Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
boeing773er wrote:As someone who is in college, and into aviation I thought about becoming a pilot as a career path. The thing that turned me away was all the money I would have to spend to go make an abysmal salary and harsh working conditions for the first few years.
WingsFan wrote:The industry argument against this rule is that this rule creates a shortage of pilots and makes it difficult to hire them.
What do a.nutters think?
boeing773er wrote:As someone who is in college, and into aviation I thought about becoming a pilot as a career path. The thing that turned me away was all the money I would have to spend to go make an abysmal salary and harsh working conditions for the first few years.
More training is never an issue, you are putting at the absolute bare minimum three other people's (first officer, FAs) lives when you are a commercial pilot. In almost all cases it's many more than 3. While I don't have any statistics to back up my claim, US carriers have been very safe since 2009.
I don't believe reducing the required hours is a proper way to encourage more pilots. Regionals need to be willing to pay more if they want to attract more talent.
Even the worst jobs in the world can be filled for the right amount. NYC garbage people are paid close to $100,000 a year. I never hear them saying they don't have enough staff.
Chaostheory wrote:Fact backed up by studies done in the UK CAA, France DGAC etc. There is no significant difference in aircraft mishap rates when crewed by low or high hour pilots. This is indisputable and is further borne out by the ab initio cadet path being used successfully for over 30 years by the likes of BA, Swissair, LH, AF, SIA etc. Think quality of hours (training) versus quantity.
rbavfan wrote:The increase in hours was way to high a jump, has affected all US operations to some extent & still did not do anything for the improper training of the crew. It was a feel good reaction to look like the government was doing something.
ual777 wrote:[twoid][/twoid]Chaostheory wrote:Fact backed up by studies done in the UK CAA, France DGAC etc. There is no significant difference in aircraft mishap rates when crewed by low or high hour pilots. This is indisputable and is further borne out by the ab initio cadet path being used successfully for over 30 years by the likes of BA, Swissair, LH, AF, SIA etc. Think quality of hours (training) versus quantity.
However, doing so doesn't give a fresh commercial pilot the chance to cut his/her teeth building strong fundamentals.
lightsaber wrote:rbavfan wrote:The increase in hours was way to high a jump, has affected all US operations to some extent & still did not do anything for the improper training of the crew. It was a feel good reaction to look like the government was doing something.
Agreed. But what should be the in between? The cost to go from commercial to ATP has no good path. The Captain should have an ATP. The copilot? They need some turbine time, but with the collapse of smaller regional flying thanks to airport delays... How?
I've pointed out for years that when small cities start losing air service, there would be political will to change the rule.
I think it is too early. But last I looked, there are more regional pilots to mainline. So the large US airlines will have no issues.
Lightsaber
KentB27 wrote:I think the entire flight hours situation resulting from Colgan Air 3407 was a knee jerk response. Both pilots in the cockpit that night each had significantly more than 1500 flight hours. In my opinion Colgan Air 3407 had a lot to do with the extreme fatigue, poor working conditions, and toxic culture of Colgan Air. I do think experience was part of the problem but I just do not understand where the 1500 hours came from since both the Captain and First Officer were well over that on that fateful night. The problems lied more with Colgan Air itself and I don't really think I agree with penalizing the rest of the industry for it.
cheapgreek wrote:KentB27 wrote:I think the entire flight hours situation resulting from Colgan Air 3407 was a knee jerk response. Both pilots in the cockpit that night each had significantly more than 1500 flight hours. In my opinion Colgan Air 3407 had a lot to do with the extreme fatigue, poor working conditions, and toxic culture of Colgan Air. I do think experience was part of the problem but I just do not understand where the 1500 hours came from since both the Captain and First Officer were well over that on that fateful night. The problems lied more with Colgan Air itself and I don't really think I agree with penalizing the rest of the industry for it.
I agree, kind of a knee jerk reaction by the government. What of other crashes by pilots with many hours? Air travel is extremely safe but like other forms of transportation, errors happen, whether pilot error, or equipment malfunction, zero accidents are impossible. Washington always seeks to assign blame to prove they are on top of things but raising the hours that high has discouraged many from pursuing a career as a pilot. I would hope the 1500 hours can be rolled back.
