing and building time but it is true.

Quoting Stackhouse007 (Reply 12):
Rather than pilots building time as a first officer with a small carrier

An airline, no matter the size, with paying customers in the back is not a place to "build time." By the time you get to the right seat you'd best have your stuff together. It is one thing to be up front learning the airplane, and operation. It is entirely different to be up front and still learning to fly.

Quoting Stackhouse007 (Reply 12):
now they are stuck in a Cessna 172 or whatever they train in, flying from A to B as much as possible to get the time. Yes, they get more hours, but the experience is not being built like it use to be.

Building time is what you make of it. If you think flying from A to B is the only way to build time, you need to open your eyes.

[Edited 2013-07-10 19:06:37]

[Edited 2013-07-10 19:06:59]

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: catiii
Posted 2013-07-10 19:10:08 and read 10170 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 15):

I'm not sure the type rating makes sense though. I'm going through the rule now to try and better understand it.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2013-07-10 19:30:12 and read 10107 times.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 14):
Could some of the regional airlines band together and take the FAA to court ? On the grounds that their requirements are too excessive and by requiring 1250 more flight hours it doesn't really improve safety?

No. The rule is based on a law passed by Congress last year.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: vio
Posted 2013-07-10 19:57:17 and read 10030 times.

As a pilot...

I think this is a very prudent thing to do. A 200 hrs pilot flying a CRJ.... No thanks! You start being a pilot around 1500 hrs... Don't worry... The airlines will find people with the required time...

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: DeltaRules
Posted 2013-07-10 20:12:19 and read 9989 times.



Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 4):
Just another rule being passed by idiots with no idea about the circumstances. This rule was passed as a result of the colgan crash, yet this rule would not have done anything to prevent it.....This is such a stupid rule...... My blood boils every time I think about it.

I'm right there with you. Feels like a kneejerk reaction to make John Q. Public feel safer about flying, putting a band-aid on a broken leg in the process.

How is one expected to learn to deal with icing, thunderstorms, etc. when they're not allowed to fly airplanes or operations which take them into these scenarios? You're not going to be going into icing in a Cessna 172. And is the extra 800-1,000 hours (let's assume it's easier to get hired at 500-750 than 250) going to make a colossal difference? These are honest questions, because I've never flown an RJ, but 100 to 500 kts has to be a hell of a gear change regardless of how many hours you have in light singles/twins.

It has a feel of "We're not going to give you the chance to learn, but DON'T EVEN THINK OF SCREWING UP WHEN YOU GET THERE!"

Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 4):
Stupid fo that raised the flaps that ultimately let to her demise had around 2000 hours if I remember correctly.

2,500. Captain had 3,300.

And it sounds like the Asiana captain who was in the left seat on flight 214 had 9,700TT and 3,000 in type, twice the experience in one airplane than Sully and Schumer's law wants pilots just to have to get into an RJ.

Quality over quantity, training over time, etc.

[Edited 2013-07-10 20:14:35]

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: modesto2
Posted 2013-07-10 20:19:58 and read 9964 times.

Quoting Stackhouse007 (Reply 12):
Accidents are not happening because a pilot has less than 1,500 hours...

And how did you reach that conclusion? Even if fatal accidents aren't occurring, I'm confident that safety margins are often compromised and low-time pilots certainly aren't helping. Please keep in mind that even if a dramatic accident hasn't been attributed to a low-time pilot, it doesn't mean it can't happen. It's quite naive to think that just because something hasn't happen means it can't happen. The FAA needs to be proactive, not reactive.

There was a substantial difference in my flying skills, situational awareness, and decision-making abilities when I reached 250 hr vs. 500 hr vs. 1500 hr vs. my current total time of 3500 hr. Again, this law should not be viewed as the comprehensive fix to all training issues. Instead, the flying public should view this law as a step towards reducing and mitigating risk. It certainly isn't perfect, but I think it's a step in the right direction.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2013-07-10 20:23:31 and read 9941 times.

Quoting DeltaRules (Reply 20):

2,500. Captain had 3,300.

And it sounds like the Asiana captain who was in the left seat on flight 214 had 9,700TT and 3,000 in type, twice the experience in one airplane than Sully and Schumer's law wants pilots just to have to get into an RJ.

Quality over quantity, training over time, etc.

  

I was proficient in stall recognition and recovery after roughly 20 flight hours. I was also given a long, hard lecture about "get-there-itis" around the same time.


I find it disgusting that the government is punishing pilots for the incompetency of certain airlines.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: modesto2
Posted 2013-07-10 20:34:24 and read 9912 times.

Quoting DeltaRules (Reply 20):
How is one expected to learn to deal with icing, thunderstorms, etc. when they're not allowed to fly airplanes or operations which take them into these scenarios? You're not going to be going into icing in a Cessna 172. And is the extra 800-1,000 hours (let's assume it's easier to get hired at 500-750 than 250) going to make a colossal difference? These are honest questions, because I've never flown an RJ, but 100 to 500 kts has to be a hell of a gear change regardless of how many hours you have in light singles/twins.

Since you addressed it, I'll offer my 2 cents. I have about 3000 hr of RJ time, and pilots need a solid foundation before transitioning to airline operations. So how will a bunch more hours in a 172 help an aspiring RJ pilot? Because much of flying extends beyond the actual flying skills (icing, mountain wave, holds, etc...). Much of flying involves mature decision-making, and whether you're flying a Cessna or a Boeing, pilots must learn that decision-making and situational awareness. Those foundations should be established in a prop before transitioning to 121 operations because I much rather have the low-time pilot learn the basics of flying when he's the only one in the plane than when he has 50 revenue customers behind him. How can a pilot learn icing operations if he hasn't even mastered the fundamentals of flying with only 300 hr (for example)... Yes, the extra 1000 hr can make a huge difference. Quality of time is very important but since that concept is so subjective, one must also evaluate the quantity of time. While there are exceptions to every rule, the FAA can't evaluate each pilot and must implement sweeping legislation. In general, there's a substantial difference between a 500 hr pilot and a 1500 hr pilot - not necessarily in flying skills but in maturity of decision-making and situational awareness. Again, these are sweeping generalizations but unless you plan on evaluating each individual pilot in the United States, one must analyze the situation with such generalizations.

In summary, the new law isn't perfect, but I challenge anyone to create a perfect law to address this situation. Much easier said than done.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: B727FA
Posted 2013-07-10 20:45:43 and read 9878 times.

Al Haynes was a 250+ hire.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: catiii
Posted 2013-07-10 21:06:37 and read 10087 times.

Quoting modesto2 (Reply 21):

Because this is all for show. Show me which of these enhancements would have saved Colgan?

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2013-07-10 21:08:44 and read 10092 times.

I'm reading the rule right now. It's long, so I will probably finish it tomorrow.

On the positive side, they seem to be talking about some academic classes that can be credited towards the 1500 hours. In other words, you won't need 1500 hours if you do these academic classes, or so I gather thus far. No indication of how many credit hours this will give nor any idea about how much it would cost.

Also, of the 50 multi-engine hours required, 25 can be sim time.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: AmericanAirFan
Posted 2013-07-10 21:11:15 and read 10223 times.

Regardless of how the rule may hurt or help the quality of new hires in the industry, pilots must learn to adapt and just do their time. There are a LOT more jobs than just Part 121 operations that a commercial pilot can get hired to do for far less time than 1,500 hours.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: louA340
Posted 2013-07-10 21:11:38 and read 10205 times.

I somewhat agree that before a pilot steps into the airline industry, they must have the relevant experience. My only question is how do they expect all the pilots to get there?
Build the time on their own? That will be a financial nightmare for anyone. Learning to fly on its own is quite the task, let alone finance over 1000+ more hours flying.
Instructing is a great option, but not every single pilot can become an instructor, i doubt there is the demand for every single pilot to go through that method. I will assume the same goes for being a bush pilot, crop duster, etc but I could be wrong.
Does this rule blanket any commercial operation that carries passengers/cargo? Because then what about the shuttle and commuter operations that fly less than 10 or 20 passengers? How will they fill their pilot positions?

