Republic Airways is seeking an exemption from the 1500 flight hour rule so pilots can begin flying at 750 hours.

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2022-0535-0001

Any chance this is granted?

BoeingG wrote:

Republic Airways is seeking an exemption from the 1500 flight hour rule so pilots can begin flying at 750 hours.

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2022-0535-0001

Any chance this is granted?

The unions will be throwing fits…..

FlyingElvii wrote:

BoeingG wrote:

Republic Airways is seeking an exemption from the 1500 flight hour rule so pilots can begin flying at 750 hours.

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2022-0535-0001

Any chance this is granted?

The unions will be throwing fits…..

On one hand, this increases the number of union pilots and keeps airlines operating…

BoeingG wrote:

Republic Airways is seeking an exemption from the 1500 flight hour rule so pilots can begin flying at 750 hours.

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2022-0535-0001

Any chance this is granted?

Just read it..

It appears they want exemptions for Lift Academy grads…

For those that don’t know, Lift Academy is Republic’s “In House” puppy pilot school.

BoeingG wrote:

Republic Airways is seeking an exemption from the 1500 flight hour rule so pilots can begin flying at 750 hours.

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2022-0535-0001

Any chance this is granted?

Good for them. Hope it is granted. Nobody needs to fly 4 digit hours in a single engine piston to safely operate an airliner. With appropriate training that is.

Elsewhere in the world airlines operate as safe or safer with cadets of 200hrs. No problem. Just proper training.

To be fair, military pilots already get an exception to have 750 hours. No reason 141 intensive training can't get similar. There are also 1250 and 1000 hour exemptions.

Nicoeddf wrote:

Good for them. Hope it is granted. Nobody needs to fly 4 digit hours in a single engine piston to safely operate an airliner. With appropriate training that is.

Elsewhere in the world airlines operate as safe or safer with cadets of 200hrs. No problem. Just proper training.

I agree in principle, however there needs to be appropriate training for the airline pilot role to let cadets fly at 200hours. You can’t just take random kids with a commercial licence at 200 hours they got in an old Cessna 172 taking lessons on the weekends at Uncle Bob’s flying school at the county airfield.

For this type of program you need to do it like the big Euro carriers:
A throrough selection process involving altitude and psychological tests to select only those cream of the crop who are geared towards working in a multicrew airline environment.
Structured and monitored full time training focused on multi crew operations and SOPs from the beginning.
No “paying for a licence” - if they’ve failed a test retraining and a second attempt can occur but if it’s obvious they aren’t up to scratch then they’re kicked out of the program.
And then appropriate line training and supervision for their initial 6-12 months on the line.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

Good for them. Hope it is granted. Nobody needs to fly 4 digit hours in a single engine piston to safely operate an airliner. With appropriate training that is.

Elsewhere in the world airlines operate as safe or safer with cadets of 200hrs. No problem. Just proper training.

I agree in principle, however there needs to be appropriate training for the airline pilot role to let cadets fly at 200hours. You can’t just take random kids with a commercial licence at 200 hours they got in an old Cessna 172 taking lessons on the weekends at Uncle Bob’s flying school at the county airfield.

For this type of program you need to do it like the big Euro carriers:
A throrough selection process involving altitude and psychological tests to select only those cream of the crop who are geared towards working in a multicrew airline environment.
Structured and monitored full time training focused on multi crew operations and SOPs from the beginning.
No “paying for a licence” - if they’ve failed a test retraining and a second attempt can occur but if it’s obvious they aren’t up to scratch then they’re kicked out of the program.
And then appropriate line training and supervision for their initial 6-12 months on the line.

We are in absolute agreeement.

Just your last point is a bit off. Line training incl supervision is something more like two to three month and absolutely sufficient.

This number was raised originally due to incidents and accidents. To lower it is ok, if the reason is improved quality of training and experience (like the military exemption). So the airline would need to show they have similar quality & standards within their school. One indication of that is the washout rate. For the military this is significant, in many commercial schools, it's zero. To drop back to 200 hours, as some countries use, would be a major step backwards.

Nicoeddf wrote:

BoeingG wrote:

Republic Airways is seeking an exemption from the 1500 flight hour rule so pilots can begin flying at 750 hours.

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2022-0535-0001

Any chance this is granted?

Good for them. Hope it is granted. Nobody needs to fly 4 digit hours in a single engine piston to safely operate an airliner. With appropriate training that is.

Elsewhere in the world airlines operate as safe or safer with cadets of 200hrs. No problem. Just proper training.

