Quoting warden145 (Reply 36): Please DO NOT start that debate again!

What debate... it will happen.  

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 50): Quoting azjubilee (Reply 11): Even more reasons to prove the arbitrary 1,500 hour rule is silly. That will be one of the first casualties. There was no reason for the rule.

If there were no reason for the rule impacted parties would have sued to have it modified already. It came out of a multi-year rulemaking process prior to being effective 1/1/15. There are subjectove arguments over whether the experience floor should be 1500 (or 2000 or more) hours, but to argue there's no reason for a rule is radical.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 52): What debate... it will happen.

And who's going to fly them? Not the sort who would currently fly RJs, obviously. You'd have to get relatively senior mainline pilots to do it. But how much would you have to pay them in order to make them want to?

-Mir

Quoting Mir (Reply 54): And who's going to fly them? Not the sort who would currently fly RJs, obviously.

It will depend on how the technology is adopted... 10 years out. But there won't be a requirement for relatively senior mainline pilots to fly them.  

Quoting planemaker (Reply 55): But there won't be a requirement for relatively senior mainline pilots to fly them.

Who else? It's going to have to be mainline pilots, and it's not going to be able to be the new mainline pilots.

-Mir

Quoting Mir (Reply 54): Who else?

The first pilots would be the regional captains.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 10): Yes entry level jobs have gone away, but if airlines start injecting money into flight training schools, jobs will come back.

That's a pointless cost that travelers would directly have to pay for. What for, so kids can fly in circles for 1,500 hours, on my dime?

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 11): Even more reasons to prove the arbitrary 1,500 hour rule is silly. I

Exactly. Everything was very safe before. Flying on airliners -- including regionals -- was the safest thing I ever did. This was a wage thing to appease pilot lobbyists. Nothing more.

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 51): If there were no reason for the rule impacted parties would have sued to have it modified already. It came out of a multi-year rulemaking process prior to being effective 1/1/15. There are subjectove arguments over whether the experience floor should be 1500 (or 2000 or more) hours, but to argue there's no reason for a rule is radical.

Just stop. This rule is absolutely hurting small regional airlines. They also don't have huge amounts of liquid capital to file what would be avery costly lawsuit.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 34): By 2025 there will be single-pilot RJs... problem solved.

What people aren't acknowledging is the regionals were a great training ground already. A single high qualified pilot is enough. Putting a trainee with 300-500 hours in the right seat is fine with me. There wasn't a safety problem. There isn't a debate because the statistics are in. If anything, the highest probability of a crash was the older, most experienced crews on longhaul. Decades of statistics. Young pilots weren't an issue.

[Edited 2015-01-24 22:45:05]

Quoting flight152 (Reply 24): Like hell it doesn't. Ask yourself this; who would you rather have at the controls during an inadvertent stall- a seasoned CFI or the crew of Air France 447?

More experienced crews have made the same mistakes. Like the Buffalo Q400 crash.

Quoting enilria (Thread starter): A solution to the pilot shortage is needed now or just a relaxation of the 3000 hour rule. First airlines like ZK felt the pinch. Now airlines like Skywest are having heavy attrition. Pay alone won't fix things quickly enough.

The 3000 rule? Is this your paper linked? If so I hope you correct that 3000 error. Pay alone will fix the issue, but regionals operate on such a thin margin they could not afford it until they make higher bid to legacies in competition.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 58): What people aren't acknowledging is the regionals were a great training ground already. A single high qualified pilot is enough. Putting a trainee with 300-500 hours in the right seat is fine with me. There wasn't a safety problem. There isn't a debate because the statistics are in. If anything, the highest probability of a crash was the older, most experienced crews on longhaul. Decades of statistics. Young pilots weren't an issue.

The biggest sham of this all is, that this all happened after Colgan. BOTH pilots in the Colgan accident had not problem meeting these NEW qualifications.

Quoting enilria (Thread starter): and now cheap fuel will inevitably lead to growth at all levels of the industry

No (smart) airline is going to plan much growth based on cheap fuel. Current fuel prices are an anomaly and will not stay this low for long no matter what the financial "experts" say. I give them a year, two tops before prices are in the $80+/barrel again. Airlines can enjoy the windfall for now, but if they don't want a repeat of the last 10 years, they shouldn't build in huge growth based on low oil prices.