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: silentbob
Posted 2013-07-10 21:27:12 and read 10170 times.

Quoting vio (Reply 19):
The airlines will find people with the required time

Our recruiters would love to know where to look, please let me know where to find these people so I can forward that info to the recruiters. None of the regionals are filling their classes right now.

Quoting DeltaRules (Reply 20):
And is the extra 800-1,000 hours (let's assume it's easier to get hired at 500-750 than 250) going to make a colossal difference?

Unless those hours actually include flying into places like LGA or JFK in poor weather conditions, no.

Quoting DeltaRules (Reply 20):
Quality over quantity, training over time, etc.

Agreed, 100%.

Quoting modesto2 (Reply 23):
In summary, the new law isn't perfect, but I challenge anyone to create a perfect law to address this situation. Much easier said than done.

Longer training, more time in type-specific sim and other measures would certainly make more sense than requiring someone to spend more time in a 172 doing circles over farmland or the desert. I've flown with 500 hour guys that are great sticks and some 10,000+ hour guys that are walking (or flying) violation factories.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: DeltaRules
Posted 2013-07-10 21:29:00 and read 10159 times.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 26):
On the positive side, they seem to be talking about some academic classes that can be credited towards the 1500 hours. In other words, you won't need 1500 hours if you do these academic classes, or so I gather thus far. No indication of how many credit hours this will give nor any idea about how much it would cost.

Seems as though you must complete the degree AND Part 141 training at the same institution to receive the benefits of the 1000 (Bachelor's) or 1250 (Associate's) hour benefits.

So for a guy like me, who went to a satellite campus of a major aviation school but did the training through a local FBO, it's 1500. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: beechtobus
Posted 2013-07-10 21:30:57 and read 10190 times.

Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 4):

Stupid FO?! Really? You have no clue what was going on in that cockpit at that time. You have no clue what her short term or long term bacground was prior to the accident. there is an immense amount of factors, training wise, captain decision wise, regulatory wise, and company wise,and environment/weather wise that was casual in the accident. Big big faux pas to label another pilot as stupid and being the sole cause of an accident when that clearly wasn't the case. I really hope your outlook changes in the extra 1200 or however many hours you now need to get hired. If not, then I honestly hope you don't get to the end of the tunnel, trust me, no one will want to share a cockpit with you. Keep in mind too that over the last 60 years, several thousands of hours were required to get even a commuter job, the 350 hour wonders of the last decade or so were definitely the exception and not the rule.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: B747400ERF
Posted 2013-07-10 21:33:43 and read 10157 times.

Quoting AmericanAirFan (Reply 27):
There are a LOT more jobs than just Part 121 operations that a commercial pilot can get hired to do for far less time than 1,500 hours.

Yeah, and if you thought regional pay was bad...

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: B747400ERF
Posted 2013-07-10 21:36:37 and read 10157 times.

Quoting beechtobus (Reply 31):
Keep in mind too that over the last 60 years, several thousands of hours were required to get even a commuter job, the 350 hour wonders of the last decade or so were definitely the exception and not the rule.

And yet aviation has never been safer than today. Imagine that.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 16):
I thought the same thing when I first heard about the proposal, now, thousands of hours later, I can see some merit to it.

The only pilots I see who support a policy like this, had their whole lives handed to them by wealthy parents. So now that they "made it" they cannot understand the problems a new hundred hour pilot has when trying to build time and pay back loans.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: PDX88
Posted 2013-07-10 22:48:11 and read 10090 times.

Regionals will suffer. Nobody will want to go through the 250 hours of training, then find a way to accrue an additional 1250 hours (CFI, etc), and several years down the road finally squat in the right seat of a regional for 18K/yr. What a joke.

And how bad is it that you are only 1/6 qualified to fly a regional jet by the time you are finished with training because you "aren't experienced enough", but with a few more hours of training you have the qualifications, hours, skill, and maturity to start teaching the next generation how to fly as a flight instructor??

Logic check.....

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-07-10 23:30:32 and read 9982 times.

The press article quoted in the opening post isn't entirely clear - does this mean 500 hours of flying lessons followed by 1,000 hours as a second pilot/first officer; or a full 1,500 hours of lessons? Even 500 hours of lessons looks likely to make things prohibitively expensive; 1,500 hours of them would be just about impossible to acquire?

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: tribird1011
Posted 2013-07-10 23:53:02 and read 9948 times.

I'm starting to wonder how come the rash of accidents in Europe hasn't occurred yet... I mean there has to be at least one or two guys out there flying the right seat of an A320 or B737 with barely over 250 hours...    

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: lutfi
Posted 2013-07-11 00:18:04 and read 9802 times.

Knee jerk rule that as others say is unlikely to make any difference to safety,and has been discussed at length before. Still, it may force pilots' wages up, as fewer will be attracted to the industry

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: flanker
Posted 2013-07-11 00:25:47 and read 9774 times.

Doesn't matter how many hours you have, professionalism can't be taught. You have it or you don't. These new BS rules are really sad and it will hurt a lot of aspiring pilots. But of course, the know it all idiots in Washington know best...     

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: DTWSXM
Posted 2013-07-11 01:30:17 and read 9476 times.

There are two factors that are a part of the equation yet seem to be glossed over. The cost of education, as in the amount of debt the average FO brings to their first job. Everyone seems to acknowledge the abominable pay earned by a qualified refional FO. Why is that OK? It must be OK because it goes on year after year after year. Debt and lousy pay, absent these two factors this new regulation, 'stupid' or not, would not be so bad.

There have been many excellent points made in this thread, and some rather boneheaded remarks too. The problem is writing regulations that deal with the lowest common denominator. Some mistakes have been made because of distraction, cockpit culture, poor maintenance and so on. And regulations have followed to address the apparent root cause for each.

How should experience be reguted? Hours? Time in type? Number of cycles?

Maybe if some of the economic pressures could be alleviated then some of the factors that lead to mistakes might also be alleviated. Making a wage that allows an FO to afford a roof over their head, a car and enough to pay their student loans while not having to live on ramen noodles, that might remove some of those factors. If that Colgan FO didn't have to work sick, live with her parents on the west coast and have the ability to get a room to sleep in prior to working then this thread wouldn't exist, and those 50 people would still be alive. Maybe. But we keep rearranging the deck chairs instead of getting to the cause. Bandaids instead of a cure. It's all about wha we are willing to spend.

Until then we will get regulations like this that treat the 'symptoms' but not the 'disease'.

Cheers!

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-07-11 03:10:31 and read 9132 times.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 32):
Quoting AmericanAirFan (Reply 27):
There are a LOT more jobs than just Part 121 operations that a commercial pilot can get hired to do for far less time than 1,500 hours.

Yeah, and if you thought regional pay was bad...

Pay for Part 135 job is often higher than regional pay (at least for the first few years). Regional pay really is that bad.

-Mir

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: SmittyOne
Posted 2013-07-11 04:22:42 and read 8783 times.

Seems to me that the limiting factor may well end up being the availability of flight instructor hours to "build". Imagine a situation where prospective airline pilots will be flying each other around as CFIs to build time because there aren't enough genuine students. How they'd afford to do this I have no idea.

A couple of other things I can see this driving:

1) More foreign pilots who have the time trying to enter the US market. Don't know what the rules/laws are there though.

2) Airlines being forced to develop robust training/development pipelines to fill their seats. At some point paid training for prospective employees could become their only alternative to shutting down.

3) Based on #2, a dramatic increase in the cost of domestic/regional flying.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: catiii
Posted 2013-07-11 06:49:12 and read 7893 times.

Quoting beechtobus (Reply 31):
You have no clue what was going on in that cockpit at that time. You have no clue what her short term or long term bacground was prior to the accident. there is an immense amount of factors, training wise, captain decision wise, regulatory wise, and company wise,and environment/weather wise that was casual in the accident. Big big faux pas to label another pilot as stupid and being the sole cause of an accident when that clearly wasn't the case.

