(qualified?) pilot shortage round 2? MPL

[Lear70]

Right the pax at LIT are going to love going to ATL instead of DFW to get to ABQ, PHX or LAX.

Too bad, they can suck it up. Hegeman's never been known for having a great track record on aviation subjects, about 50/50, but the quotes she gathered point out the issue quite nicely.

I'm not interested in financing their low ticket prices with my low wages. Time for the Regionals to reap what they have sown. Decades of slave-labor pilot wages have yielded them an entire generation of high school and college students who don't want to become pilots because it just doesn't pay enough.

That's the lesson they need to learn, and ALPA's quote from the article above summed that up nicely.

 

[Mud Eagle]

The fastest way to destroy an industry is through too much regulation and legislation.

Wait a minute...I thought the airline industry only started to self destruct after it was deregulated?

 

[pilotyip]

Wait a minute...I thought the airline industry only started to self destruct after it was deregulated?

Did not self destruct. It did great under de-reg, market forces prevailed eliminating the weak operators, competetion drove productivity and cost controls. The airlines have grown over 400% since de-reg. But now we have Congress starting to screw things up again, 1500 hour rules, FRAMP, and Part 117.

 

[Lear70]

The 1500 hr rule is a good one. You just dislike it because it affects you're airline negatively.

If I can have a guy in the right seat with 1,250 Hrs of making sure his student didn't kill him or flying freight at night in a Baron or a Lear versus some 250 he wunderkid who just got out of an "approved" flight school, well, let's just say that I think you're full of sh*t if you say the 250 hr pilot is just as experienced and, thus, just as safe.

If it wasn't simple logic, it wouldn't be becoming law.

 

[HA25]

Did not self destruct. It did great under de-reg, market forces prevailed eliminating the weak operators, competetion drove productivity and cost controls. The airlines have grown over 400% since de-reg. But now we have Congress starting to screw things up again, 1500 hour rules, FRAMP, and Part 117.

wait.... are you working in the same airline industry the rest of us are? Oh.. wait, no you're not, you're with a bottom feeder, with a ravenous appetite for underpaid and overworked pilots.

 

[pilotyip]

The 1500 hr rule is a good one. You just dislike it because it affects you're airline negatively.

If I can have a guy in the right seat with 1,250 Hrs of making sure his student didn't kill him or flying freight at night in a Baron or a Lear versus some 250 he wunderkid who just got out of an "approved" flight school, well, let's just say that I think you're full of sh*t if you say the 250 hr pilot is just as experienced and, thus, just as safe.

If it wasn't simple logic, it wouldn't be becoming law.

Everyone in the know; Flight Safety Foundation, ICAO, NACA, etc says this is a stupid rule. It makes the 1500 banner tow pilot from KMYR as the first choice for a 121 job over a 1000 hours guy who has been flying DA-20's at KYIP under 121 sub parts N and O for two years. Night IFR, icing, international expereince, simulator training in windshear, CFIT, and Low vis taxi mean nothing. The choice is made on a number not a qualification. BTW If the 1500 rule is so good, why are 750 hour military helo pilots allowed into 121 cockpits?

 

[HA25]

Everyone in the know; Flight Safety Foundation, ICAO, NACA, etc says this is a stupid rule. It makes the 1500 banner tow pilot from KMYR as the first choice for a 121 job over a 1000 hours guy who has been flying DA-20's at KYIP under 121 sub parts N and O for two years. Night IFR, icing, international expereince, simulator training in windshear, CFIT, and Low vis taxi mean nothing. The choice is made on a number not a qualification. BTW If the 1500 rule is so good, why are 750 hour military helo pilots allowed into 121 cockpits?

nope... it just makes it so you have to hire a 1500 pilot to get that 121 DA20 time for a dime.... thats all. And this will shift more experience into all of our cockpits, not just yours.

 

[laker4284]

The 1500 hr rule is a good one. You just dislike it because it affects you're airline negatively.

If I can have a guy in the right seat with 1,250 Hrs of making sure his student didn't kill him or flying freight at night in a Baron or a Lear versus some 250 he wunderkid who just got out of an "approved" flight school, well, let's just say that I think you're full of sh*t if you say the 250 hr pilot is just as experienced and, thus, just as safe.

