Senate, House Agree to Sixfold Boost in Airline Pilots' Flight Experience

[Time Served]

Flying when you want to versus flying when you have to are completely different levels of experience.

Quote of the year!

 

[Lynxman]

What if I want to fly when its crappy out? How is that any different?

 

[General Lee]

You've got such a raging hard-on against Comair pilots that you really can't see it, can you? Here's his first paragraph, and part of the second, again:



He makes the great point that exactly zero regional airline accidents have been attributed to FOs with less than 1500tt, and that all recent regional airline accidents have been the direct result of the captain's actions (or inactions). He uses his professional experience to advocate for additional training after hiring at regional airlines, especially for captains, as a much better means to improve operational safety than an arbitrary minimum time requirement for newhire pilots.

He mentioned nothing about his career decisions, or those of other pilots, or any inferiority or superiority of those who decide to make their career at a "regional" airline.

You're the only one here talking about that nonsense.

Which directly relates back to his very first paragraph.

Set your hatred for regional pilots (and Comair pilots in particular) aside for just a minute and consider WTF the guy is advocating - better and continued training for new captains at regional airlines. OH THE HORROR



Nope...but a newly-minted MD on their internship can kill you just as dead with the wrong medication, a bad IV insertion, slip of the scalpel, or similar mistake as somebody with 30 years on the job. Which, when you think about it, isn't a hell of a lot different than flying airplanes...

Did the Colgan crash have an FO with less than 1500 hours? Looking at the tapes, sounds like the raising of the flaps without the Captain knowing it might have not helped the situation. Are you sure about your ZERO comment?


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[BoilerUP]

Did the Colgan crash have an FO with less than 1500 hours? Looking at the tapes, sounds like the raising of the flaps without the Captain knowing it might have not helped the situation. Are you sure about your ZERO comment?

Yes, I'm sure about my ZERO comment - no recent regional airline crashes have been caused by or otherwise attributed to FOs with less than 1500 hours.

In the instance of Colgan, the FO had more than 1500 hours, and while her actions certainly wouldn't have helped the situation retracting the flaps wasn't what caused the plane to auger in - the CA pulling the yoke to his chest when the shaker fired did.

 

[CX880]

"As for the Colgan accident, the FO may have been inexperienced but that had nothing to do with the accident. The problem came about due to the inexperience of the Captain, not the FO, and he had way more than 1500 hours."


While I agree and stated in my post that the captain did create this problem and didn't manage it properly, I have to disagree and say the FO did in fact have something to do with this accident. If she hadn't changed the aircraft configuration during the stall the aircraft may have powered out of it. But, by raising the flaps on her own, she basically took away lift and added about 40 to 50 knots of speed to recover the aircraft. At 1800' above the ground, at night, in the clouds with an FO doing whatever they want, I doubt even a 25 year veteran captain could pull that one off. The NTSB faulting the captain and not the FO is just reminding us all who has the ultimate responsibility for the aircraft.

Good post. It's very ovious that the CA was completely ill trained but they might have been able to power out of it. The flaps up completely sealed the fate of that airplane.

 

[CX880]

In the instance of Colgan, the FO had more than 1500 hours, and while her actions certainly wouldn't have helped the situation retracting the flaps wasn't what caused the plane to auger in - the CA pulling the yoke to his chest when the shaker fired did.

Actually that is what caused the airpalne to augure in. It's the other way around, the CA did not help but the FO did worse. The purpose of having two warm bodies in the cockpit is so that they can double check eachother, not make things worse.

 

[Ground Loop]

[/QUOTE] I would also be very vocal with my union reps if allow new hires to receive huge raises or bonuses with out more senior pilots getting theirs. [/QUOTE]

This my friend is why this industry sucks..You can't have yours unless I get mine.

What about the guys that had to PFT to get on in the late 90's-00's. Should the old guys get their training money back? Different times, different market.

 

[Long Time Gone]

Actually that is what caused the airpalne to augure in. It's the other way around, the CA did not help but the FO did worse. The purpose of having two warm bodies in the cockpit is so that they can double check eachother, not make things worse.

We can all "Monday morning Quarterback" all we want. The fact of the matter is, putting the flaps up put the nail in the coffin. It did nothing but take a horrible situation that was as close to deadly as possible and make it a deadly situation. Did she cause it? No, but she helped end it. Anyone with even a hint of understanding knows that the first rule in stall recovery is to NOT change the configuration of the aircraft until the stall is recovered. He was in a spin when she put them up.