After spending 10 years at the regionals, 8 as a captain, I absolutely DO NOT want a 200 Hour wet behind the ears first officer. My hands are full the entire flight with 1000 hour FO's watching them so they don't kill everybody. You end up getting so distracted with the weaker pilots that you end up missing a taxiway or bust an altitude because he insists on hand flying. Experience matters. low time pilots are flight instructors for 1-2 years for a reason. They need to mature in that environment and hone their skills teaching others. It builds character and humbles them before they arrive to the airline with a hotshot attitude. I flight instructed for 3 years before getting hired on to the regionals in 2003.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

Good for them. Hope it is granted. Nobody needs to fly 4 digit hours in a single engine piston to safely operate an airliner. With appropriate training that is.

Elsewhere in the world airlines operate as safe or safer with cadets of 200hrs. No problem. Just proper training.

I agree in principle, however there needs to be appropriate training for the airline pilot role to let cadets fly at 200hours. You can’t just take random kids with a commercial licence at 200 hours they got in an old Cessna 172 taking lessons on the weekends at Uncle Bob’s flying school at the county airfield.

For this type of program you need to do it like the big Euro carriers:
A throrough selection process involving altitude and psychological tests to select only those cream of the crop who are geared towards working in a multicrew airline environment.
Structured and monitored full time training focused on multi crew operations and SOPs from the beginning.
No “paying for a licence” - if they’ve failed a test retraining and a second attempt can occur but if it’s obvious they aren’t up to scratch then they’re kicked out of the program.
And then appropriate line training and supervision for their initial 6-12 months on the line.

This is America…
That system will not work here, not even a bit.

Soon courts will demand exemptions from the standard for this, for that, for “equity”. The mean will slip further and further, with the price for that being paid for in blood, just as it always has been.

The blanket 1,500 rule requires PAYING YOUR DUES to gain experience.

1500 hours was always somewhat questionable as it was introduced after Colgan 3407, where both pilots had over 1500 hours. The issue with Colgan was not inexperience so much as poor/non-existent fatigue management and poverty wages so the pilots couldn’t afford a place to sleep before showing up at work.

Increasing hours wasn’t the only change after Colgan, but this aspect was largely window dressing rather than meaningful reform. There should be a minimum requirement, but the selection of 1500 hours being that minimum was quite arbitrary.

I think if Republic is granted the exemption, then it must go to all airlines. If they use it, it is their choice

FlyingElvii wrote:

This is America…
That system will not work here, not even a bit.

Soon courts will demand exemptions from the standard for this, for that, for “equity”. The mean will slip further and further, with the price for that being paid for in blood, just as it always has been.

That doesn’t make sense. You simply have people applying for a job. As more people are applying than are needed then you simply use a thorough selection process to select the cream of the crop. If in training it is seen that the person you selected is not up to scratch then they can be let go from the program.

Is this not possible in the United States? In my countries (and others that run ab initio cadet schemes) there are usually thousands of applicants for no more than about 100 selected each year. That’s usually the top 1-2%. It is very competitive to get in.

I don’t see how a similar system can’t be enacted in the US.

The blanket 1,500 rule requires PAYING YOUR DUES to gain experience.

Well first off it’s already not a blanket 1500 hour rule, there are exemptions at 750hrs for military, 1000 hours and 1200 hours for 4 yr and 2yr degrees, although there’s no scientific evidence these hour totals mean anything.

Secondly “paying of dues”? The students pays a flying school to get a licence, instructs for 1500 hours in a single engine airplane and then gets hired by a regional. Considering the student paid for their licence upfront they generally don’t owe the school or airline anything.

Contrast this to other nations. British Airway’s cadet scheme was user pays but BA would refund the student in full in they remained with BA for 7 years (honestly who would leave a job with BA?). That in a way is “paying of dues”, more so than owing something to someone when you’ve paid your way.

B737Captain1980 wrote:

After spending 10 years at the regionals, 8 as a captain, I absolutely DO NOT want a 200 Hour wet behind the ears first officer. My hands are full the entire flight with 1000 hour FO's watching them so they don't kill everybody. You end up getting so distracted with the weaker pilots that you end up missing a taxiway or bust an altitude because he insists on hand flying. Experience matters. low time pilots are flight instructors for 1-2 years for a reason. They need to mature in that environment and hone their skills teaching others. It builds character and humbles them before they arrive to the airline with a hotshot attitude. I flight instructed for 3 years before getting hired on to the regionals in 2003.

I’m an experienced pilot too. I’ve flown inside and outside of the US and have no issue with well selected well trained ab initio pilots occupying the first officer’s seat, as long as they have been through a program like how I described a few posts above. I’ve flown with plenty of pilots in that category who are fantastic, and much better than some who joined an airline with thousands of hours of previous civil or military experience under their belt.