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 6): One can just do what many of us did when it was normal to get hired with more than 1,500 hours. You teach, fly cargo, fly skydivers etc...

Yes, but now you have everyone under 1,500 hours clamoring for increasingly fewer eligible jobs (and likely to decrease further as drones will likely take over most aerial photography, pipeline, surveying, etc. jobs) whereas in the past, one path to 1,500 for many was being an FO at a regional. When times were tough, many (most?) regionals didn't hire much lower than maybe 1,000 hrs, but during boom times (circa 2006-2007), some regionals were hiring wet-behind -the-ears pilots before the ink had dried on their commercial certificates.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 40): Quoting Beatyair (Reply 1): But are not the majors moving towards bring more of the mainline fleet backing into cities that they gave up to the regional s? I know United is doing this. That's a totally different situation. The OP is referring to the pilot shortage. If something is not done, then airlines may need to make cadet programs or start recruiting abroad.

It's certainly related I would think. Fewer, larger aircraft replacing more regional aircraft will require fewer pilots.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 10): Soon airlines are going to start injecting cash into pilot training.

I think this is really the thing that will happen more than anything. Yes, there might be some appreciation of pilot wages, but ultimately I think you're going to see more consolidation in the regional world and more pilot training programs run by the airlines themselves with subsidies and incentives for aspiring pilots to lower the cost of training.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 56): That's a pointless cost that travelers would directly have to pay for. What for, so kids can fly in circles for 1,500 hours, on my dime?

Pointless? You like pilots in the cockpit so your flight can go, don't you?

You're going to pay for it one way or another whether it be higher wages for pilots, training costs, or both. Without pilots travelers aren't going anywhere in the air.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 58): Putting a trainee with 300-500 hours in the right seat is fine with me.

It shouldn't be. The way the training in the US is set up, you just don't have enough experience at that level to be truly capable of doing what you need to do. Airliners require two pilots for a reason - it's not for backup, it's because the workload can become so high, particularly during the short flights that RJs frequently do, that you need two people in order to get everything done properly and safely. Having a "trainee" in the right seat isn't good enough.

That's not to say that people can't be made into capable pilots at that level of experience, but you need a different training setup. EU airlines do it, and the US military does it, but nobody in the US civilian sector seems particularly interested in replicating that model.

-Mir

Quoting Mir (Reply 63): It shouldn't be. The way the training in the US is set up, you just don't have enough experience at that level to be truly capable of doing what you need to do. Airliners require two pilots for a reason - it's not for backup, it's because the workload can become so high, particularly during the short flights that RJs frequently do, that you need two people in order to get everything done properly and safely. Having a "trainee" in the right seat isn't good enough. That's not to say that people can't be made into capable pilots at that level of experience, but you need a different training setup. EU airlines do it, and the US military does it, but nobody in the US civilian sector seems particularly interested in replicating that model. -Mir

They still need to pass ground school, systems, sim, and ioe just like everyone else. If they don't have the skills they simply won't check out.

Quoting Mir (Reply 63): It shouldn't be. The way the training in the US is set up, you just don't have enough experience at that level to be truly capable of doing what you need to do.

They used to be FO's and FE's to gain experience learning the right way from experienced pilots, and today airplanes are more advanced and there is less workload than old airplanes. 500 hours is okay for a FO job. How many accidents were really caused by low time and inexperience rather than panicking due to lack of proper training?

Also isn't it odd that people make an argument that young pilots are too inexperienced to fly the right seat, so what job do you have them do? Teaching others how to fly!

Quoting Mir (Reply 63): but you need a different training setup. EU airlines do it,

...Why? The system had enough redundancy (it seems) and a sterling safety record. I just pray we can study what we did for the last 10 years in terms of safety. The whole world could learn a lot from it.

Quoting Mir (Reply 63): EU airlines do it, and the US military does it, but nobody in the US civilian sector seems particularly interested in replicating that model.