As for the 1500 hour rule, I just flew a trip with a "250 hour wonder child" who has been with us for 3 years and on reserve the whole time. Even after 3 years, his usage of the radio sucks, his abidance with SOPs sucks, his respect for limitations sucks, and overall, his pilotage sucks. I shouldn't have to babysit someone who has been with an airline for 3 years. A 121 regional carrier is NOT the place for anyone who needs more time in a cockpit, regardless of how much money they've spent.

 

[livin'thesim]

There will almost certainly be a small amount of safety improvement from this change.

What surplus doesn't get is that when a regional job is available so soon after getting the commercial certificate, it can encourage a shortcut-oriented mindset to new pilots.

Sure, some pilots will fly in circles in a 152 for 1250 hours to get to 1500.

But the rest will need to find some experience, like most of did in the old days.

And if you think that a 500 hour pilot can't benefit from another 500 hours of teaching in a 172, then you probably were never an airline instructor.


You can throw all the training you want at a 500 hour guy.

But the ODDS are that the 1000 hour guy will absorb more of it. Not ALL of the time, but certainly MOST of the time.

 

[livin'thesim]

What boilerup does not get is that it is the weak 250-hour wonder that develops into the weak 1500 hour pilot who screws up.

Just because you place a weak airman in the cockpit at 250 hours does not mean that circumstances will occur immediately that cause an incident.

It might take a few years before they are placed in a situation where their weakness will be exposed.

Weak parts don't always fail immediately. They fail in unexpected ways, and at a lower threshold of stress.


Additionally, the maturing of airmanship skills can get severely stunted by moving someone up to an advanced airplane too quickly.

That is probably the case with Renslow. Reading about his history suggests someone too concerned with the GOAL of getting to an airline cockpit, and not concerned enough with respecting the PROCESS of becoming worthy of that position.


Raising the bar on minimum flight time is at least a start in telling these people that an airline job is SUPPOSED to be a serious thing, not a place for them to try to finish their instrument rating.

 

[livin'thesim]

What if I want to fly when its crappy out? How is that any different?

Different type of pressure to complete the mission. Internal vs. external.

Completely different. It is not just the weather, it is the whole mission that determines the safety.

 

[BoilerUP]

What boilerup does not get is that it is the weak 250-hour wonder that develops into the weak 1500 hour pilot who screws up.

No, BoilerUP gets that sentiment just fine.

I'm not advocating for more 250hr pilots in 121 cockpits, and even though I was hired by Air Wisconsin with around 1100tt (and by some miracle didn't scratch any airplanes or get any FAA dings in the process) I don't think its unreasonable to have airline pilots meet the total time requirement for an Airline Transport Pilot license.

Thing is, a 1500hr mandate would not have prevented the Colgan 3407 accident. surplus1 has a good point that not enough people are talking about this rule change as a means to increase safety of flight while far too many are talking about it as a means of artificially shrinking the available pilot pool, hopefully improving their career expectations & opportunities.

While this rule should increase safety, I still have my doubts that it will lead to the tangible increase in newhire airmanship experience & skills that 121 operations really require.

Pilot training (not just checking) is key going forward to increase safety IMO, not just for newhires or new captains but ALL line pilots. Every other professional field (legal, medical, engineering, etc) have continuing education requirements, even for those actively working in their field - why not take that best practice forward in the airlines?

 

[kmox29]

As for the 1500 hour rule, I just flew a trip with a "250 hour wonder child" who has been with us for 3 years and on reserve the whole time. Even after 3 years, his usage of the radio sucks, his abidance with SOPs sucks, his respect for limitations sucks, and overall, his pilotage sucks. I shouldn't have to babysit someone who has been with an airline for 3 years.

Did you report him to either ALPA Professional Standards or your Chief Pilot?

 

[ualdriver]

250 hour pilots have no business in the right seat of a airliner. If any of us were wealthy enough to own our own business jet, for example, to fly ourselves and more importantly our loved ones in, there is NO WAY any of us would hire an inexperienced 250 hour pilot in order to "save a buck" on salaries. We'd hire two, experienced pilots to sit up there to keep our loved ones (and ourselves!) safe. Airlines should be no different.

This legislation is imperfect, but we certainly know that the halls of Congress don't always work the way WE want it to in passing perfect legislation. So if my choice is to keep the current system in place or accept this imperfect legislation, I'll take the latter. If they want to fix the legislation later, let them worry about it then.

 

[BoilerUP]

250 hour pilots have no business in the right seat of a airliner. If any of us were wealthy enough to own our own business jet, for example, to fly ourselves and more importantly our loved ones in, there is NO WAY any of us would hire an inexperienced 250 hour pilot in order to "save a buck" on salaries. We'd hire two, experienced pilots to sit up there to keep our loved ones (and ourselves!) safe.