Not to get into a war over this, and I really don't have a dog in the fight, but the NTSB report was pretty clear about what was happening in the cockpit at the time, what her background was, and the actions she took in the 24 hours leading up to the crash.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: daedaeg
Posted 2013-07-11 07:30:09 and read 7558 times.

This new rule will require Regionals to Pay more for talented pilots. That at the end of the day is good for the industry as much as it sucks for the newcomers. Hopefully no more ~$20k/year starting pay. There will certainly be less people wanting to be professional pilots. I mean who would spend ~$100,000 on ratings and then have to build time to 1500 hours to only make chump change? This will force the industry to raise the bar no doubt.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: xdlx
Posted 2013-07-11 07:40:47 and read 7479 times.

You think is bad now.... wait two decades .... Pilots with Drone time will be hired to fly Droned Airliners!

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: f35
Posted 2013-07-11 07:46:46 and read 7420 times.

On a positive note, there are plenty of instructors and pilots who went to a major or minor aviation university who will be leaving flight schools for airlines in the coming months! This movement means there will be plenty of open positions for new graduates and new pilots. I am very excited as I plan to leave my job in the next two months for a regional instead of April or May!

Good Luck

[Edited 2013-07-11 08:29:13]

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: PITrules
Posted 2013-07-11 08:31:55 and read 7044 times.

Quoting Stackhouse007 (Reply 12):
. Rather than pilots building time as a first officer with a small carrier, now they are stuck in a Cessna 172 or whatever they train in, flying from A to B as much as possible to get the time. Yes, they get more hours, but the experience is not being built like it use to be.

IMHO, being a CFI is the best possible experience one can gain. You learn so much by teaching others, and seeing the mistakes they make and why. Not to mention increasing your own technical knowledge.

Quoting silentbob (Reply 29):

Unless those hours actually include flying into places like LGA or JFK in poor weather conditions, no.

Disagree completely. Flying into busy airports will come with time, but far more important is to develop one's decision making skills, situational awareness, and being able to 'read' people. All of these skills will become useful later on when CRM is required. Flight Instructing is a great way to develop these skills.

Quoting PDX88 (Reply 34):
Regionals will suffer. Nobody will want to go through the 250 hours of training, then find a way to accrue an additional 1250 hours (CFI, etc), and several years down the road finally squat in the right seat of a regional for 18K/yr

But that's exactly what prospective pilots did when there was a glut of applicants in the past. Not only that, but they even paid for their regional jobs on top of it all.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: futureualpilot
Posted 2013-07-11 08:38:03 and read 6989 times.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 33):
The only pilots I see who support a policy like this, had their whole lives handed to them by wealthy parents. So now that they "made it" they cannot understand the problems a new hundred hour pilot has when trying to build time and pay back loans.

Except that most of us worked long hours doing whatever it took to pay for our flight training, begged borrowed and did everything short of stealing to get flight time and finish our ratings. Most of us spent years working at FBOs or on the ramp, or both while training and then thousands of hours teaching, flying freight, towing banners, and all other manner of building time to get where we are. Perhaps thou ought not paint with such a broad brush. If anybody understands what it is like to feel like you are chasing an unobtainable goal it is us.

I've not yet "made it" but who are you to be so judgmental?


That being said, there are some who had mommy and daddy pay their way through who don't understand or value the job like those of us who fought to get where we are. FWIW I know far more who came from the latter category than the former.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: DashTrash
Posted 2013-07-11 08:45:48 and read 6947 times.

Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 4):
Just another rule being passed by idiots with no idea about the circumstances. This rule was passed as a result of the colgan crash, yet this rule would not have done anything to prevent it..... Stupid fo that raised the flaps that ultimately let to her demise had around 2000 hours if I remember correctly. This is such a stupid rule...... My blood boils every time I think about it. My light at the end of the tunnel got moved so far back because of this. I hope people understand the difference between quality and quantity because our idiot lawmakers and the unions that lobbied them ( alpa) should have done more than to just pass a pointless rule.....

First, "stupid FO" raising the flaps had nothing to do with that airplane crashing.

Second. Stop whining. I completely understand your frustrations having been there myself. I had interviews cancel after 9/11 and didn't get another chance for 3 years. It's a present time setback that will benefit you in the long run.

This isn't a perfect rule, but some level of experience is needed before getting in the cockpit of an airliner. The airlines themsevles did a poor job of policing it so .gov stepped in.

Quoting catiii (Reply 7):
A requirement for a pilot to have a minimum of 1,000 flight hours as a co-pilot in air carrier operations prior to serving as a captain for a U.S. airline; and

I like this part. No more street captains. Get some experience in the right seat before you upgrade.

Quoting catiii (Reply 7):
A requirement that F/O's have a type rating on the airplane they're flying.

This is a good thing for FOs. The training won't change much.

Quoting Stackhouse007 (Reply 12):
Rather than pilots building time as a first officer with a small carrier, now they are stuck in a Cessna 172 or whatever they train in, flying from A to B as much as possible to get the time.

In that 172 without someone there to help you make decisions, or even make them for you. That's called gaining experience, even on a severe clear day.

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 13):
Incidents/accidents due to pilot error are rarely attributed to inexperience. They are almost always attributed to things like complacency, inattentiveness, lack of situational awareness, etc. None of these things relate to inexperience, but rather to poor training and oversight.

I disagree. They all relate back to experience level. My decision making skills, situational awareness, attentiveness, etc have all improved as I've gained more experience.

Quoting DeltaRules (Reply 20):
And it sounds like the Asiana captain who was in the left seat on flight 214 had 9,700TT and 3,000 in type, twice the experience in one airplane than Sully and Schumer's law wants pilots just to have to get into an RJ.

Apples and oranges. Ask any expat instructor who's gone to Korea and worked with KAL or Asiana guys.

Quoting B727FA (Reply 24):
Al Haynes was a 250+ hire.

How much time did he have when the hydraulics got shredded? His experience saved many lives that day. Think the outcome would have been different with a 250 wonder pilot behind the yoke? I do.

Some sort of action has been needed in this arena for a long time. You should not see the inside of a cloud for the first time while occupying the right seat of an airliner. Those of us who have been flying for a while have seen and heard the results of inexperience at the airports , in the cockpits and on the radios. This law isn't perfect, but since the airlines haven't been able to police it themselves, something had to change from the outside.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: B727FA
Posted 2013-07-11 09:34:07 and read 6550 times.

I'm not arguing that he had far more hours at that point. My point is that 250+ v/x 1500+ in the FD does not a good pilot make. We all started at "0" There is no "magic" number. If there were, based on BUF, it should be 2,000+1 as that's what the FO had. How ridiculous does THAT sound?

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: DashTrash
Posted 2013-07-11 09:45:07 and read 6517 times.

Quoting B727FA (Reply 49):
I'm not arguing that he had far more hours at that point. My point is that 250+ v/x 1500+ in the FD does not a good pilot make. We all started at "0" There is no "magic" number. If there were, based on BUF, it should be 2,000+1 as that's what the FO had. How ridiculous does THAT sound?

I fully agree there is no magic number. The fact is there has to be a floor, and the present one wasn't working. The Colgan crash was a full system failure. The system has to be revamped.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2013-07-11 11:56:34 and read 6382 times.

Quoting silentbob (Reply 29):
None of the regionals are filling their classes right now.

They'll adapt. Either they'll increase pay, or pay for pilots to get their 1500 hrs.

Sorry if I don't feel sorry for those poor regional executives that have been screwing the little guy for years, in the name of bigger profits. Now they're getting a taste of their own medicine.

Quoting beechtobus (Reply 31):

Stupid FO?! Really? You have no clue what was going on in that cockpit at that time

While the captain was the direct cause of the crash (by not only ignoring the stick shaker, but actively overriding the stick pusher), raising the flaps is something you never do in a stall.

Neither pilot was qualified to be in that cockpit.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: silentbob
Posted 2013-07-11 12:06:54 and read 6353 times.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 51):
They'll adapt. Either they'll increase pay, or pay for pilots to get their 1500 hrs.

Sorry if I don't feel sorry for those poor regional executives that have been screwing the little guy for years, in the name of bigger profits. Now they're getting a taste of their own medicine.