The US civilian sector has put up results superior to the US military and, if we are picky, superior to EU airlines as well. With all due respect.

I think the far bigger concern is the shortgae of Engineers.

Here in the UK the RAF is a shadow of its former self. Instead of training 1000's of engineers a year they now train a few hundred. The civil industry has always been a beneficiery of this flow of engineers but many are now reaching retirement age and very few are there to replace them. Rolls-Royce in Derby has been forced to open a new much larger academy and increase their apprenticeship numbers. The airlines have still not woken up to the coming shortage. Meanwhile as an older engineer myself I am finding pay is rising to keep me in the industry.

Dont they just start planting more pilots tree, fertilize and irrigate them. Shake the tree and pilots fall off ?

That seems to be the attitude if many airlines in the world, with next to zero investment in initial pilot training, they expect the rest of the industry to provide what they consume.

Please let me preface this by, I'm not a cockpit member, nor airline employee. I have no skin in the game.

When I worked at American Express back in the late 90s to mid 00s, we had a hard time finding qualified agents to work our big clients that we had in house.

After sifting the local & regional area for recruits. we decided to bring in 20 eager individuals who couldn't afford the agent training classes that most people paid to get into the industry at the time. We then provided free training, in return for a contracted employment period after their training was over.

We taught them tariff, fares, codes, ticketing, social interaction skills, the blue box values, and we ended up with 14 great employees. 2 quit within weeks, the rest were let go. The pilot project was such a hit, I spent the better part of the following year flying to offices all over the place to help them do the same thing.

There are a lot of budding pilots who otherwise will never get the chance to pilot, because of the expense of flying lessons or they may not live where there is any opportunity.

Wouldn't it behoove a carrier like Skywest to keep a couple planes active, open a flight school in St George or other place where trouble was at a minimum & run an on going flight school with dorms & cafateria to train their own cockpit crews?

After running enough businesses of my own, I learned if I couldn't find someone specialized in what I needed I trained the most eager person I interviewed.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 48): The third option is downsizing until the supply demand curve for RJ service and pilots is in balance.

As I said - I don't see that as an option, but instead an inescapable reality that is already occurring throughout the regional airline industry. The choice will be how the industry - both mainline and regional - responds to this evolution, of which ongoing consolidation (again, in the form of either liquidations or mergers) is merely a symptom, not a cause.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 65): They used to be FO's and FE's to gain experience learning the right way from experienced pilots

If we're going to go back that far, the safety record wasn't very good at all.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 65): and today airplanes are more advanced and there is less workload than old airplanes.

There can be less workload. There can also be more.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 67): I just pray we can study what we did for the last 10 years in terms of safety.

The record has been good, but still better at the mainline carriers than at the regionals.

-Mir

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 49): How far away are we from a point where everyone turns down a major's offer?

A number of regional's are just management companies for employees - pilots, F/A's etc - they own no planes or routes.
I do not see a time coming when new management companies cannot be found.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 69): If the wheels should fall off the wagon, I fully expect the FAA to reinvent the EASA MPL training scheme. They won't just copy it, of course, as a consequence of the 'not invented here' syndrome. But the end product will be the same; 300-hour FOs who's entire training curriculum has been geared towards a multi-crew environment in a highly complex machine.

In this case you will surely get airline pilots, those who are trained from the bottom up to the standards required for civil airline operation.
The question would be, was diverse flying prior to mainline service of any benefit?

Quoting MountainFlyer (Reply 61): Current fuel prices are an anomaly and will not stay this low for long no matter what the financial "experts" say.

Other than a geostrategic event (or financial 'engineering'), the price will stay low.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 69): If the wheels should fall off the wagon, I fully expect the FAA to reinvent the EASA MPL training scheme.

Training will evolve... pedagogical research coupled with continuously advancing simulator fidelity will have a larger impact than people imagine.

Quoting commavia (Reply 72): The choice will be how the industry - both mainline and regional - responds to this evolution, of which ongoing consolidation (again, in the form of either liquidations or mergers) is merely a symptom, not a cause.

Regulatory agencies will also have a role.