I find cadets usually have good attitudes and personalities and are willing to learn and get along as a team. The 10,000 hour civil or military recruit has a habit of being arrogant, of not listening, of not following SOPs, wanting to be disruptive and sulk if they don’t get things their way. Of course there are some from the latter category who are fantastic and some cadets who are not so good, but proportionally the cadets as a whole perform better.

Every place outside the US does it this way and they are not more dangerous than the US. Europe, Canada, Australia and NZ. The quality of a well trained pilot who’s been through one of these programs, like the Lufthansa Academy, will be far above a typical low houred US regional first officer pre 2009, who may have entered that airline with 200 hours from “Uncle Bob’s Flying School”.

Avatar2go wrote:

One indication of that is the washout rate. For the military this is significant, in many commercial schools, it's zero. To drop back to 200 hours, as some countries use, would be a major step backwards.

The washout rate on a course is one thing, but having experience with ab initio program I can tell you this.

Firstly the selection process is very thorough. Everything from mental aptitude to hand eye skills to team and leadership qualities to personality and behaviour is thoroughly tested. Only a tiny percentage are successful in gaining entrance to a program. This is because the airline does not want to start pilots who will fail their training, especially after having made a financial commitment, so they are as thorough as can be in selection.

Of course there will be some who wash out, but only a small percentage. This isn’t an indication that standards are low and anyone can pass, but that standards are high and students selected are similarly high. The way it worked was if you failed a check you got appropriate retraining and a second attempt. But if you failed the second time there’s obviously something wrong, and it’s usually ended with a student being let go from the course. A student could also be let go if behavioural or other problems appeared on the course.

Airline ab initio cadet programs aren’t a way to “buy a job” contrary to popular opinion.

B737Captain1980 wrote:

After spending 10 years at the regionals, 8 as a captain, I absolutely DO NOT want a 200 Hour wet behind the ears first officer. My hands are full the entire flight with 1000 hour FO's watching them so they don't kill everybody. You end up getting so distracted with the weaker pilots that you end up missing a taxiway or bust an altitude because he insists on hand flying. Experience matters. low time pilots are flight instructors for 1-2 years for a reason. They need to mature in that environment and hone their skills teaching others. It builds character and humbles them before they arrive to the airline with a hotshot attitude. I flight instructed for 3 years before getting hired on to the regionals in 2003.

Hate to break it to you, but if you had problems even with 1000hr pilots, YOU may have been one of the weaker pilots at that time. And/or your airline had a training department that was not doing their job.

I’m an experienced pilot and captain as well, have flown with dozens of 200-300hr FOs, and very rarely had issues. Sometimes they encounter something they haven’t experienced yet, but almost always are they situations that you will also not encounter in 1000+ hours of hour building on light singles or twins. Or instructing for that matter. Heck, most of the time I can also learn something from those situations.

There are 10.000hr idiots and 200hr naturals… an arbitrary number has been designated as a barrier, but that does little to improve quality in my opinion. Professional pilots should be hired based on the skill and attitude they display, not a check mark of “oh, he has 1500+ hrs”.

Comes down to training quality. Since that is hard to regulate, the hours were instituted as a safeguard. They can be exempted if program quality is demonstrated. That will be up to the regulator.

Nicoeddf wrote:

NLINK wrote:

I hope this is not exempted. The 76 seat aircraft should be flown by mainline.

Which is a valid opinion but totally unrelated to the topic at hand.

It is related. Any relief you give to the regionals means you are extending the life of the concept of bidding flying out to the lowest bidder.

intrance wrote:

B737Captain1980 wrote:

After spending 10 years at the regionals, 8 as a captain, I absolutely DO NOT want a 200 Hour wet behind the ears first officer. My hands are full the entire flight with 1000 hour FO's watching them so they don't kill everybody. You end up getting so distracted with the weaker pilots that you end up missing a taxiway or bust an altitude because he insists on hand flying. Experience matters. low time pilots are flight instructors for 1-2 years for a reason. They need to mature in that environment and hone their skills teaching others. It builds character and humbles them before they arrive to the airline with a hotshot attitude. I flight instructed for 3 years before getting hired on to the regionals in 2003.

Hate to break it to you, but if you had problems even with 1000hr pilots, YOU may have been one of the weaker pilots at that time. And/or your airline had a training department that was not doing their job.

I’m an experienced pilot and captain as well, have flown with dozens of 200-300hr FOs, and very rarely had issues. Sometimes they encounter something they haven’t experienced yet, but almost always are they situations that you will also not encounter in 1000+ hours of hour building on light singles or twins. Or instructing for that matter. Heck, most of the time I can also learn something from those situations.