Chaostheory wrote:Fact backed up by studies done in the UK CAA, France DGAC etc. There is no significant difference in aircraft mishap rates when crewed by low or high hour pilots. This is indisputable and is further borne out by the ab initio cadet path being used successfully for over 30 years by the likes of BA, Swissair, LH, AF, SIA etc. Think quality of hours (training) versus quantity.
Chaostheory wrote:Some airlines develop their pilots by adopting a graduated approach in which cadets are assigned second officer roles for a period of time. Others place an emphasis on manual handling skills, extended LOFT as well as line flying under supervision. Both approaches work.
DiamondFlyer wrote:cheapgreek wrote:KentB27 wrote:I think the entire flight hours situation resulting from Colgan Air 3407 was a knee jerk response. Both pilots in the cockpit that night each had significantly more than 1500 flight hours. In my opinion Colgan Air 3407 had a lot to do with the extreme fatigue, poor working conditions, and toxic culture of Colgan Air. I do think experience was part of the problem but I just do not understand where the 1500 hours came from since both the Captain and First Officer were well over that on that fateful night. The problems lied more with Colgan Air itself and I don't really think I agree with penalizing the rest of the industry for it.
I agree, kind of a knee jerk reaction by the government. What of other crashes by pilots with many hours? Air travel is extremely safe but like other forms of transportation, errors happen, whether pilot error, or equipment malfunction, zero accidents are impossible. Washington always seeks to assign blame to prove they are on top of things but raising the hours that high has discouraged many from pursuing a career as a pilot. I would hope the 1500 hours can be rolled back.
Do you enjoy pushing people back onto food stamps, because that's what your encouraging?
KentB27 wrote:I think the entire flight hours situation resulting from Colgan Air 3407 was a knee jerk response. Both pilots in the cockpit that night each had significantly more than 1500 flight hours. In my opinion Colgan Air 3407 had a lot to do with the extreme fatigue, poor working conditions, and toxic culture of Colgan Air. I do think experience was part of the problem but I just do not understand where the 1500 hours came from since both the Captain and First Officer were well over that on that fateful night. The problems lied more with Colgan Air itself and I don't really think I agree with penalizing the rest of the industry for it.
CarlosSi wrote:KentB27 wrote:I think the entire flight hours situation resulting from Colgan Air 3407 was a knee jerk response. Both pilots in the cockpit that night each had significantly more than 1500 flight hours. In my opinion Colgan Air 3407 had a lot to do with the extreme fatigue, poor working conditions, and toxic culture of Colgan Air. I do think experience was part of the problem but I just do not understand where the 1500 hours came from since both the Captain and First Officer were well over that on that fateful night. The problems lied more with Colgan Air itself and I don't really think I agree with penalizing the rest of the industry for it.
Indeed, and what has been done to address fatigue and poor working conditions?
What were the old requirements anyways, and what were the "unwritten" requirements (i.e., how many hours did the airline want typically)? Truly no airline pilot at a regional started with only 250 (I think that was the number). Certainly they needed much more than that to be considered and hired. Was getting an ATP a thing in the past as well, or new with this 1500 hour rule?
rbavfan wrote:The increase in hours was way to high a jump, has affected all US operations to some extent & still did not do anything for the improper training of the crew. It was a feel good reaction to look like the government was doing something.
2Holer4Longhaul wrote:Tenerife happened with one of KLM's top captains flying. Colgan Air 3407 happened with fellas above 1500. OZ 214 and AC 759 also happened with multiple veteran pilots.
The rule, then, seems rather arbitrary and knee-jerk. In this industry, arbitrary and knee-jerk means it gets nudie scanners and a ban on sandwiches soon #TSA
Aesma wrote:2Holer4Longhaul wrote:Tenerife happened with one of KLM's top captains flying. Colgan Air 3407 happened with fellas above 1500. OZ 214 and AC 759 also happened with multiple veteran pilots.
The rule, then, seems rather arbitrary and knee-jerk. In this industry, arbitrary and knee-jerk means it gets nudie scanners and a ban on sandwiches soon #TSA
Doesn't the 1500 hours rule means pilots must fly all kinds of small planes, with less automation, and more by the butt flying, before they can fly an airliner ?