Quoting Mir (Reply 73): There can be less workload. There can also be more.

Going forward there will be a lessening of workload.

Quoting par13del (Reply 74): The question would be, was diverse flying prior to mainline service of any benefit?

Not in a practical sense.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 75): Going forward there will be a lessening of workload.

That phrase sure sounds familiar.  

-Mir

Quoting Mir (Reply 76): That phrase sure sounds familiar.

In about 5 years we will start seeing some pretty 'significant' (relative term, of course, depending on the audience) improvements.  

Quoting Mir (Reply 73): There can be less workload. There can also be more.

One of the drawbacks of more and more automation is that the user is more apt to lose some situational awareness and if automation replaces some human input it could lead to complacency.

In the ATC world I've seen towers get new, "high tech" equipment that takes a lot of attention away from looking out the windows and actually monitoring traffic. We refer to them as "heads down displays" and when all your traffic is outside, looking down at a screen is not necessarily helpful.

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 78): One of the drawbacks of more and more automation is that the user is more apt to lose some situational awareness and if automation replaces some human input it could lead to complacency.

The current state of 'situational awareness' is not where it should be due to the limited graphical information presented to pilots.NextGen ATC will help increase the level of situational awareness.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 79): The current state of 'situational awareness' is not where it should be due to the limited graphical information presented to pilots.NextGen ATC will help increase the level of situational awareness.

Just what pilots need, more heads down crap. Nothing will ever beat the Mk1 eyeball looking out the window.

-DiamondFlyer

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 71): Wouldn't it behoove a carrier like Skywest to keep a couple planes active, open a flight school in St George or other place where trouble was at a minimum & run an on going flight school with dorms & cafateria to train their own cockpit crews?

Unless the rules change, the problem is once you get the cadet to the CPL M/E IFR level at say 500 hours where do they get the 700 hours (assuming OO falls under the academy program) to even sit in the right seat'?

My hope is that the FAA will allow 3-500 hour FOs to fly 19-seaters which would give many a starting point and maybe save some small communities air service.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 80): Nothing will ever beat the Mk1 eyeball looking out the window.

  

There is no substitute for this, no matter how advanced systems get.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 80): Just what pilots need, more heads down crap. Nothing will ever beat the Mk1 eyeball looking out the window.

Mk. 1 eyeball is physiologically seriously limited. It can see only a fraction of the sky and has doesn't know the speed, altitude, trend, etc. etc, etc. of traffic. And in IFR weather, the Mk. 1 eyeball looking out the window is useless.  

Quoting planemaker (Reply 83): Mk. 1 eyeball is physiologically seriously limited. It can see only a fraction of the sky and has doesn't know the speed, altitude, trend, etc. etc, etc. of traffic. And in IFR weather, the Mk. 1 eyeball looking out the window is useless.

Yes but it has a working thinking brain attached to it in which technology will never come close to.

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 84): Yes but it has a working thinking brain attached to it in which technology will never come close to.

The Mk. 1 eyeball is indeed very limited, and useless in weather. It is wholly dependent on technology in zero-zero. As for the 'working thinking brain', technology doesn't need to replicate it.  

Quoting par13del (Reply 74): A number of regional's are just management companies for employees - pilots, F/A's etc - they own no planes or routes. I do not see a time coming when new management companies cannot be found.

If they can't source employees, who would contract with them?

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 13): Yes, it should be. 1200 hours of hops in the pattern in a 152/172 aren't experiences that transfer to flying a jet. Maybe it's time to go to the European style for training.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 9): That may be true, but I think you're out of touch with entry level jobs these days. Yes, you can flight instruct. To fly cargo, 95% or more places require IFR 135 minimums, which is still 1200 hours. Skydiving jobs are few and far between. Traffic reporting, nearly gone. The number of entry level jobs has also dropped, which doesn't help the situation.

Flight instructing is very valuable time. Teaching in hard IFR and in all phases of flight develops a feel for the airplane that you just don't get in an airline environment.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 34): By 2025 there will be single-pilot RJs... problem solved.