There are 10.000hr idiots and 200hr naturals… an arbitrary number has been designated as a barrier, but that does little to improve quality in my opinion. Professional pilots should be hired based on the skill and attitude they display, not a check mark of “oh, he has 1500+ hrs”.

And, to be honest, the waiver for former military experience should be removed as well: military experience is not necessarily the best and a lot of time does not translate THAT well in the civilian environment.

Avatar2go wrote:

Comes down to training quality. Since that is hard to regulate, the hours were instituted as a safeguard. They can be exempted if program quality is demonstrated. That will be up to the regulator.

That's a great way to frame it. Then one has to ask if the regulator can reliably determine training program quality, and then wants to apply the resources to do so and to grant exemptions.

B737Captain1980 wrote:

After spending 10 years at the regionals, 8 as a captain, I absolutely DO NOT want a 200 Hour wet behind the ears first officer. My hands are full the entire flight with 1000 hour FO's watching them so they don't kill everybody. You end up getting so distracted with the weaker pilots that you end up missing a taxiway or bust an altitude because he insists on hand flying. Experience matters. low time pilots are flight instructors for 1-2 years for a reason. They need to mature in that environment and hone their skills teaching others. It builds character and humbles them before they arrive to the airline with a hotshot attitude. I flight instructed for 3 years before getting hired on to the regionals in 2003.

A pilot wrote this comment? A *REAL* pilot?? Teaching someone how to fly does not make you a pilot, nor does it make you a flight instructor. I inked my first Pilot's License in 1961 and I have never, ever, ever been a flight instructor. Why? It doesn't suit me. Some of the worst pilots I ever knew on the line were instructors who could only fly on clear and sunny days. More "instructors" have bent and broken aeroplanes than students.

You were so distracted by a "weaker" pilot that you missed a taxiway? And you busted an altitude while paying attention to the other guy?? Are 200 hour new hires instantly in the Captain's seat in the States??? So, you freely admit that as the Pilot In Command you've busted altitudes and missed taxiway assignments from ATC because the greenhorn in the right seat distracted you? That is poor CRM, poor decision making and definitely shows you do not have command and control in your cockpit.

This comment makes no sense. I have been flying aeroplanes and floats and skis for over sixty years. I've been through four mergers; worked for seven airlines. I flew in Asia post-retirement with 300 hour First Officers on the 747-400 and 777. I do not share your view; you seem uninformed and rude, for a "pilot"...sounds like a penguin to me!

Cheers!

NLINK wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

NLINK wrote:

I hope this is not exempted. The 76 seat aircraft should be flown by mainline.

Which is a valid opinion but totally unrelated to the topic at hand.

It is related. Any relief you give to the regionals means you are extending the life of the concept of bidding flying out to the lowest bidder.

It is absolutely not related.

Scope clause is a politics discussion and I am even inclined to agree with your idea of not watering down employment standards.

The rule to have 1500 hours is aiming at improving safety and has done nothing to that regards. Rules that are not working should be replaced by ones that actually do improve safety or should be abandoned.

There is a hole in a Field near Darlington, Indiana thanks to 2 ‘Lift Academy “ students (RIP) , I don’t see how they can ask for special treatment..lets wait a more years and see if this is a legitimate program or just another scam flight school

B737Captain1980 wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

BoeingG wrote:

Republic Airways is seeking an exemption from the 1500 flight hour rule so pilots can begin flying at 750 hours.

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2022-0535-0001

Any chance this is granted?

Good for them. Hope it is granted. Nobody needs to fly 4 digit hours in a single engine piston to safely operate an airliner. With appropriate training that is.

Elsewhere in the world airlines operate as safe or safer with cadets of 200hrs. No problem. Just proper training.

After spending 10 years at the regionals, 8 as a captain, I absolutely DO NOT want a 200 Hour wet behind the ears first officer. My hands are full the entire flight with 1000 hour FO's watching them so they don't kill everybody. You end up getting so distracted with the weaker pilots that you end up missing a taxiway or bust an altitude because he insists on hand flying. Experience matters. low time pilots are flight instructors for 1-2 years for a reason. They need to mature in that environment and hone their skills teaching others. It builds character and humbles them before they arrive to the airline with a hotshot attitude. I flight instructed for 3 years before getting hired on to the regionals in 2003.

Just in addition to the good posts by sierrakilo and other questioning your perspective, I would even add that I had plenty of 10k hours captains sitting next to me where I needed to be extra attentive.