Flow2706 wrote:History has shown that cadet programs are safe. My opinion is that even in todays automated aircraft people should still possess some manual flying skills. But these can only partially be obtained by previous experience in light aircraft (or even military jets). The Captain of QZ8501 was an ex Air Force Pilot flying fast jets (I think F16 IIRC) and still he got confused when the copilot stalled the aircraft. What matters more than previous experience is recency. I think instead of requiring new pilots to have 1500h before being allowed to fly for an airline there should be a mandated amount of General Aviation flying every year (that has to be paid by the employer). This should keep peoples handling skills sharp. This probably won't be feasible due to costs and there is also an argument that general aviation experience is not 100% relevant to the airline environment (I do not really agree with this - of course you have Mach phenomena etc. occurring only in jets, but there general handling in most situations is similar enough). However people should be encouraged to fly manually on the line more. You could for example require crews to fly a certain amount of raw data approaches in a month (two would be a good start), to fly approaches with auto thrust off etc.
These measures are more appropriate than the 1500h rule - a well trained cadet with 200h is a good baseline to start the learning process on the line. Of course Captains need to be sharp and help these guys out. It really takes around 1000 to 1500h to be really comfortable on a jet in all situations in the airline environment, but during those first hours that Captains should be mentoring the new pilots.
ikramerica wrote:Flow2706 wrote:History has shown that cadet programs are safe. My opinion is that even in todays automated aircraft people should still possess some manual flying skills. But these can only partially be obtained by previous experience in light aircraft (or even military jets). The Captain of QZ8501 was an ex Air Force Pilot flying fast jets (I think F16 IIRC) and still he got confused when the copilot stalled the aircraft. What matters more than previous experience is recency. I think instead of requiring new pilots to have 1500h before being allowed to fly for an airline there should be a mandated amount of General Aviation flying every year (that has to be paid by the employer). This should keep peoples handling skills sharp. This probably won't be feasible due to costs and there is also an argument that general aviation experience is not 100% relevant to the airline environment (I do not really agree with this - of course you have Mach phenomena etc. occurring only in jets, but there general handling in most situations is similar enough). However people should be encouraged to fly manually on the line more. You could for example require crews to fly a certain amount of raw data approaches in a month (two would be a good start), to fly approaches with auto thrust off etc.
These measures are more appropriate than the 1500h rule - a well trained cadet with 200h is a good baseline to start the learning process on the line. Of course Captains need to be sharp and help these guys out. It really takes around 1000 to 1500h to be really comfortable on a jet in all situations in the airline environment, but during those first hours that Captains should be mentoring the new pilots.
Would be interesting if airlines not only bought simulators for training but bought Cessna aircraft for GA training for all active pilots. I kind of like that idea.
BravoOne wrote:ikramerica wrote:Flow2706 wrote:History has shown that cadet programs are safe. My opinion is that even in todays automated aircraft people should still possess some manual flying skills. But these can only partially be obtained by previous experience in light aircraft (or even military jets). The Captain of QZ8501 was an ex Air Force Pilot flying fast jets (I think F16 IIRC) and still he got confused when the copilot stalled the aircraft. What matters more than previous experience is recency. I think instead of requiring new pilots to have 1500h before being allowed to fly for an airline there should be a mandated amount of General Aviation flying every year (that has to be paid by the employer). This should keep peoples handling skills sharp. This probably won't be feasible due to costs and there is also an argument that general aviation experience is not 100% relevant to the airline environment (I do not really agree with this - of course you have Mach phenomena etc. occurring only in jets, but there general handling in most situations is similar enough). However people should be encouraged to fly manually on the line more. You could for example require crews to fly a certain amount of raw data approaches in a month (two would be a good start), to fly approaches with auto thrust off etc.
These measures are more appropriate than the 1500h rule - a well trained cadet with 200h is a good baseline to start the learning process on the line. Of course Captains need to be sharp and help these guys out. It really takes around 1000 to 1500h to be really comfortable on a jet in all situations in the airline environment, but during those first hours that Captains should be mentoring the new pilots.
Would be interesting if airlines not only bought simulators for training but bought Cessna aircraft for GA training for all active pilots. I kind of like that idea.
I believe Jet Blue is doing some sort of in house abinitio pilot training at this time. May have just graduated their 1st class??
Mir wrote:BravoOne wrote:ikramerica wrote:Would be interesting if airlines not only bought simulators for training but bought Cessna aircraft for GA training for all active pilots. I kind of like that idea.