The results will be awful.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 58): What people aren't acknowledging is the regionals were a great training ground already. A single high qualified pilot is enough. Putting a trainee with 300-500 hours in the right seat is fine with me. There wasn't a safety problem. There isn't a debate because the statistics are in. If anything, the highest probability of a crash was the older, most experienced crews on longhaul. Decades of statistics. Young pilots weren't an issue.

Young, inexperienced pilots are very much an issue. Just because they aren't killing people doesn't mean they aren't doing dumb stuff and bending metal.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 69): My affection for the 1500-hour rule is, as you may have gathered, very limited indeed. It's not the quantity that's important, it's the quality. But that's something Americans have never understood, in any walk of life. If the wheels should fall off the wagon, I fully expect the FAA to reinvent the EASA MPL training scheme. They won't just copy it, of course, as a consequence of the 'not invented here' syndrome. But the end product will be the same; 300-hour FOs who's entire training curriculum has been geared towards a multi-crew environment in a highly complex machine.

Quantity creates quality if the pilot is willing to learn. That same "quality" you speak of leads to things like AF 447. We have a very different view on piloting than you do in Europe. Cutting your teeth as a flight instructor and having 500 hours+ of dual given makes a far better pilot than someone with 200-300 hours and a bunch of simulator time.

As for the dig at Americans....that's just false.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 83): Mk. 1 eyeball is physiologically seriously limited. It can see only a fraction of the sky and has doesn't know the speed, altitude, trend, etc. etc, etc. of traffic. And in IFR weather, the Mk. 1 eyeball looking out the window is useless.

The aircraft's avionics are seriously limited and removing one of the pilots would be grossly negligent. The advanced in CRM and having two pilots actively communicating and cross checking is the best fail-safe there is. Having one pilot in a highly automated aircraft being monitored by a guy in a room at the OCC (who would be counting ceiling tiles while watching 10 flights) creates an enormous amount of unnecessary risk.

Quoting ual777 (Reply 87): Flight instructing is very valuable time. Teaching in hard IFR and in all phases of flight develops a feel for the airplane that you just don't get in an airline environment.

Sure, that's the case, but the problem is, all the high volume schools where most CFI's are going to get time, have prohibitions on flying in IMC.

-DiamondFlyer

Quoting ual777 (Reply 87): The results will be awful.

Why will they be awful? Quite the opposite.  

Quoting ual777 (Reply 87): Quantity creates quality if the pilot is willing to learn.

A 172 has limits. After a certain point (which varies per individual) boring holes in the sky add nothing in prepping to fly a commercial jet.

Quoting ual777 (Reply 87): That same "quality" you speak of leads to things like AF 447.

There is no correlation.

Quoting ual777 (Reply 87): The aircraft's avionics are seriously limited and removing one of the pilots would be grossly negligent.

How is PlaneView II "seriously limited"? And RJs in 10 years with a single pilot will be safer than RJs today with 2 pilots.

Quoting ual777 (Reply 87): The advanced in CRM and having two pilots actively communicating and cross checking is the best fail-safe there is.

With NextGen and aircraft/systems advances there will be little for a single RJ pilot to do, let alone two pilots to do.

Quoting ual777 (Reply 87): Having one pilot in a highly automated aircraft being monitored by a guy in a room at the OCC (who would be counting ceiling tiles while watching 10 flights) creates an enormous amount of unnecessary risk.

No "unnecessary risk" created.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 89): With NextGen and aircraft/systems advances there will be little for a single RJ pilot to do, let alone two pilots to do.

Except most of NextGen isn't coming in the next 10 years. The "NextGen" technology that FAA is still struggling to implement in the next decade is already 20 years old. Even ten years from now, much of ATC communications will still be done by voice. This poses a serious problem for single pilot ops because voice recognition technology is still immature and the FAA has no serious plans. Sure, there will be CPDLC, but that won't be enough to cover all types of operation. You'll still need a person to handle voice traffic, but if that single person is incapacitated, then you've got a serious problem.

Furthermore, the FAA can't even come up with basic rules for small UAS vehicles, you know how long it would take them to come up with the regulations for single pilot ops under Part 121? No matter how advanced the technology, the regulatory environment moves vastly slower. Not to mention the political resistance from pilot unions and other labor groups.