The quality of a pilot comes from a high quality of initial selection (95% and more rejection rate where I work) and proper and intensive training. Not flying around for a thousand hours in a small plane.

FlyingElvii wrote:

The blanket 1,500 rule requires PAYING YOUR DUES to gain experience.

Its not about "dues paying" whatever that means.

Its about not treating the 19-37-50-72-90 paying passengers in the back as passengers in an instruction environment. Those passengers didn't pay for that.

Now, I don't believe in the 750/1000/1250 hour carve outs because that was just the collegiate flight programs rent seeking. But at least there is SOME standard.

We have two pilots because redundancy, decades of operational experience and the current brain drain at the regional level demands it.

Sorry airlines...the FFD model is dying because it was cash cow for decades and people and organizations have figured it out and increasingly DON'T want to play the game that Skywest, Republic, the American WOs, etc. are playing.

NLINK wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

NLINK wrote:

I hope this is not exempted. The 76 seat aircraft should be flown by mainline.

Which is a valid opinion but totally unrelated to the topic at hand.

It is related. Any relief you give to the regionals means you are extending the life of the concept of bidding flying out to the lowest bidder.

I'd love to see a study on FFD carriers created soft subsidies for mainline carriers for last 30 years.

Just to put it in perspective, Skywest has lost over 70 pilots month to date, with Envoy and PSA on a similar trajectory. There are indications that one major airline is specifically targeting the regional feeders in hiring precisely to cripple that segment of the industry.

CRJ IOE at Skywest is being pushed back weeks and months for new hires progressively as instructors and line check airmen are at the top of the hiring demand signal.

Meanwhile, ULCCs are hiring broadly experienced 1500+ pilots (combination of military/corporate/charter/instruction experience) with good educations. If people can go straight to Frontier/Spirit/Avelo/Breeze and skip the abysmal working conditions, management practices and pay/preferment of the US regional industry, spoiler alert, they will.

Nicoeddf wrote:

NLINK wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

Which is a valid opinion but totally unrelated to the topic at hand.

It is related. Any relief you give to the regionals means you are extending the life of the concept of bidding flying out to the lowest bidder.

It is absolutely not related.

Scope clause is a politics discussion and I am even inclined to agree with your idea of not watering down employment standards.

The rule to have 1500 hours is aiming at improving safety and has done nothing to that regards. Rules that are not working should be replaced by ones that actually do improve safety or should be abandoned.

I'm not sure how you can say that. We haven't seen a significant fatal crash since Colgan and the rules were implemented.

FlapOperator wrote:

Just to put it in perspective, Skywest has lost over 70 pilots month to date, with Envoy and PSA on a similar trajectory. There are indications that one major airline is specifically targeting the regional feeders in hiring precisely to cripple that segment of the industry.

CRJ IOE at Skywest is being pushed back weeks and months for new hires progressively as instructors and line check airmen are at the top of the hiring demand signal.

Meanwhile, ULCCs are hiring broadly experienced 1500+ pilots (combination of military/corporate/charter/instruction experience) with good educations. If people can go straight to Frontier/Spirit/Avelo/Breeze and skip the abysmal working conditions, management practices and pay/preferment of the US regional industry, spoiler alert, they will.

Let the market play out. The regionals treated people like crap for years. Now people are screaming relief to help them. They were a huge cause of the situation in the first place by paying such low wages and deterring people from wanting to become pilots.

NLINK wrote:

Let the market play out. The regionals treated people like crap for years. Now people are screaming relief to help them. They were a huge cause of the situation in the first place by paying such low wages and deterring people from wanting to become pilots.

Agreed...its wasn't like this wasn't ENTIRELY predictable, and the smart regionals would have staked out positions in the market to retain critical talent.

NLINK wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

NLINK wrote:

It is related. Any relief you give to the regionals means you are extending the life of the concept of bidding flying out to the lowest bidder.

It is absolutely not related.

Scope clause is a politics discussion and I am even inclined to agree with your idea of not watering down employment standards.

The rule to have 1500 hours is aiming at improving safety and has done nothing to that regards. Rules that are not working should be replaced by ones that actually do improve safety or should be abandoned.

I'm not sure how you can say that. We haven't seen a significant fatal crash since Colgan and the rules were implemented.

How many pilots hired prior to Colgan with less than 1500TT are operating those flights which haven't crashed since?

NLINK wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

NLINK wrote:

It is related. Any relief you give to the regionals means you are extending the life of the concept of bidding flying out to the lowest bidder.

It is absolutely not related.

Scope clause is a politics discussion and I am even inclined to agree with your idea of not watering down employment standards.