This is gonna sound harsh, but you're talking out of school here.

If you were wealthy enough to own a bizjet, you'd hire two experienced pilots because you ARE an experienced pilot and understand the risks (and maybe to a lesser degree, the hidden costs) associated with "cheap" pilots.

Not all aircraft owners think that way. I'd argue not many think that way.

There are PLENTY of bizav owners who have a single pilot operating their King Air, Citation, Premier, etc. to reduce their costs, and even more owners flying two-crew airplanes like Lears, Hawkers, etc. that utilize an experienced lead captain/chief pilot and a underpaid, low-time pilot in the right seat whose only aircraft training consisted of three bounces and a 61.55 endorsement.

Many owners & small businesses view pilots as little more than expendable, easily replaceable labor...because they can't or don't understand that a good pilot is the CHEAPEST thing associated with their airplane...and a hell of a lot cheaper than the training costs associated with a revolving door in the pilot ranks.

 

[erjip]

I don't know if this has been discussed, but the 1500 hour rule won't be effect for atleast 3 years.

 

[livin'thesim]

boiler-

Fair enough, then.

But I still think that a higher hour requirement could have indirectly prevented a lot of incidents. Possibly this one as well.

How?

Because of attitude. We both know that being a safe pilot requires, among other things, the right type of attitude and some amount of skill.

Flight experience is just a crude measure of the amount of exposure a pilot has had to the flight environment, and by extension higher hours increases the odds that some of the good attitude and skills have been acquired.

Even though Renslow had over 3,000 hours, I would argue that he was a product of shortcut-minded thinking. The low entry requirement for FOs only increases the temptation for inexperienced pilots to take a position that they do not yet possess the skills to hold.

The Gulfstream "academy" attitude of instant-airline-job is very tempting to people who do not understand and do not WANT to understand that they are not ready yet. Had the 1500 hour requirement been in place these many years, there would likely have been a different mindset among many career aspirants, and perhaps Renslow may have not even attempted to chase "the dream".

In other words, changing the minimums may help change attitudes about what it takes to be a professional pilot.

If the requirement had always been higher, I strongly believe that MORE (not all) young pilots would have been more focused on making those hours meaningful.

Getting hired to fly a jet at 300 hours is like winning the lottery.

No matter how good a 300 hour pilot you are, you have not earned it. You could be the best 300 hour pilot the world has ever seen, and maybe you are CAPABLE of doing the job. But you still have been an airman long enough to have earned it.

 

[ualdriver]

This is gonna sound harsh, but you're talking out of school here.

If you were wealthy enough to own a bizjet, you'd hire two experienced pilots because you ARE an experienced pilot and understand the risks (and maybe to a lesser degree, the hidden costs) associated with "cheap" pilots.

Not all aircraft owners think that way. I'd argue not many think that way.

There are PLENTY of bizav owners who have a single pilot operating their King Air, Citation, Premier, etc. to reduce their costs, and even more owners flying two-crew airplanes like Lears, Hawkers, etc. that utilize an experienced lead captain/chief pilot and a underpaid, low-time pilot in the right seat whose only aircraft training consisted of three bounces and a 61.55 endorsement.

Many owners & small businesses view pilots as little more than expendable, easily replaceable labor...because they can't or don't understand that a good pilot is the CHEAPEST thing associated with their airplane...and a hell of a lot cheaper than the training costs associated with a revolving door in the pilot ranks.

And the point is that if WE, AS EXPERIENCED PILOTS owned our own jets, we wouldn't do what these owners and small operators are doing. This legislation would put the regulations in line with what a SMART owner operator should be doing. If those owners and business owners want to plop a 250 hour pilot in their cockpits to save a buck and let our future airline pilots practice with their lives in the cabin, so be it.

 

[Kaman]

Although, this has already been stated time and again...The real issue at-hand with regional airline pilots isn't the experience level or training. It's quality of life, pay, benefits, etc...All the things that cost money, and money isn't something that the airlines have. As great...a 1500 hour pilot with an ATP is, it really doesn't touch effect the real issues in the business. Very pissed at the state of government, and it's off-handed approach to pleasing the fringe groups spouting off about airline safety without the benefit of knowledge or experience.

 

[kmox29]

Although, this has already been stated time and again...The real issue at-hand with regional airline pilots isn't the experience level or training. It's quality of life, pay, benefits, etc..

So, if you were paid more, you'd be more safe?