The reality though is that even if we cut the requirements back down to 250 to 500 hours, you're still going to have trouble attracting pilots if the payscales don't come up at the regionals. I know two guys who meet the 1,500 hour minimums but they won't go near the regionals because pay is so pathetic. They'd rather sit at higher paying desk jobs then put up with the low pay and low quality of life at the regionals.

I tend to think this shortage is a bit overblown. Hundreds of regional aircraft are being retired and there's no real desire to bring them back. Sure cheap fuel improves the economics of regionals, but no airline CEO is going to trust fuel to stay cheap for more than a few years at most. Most of the secondary hubs that relied on RJ's are gone (and not coming back) and the bigger hubs can easily support mainline on most major and secondary routes.

We might see some kneejerk reaction to lower the training minimums because a few Congressmen in rural districts want their 2x daily flights to East Buttcrack, Kansas back. But in the grand scheme of the industry, consolidation has eliminated the need for much of the regional flying.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 89): Why will they be awful? Quite the opposite.

Question, are you an airline pilot?

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 90): Except most of NextGen isn't coming in the next 10 years.

Much of the infrastructure is already in place and will completed by 2020. NextGen elements and operations are already being rolled out, and it is the centers with the most bang for the buck that will be in the early cohorts. As it is, there is already 100% ADS-B coverage.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 90): You'll still need a person to handle voice traffic, but if that single person is incapacitated, then you've got a serious problem.

The FAA has already carried out ATC control of aircraft FMS. There are other approaches that will also be implemented.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 90): Furthermore, the FAA can't even come up with basic rules for small UAS vehicles

UAS is a totally different regulatory dynamic.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 90): No matter how advanced the technology, the regulatory environment moves vastly slower.

"Reduced Crew Concepts" are already on the FAA radar (pun intended).  

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 90): Not to mention the political resistance from pilot unions and other labor groups.

With the shortage there isn't going to be much resistance. Plus, it will be so obvious.

Just in case you didn't realize it, I am not saying that today's CRJ900 will be flown SP in 10 years.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 90): The reality though is that even if we cut the requirements back down to 250 to 500 hours, you're still going to have trouble attracting pilots if the payscales don't come up at the regionals. I know two guys who meet the 1,500 hour minimums but they won't go near the regionals because pay is so pathetic. They'd rather sit at higher paying desk jobs then put up with the low pay and low quality of life at the regionals.

It will be interesting to see how this will be resolved in the short to mid term. As a career choice, there are more financially rewarding options.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 90): But in the grand scheme of the industry, consolidation has eliminated the need for much of the regional flying.

And the consolidation process isn't finished yet.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 89): How is PlaneView II "seriously limited"? And RJs in 10 years with a single pilot will be safer than RJs today with 2 pilots.

More and more automation brings new risks and pitfalls with it.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 89): A 172 has limits. After a certain point (which varies per individual) boring holes in the sky add nothing in prepping to fly a commercial jet.

Having done both, I disagree. That point is AT LEAST 400-500 dual given.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 89): No "unnecessary risk" created.

There is tons of it.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 88): Sure, that's the case, but the problem is, all the high volume schools where most CFI's are going to get time, have prohibitions on flying in IMC.

That's a damn shame if the case. At my school we were limited to 400 foot ceilings.

Quoting ual777 (Reply 93): More and more automation brings new risks and pitfalls with it.

That has been the case depending upon the specific situation but the 'risks and pitfalls' continues to be minimized as the industry goes forward.

Quoting ual777 (Reply 93): That point is AT LEAST 400-500 dual given.

At least 400-500 dual in a 172 still doesn't help fly a commercial jet. It is like saying that driving a subcompact for more than a few years still helps in driving an 18-wheeler.

Quoting ual777 (Reply 93): There is tons of it.

Tons? As in... ??

SV is currently recruiting for Captain positions A330 and B777 if anyone is interested.