The rule to have 1500 hours is aiming at improving safety and has done nothing to that regards. Rules that are not working should be replaced by ones that actually do improve safety or should be abandoned.

I'm not sure how you can say that. We haven't seen a significant fatal crash since Colgan and the rules were implemented.

Didn’t both colgan pilots meet the new rules?

intrance wrote:

B737Captain1980 wrote:

After spending 10 years at the regionals, 8 as a captain, I absolutely DO NOT want a 200 Hour wet behind the ears first officer. My hands are full the entire flight with 1000 hour FO's watching them so they don't kill everybody. You end up getting so distracted with the weaker pilots that you end up missing a taxiway or bust an altitude because he insists on hand flying. Experience matters. low time pilots are flight instructors for 1-2 years for a reason. They need to mature in that environment and hone their skills teaching others. It builds character and humbles them before they arrive to the airline with a hotshot attitude. I flight instructed for 3 years before getting hired on to the regionals in 2003.

Hate to break it to you, but if you had problems even with 1000hr pilots, YOU may have been one of the weaker pilots at that time. And/or your airline had a training department that was not doing their job.

I’m an experienced pilot and captain as well, have flown with dozens of 200-300hr FOs, and very rarely had issues. Sometimes they encounter something they haven’t experienced yet, but almost always are they situations that you will also not encounter in 1000+ hours of hour building on light singles or twins. Or instructing for that matter. Heck, most of the time I can also learn something from those situations.

There are 10.000hr idiots and 200hr naturals… an arbitrary number has been designated as a barrier, but that does little to improve quality in my opinion. Professional pilots should be hired based on the skill and attitude they display, not a check mark of “oh, he has 1500+ hrs”.

Spot on. I’m an experience PIC with 10k+ hours on medium jets and never ever have an issue with 200 hr pilots. I joined one of the biggest European legacy airlines with a CPL/IR ME and 154 total hours. Now I sit next to the guys/girls like I once was. No issue whatsoever. It all comes down to proper Selection, Attitude and Training. 99% of them are razor sharp and sponges. Yes they’ve not experienced what I have and that’s why I am there too. I need to be mindful of their experience level and make a risk assessment. But they are a joy to fly with. And safe.

Let the market play out. The regionals treated people like crap for years. Now people are screaming relief to help them. They were a huge cause of the situation in the first place by paying such low wages and deterring people from wanting to become pilots.[/quote]

This the regionals created this problem. if they were not such terrible places to be they wouldn't have turned away thousands of potential pilots. Thay created this problem, it's not the governments job to bail them out, It's a dieing business model. I for one will enjoy seeing them die and be reabsorbed by mainline, it's the least thay deserve for destroying and damaging so many careers during the lost decade.

I, for one, am quite amused that a regional airline has the hubris to claim that their flight training "academy" is as rigorous as United States Military flight training.

N353SK wrote:

I, for one, am quite amused that a regional airline has the hubris to claim that their flight training "academy" is as rigorous as United States Military flight training.

It could be. Its not like the US military has some special sauce they alone maintain to create talent. Will it be? The US .mil has basically unlimited resources and it turns out its share of deadweight, and its looking at options to train the next generation of mobility pilots that has far less flight time.

The issue isn't talent, either in the pilots or the pipelines.

The issue is a business model that relied on a number of factors that leveraged pilot wages, working conditions and other significant training and quality of life factors down for thirty years. It got LOTS of help from the FAA and a compliant judiciary (see the GoJets/TSA fiasco, among others) which worked to ratchet pay/QOL negatively.

It was a good run for that model, but nothing lasts forever.

A true training academy, like what has been described by our European friends, has always been needed, but due to politics and new agendas, bean counters and quarterly profits, it will never come to be in the US.

There is a huge difference between military training and airline training; one is for profit, the military is not. While pilots still wash out of the military, there is the added benefit of being able to hit the simulator and practice virtually anything that’s needed to be done, and get it to proficiency. Airline training, specifically the simulator portion, is nothing more than checking boxes, as it is an expense that shows up on their earning report to the board room.

I would love to sit here and say that Republic plans to bring a state of the art training program that will be industry leading, and provide the highest level of training and education. The reality is, it will be nothing more than their in house AQP program adopted for their 141 flight school. And the AQP program, while being better than the previous generation, is still just a box checking, “data collecting” program. It will still be a pilot factory, pushing pilots through at high rates. It will still show that a trainee performed a “V1 cut to proficiency” while leaving out that the first attempt red screened, and the second attempt just barely covered the requirements.

Let’s face it, the US is about the bottom line. Paying for quality doesn’t fit well on a spread sheet.