They can't increase pay unless they can also increase revenue from their major airline partners. It's just a matter of time before most of the regionals are gone, and that isn't a bad thing overall.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: miller22
Posted 2013-07-11 13:07:45 and read 6303 times.

Quoting AmericanAirFan (Reply 27):
There are a LOT more jobs than just Part 121 operations that a commercial pilot can get hired to do for far less time than 1,500 hours.

This is incorrect and needs to be addressed. There are far FEWER options for non-121 pilots than before. Flying checks used to be a major part of that business, and now that's gone. All regionals who used to be part 135 are all now part 121. Flight instruction is a joke in terms of applicable experience for an airline, but even that will drop drastically as there will be no students. Fractionals and part 91 corporate flying is a senior job, and not a time-building option in any quantity large enough to help.

Regionals are already having HUGE problems filling classes. Eagle is critical and not even Republic can find enough pilots. That was before the rule change. Expect cancelled flights beginning the end of this year.

The pool of available pilots just got a lot smaller, which means the bad ones with 1,500 hours are going to be placed now. Safety just got worse. Those of us who have been there know, hours do not equal quality.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: DeltaRules
Posted 2013-07-11 13:55:33 and read 6240 times.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 41):
More foreign pilots who have the time trying to enter the US market. Don't know what the rules/laws are there though.

Conversely, I know two pilots who have gone abroad to fly.

The first was a CRJ F/O who had been furloughed and found a job flying CRJ-900s in Nigeria before that carrier went belly-up. He then went to fly the -900 in Uruguay, receiving his callback to the US carrier not long after arriving in South America. He told me that he was seriously considering the South American offer which would've paid 1.5x his US salary, with the disadvantage of being away from family and not having health benefits, eventually opting to stay in the States.

The second recently left the left seat of a major regional for the Middle East to fly the 777.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: DashTrash
Posted 2013-07-11 14:03:16 and read 6220 times.

Quoting miller22 (Reply 53):
Regionals are already having HUGE problems filling classes. Eagle is critical and not even Republic can find enough pilots. That was before the rule change. Expect cancelled flights beginning the end of this year

Regionals have made their bed through low pay and substandard quality of life. If they improve that, there will be more applicants. You mention Eagle and Republic. Eagle is in bankruptcy with the parent airline going through a merger. Why would anyone apply there not knowing whether the company will still be flying in two years? Republic has been in negotiations for what, 5 years? Why would you want to fly for a company who is riding an old contract with no progress in sight?

Quoting miller22 (Reply 53):
The pool of available pilots just got a lot smaller, which means the bad ones with 1,500 hours are going to be placed now. Safety just got worse. Those of us who have been there know, hours do not equal quality.

It has gotten smaller. It is still incumbent on training programs to weed out the guys who shouldn't be there, which was part of the problem to begin with.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: XFSUgimpLB41X
Posted 2013-07-11 14:37:02 and read 6152 times.

All the fatal regional accidents in recent times have had a low time hired pilot at the controls.

10 years ago, it took me 1700 before I could even get a call from a regional due to competition. This hired below 1500 hours stuff is more of an anomaly of the previous 10 years than anything. I found ways to build my time, so can the student pilots posting on this thread. CFIing is extremely rewarding, so is small time corporate flying. I was a much better airline pilot as a result.

I really don't like the flight school carve out (money talks), but I do agree with the age 21 deal. Overall I believe this is a major improvement to the industry.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-07-11 14:52:51 and read 6119 times.

Quoting miller22 (Reply 53):
Regionals are already having HUGE problems filling classes. Eagle is critical and not even Republic can find enough pilots. That was before the rule change. Expect cancelled flights beginning the end of this year.

Good. Then they'll likely be forced to change their ways.

-Mir

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2013-07-11 18:35:38 and read 5970 times.

Quoting DeltaRules (Reply 30):
So for a guy like me, who went to a satellite campus of a major aviation school but did the training through a local FBO, it's 1500. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Nah you're right. The credit thing is just for military/embry-riddle type guys. My bad.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 46):
IMHO, being a CFI is the best possible experience one can gain. You learn so much by teaching others, and seeing the mistakes they make and why. Not to mention increasing your own technical knowledge.
Quoting PITrules (Reply 46):
Disagree completely. Flying into busy airports will come with time, but far more important is to develop one's decision making skills, situational awareness, and being able to 'read' people. All of these skills will become useful later on when CRM is required. Flight Instructing is a great way to develop these skills.

Maybe the FAA could give CFIs some credit. In the final rule, the FAA says they didn't want to go into giving credit for different types of flying because it would be too complicated. Say they give 50 hours of credit if you earn your CFI, another 50 for CFII and an additional 50 for MEI. That could make you eligible for a Restricted-ATP at 1350 instead of 1500.

At least throw them a bone, I say. . .

[Edited 2013-07-11 18:37:38]

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: DashTrash
Posted 2013-07-11 18:49:08 and read 5947 times.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 58):
Maybe the FAA could give CFIs some credit. In the final rule, the FAA says they didn't want to go into giving credit for different types of flying because it would be too complicated. Say they give 50 hours of credit if you earn your CFI, another 50 for CFII and an additional 50 for MEI. That could make you eligible for a Restricted-ATP at 1350 instead of 1500.

At least throw them a bone, I say. . .

I don't think anyone should have gotten any relief with the exception of military guys. A classroom is not an airplane, and an airplane is not a classroom.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-07-11 19:55:33 and read 5875 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 57):
Good. Then they'll likely be forced to change their ways.

Time will tell, but it seems clear to me that is what the intent is.

Clearly supply of new entrants was already drying up, and this will make it a lot worse.

At this point the entrants have taken the burden onto themselves of making themselves ready for the job.

Now that the bar is raised, the industry will have no choice but to get more involved in getting the entrants ready for the job, or close their doors.

This could also mean a lot less smaller airliners flying around, but that won't make the FAA too upset, right? A lot less pressure on ATC facilities and airports works in their favor.

It will mean less (or no) flights to smaller airports, but that's what's happening already.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-07-11 21:11:30 and read 5785 times.

First, one of the major issues of the Colgan crash was (supposidly) resolved with the new fatigue rules:
http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=13272

That part of the regulation I agreed with.

With the drop in small turboprop operations and cargo, how will pilots gain the experience?

Quoting vio (Reply 19):
Don't worry... The airlines will find people with the required time...

IMHO, this rule is to help military pilots find jobs as the DOD winds down operations. But that is only a few thousand pilots...

Quoting catiii (Reply 25):
Show me which of these enhancements would have saved Colgan?

No one can. Other than the fatigue rules, Colgan isn't impacted by the requirements.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 26):
On the positive side, they seem to be talking about some academic classes that can be credited towards the 1500 hours. In other words, you won't need 1500 hours if you do these academic classes, or so I gather thus far.

How many hours can be done with simulators/classroom in total?

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 26):
Also, of the 50 multi-engine hours required, 25 can be sim time.

Wait a second... so a F/A can be anointed with but 25 hours of multi-engine hours?!?

Quoting AmericanAirFan (Reply 27):
There are a LOT more jobs than just Part 121 operations that a commercial pilot can get hired to do for far less time than 1,500 hours.

Most people gravitate towards the best job lifestyle...

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 32):
Yeah, and if you thought regional pay was bad...

   More 'pay to play' first officers in business jets.

What is the minimum criteria for hours? e.g., would sitting in the right seat of a Phenom 100 or 300 count?

Quoting silentbob (Reply 29):
None of the regionals are filling their classes right now.

I'd like to see some stats. They are finding pilots even if the classes are not full... And the quantity of RJs is about to drop.

Quoting silentbob (Reply 29):
Unless those hours actually include flying into places like LGA or JFK in poor weather conditions, no.

And that only happens once hired...

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 41):
2) Airlines being forced to develop robust training/development pipelines to fill their seats. At some point paid training for prospective employees could become their only alternative to shutting down.

3) Based on #2, a dramatic increase in the cost of domestic/regional flying.

I think that is the ideal. Alas, the airlines will cut costs, so they'll offer to put pilots with 1,000 or so hours only into their programs... No airline will pay a pilot to train for two years...

