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

[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?

 

[resetjet]

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

Simple answer: YES. Commuting to a base you can't afford to live in or working 2 jobs takes a toll!

 

[JustaNumber]

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...

I believe you are confusing the primary problem with the regional airline industry with your primary problem with the regional airline industry. From your perspective the compensation is your biggest problem, but from a passenger's perspective the experience and maturity of the guys up front is paramount. Are the two related? Probably. But there are plenty of industries that prove that poorly compensated individuals can be the best in the world at what they do, if they just have the right attitude. Think police, military, graduate research students, etc. I agree with livin'thesim's understanding that attitude is far more important than any compensation could ever be. (Not that I don't want a bigger paycheck!) Overall, even though there will be unintended consequences to this bill, I think it is appropriate and will overall be helpful.

By the way, hats off to all the intelligent, well-articulated posts here. Am I still on FI, or did we accidentally get sent to some other website?

 

[johnpeace]

Think police

Are you serious?

Dude, if we had the same success rate as the police, the landscape would be littered with smoking craters!

 

[Poahi]

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

It's a fair question although if you aren't safe you shouldn't fly.

But keep in mind, there are a lot of highly paid pilots with not such great schedules who commute. If you were given a huge raise would you move to EWR, IAD, ORD etc...? To me, the more I earn, the more likely I'm going to live where I want. The bottom line for the regionals is do you want to bid for a career or a lifestyle? Because most in cases, you can't have both.

 

[livin'thesim]

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

Absolutely.

I was paid more, I could afford to work less. Eventually i would be so rich that I would never have to fly.

Now what's safer than that?

 

[Motown]

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

I think you're missing the point.

When wages and benefits are high, the career attracts a higher caliber of applicant. Employers can afford to reject a higher percentage of applicants and cherry-pick the best ones.

The industry competes with other industries with similar compensation & lifestyles for applicants-- a career that pays six figures will attract entrants who have the skill set and aptitude to earn six figures in other disciplines, but a career that pays in the low five figures will attract entrants who have the skill set and aptitude to earn low five figures in other disciplines.

 

[CX880]

I think you're missing the point.

When wages and benefits are high, the career attracts a higher caliber of applicant. Employers can afford to reject a higher percentage of applicants and cherry-pick the best ones.

The industry competes with other industries with similar compensation & lifestyles for applicants-- a career that pays six figures will attract entrants who have the skill set and aptitude to earn six figures in other disciplines, but a career that pays in the low five figures will attract entrants who have the skill set and aptitude to earn low five figures in other disciplines.

If what you're saying is true then airplanes should be falling out of the sky right now.

It's called supply and demand, the only way pay will go up is if there's high demand and little supply. The good news is that supply will dwindle in the future if compensation levels stay the same.

 

[Long Time Gone]

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

I was just thinking the same thing. Obviously being paid more, having a better quality of life, better schedules, slicker hair, and pants pulled down to your butt yet hemmed appropriately make you a better and safer pilot. As long as you have $100K to fork out for that DC-9 type rating at CAPT or FSI, that's ALL that matters.

 

[Long Time Gone]

Simple answer: YES. Commuting to a base you can't afford to live in or working 2 jobs takes a toll!

Then find a local job so you won't have to commute. Either that, or quit whining. Commuting is ALWAYS an option, not a necessity. If you do commute, then commute with a brain. IOW, leave the day prior to your reserve or trip period, as to get enough sleep the night prior to your trip or reserve period. Red-eyeing in has to be one of the most irresponsible things I have ever heard of, especially with a 7am duty in time.

 

[doh]

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.[/QUOTE]

Collective bargaining means that management can't just selectively bump pay for one group. The CBA has to be amended if they want to hand out bonuses or otherwise increase compensation. If management believes the compensation is too low, then it is too low for everyone. Do you really believe that a first year FO should make more than a third year FO?