N353SK wrote:

I, for one, am quite amused that a regional airline has the hubris to claim that their flight training "academy" is as rigorous as United States Military flight training.

To be fair, military flying is nowhere similar nor does it relate to Part 121 flying. At my airline, pilots have historically had a more difficult time with initial training than civilian pilots. That's a fact, not an opinion. I'm not advocating for lower hours, I just don't think there's a 250 hour difference between military pilots and 4-year degree civilian pilots.

NLINK wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

NLINK wrote:

It is related. Any relief you give to the regionals means you are extending the life of the concept of bidding flying out to the lowest bidder.

It is absolutely not related.

Scope clause is a politics discussion and I am even inclined to agree with your idea of not watering down employment standards.

The rule to have 1500 hours is aiming at improving safety and has done nothing to that regards. Rules that are not working should be replaced by ones that actually do improve safety or should be abandoned.

I'm not sure how you can say that. We haven't seen a significant fatal crash since Colgan and the rules were implemented.

Oh, I kinda make it easy for myself and look at facts.

For example “we”, whatever that means, haven’t had a fatal crash since the 70s. And that with 90% of pilots being out of a cadet program starting with less than or around 200hrs. Those around us do similar things, equal results.

Consequently, it’s either sheer luck (doubtful) or the problem is not in the hours, but selection and training. The latter is more likely if you ask me.

The 1500 hour rule was an arbitrary and capricious kneejerk reaction to CO3407. As has been said ad nauseam, there is a difference between quantity and quality of hours.

For airlines that have started an ab initio program, or have partnered with flying schools (such as ERAU), the quality argument can be measured and quantified.

Sadly, FAA will never walk this one back because of the optics.

4engines4short wrote:

Let the market play out. The regionals treated people like crap for years. Now people are screaming relief to help them. They were a huge cause of the situation in the first place by paying such low wages and deterring people from wanting to become pilots.

This the regionals created this problem. if they were not such terrible places to be they wouldn't have turned away thousands of potential pilots. Thay created this problem, it's not the governments job to bail them out, It's a dieing business model. I for one will enjoy seeing them die and be reabsorbed by mainline, it's the least thay deserve for destroying and damaging so many careers during the lost decade.[/quote]
While I agree the regionals created the problem, it was compounded by the majors exploiting the regionals, at the customer's request.

COSPN wrote:

There is a hole in a Field near Darlington, Indiana thanks to 2 ‘Lift Academy “ students (RIP) , I don’t see how they can ask for special treatment..lets wait a more years and see if this is a legitimate program or just another scam flight school

There’s a hole in the ground in Belle Harbour in Queens NY because of an ex USAF pilot and an experienced ex commuter pilot.

There’s a hole in the ground near Cali because of two ex USAF pilots.

There’s a hole in the ground near Little Rock because of an ex USAF and ex US Navy pilot.

We can go all day with this......

NLINK wrote:

I'm not sure how you can say that. We haven't seen a significant fatal crash since Colgan and the rules were implemented.

Europe also hasn’t seen a significant fatal crash due pilot error since the rules were implemented, and the rules don’t even apply to them.

In my country airlines have been training cadets since the 1960s, and haven’t seen a fatal crash.

I think well selected and thoroughly trained pilots is the key not random hours watching students do circuits in a Cessna.

shamrock137 wrote:

Remember though, the Colgan pilots had way more then 1500 hours.

The first officer on Colgan 3407 had 1500 hours of prior experience as a flight instructor in Arizona. How did all that experience watching students do circuits in a Cessna 172 in the beautiful permanently sunny weather of Arizona give her the appropriate experience to operate a Q400 in an iced up snowstorm that night in upstate New York?

On the CVR she claimed she ”I really wouldn't mind going through a a winter in the Northeast before I have to upgrade to captain. ... I've never seen icing conditions. I've never deiced. I've never seen any. I've never experienced any of that. I don't want to have to experience that and make those kinds of calls. You know I'dve freaked out. I'dve have like seen this much ice and thought, ‘Oh my gosh, we were going to crash.”

That’s the relevant experience the “1500 hour rule” is supposed to provide to make American pilots the “worlds best?”

On the contrary first officers all throughout Europe, Scandanavia, Iceland, Norway, Finland etc hop into the right hand seat of a large turboprop or jet at 200 hours and fly fine in the snowy iced up winters of Europe.

N353SK wrote:

I, for one, am quite amused that a regional airline has the hubris to claim that their flight training "academy" is as rigorous as United States Military flight training.

I don’t know about this airline’s specific training academy but I will vouch for the training at other global airline academies training students for established reputable airlines as being as rigorous as (if not more rigorous) than military flight training.