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 50):
The Colgan crash was a full system failure. The system has to be revamped.

   And the fatigue rules help. The rest... isn't going to.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 60):
It will mean less (or no) flights to smaller airports, but that's what's happening already.

We'll hear some screaming when that happens. But that will happen anyway with the transition from 50 seat to 76 seat RJs. Some markets just won't be viable. These rules will raise expenses and that means cutting unprofitable routes.


Lightsaber

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-07-12 03:27:31 and read 5656 times.

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 59):
I don't think anyone should have gotten any relief with the exception of military guys. A classroom is not an airplane, and an airplane is not a classroom.

If a classroom is not an airplane and an airplane is not a classroom, then why should military guys get any relief - they'd be just as lacking in actual flight experience as anyone else.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 61):
What is the minimum criteria for hours? e.g., would sitting in the right seat of a Phenom 100 or 300 count?

Depends. If the person they're flying with has the single-pilot type rating for those planes, and it's a Part 91 flight, then those hours don't count unless the FO also has the type rating (single-pilot or otherwise) and is the flying pilot. If the person they're flying with doesn't have the single-pilot type rating, then the FO is a required crew member and can log the time. If it's a 135 flight and the operator's OpSpecs require an SIC, then it's all loggable time, regardless of who's flying or whether the PIC has the single-pilot type or not.

-Mir

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: B747400ERF
Posted 2013-07-12 04:44:09 and read 5588 times.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 47):
Except that most of us worked long hours doing whatever it took to pay for our flight training, begged borrowed and did everything short of stealing to get flight time and finish our ratings. Most of us spent years working at FBOs or on the ramp, or both while training and then thousands of hours teaching, flying freight, towing banners, and all other manner of building time to get where we are. Perhaps thou ought not paint with such a broad brush. If anybody understands what it is like to feel like you are chasing an unobtainable goal it is us.

Sure, and how long did you do this for? How many hours until you were hired?

So imagine going what you went through, but multiply its time by 3. And for even lower pay. Sounds great, right?

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: passedv1
Posted 2013-07-12 09:54:59 and read 5499 times.

First...its only 1500 hours if you don't go to an approved flight school.

I have never felt that flight hours ensure a good pilot...what an hour requirement does is it requires a certain length of history that can be evaluated.

It's not that there are no good pilots with 250 hours, it's that you cannot distinguish between a good and bad pilot if both pilots only have 250 hours, especially if they were not in a structured environment with uniform evaluations.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: miller22
Posted 2013-07-12 10:17:25 and read 5455 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 57):
Good. Then they'll likely be forced to change their ways.
Quoting DashTrash (Reply 55):
Regionals have made their bed through low pay and substandard quality of life.

And there you have it. The true reasons behind ALPA's strong support behind this change.

This has nothing to do with safety, people. We just watched a 10,000 hour pilot destroy a 777 in SFO. This is all about ALPA improving their bargaining position.

ALPA would love it if there were not another licensed pilot from here on out. Imagine how much they could pay the remainder of the pilots! That last pilot would probably land over $20M a year, and guess what? Since he's the only member of ALPA, he's the only one who could vote on the lobby. The perfect crime.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: T5towbar
Posted 2013-07-12 10:39:39 and read 5414 times.

Just a question: Since most regional operators are getting rid of their CR2's & E145's and going to larger a/c like the E175 and CR9, will there still be enough regional pilots to fly those planes? And I'm quite sure that pay has to go upward to account for the size of the aircraft.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: futureualpilot
Posted 2013-07-12 18:12:24 and read 5267 times.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 63):
Sure, and how long did you do this for? How many hours until you were hired?

I taught and flew other jobs for two and a half years before I was hired by my first airline. When I was hired I exceeded the criteria to hold an ATP by a wide margin as did those in my class. At the time I hated it, looking back now I am not only grateful for the experience but it was some of the most fun flying I've done to date. I was at recurrent training today and was talking with a new hire class we have going through, every one of them save for three or four (out of 20) with prior airline experience, found a way to meet and exceed ATP minimums in order to even be looked at for an interview.

[Edited 2013-07-12 18:18:25]

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: futureualpilot
Posted 2013-07-12 18:58:01 and read 5208 times.

Quoting miller22 (Reply 65):
And there you have it. The true reasons behind ALPA's strong support behind this change.

This has nothing to do with safety, people. We just watched a 10,000 hour pilot destroy a 777 in SFO. This is all about ALPA improving their bargaining position.

ALPA would love it if there were not another licensed pilot from here on out. Imagine how much they could pay the remainder of the pilots! That last pilot would probably land over $20M a year, and guess what? Since he's the only member of ALPA, he's the only one who could vote on the lobby. The perfect crime.

Take off the tin foil hat. All the airlines would have to do would be reduce frequency and use larger airplanes. Shortage. Solved. ALPA was not the only supporter of this change either. I'm not ALPA's biggest fan but they have had a hand in several improvements to safety, this one included.

That being said, a little leverage to bring pay and work rules up at regional carriers to attract a higher quality pilot would go a long way in furthering safety.

One thing to note, that 10k hour pilot had fewer than 100hrs in type. Not what I might call a wealth of experience when it comes to wide body twins. Accidents are the result of several failures, very rarely, if ever, is it one single failure. It is disingenuous to single out one aspect in the case of Asiana 214.

[Edited 2013-07-12 19:00:28]

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: Flighty
Posted 2013-07-12 19:43:26 and read 5156 times.

This is foolish. You strike while the iron is hot.

CRJ, ERJ, B1900, Dash are acceptable training vehicles for pilots 250-1500 hours. There are 2 pilots in front, after all. Captains should be proficient and always pretty well experienced. If low-timers will wash out, let them wash out prior to 1500 TT. Make them provisional until that time. But let them fly. The safety risks (if any - and that is debatable) are negligible and it serves a purpose. We can train up lots of pilots if we allow 250 time pilots in.


The earlier status quo worked fine -- now if today's pilots ALLOW their profession to replenish itself as the baby boomers retire, we will have enough staff. If they outlaw young pilots getting experience, it makes experienced pilots seem artificially scarce, which is the intended stunt really.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: silentbob
Posted 2013-07-12 21:42:41 and read 5082 times.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 69):
CRJ, ERJ, B1900, Dash are acceptable training vehicles for pilots 250-1500 hours. There are 2 pilots in front, after all. Captains should be proficient and always pretty well experienced. If low-timers will wash out, let them wash out prior to 1500 TT. Make them provisional until that time. But let them fly. The safety risks (if any - and that is debatable) are negligible and it serves a purpose. We can train up lots of pilots if we allow 250 time pilots in.

Having flown with a lot of 250 hour guys, I tend to agree. If the FAA had doubled the requirement to 500 hours, it would have had a huge impact, but 1500 is just too much of an increase.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: Goldenshield
Posted 2013-07-12 21:50:08 and read 5060 times.

Quoting silentbob (Reply 70):
If the FAA had doubled the requirement to 500 hours, it would have had a huge impact, but 1500 is just too much of an increase.

A few regionals had 1000+ hour hiring mins long prior to all of this nonsense, and even then, their pools were quite large, and that their applicants usually came from other regionals with lower hiring mins. I suspect that in these particular regionals' cases, requiring another 500 hours (or less) really isn't going to hurt their applicant pool.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: planemaker
Posted 2013-07-12 22:43:50 and read 5014 times.

Quoting miller22 (Reply 65):
ALPA would love it if there were not another licensed pilot from here on out. Imagine how much they could pay the remainder of the pilots! That last pilot would probably land over $20M a year, and guess what? Since he's the only member of ALPA, he's the only one who could vote on the lobby. The perfect crime.

Don't worry... that approach will only accelerate SP ops. 

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: DashTrash
Posted 2013-07-13 07:17:52 and read 4905 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 62):

If a classroom is not an airplane and an airplane is not a classroom, then why should military guys get any relief - they'd be just as lacking in actual flight experience as anyone else.

