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

[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?