First off there’s no “buying a licence”. So you can’t just keep taking dozens of extra flights to get to standard.

The way it works is the airline, after strict selection, starts the intended number of students they want to employ at the end of the course, and they expect every student to pass. On course you go through initial flight training and basic theory, then CPL flying training and theory, and then Instrument flying, Multi Engine flying, ATPL theory and Multi Crew Course, although this may be altered by MPL students. All up this takes about 12-18 months, although some courses like Lufthansa go for over two years.

The program is non stop for that whole time, with very little time for breaks. If a student on course is not up to scratch they’re going to fall behind quickly. So if they can’t pass a check on the second go that’s usually the trigger for them to be kicked off course. But not always, and sometimes one can be let go after failing one check or even none, but that’s if big deficiencies are identified in their training or behavioural issues come to light.

The training academy is not going to string out a student who obviously isn’t up to scratch, they aren’t like a normal flying school who wants to fleece every last dollar out of a students and will encourage them to take dozens of additional flights that benefit the school. The academy’s contracts with airlines demand high standards and efficient training. The airlines don’t want pilot who take dozens of additional flights to get to standard as when they join that airline it’s the company who pays for their simulator training, and they don’t want to be spending thousands of dollars of revenue on additional training for incompetent pilots.

Speaking to some military pilots this sounds similar to their courses, although one stated they got at least 3 attempts before being kicked off a course. The military has a budget and a schedule too, and they can’t be wasting money on pilots who are failing initial training to get them up to standard as they’ll be doing it their entire careers.

The main difference I’ve noted between civil academies and military training is the military tend to start a lot more students on the basic military flying training course than who end up graduating. The failure rate can be high as 50% or more. A civil ab initio training course usually only has one student per course wash out, or even none, as the airline only selects those they are quite sure will pass. So the military may seem to think their higher washout rate means their standards are higher, but I believe this is actually because they start too many students they know won’t pass the course.

How incredibly safe airlines in the US are now has made many people forget that it wasn't always this way and there have been countless accidents and dead people that lead to the training, procedures, regulations, and requirements we have now. "Aviation is safe and this isn't necessary" is foolish thinking.

I think you'll notice that just about anyone with any real experience in this industry, and therefore knowledge of what it'd really mean, is against this. We want safe flights for our passengers and ourselves. The only people who think its a good idea are those with a financial incentive (airline management) or for personal reasons (those who want to get hired with less experience than required).

All of you who aren't at the hour requirements yet just really don't know what you don't know. Work hard, you'll get there, and one day you'll understand. (Probably about the first time, as an RJ captain, your FO uses their experience to save the day and you thank your lucky stars they knew what they were doing and you weren't doing it all alone)

mikejepp wrote:

How incredibly safe airlines in the US are now has made many people forget that it wasn't always this way and there have been countless accidents and dead people that lead to the training, procedures, regulations, and requirements we have now. "Aviation is safe and this isn't necessary" is foolish thinking.

I think you'll notice that just about anyone with any real experience in this industry, and therefore knowledge of what it'd really mean, is against this. We want safe flights for our passengers and ourselves. The only people who think its a good idea are those with a financial incentive (airline management) or for personal reasons (those who want to get hired with less experience than required).

All of you who aren't at the hour requirements yet just really don't know what you don't know. Work hard, you'll get there, and one day you'll understand. (Probably about the first time, as an RJ captain, your FO uses their experience to save the day and you thank your lucky stars they knew what they were doing and you weren't doing it all alone)

There's a lot of schools of thought here, both make valid points.

Personally I feel it's exponentially gotten better because of how much blood has written the rules (you know, the "rules are written in blood" mantra). An extra 1500 hours didn't stop a lot of accidents back in the 70s-90s; it was figuring out why things go to crap and then becoming diligent and taking ownership, following whatever changes necessary to make aviation safer. It might have stopped some that we don't know of, of course. Plenty of accidents happen today though to a lesser degree. Usually overruns of course... Southwest.

Arguably airlines were already very safe even in the 70s through 90s and especially in the 2000s before Colgan Air. They were just so extreme and dramatic we don't want to end up going down that path "without control". Colgan Air was very much a statistic, but a nasty one that nobody wants to see happen. I certanly don't.

Best case scenario, there's just many more opportunities for pilots to get that "airline-quality" experience, but there isn't, because of lack of opportunity and bloody insurance companies.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

In my country airlines have been training cadets since the 1960s, and haven’t seen a fatal crash.

How many pilots a year are trained in your country who go directly into jobs in scheduled air passenger service?