Mil guys come from a no BS training environment into an operation with intense oversight and in some cases very high performance aircraft. The new rule is in place to keep inexperience out of the cockpit. Mil guys have the experience.

Quoting miller22 (Reply 65):

It's a side effect, but not the reason.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 69):

CRJ, ERJ, B1900, Dash are acceptable training vehicles for pilots 250-1500 hours.

Then so is a 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787, DC-9, MD80, etc. No. A cockpit is not a classroom. Not to say it's not a learning environment, but it's not where you go specifically to learn.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 69):
There are 2 pilots in front, after all. Captains should be proficient and always pretty well experienced. If low-timers will wash out, let them wash out prior to 1500 TT. Make them provisional until that time. But let them fly. The safety risks (if any - and that is debatable) are negligible and it serves a purpose. We can train up lots of pilots if we allow 250 time pilots in.

No one washes out once you get to the cockpit. Sim training is mostly regurgitation. Very few scenarios make you think outside the checklists and wouldn't be applicable to new guys anyway.

An airline pilot needs a certain knowledge base, confidence, and skills set. Even the 250 hr guys that do fine in the cockpit don't have it. You ONLY get it from experience. Even 1500 hours of pattern bombing gives you plenty command decisions that have to be made, and the confidence built from having made them.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: Flighty
Posted 2013-07-13 08:53:05 and read 4830 times.

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 73):
Even the 250 hr guys that do fine in the cockpit don't have it. You ONLY get it from experience.

Yeah... so let's start with that in mind. What do you want to do? Require 1500 hours to enter the regionals? Is that really going to work?

As a "zero content" participant in this discussion I am only asking questions. Before, we knew 250 hour pilots were not "experienced pilots" but we let them do the job in the right seat, as integration into becoming professional pilots. If we no longer allow them, where is the big pipe needed to supply all of airlinedom with young pilots?

Maybe we will see a bunch of pilot-funded, somewhat pointless airmail services to build time? In the end, won't that hurt only pilots by causing them to self-fund hours & go into debt?

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: KD5MDK
Posted 2013-07-13 10:58:07 and read 4763 times.

In most industries, when the employer demands a skill that is in too much demand and cannot hire enough people to meet its demand, the employer ends up providing the training.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: silentbob
Posted 2013-07-14 09:34:17 and read 4512 times.

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 75):
In most industries, when the employer demands a skill that is in too much demand and cannot hire enough people to meet its demand, the employer ends up providing the training.

I think that's where we are headed, with airline sponsored training schools that the FAA accepts as qualified for that airline with something akin to the "Restricted ATP" given to guys slightly under the qualifications now.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: infiniti329
Posted 2013-07-14 17:35:21 and read 4351 times.

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 73):
Mil guys come from a no BS training environment into an operation with intense oversight and in some cases very high performance aircraft. The new rule is in place to keep inexperience out of the cockpit. Mil guys have the experience.

What makes you think that after leaving the military, those pilots still want to be pilots? Maybe after 20 yrs they decide to something else outside aviation.

You need civilian pilots to keep the country with the largest aviation industry afloat. The notation people think that 1500 hrs comes with snap of the fingers is abysmal to me. I am confident that the FAA and the airlines will have to compromise once the airlines revenue amounts take a nose dive.

Airlines need to take a page out of BA's textbook, as they had foreseen a shortage looming in their neck of woods. By their proactive approach they will have pilots in their pipeline for at least another decade if not more.


http://www.bafuturepilot.com/

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: apodino
Posted 2013-07-14 17:41:10 and read 4347 times.

A couple of points. One...if this rule had been in effect for years...Rebecca Shaw would not have been in the right seat on 3407 because at the time she was hired she did not have 1500 hours. I don't know if Marvin Renslow did or not...but part of the other problem with 3407 is that at the time of the crash...the regionals were getting flying like crazy and had to put pilots in seats to fly them. One of the unfortunate consequences of this is that many regionals did not vet their new hire pilots properly...and if they had...then Captain Renslow would likely have not been hired in the first place. My fear with the new rule is this is going to happen quite a bit as regionals are going to have difficulty filling the flight deck seats. However...the basic rule of economics is that is supply goes down and demand goes up...then the price for the supply goes up. This could serve in the future to attract better candidates to the profession and make it a good career again. This won't happen for a while as because Delta managed to get the Endeavour Air pilots to accept a bad contract making them cheap...all the other majors are demanding the same from their regional partners. One solution that is out there on the rumor mill is that Doug Parker is trying to get AA and Eagle pilots on one seniority list and all hirings would be at Eagle a d only that way can you get to AA. Good luck getting APA on board with that one.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: DashTrash
Posted 2013-07-15 06:06:22 and read 4089 times.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 74):
Before, we knew 250 hour pilots were not "experienced pilots" but we let them do the job in the right seat, as integration into becoming professional pilots.

The flaw in your thinking is that when a pilot sets foot in their first interview, they have become a professional pilot. Professionalism is required to fly these things safely. You don't "become" a professional pilot through flying an RJ.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 74):
If we no longer allow them, where is the big pipe needed to supply all of airlinedom with young pilots?

Same place it was when I got out of college. Flight instruction, banner, towing, pipeline flying, etc. It wasn't always the case that newly minted commercial pilots were getting airline jobs right out of college. Not long ago you needed close to 1500 hours before you'd get an interview.

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 75):
In most industries, when the employer demands a skill that is in too much demand and cannot hire enough people to meet its demand, the employer ends up providing the training.

Airlines provide the training already. Ask any ex-Comair pilot who got hired at another CRJ operator what training they completed before flying the same frame at a new company. It's not "training" you need before getting hired, it's experience. The issue here is we've long considered regional airline flying to be entry level when in reality it isn't. Entry level flying is the type where you die when you blow it, and not take 30-90 people with you.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 77):
What makes you think that after leaving the military, those pilots still want to be pilots? Maybe after 20 yrs they decide to something else outside aviation.

I never said they would. Judging by the number of ex-military guys I flew with at both a regional airline and a fractional, I think the number is significant.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 77):
You need civilian pilots to keep the country with the largest aviation industry afloat. The notation people think that 1500 hrs comes with snap of the fingers is abysmal to me.

I don't think anyone thinks 1500 hours is attainable overnight. Gaining some experience is the point of the reg.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 77):
I am confident that the FAA and the airlines will have to compromise once the airlines revenue amounts take a nose dive.

Ah yes. Let revenue drive safety. I'm pretty sure that's what got us here to begin with.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: miller22
Posted 2013-07-15 08:20:00 and read 4009 times.

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 73):
It's a side effect, but not the reason.

I wish you were correct, but I can assure you from what I've heard from inside ALPA itself, it is not.

There is zero correlation between hours and safety of appropriately licensed pilots. Actually, that's not entirely true. There is some negative correlation that shoes the higher the time, the more prone to accidents due to complacency, but it's minimal.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: DashTrash
Posted 2013-07-15 09:26:53 and read 3966 times.

Quoting miller22 (Reply 80):
I wish you were correct, but I can assure you from what I've heard from inside ALPA itself, it is not.

Had ALPA been the driving force behind this legislation their stance on it would be relevant. They weren't. This was the band aid thrown on the situation by legislators.

Quoting miller22 (Reply 80):
There is zero correlation between hours and safety of appropriately licensed pilots. Actually, that's not entirely true. There is some negative correlation that shoes the higher the time, the more prone to accidents due to complacency, but it's minimal.

I have to wonder how many studies were actually completed. How many abnormals were studied to see what role each crewmember played in succesful outcomes. How many extra sim sessions were required to complete training for low time pilots as opposed to higher time pilots. You cannot convince me additional experience in the cockpit does not equate to a safer operation. I've seen it firsthand. (to a point, as you state. I agree complacency can and does set in the longer you spend in any given aircraft type if you let it).

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: tribird1011
Posted 2013-07-15 10:31:55 and read 3910 times.

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 81):
You cannot convince me additional experience in the cockpit does not equate to a safer operation. I've seen it firsthand


That in itself is a very bad statement to make. Granted experience is a good thing, but i'm sure you've heard that there are some pilots with 500hours or so who act like they have been flying their entire life,and are extremely professional about it, and there are those with 10,000 hours plus who have absolutely no business being inside a cockpit...

