Gonzalo
Topic Author
Posts: 1526
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:25 pm

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.
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789
 
flight152
Posts: 3211
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 8:04 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:48 pm

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

Moving on.
 
silentbob
Posts: 1539
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:26 pm

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:54 pm

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.
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:55 pm

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)

=
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
93Sierra
Posts: 354
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:01 pm

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:31 pm

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
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 3975
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:13 pm

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
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Crew
Posts: 1084
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:48 pm

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.
 
catiii
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:35 pm

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.
 
T5towbar
Posts: 428
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:06 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:06 pm

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?
A comment from an Ex CON: Work Hard.....Fly Standby!
 
modesto2
Posts: 2669
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2000 3:44 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:09 pm

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...
 
Gonzalo
Topic Author
Posts: 1526
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:24 pm

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.
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:51 pm

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
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
Stackhouse007
Posts: 377
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:07 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:09 am

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.
Nikon D60: 18-55mm - 55-200mm / Canon 50D: 100-400mm
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Crew
Posts: 1084
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:43 am

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.
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 1732
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:23 am

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.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11828
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:41 am

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
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
futureualpilot
Posts: 2402
Joined: Thu May 25, 2000 10:52 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:03 am

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]
Life is better when you surf.
 
catiii
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:10 am

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.
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4636
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:30 am

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.
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
User avatar
Vio
Posts: 1475
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:23 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:57 am

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...
Superior decisions reduce the need for superior skills.
 
DeltaRules
Posts: 3693
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 11:57 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:12 am



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]
A310/319/320/321/333, ARJ, BN2, B722/73S/733/734/735/73G/738/739/744/757/753/767/763/764/777, CR1/2/7/9, DH6, 328, EM2/ERJ/E70/E75/E90, F28/100, J31, L10/12/15, DC9/D93/D94/D95/M80/M88/M90/D10, SF3, SST
 
modesto2
Posts: 2669
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2000 3:44 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:19 am

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.
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4636
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:23 am

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.
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
modesto2
Posts: 2669
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2000 3:44 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:34 am

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.
 
User avatar
b727fa
Posts: 1042
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:21 pm

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:45 am

Al Haynes was a 250+ hire.
My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.
 
catiii
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:06 am

Quoting modesto2 (Reply 21):

Because this is all for show. Show me which of these enhancements would have saved Colgan?
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:08 am

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.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
AmericanAirFan
Posts: 385
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:22 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:11 am

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.
"American 1881 Cleared For Takeoff One Seven Left"
 
louA340
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:19 pm

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:11 am

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?
RyEng
 
silentbob
Posts: 1539
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:26 pm

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:27 am

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.
 
DeltaRules
Posts: 3693
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 11:57 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:29 am

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.
A310/319/320/321/333, ARJ, BN2, B722/73S/733/734/735/73G/738/739/744/757/753/767/763/764/777, CR1/2/7/9, DH6, 328, EM2/ERJ/E70/E75/E90, F28/100, J31, L10/12/15, DC9/D93/D94/D95/M80/M88/M90/D10, SF3, SST
 
Beechtobus
Posts: 367
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:09 pm

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:30 am

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.
 
b747400erf
Posts: 2107
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:33 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:33 am

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...
 
b747400erf
Posts: 2107
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:33 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:36 am

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.
 
PDX88
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:17 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:48 am

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.....
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 6:30 am

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?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
tribird1011
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:08 pm

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 6:53 am

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...    
 
lutfi
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 6:33 pm

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:18 am

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
 
flanker
Posts: 1407
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:42 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:25 am

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...     
Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
 
DTWSXM
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:02 pm

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:30 am

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!
Sláinte
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:10 am

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
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
smittyone
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:55 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:22 am

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.
 
catiii
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:49 pm

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.
 
daedaeg
Posts: 627
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 1:54 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:30 pm

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.
Everyday you're alive is a good day.
 
xdlx
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:29 pm

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:40 pm

You think is bad now.... wait two decades .... Pilots with Drone time will be hired to fly Droned Airliners!
 
f35
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:08 pm

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:46 pm

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]
 
PITrules
Posts: 2109
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2000 11:27 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:31 pm

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.
FLYi
 
futureualpilot
Posts: 2402
Joined: Thu May 25, 2000 10:52 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:38 pm

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.
Life is better when you surf.
 
DashTrash
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:44 am

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:45 pm

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.
 
User avatar
b727fa
Posts: 1042
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:21 pm

RE: FAA: Changes In The Flight Time Needed To Be F/O

Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:34 pm

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?
My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Achtstein, AirbusA6, Baidu [Spider], BartSimpson, Bing [Bot], dergay, dvarney, Emperorvalse, Google [Bot], Heavierthanair, hkcanadaexpat, KarelXWB, luftaom, pedrinch, posti, Qatara340, sdbelgium, speedygonzales, uta999, vhtje, XAM2175 and 216 guests