what's a sub 1500TT Lakes dude to do?

[pilotyip]

If you think non-121 flying is "suffering" then you should reconsider your career choice.

Door slammed in your face? You mean while you were taking a sub-poverty shortcut at a job that you weren't qualified to do? Have a little respect for the profession.

1500 IS relevant. Do you think 1500 hours was an arbitrary number pulled from thin air? Read the NPRM??lots of good info. Studies, stats, and numbers don't lie.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/2120-AJ67NPRM.pdf

Yes of course I think the 1500 is an arbitrary number. It has nothing to do with experience. Take one of our DA-20 F/O's, 1200 hours, 2 years of night IFR international experience in a two man cockpit, simulator training, LOFT training, and lots of actual instrument time, but they are not qualified, but the guy with 10 hours multi and 1 hour actual inst who has been towing banners at day VFR only KMYR why that is the best pilot out there. So don't kid me about the perfection of the 1500 rule.

 

[Twisted Mind]

I agree with YIP. The eropean model is to screen canadates for aptitude then put a significant amount of time and money developing their skills for a specific job. The military does the same thing and they have pilots landing on aircraft carriers with a few hundred hrs. The U.S. Airline model is cheapest, cheapest, cheapest.....

 

[livin'thesim]

Hollywood,

You sound like the guy that is entitled. Just because you did some thing one way does not make it "the best". Airline CA's are suppose to be mentors to the newer pilots. Experience is gained only by doing. Look at the eropean model of training they spend a considerable amount of time developing their pilots. When they are finished the 200hr guys go directly into the right seat of 747 and 777. Yet maintain a high safety record. I talked with the director of training for KLM after he met with Debora and the NTSB. He said she ignored every thing he said and the evidence to support his explanations.

Not scalable to US carriers. How many of those 200 hour 747 FOs could deal with serious contingencies, or offer meaningful input to the high-time captain.

 

[Twisted Mind]

It isn't scalable? Is it better to have those FO's with a 747 CA that's been flying for 30+ years mentoring the new FO, or an 23 year old RJ CA with 2000 hrs that is still trying to learn him/herself.

 

[livin'thesim]

I'm less convinced when it comes to global and ETOPS because of the extra potential for unusual contingency situations, and I think that two heads with substantial experience are far better.

Domestic 757 or something? I suppose.

The problem is the way that the US airline market works is very different than Europe, as well as the differing ways our economies and regulatory structures are.

I didn't really say it was a bad idea, just that I'm not sure you can take a system that works in one place and transplant it to a completely different economy.

And experience is only part of staying on top of a low time FO.

 

[Twisted Mind]

There is more than one way to accomplish a goal. There is no one right path.

 

[wrxpilot]

It isn't scalable? Is it better to have those FO's with a 747 CA that's been flying for 30+ years mentoring the new FO, or an 23 year old RJ CA with 2000 hrs that is still trying to learn him/herself.

2000 hour 23 y/o RJ CA? Where does this mythical beast live?

I'm 36, 4000 hours, and a FO. The majority of CAs I fly with are my age or older.

 

[N4niner206]

2000 hour 23 y/o RJ CA? Where does this mythical beast live?

I'm 36, 4000 hours, and a FO. The majority of CAs I fly with are my age or older.

Plenty of them... Well, there were.

 

[Hollywood82]

Hollywood,

You sound like the guy that is entitled. Just because you did some thing one way does not make it "the best". Airline CA's are suppose to be mentors to the newer pilots. Experience is gained only by doing. Look at the eropean model of training they spend a considerable amount of time developing their pilots. When they are finished the 200hr guys go directly into the right seat of 747 and 777. Yet maintain a high safety record. I talked with the director of training for KLM after he met with Debora and the NTSB. He said she ignored every thing he said and the evidence to support his explanations.

CAs can be mentors, that much is true. However, they are not teachers. Most of the sub-ATP pilots out there require A LOT of handholding. I know this because I've had them in the right seat, and they're simply not ready to do the job. I realize that the quality of experience is directly related to the competency of the pilot, though it's also important to be realistic and acknowledge that the pilots who built their time via pipeline patrol and banner towing are the minority.

Did you read the NPRM link I posted? If you had taken the time to educate yourself, you would realize that there is substantial empirical data backing up the current ATP mins, and 1500 is not an arbitrary number. I'm not sure how that makes me "entitled". Perhaps we should all deal in facts a little more often.

 

[Twisted Mind]

That's ok you ignore my evidence, I'll ignore yours will call it even.

 

[livin'thesim]

That's ok you ignore my evidence, I'll ignore yours will call it even.

I think you are confusing "opinion based on anecdotal knowledge" with "evidence".

Nice try on the equivalency gambit though.

 

[Twisted Mind]

CA are mentors/ teachers if you are not willing to accept that part of being a CA go back to the right seat. I didn't say 1,500 hrs was irrelevant I said HOW you got to 1,500 hrs is irrelevant. In addition to this if the 1,500 magical number was so great why did they allow carve outs to less than 1/2 the required hours?

 

[Hollywood82]

CA are mentors/ teachers if you are not willing to accept that part of being a CA go back to the right seat.

True, captains can/should be mentors, but mentoring and teaching are two very different things. Checkairmen, sim instructors, ground school instructors; those are all teachers. When I'm doing IOE, I'm operating as a checkairman, and I'm being compensated for instructing (teaching). When I'm just flying as a CA, I am not being compensated for teaching, and providing professional service (IOE) without compensation (checkairman pay) isn't exactly professional.

I didn't say 1,500 hrs was irrelevant I said HOW you got to 1,500 hrs is irrelevant. In addition to this if the 1,500 magical number was so great why did they allow carve outs to less than 1/2 the required hours?

1500 is relevant. How you get the 1500 is also relevant. Additionally, education and type/quality of training are also very strong predictors of a pilot's success in 121 training and on the line. That is the main reason for the carve-out. This is all in the NPRM. You should give it a read. I'll paste the link below in the hopes that you educate yourself on this issue before spreading more inaccurate information.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/2120-AJ67NPRM.pdf

 

[Hollywood82]

That's ok you ignore my evidence, I'll ignore yours will call it even.

What is your evidence? I haven't seen you post anything substantive supporting your argument.

 

[bvt1151]

You could flight instruct or fly 135 like the rest of us had to.

Who exactly would you be flight instructing? The other guys stuck at 300 hours looking for the last 1,200?

Same with 135. Those jobs just don't exist anymore, and what little bit does still exist has pre-1,500 hour pilots lined up out the door to do it for free.