You have to admit even "experienced" guys have bad days...

OZ214 (ok full details not fully available yet...)
AF358
AF447

you can probably agree that there are plenty more, however, a quick glance indicates these airplanes are no longer with us, ultimately due to the actions of the crew - at the time of these accidents, all 3 airplanes were in completely flyable condition.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: silentbob
Posted 2013-07-15 15:26:59 and read 3770 times.

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 79):
Same place it was when I got out of college. Flight instruction, banner, towing, pipeline flying, etc. It wasn't always the case that newly minted commercial pilots were getting airline jobs right out of college. Not long ago you needed close to 1500 hours before you'd get an interview.

I'm not picking on you, as those comments have been repeated a number of times. "That's the way we've always done it" is rarely the best way to address a problem, especially one as significant as this one is. Shortly before the economy imploded, airlines were hiring guys with a fresh commercial ticket and 250 hours. Then the FAA kicked the can down the road five years and nobody addressed the issue during that time. Time alone doesn't make you a better pilot, I know a couple guys with 20k hours that I don't feel safe flying with.

As for the jobs you suggest guys find, it seems like there are fewer and fewer of those than ever before. I don't think there are enough to train the couple thousand pilots that are going to be needed per year in the near future.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: N908AW
Posted 2013-07-15 16:19:03 and read 3729 times.

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 75):
In most industries, when the employer demands a skill that is in too much demand and cannot hire enough people to meet its demand, the employer ends up providing the training.

This would be a logical place for the industry to go, however being as none of the regionals have the resources to take on tens of thousands of dollars in training per pilot, this will have to be implemented by majors, using the regionals as a pipeline.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 68):
That being said, a little leverage to bring pay and work rules up at regional carriers to attract a higher quality pilot would go a long way in furthering safety.

ALPA/IBT can have all the leverage it wants, but there isn't really a regional carrier out there that has in a position financially to provide significantly better wages. The CPAs simply don't provide that kind of margin right now. In other words, leverage doesn't work up against a brick wall. Regionals cannot just market better or raise prices to provide more revenue, they have contracts they agree to fulfill at a set price (unless your name is Skywest). If labor costs rise too much, an airline with a better cost structure (with or without higher pilot pay) undercuts them and we're back at square one. Short of collusion, there isn't a whole lot that can be done as long as the majors keep throwing money and planes to the lowest bidder.

The demise of the majority of the

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: n6238p
Posted 2013-07-15 16:33:44 and read 3706 times.

Raise the minimum qualifications to fly for an airline.

Introduce B pay scales to match the lowest paying RJ jobs out there for new hires.

Oh aviation when will you be filming the HBO Comedy Special?

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2013-07-15 19:04:49 and read 3619 times.

Where is the captain in all of this? A professional, knowledgeable captain isn't going to let the FO crash the airplane. So why so much focus on FOs when there are two people on board?

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: ual777
Posted 2013-07-15 22:58:05 and read 3500 times.

Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 4):
My light at the end of the tunnel got moved so far back because of this. I hope people understand the difference between quality and quantity because our idiot lawmakers and the unions that lobbied them ( alpa) should have done more than to just pass a pointless rule.....

Take the time to learn the craft by CFIing. You will be better for it.

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 6):

I agree that a policy should punish students who have gone through some types of programs, like those who value getting paid and cranking out students who have been taught to pass tests rather than fly airplanes. For pilots with bachelor's degrees in the profession having spent four years in intensive training to be required to meet the same blanket standards is an injustice to them and completely pointless.

This reeks of Riddle talk.  
Quoting Stackhouse007 (Reply 12):
Rather than pilots building time as a first officer with a small carrier, now they are stuck in a Cessna 172 or whatever they train in, flying from A to B as much as possible to get the time. Yes, they get more hours, but the experience is not being built like it use to be. Accidents are not happening because a pilot has less than 1,500 hours...

No, they will go earn a CFI and TEACH others how to fly and build basic airmanship skills.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 14):

I understand the meaning behind it but this is not the way. The pipeline for pilots is already drying up (look at the situation at MQ and RP). This rule only closes the faucet faster. Perfect example the Asiana crew had over 20,000 hrs between the two of them and still this accident happened.

But I guarantee you they were all hired really low-time and that's why they couldn't shoot a visual approach.

Quoting DeltaRules (Reply 20):

I'm right there with you. Feels like a kneejerk reaction to make John Q. Public feel safer about flying, putting a band-aid on a broken leg in the process.

See below.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 22):


I was proficient in stall recognition and recovery after roughly 20 flight hours. I was also given a long, hard lecture about "get-there-itis" around the same time.

You think you are. By earning a CFI you will learn and MASTER different types of stalls as well as spins. Stalling in a jet is a TOTALLY different animal than in a straight-wing aircraft. It happens much faster and in some cases won't come out if it spins.

Quoting louA340 (Reply 28):
I somewhat agree that before a pilot steps into the airline industry, they must have the relevant experience. My only question is how do they expect all the pilots to get there?
Build the time on their own? That will be a financial nightmare for anyone. Learning to fly on its own is quite the task, let alone finance over 1000+ more hours flying.

No, they get 250 hours and an instructor license.

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 36):
I'm starting to wonder how come the rash of accidents in Europe hasn't occurred yet... I mean there has to be at least one or two guys out there flying the right seat of an A320 or B737 with barely over 250 hours...

Its not a rash, but lets remember Air France and Colgan. Both accidents had low-time new hires at the helm who were weak on fundamentals.

Looking at a pilot's experience at the time of the accident is irrelevant. You must also look at their training and time built up to that point. Even 300-400 hours of dual given will work wonders for a pilot looking to MASTER their craft.

I was young and inexperienced too, but I thank God I had to build time as a CFI in a bad economy before I was hired. Just my oral for my initial CFI was 7 hours long. By teaching and demonstrating maneuvers you master basic airmanship. Students will all have different questions that you wont have the answers to. So when you go look them up you keep learning in the process. It also gives valuable CRM and Pilot In Command experience that will carry through all the way to the airlines.

When I was a new-hire at the regional's with maybe 50 hours in the jet, this valuable experience and knowledge paid off. Long story short, on a very short and busy leg we shot an approach in low IFR to an airport in the US. The captain had disconnected the auto pilot and put the aircraft into an undesired aircraft state. Bottom line, the captain had a major 'brain fart' and almost totally lost all situation awareness. My 'sixth sense' I had developed as an instructor when things are starting to look and feel wrong saved the day. I called the go around and possibly kept us from being a smoking hole in the ground.

Throw yourself into instructing and embrace it. You will learn far more than you are able to teach, and it very well may save your life if you are ever put into a critical situation.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: apodino
Posted 2013-07-15 23:12:03 and read 3495 times.

One problem with the CFI route is these days very few people are learning to fly for the reasons that have been mentioned, which means that the CFI will have a hard time building hours without students. I read an article somewhere and it might have been in John Cox's article in USAToday that suggested the most economic way to get time might be to buy a used 152 or something like that, and just fly it constantly. I doubt many people will take that approach, but it could work.

And one comment about market forces. Right before the RJ boom started, you almost had to have the current ATP mins to even get an interview with a regional. After the RJ Boom happened, there was no where near as much supply so what happened was instead of increasing pay (what most other companies do in this situation to attract talent), they decided to decrease the hiring standards by lowering time and not vetting candidates properly. Now that Congress has acted to require hiring mins to go back up, in addition to the fatigue rules (Which will increase the number of pilots per ac needed), the supply is going to go down...and the laws of economics show that this should help get pay back up. My fear is that a lot of cities will lose air service at the same time. We shall see how this plays out in the next few years.

My advice - Sell any stock in regional airlines and I would actually buy Delta right now.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: DashTrash
Posted 2013-07-16 06:28:27 and read 3352 times.

quote=tribird1011,reply=82]You have to admit even "experienced" guys have bad days...