I believe Jet Blue is doing some sort of in house abinitio pilot training at this time. May have just graduated their 1st class??
They will still have to fulfill their ATP requirements, so they'll have to instruct for a bit. If the results are good, they might be able to get relief on that, but I wouldn't expect it soon.
BravoOne wrote:Mir wrote:BravoOne wrote:
I believe Jet Blue is doing some sort of in house abinitio pilot training at this time. May have just graduated their 1st class??
They will still have to fulfill their ATP requirements, so they'll have to instruct for a bit. If the results are good, they might be able to get relief on that, but I wouldn't expect it soon.
What perhaps would accelerate the process would be a restricted ATP at say 350 hours. That 350 hours would be made up of some pretty intensive training in both the aircraft and Level D simulators. I believe EK is well on their way launching a program along these lines.
BravoOne wrote:Mir wrote:BravoOne wrote:
I believe Jet Blue is doing some sort of in house abinitio pilot training at this time. May have just graduated their 1st class??
They will still have to fulfill their ATP requirements, so they'll have to instruct for a bit. If the results are good, they might be able to get relief on that, but I wouldn't expect it soon.
What perhaps would accelerate the process would be a restricted ATP at say 350 hours. That 350 hours would be made up of some pretty intensive training in both the aircraft and Level D simulators. I believe EK is well on their way launching a program along these lines.
DiamondFlyer wrote:BravoOne wrote:Mir wrote:
They will still have to fulfill their ATP requirements, so they'll have to instruct for a bit. If the results are good, they might be able to get relief on that, but I wouldn't expect it soon.
What perhaps would accelerate the process would be a restricted ATP at say 350 hours. That 350 hours would be made up of some pretty intensive training in both the aircraft and Level D simulators. I believe EK is well on their way launching a program along these lines.
Absolutely not. Anything less than 1000 hours is a non-starter. There's a reason that US aviation is historically the safest out there, because we don't subscribe to these nonsensical cadet schemes they end up creating pilots who are only allowed to fly in cruise, who then stall perfectly good airplanes.
Mir wrote:BravoOne wrote:Mir wrote:
They will still have to fulfill their ATP requirements, so they'll have to instruct for a bit. If the results are good, they might be able to get relief on that, but I wouldn't expect it soon.
What perhaps would accelerate the process would be a restricted ATP at say 350 hours. That 350 hours would be made up of some pretty intensive training in both the aircraft and Level D simulators. I believe EK is well on their way launching a program along these lines.
If the airlines are willing to select like the military, train like the military, and spend like the military to do it, they can have their 350 hour pilots.
kitplane01 wrote:I believe this is the common consensus:
4) The 1,500 hour rule has increased starting pilot pay (over what it was before)
GalaxyFlyer wrote:Starlionblue,
The cadet programs are much like the better military programs in terms of training and standards--far superior to the basics at a US FAR 61 school. That said p, the OZ8501, Colgan and AF 447 crews had hours but lacked dome basic aeronautical sense--a jet transport can't climb at 6,000 fpm at cruise and shy those pilots didn't grasp that will remain a mystery. The MPL program seems too long on rote learning and SOP and too little on airmanship and, yes, seat of the pants horse sense. Yes, a jet can be flown to some degree by seat of pants--fighter guys do it every day.
GF
WingsFan wrote:kitplane01 wrote:I believe this is the common consensus:
4) The 1,500 hour rule has increased starting pilot pay (over what it was before)
I fail to see how the rule was determined to be the cause of higher pay. If Colgan crash was responsible for a bump in average pay of regional pilots, it may be due to heightened awareness of working conditions of these pilots. The 1500 hr rule itself did nothing to improve working conditions of the pilots
Starlionblue wrote:
Many major airlines already have 350 hour pilots. For better or worse, the US philosophy is on its way to becoming an anomaly from a worldwide perspective.
There seems to be this impression that airline cadet programs are not good training. I can only speak for what I saw our 0-hour cadets go through, but the programme is tough.
- Selection is highly competitive.
- Every lesson, indeed every flight, is graded. There are constant performance reviews. Very different from building hours on your own with little pressure beyond not hitting anything.
- The pace is accelerated and students must work very hard.