Only 6000hrs TT required of which at least 2000 PIC on aircraft with MTOW >35T.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 94): Quoting ual777 (Reply 93): More and more automation brings new risks and pitfalls with it. That has been the case depending upon the specific situation but the 'risks and pitfalls' continues to be minimized as the industry goes forward. Quoting ual777 (Reply 93): That point is AT LEAST 400-500 dual given. At least 400-500 dual in a 172 still doesn't help fly a commercial jet. It is like saying that driving a subcompact for more than a few years still helps in driving an 18-wheeler. Quoting ual777 (Reply 93): There is tons of it. Tons? As in... ??

500 dual given does not take more than a few years to build. Heck 1,500 total isn't that hard to obtain at a busy school. It's also not akin to subcompact vs 18 wheeler. It allows a new commercial pilot to cut his/her teeth in a more forgiving environment. Teaching aerodynamics, instruments, maneuvers, etc. etc. also provides a much deeper understanding and feel for the aircraft that a pilot with 300 simply doesn't have. It also provides a fantastic environment to learn proper PIC skills and decision making.

Airline line flying is much easier in some regards. Flight planning, alternates, etc., are all taken out of the equation. The pitfall is it allows you to become complacent in an environment that can turn ugly very, very quickly. Dispatch also isn't always the best with their flight planning. Having the experience and knowledge to catch these deficiencies comes from quality experience.


Having two pilots in an airline environment allows everything being entered, flown, or decided on to be cross-checked. Pilots make errors, controllers make errors, and yes engineers make errors. I cannot even remember all the times we have all caught eachother's errors or taken an alternate course of action after discussing the potential outcome.

I actually just got done with recurrent and one of the big issues we have is automation management. Increasing the automation even more and then cutting a pilot out of the picture makes me shudder. Just the thought of one guy alone, bored as all get out with no stimulation is really quite terrifying to me.

We actually had a training scenario in the sim where we had a total pitot-static failure. The scenario begins on an RNAV arrival at about 18,000 feet. The airspeed indicators basically turn into altimeters and slowly drop to 0. The procedure ends up having the pilot flying at the controls flying raw data with no flight director, while the pilot monitoring is in the QRH digging out N1 percentages to keep the aircraft in the air. It was fantastic training and one of the busiest, tunnel-vision inducing scenarios I have ever done. It would be hell without having a second pilot there to assist.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 81): Unless the rules change, the problem is once you get the cadet to the CPL M/E IFR level at say 500 hours where do they get the 700 hours (assuming OO falls under the academy program) to even sit in the right seat'? My hope is that the FAA will allow 3-500 hour FOs to fly 19-seaters which would give many a starting point and maybe save some small communities air service.

Thanks for the reply, my question now would be, where do pilots currently garner the 700 hours needed to sit in the right seat? I will only go that far, because this is not my wheel house, but I am very curious what will happen to our commuter carriers 10 years down the road. Are we all going to have to drive hundreds of miles to the nearest airport unless we live in major urban areas?

Maybe a lack of pilots will have bigger planes doing short hops again, ie... SEA-PDX flown 25 times a day by QX, 1 x a day by AS, and an additional 5 flights on DL, if there are not enough pilots to offer that many flights a day, then the option is to offer larger planes, with less frequency, which in turn may help with airport congestion.

I know my plan seems over simplified & not technical, but simple ideas often offer positive results.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 97): Thanks for the reply, my question now would be, where do pilots currently garner the 700 hours needed to sit in the right seat?

The answer is they can't in a commercial airliner. The usual places as before, instructing, banner hauling, freight, traffic reporting, dusting, etc. but as someone said earlier those jobs are drying up fast. They can't even fly Part 135 with more than 9 pax. Unless you got lucky and are flying a King Air then its the Caravans for you. Airlines like to see M/E turboprop time. The rules really need to change.

Quoting ual777 (Reply 96): It also provides a fantastic environment to learn proper PIC skills and decision making.

Which is the real critical part.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 98): They can't even fly Part 135 with more than 9 pax.

They can fly as FOs. Which would be a good thing for them to do, and I would hope that we see more opportunities there by way of EAS getting scaled down to smaller aircraft.

-Mir