OZ214 (ok full details not fully available yet...)
AF358
AF447[/quote]

Agreed. These are foreign carriers though. I know from friends flying in Asia the concept of CRM there is entirely different than in the US. Basically, the FO doesn't question the captain. Look at the Asiana crash. IOE captain watches the flying captain drive the airplane into a seawall. Obviously we only have speculation at this point and we're leaving out some other possibly contributing factors, but there are a lot of us wondering how in the hell that happened.

Quoting silentbob (Reply 83):
"That's the way we've always done it" is rarely the best way to address a problem, especially one as significant as this one is. Shortly before the economy imploded, airlines were hiring guys with a fresh commercial ticket and 250 hours. Then the FAA kicked the can down the road five years and nobody addressed the issue during that time. Time alone doesn't make you a better pilot, I know a couple guys with 20k hours that I don't feel safe flying with.

I agree with you. Problem is checkrides are pass ot fail. The Feds can't observe every one of them and at least one regional airline training department demonstrated its inability to weed out pilots who don't need to be there. What does this leave us?

Quoting silentbob (Reply 83):
As for the jobs you suggest guys find, it seems like there are fewer and fewer of those than ever before. I don't think there are enough to train the couple thousand pilots that are going to be needed per year in the near future.

Agreed. There probably aren't enough true entry level jobs to go around. This really isn't much of a change from historical norms because flying an airliner is not an entry level job. We made it that way during the turboprop era and transitioned it to regional jets.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 86):
Where is the captain in all of this? A professional, knowledgeable captain isn't going to let the FO crash the airplane. So why so much focus on FOs when there are two people on board?

The captain is not a babysitter. He shouldn't have to correct poor crosswind landing technique or bail an FO out of trouble during a low viz approach. The FO should know how to do these things before he gets to the airlines. He's a manager, not an instructor.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2013-07-16 07:57:20 and read 3294 times.

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 89):
The captain is not a babysitter. He shouldn't have to correct poor crosswind landing technique or bail an FO out of trouble during a low viz approach. The FO should know how to do these things before he gets to the airlines. He's a manager, not an instructor.

As the manager, the captains is responsible for the level of professionalism in the cockpit. And even with 1500 hours, a FO can still make mistakes. It's why they don't go straight into the right seat, after all.

So while the captain shouldn't be a flight instructor, it still is a type of mentorship program. Therefore, it's important we have captains that know what they are doing. The profession, today, gives very little thought to who becomes a captain. It's entirely based on seniority, which doesn't even have anything to do with how many hours one has. It's based on your class start date and your last name initial. And that's pretty sad.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: DashTrash
Posted 2013-07-16 08:34:35 and read 3275 times.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 90):
As the manager, the captains is responsible for the level of professionalism in the cockpit. And even with 1500 hours, a FO can still make mistakes. It's why they don't go straight into the right seat, after all.

Actually they do go straight into the right seat. I'm assuming you meant left, and some airline have hired street captains. Any start up would have to hire them. The new legislation requires that street captains have X amount of hours either in type or 121 time (can't remember) before they're legal.

Yes, a 1500 hour FO can make mistakes. He's human. Any human can make mistakes. The longer you do something, however, the frequency of mistakes decreases. This is true of anything.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 90):
So while the captain shouldn't be a flight instructor, it still is a type of mentorship program. Therefore, it's important we have captains that know what they are doing.

You're correct that the captain becomes a mentor. That's not his primary function though. They way it should work, is that the training department teaches you the regs, systems, flows, and procedures. Your IOE check airman teaches you to fly the airplane. The captains you fly with teach you to be captains, but these lessons come from observations on what works best. By the time you upgrade you should have assimilated the best qualities of the better captains you fly with.

The 1500 hour rule isn't about that, however. There are things you gain from experience that you should have before you fly an airliner in any capacity. You need experience making command decisions regarding the operation and safety of the flight. You need to be the final authority in go / no-go decisions. You need to be making "which way to deviate" decisions. You won't be making these decisions when you get to an airline. You will be consulted, but if you don't have the fundamental experience to assist in those decisions, what good are you to the captain? This is a team sport. Plain and simple. If experience didn't matter, legacy carriers wouldn't require it either.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 90):
The profession, today, gives very little thought to who becomes a captain. It's entirely based on seniority, which doesn't even have anything to do with how many hours one has. It's based on your class start date and your last name initial. And that's pretty sad.

Partially true. When you upgrade you still have to pass a type ride, FAA ride, and IOE. You still have to prove ability. Using the seniority system was designed to take management bias out of the equation. Aviation is a pass or fail industry. If we disregard seniority, how do we choose who flies as captain? Does the airline decide based on most on-time arrivals? Lowest fuel burn? Fewest sick calls? All of these promote unsafe behavior.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2013-07-22 10:04:34 and read 2696 times.

sorry error post.

delete please.

[Edited 2013-07-22 10:05:17]

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: futureualpilot
Posted 2013-07-22 10:34:13 and read 2661 times.

Quoting N908AW (Reply 84):
ALPA/IBT can have all the leverage it wants, but there isn't really a regional carrier out there that has in a position financially to provide significantly better wages. The CPAs simply don't provide that kind of margin right now. In other words, leverage doesn't work up against a brick wall. Regionals cannot just market better or raise prices to provide more revenue, they have contracts they agree to fulfill at a set price (unless your name is Skywest). If labor costs rise too much, an airline with a better cost structure (with or without higher pilot pay) undercuts them and we're back at square one. Short of collusion, there isn't a whole lot that can be done as long as the majors keep throwing money and planes to the lowest bidder.

You're right, it is very much an uphill battle. Especially at the regional level. Eagle's MEC just took another step in the right direction in voting down the proposed B Scale. Unfortunately it also puts them in a precarious position to become the next Comair. It is a tough place to be in which is why I said any leverage pilots can get right now is good. Every little bit helps. At some point even CFI's with a bad case of SJS won't go to the regionals. Something has to give eventually and it is starting to get there. I know of more than one company that has had trouble filling classes in recent months.


Quoting PPVRA (Reply 90):
The profession, today, gives very little thought to who becomes a captain. It's entirely based on seniority, which doesn't even have anything to do with how many hours one has. It's based on your class start date and your last name initial. And that's pretty sad.

While it is seniority based, I have seen cases where line Captains and Check Airman prevented the upgrade of an FO who in their opinion and based on their experiences with a particular pilot, was not ready. Just because your seniority can hold the left seat doesn't mean you automatically earn the 4th stripe, it is still quite a process to make it to the left seat.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: flight152
Posted 2013-07-22 11:29:37 and read 2603 times.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 90):
And even with 1500 hours, a FO can still make mistakes.

Also, 10,000 hour captains make mistakes; which is why the FO is there to begin with.

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-07-22 22:46:38 and read 2439 times.

Quoting apodino (Reply 88):
Now that Congress has acted to require hiring mins to go back up, in addition to the fatigue rules (Which will increase the number of pilots per ac needed), the supply is going to go down...and the laws of economics show that this should help get pay back up. My fear is that a lot of cities will lose air service at the same time. We shall see how this plays out in the next few years.

The mins us will cut supply. Nitpick, the new fatigue rules increase demand.   Same conclusion.

But I am going to remain skeptical about a pilot shortage. It would be good to see a profession paid more appropriate to their training. However, I live near one of the many little airports with pilot schools. I have trouble imagining it would be too severe a shortage for enough time. For too many have the hope of flying. If after the 1500 hours its a few years at the regionals, there will be an opportunity at the LCCs and majors.

LIghtsaber

Topic: RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O
Username: DeltaRules
Posted 2013-07-23 12:27:13 and read 2322 times.



Quoting silentbob (Reply 70):
If the FAA had doubled the requirement to 500 hours, it would have had a huge impact, but 1500 is just too much of an increase.

It seems as though some people think that everyone against the law is saying "Hire me at 250". That's not how I see it. I always figured (as a student over the last few years) 500-700 would be the range, as that's where people ahead me were picked up.

I could have lived with the law if it were a more reasonable number, though I guess "reasonable" is subjective.

[Edited 2013-07-23 12:28:28]


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/