- Simulators are used extensively, especially in MPL programmes.
This kind of training is not military level, but it is not cheap or haphazard.
I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement, but I still contend that an intensive programme focused on airliner flying is much more useful than an additional 500-1000 hours flying light pistons.
mmo wrote:Some one talked about 350 hour military pilots. First of all, they would not be going to the airlines. However, I'd rather have one of those rather than a the other choices available.
DiamondFlyer wrote:
Absolutely not. Anything less than 1000 hours is a non-starter. There's a reason that US aviation is historically the safest out there, because we don't subscribe to these nonsensical cadet schemes they end up creating pilots who are only allowed to fly in cruise, who then stall perfectly good airplanes.
mmo wrote:Starlionblue wrote:
Many major airlines already have 350 hour pilots. For better or worse, the US philosophy is on its way to becoming an anomaly from a worldwide perspective.
There seems to be this impression that airline cadet programs are not good training. I can only speak for what I saw our 0-hour cadets go through, but the programme is tough.
- Selection is highly competitive.
- Every lesson, indeed every flight, is graded. There are constant performance reviews. Very different from building hours on your own with little pressure beyond not hitting anything.
- The pace is accelerated and students must work very hard.
- Simulators are used extensively, especially in MPL programmes.
This kind of training is not military level, but it is not cheap or haphazard.
I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement, but I still contend that an intensive programme focused on airliner flying is much more useful than an additional 500-1000 hours flying light pistons.
I, too, have worked for airlines which had cadet programs and I guess I have a slightly different opinion of the program.
First of all, the selection is very competitive but I am not sure the "best" candidates are actually selected. From my own experience, there are quite a few very bright and intelligent people who just woke up one day and thought "I'd like to become a pilot". My experience has taught me most capable pilots are ones who have been involved with aviation for quite a while. I am not saying the pilots who have a revelation about aviation are not good pilots, but aviation tends to be in your blood.
Secondly, cadet pilots are extremely knowledgeable. They know all parts of the FCOM and every other manual and can quote verbatim any part of the manual, but there is a big gap when it comes to implementing that knowledge. I guess the phrase "book smart" is what comes to mind.
Finally, my biggest issue, is the grading and constant evaluation. You are correct in your description of the evaluation process. However, my opinion only, is part of aviation is making mistakes and learning from the mistakes. I am not saying they should not be evaluated, but they are no longer undergoing basic flight training. I also think part of the problem is the Captains they fly with. To me, a Captain has a responsibility to impart knowledge, allow the cadet develop his/her skills and decision making and challenge their decision making. All of that in a positive atmosphere. From what I have seen, that is certainly not the case. The Cadets are under the microscope constantly and are worried about making the "wrong decision".
What is the solution, I really don't know. One problem is culture plays a great part of the "learning environment" until that changes there will be constant problems.
Some one talked about 350 hour military pilots. First of all, they would not be going to the airlines. However, I'd rather have one of those rather than a the other choices available. The problem with training for G/A in the US is it varies quite a bit from school to school. As Galaxy Flyer point out, the large schools take the military approach. But, there are quite a few "mom and pop" flying schools who don't and that is where the variation in standards comes into play.
Just my $.02 worth.
BravoOne wrote:New York Democrat Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who credited the 1,500-hour rule with ending fatal airline accidents in the U.S. “It’s no coincidence that we haven’t had a tragedy like Flight 3407 recently because the rules are working and they have made air travel safer,” she told NPR.
sierrakilo44 wrote:mmo wrote:Some one talked about 350 hour military pilots. First of all, they would not be going to the airlines. However, I'd rather have one of those rather than a the other choices available.
Why? I'd rather have a well selected and trained civilian cadet pilot than any military pilots course graduate for a right hand seat job at an a turboprop or jet airline.
So again, the military trains pilots for military operations, civilian airlines train pilots for civilian airline operations. If I had to take a candidate to train for a RHS 737 or A320 endorsement I'd take the civilian guy anyday.
Which is why a lot of military pilots have trouble entering civilian airlines after a military career.
mmo wrote:Care to back up your statement about military pilots having trouble? I'd love to see your justification for that stupid statement! If your statements reflect your opinion of military pilots, you have a lot to learn and it proves to me you are not a "real pilot". AMF