If it wasn't simple logic, it wouldn't be becoming law.

Oh, man. You're killing me!

We're talking about the FAA, where rules and regulations are whipsawed and fought over for literally years before it finally is adopted (if it is adopted). In this case, the FAA was under some serious political pressure to make changes after the Colgan crash in Buffalo. Add to that the presence of a former ALPA President as FAA Administrator, and it was easy to see that one of ALPA's pet desires would likely become a regulatory success.

Of course, these changes really had nothing to do with the root causes of the crash. They will, however, result in all sorts of foolish work-arounds. Those have already started, by waiving military time requirements to a lower level to account for their quality of training and experience. There will be more changes, exemptions and waivers if the hiring pool gets shallow due to the 1500 hour rule.

Yeah, yeah. I know you think hours towing a banner might a great pilot make. However, as has already been pointed out, flight time is not necessarily a predictor of a good pilot; EXPERIENCE and TRAINING are. I'd take a military guy with 750 hours any time over a civilian guy with 1500 hours who has been doing a job that requires little or no instrument or night time, or no ops in difficult conditions.

The 1500 hour rule is a dumb as- rule and common sense or logic had nothing to do with its inception.

 

[HA25]

The 1500 hour rule is a dumb as- rule and common sense or logic had nothing to do with its inception.

well until the FAA gets rid of memorizable written tests for ATPs and Comm, and holds aspiring professional airmen to basic levels of aerodynamic and systems understanding, this will do.. it at least makes sure their stick and rudder skills are somewhat matured and honed before they get into a cockpit... That said, I agree with the gist of your post... Sadly the fact that the girl in the right seat of that Q400 didn't understand that sucking the flaps up during a stall recovery wasn't the right thing to do at that proximity to the ground, and yet had over 1500 hours proves that there is a MASSIVE gap in understanding of how an airplane flies in many circles of aviation..

I mean how many pilots have you flown with that REFUSE to use the speed brakes to slow down, or go down, but are the first ones in a hurry to drop the gear at 5000' or get slats and flaps out at Vlimit speed to get the same effect?

Flaps are a lift device, except there are enough "pilots" out there that seem to think their primarily a drag device and this is why we're sometimes the laughing stock of the interviewers at the Cathy Pacific interview, and rightly so..

 

[Lear70]

Oh, man. You're killing me!

We're talking about the FAA, where rules and regulations are whipsawed and fought over for literally years before it finally is adopted (if it is adopted). In this case, the FAA was under some serious political pressure to make changes after the Colgan crash in Buffalo. Add to that the presence of a former ALPA President as FAA Administrator, and it was easy to see that one of ALPA's pet desires would likely become a regulatory success.

Of course, these changes really had nothing to do with the root causes of the crash. They will, however, result in all sorts of foolish work-arounds. Those have already started, by waiving military time requirements to a lower level to account for their quality of training and experience. There will be more changes, exemptions and waivers if the hiring pool gets shallow due to the 1500 hour rule.

Yeah, yeah. I know you think hours towing a banner might a great pilot make. However, as has already been pointed out, flight time is not necessarily a predictor of a good pilot; EXPERIENCE and TRAINING are. I'd take a military guy with 750 hours any time over a civilian guy with 1500 hours who has been doing a job that requires little or no instrument or night time, or no ops in difficult conditions.

The 1500 hour rule is a dumb as- rule and common sense or logic had nothing to do with its inception.

Laker, I don't disagree with you, or the example that YIP listed, but that's not what we're debating.

We are debating no minimum experience requirement beyond a wet CMEL versus the new minimum of 1,500 hrs. Period.

Of course is rather have a Kalitta guy with 1,200 total time and 900 right seat in a Lear or Falcon versus a 1,500 he banner tower, but there's not an easy way to write that into a reg. How would you PRECISELY define equivalent experience, or even better experience than another?

For the record, I do NOT agree that training can equal experience. Military training? Arguably, because the passing standards are so much higher than the civilian world, but in the pure civilian route of training? Not a chance.

Thus, since it's almost impossible to write different scenarios of experiends which would be just as good or better than a blanket 1,500 hr requirement, it's the best solution of a host of imperfect solutions, and certainly better than no restriction at all.