Originally Posted by
stabapch
Now that we’re a little more than 5 years in since the “1500 hour rule” was enacted, I’m curious what other pilots opinions are on this regulation.
To Recap: This was enacted as a result of the Colgan Air 3407 crash. The one that revealed some of the truth of the regional airline industry to the public.
Was lack of experience, defined as logged flight-time, really the cause for this tragedy?
Soon after this new regulation took effect back in my CFI days, I was sitting down having lunch with an FAA ASI. I had to ask his opinion of it, expecting a canned answer. He nearly spit out his food, telling me this was the most useless legislation that won’t solve anything and essentially put into law to appease the families of the lost ones on the Colgan flight. I wasn’t expecting that response.
So what do you think... Did this really fix the problems of the regional industry?
Are the skies really that much safer now?
Do regionals still continue to get away with poor pilot treatment, regardless of union representation?
The 1500 rule wasn't the only "fix" to come out of that crash. There was also Part 117 and a few other reforms. I think combined they have had an overall positive impact on the Regional industry. With the 1500 rule, when the Regionals started having trouble filling classes it forced them to start raising wages instead of lowering their hiring standards which they have done in the past, sometimes down to a wet commercial. The new Part 117 rules has done a lot to fight pilot fatigue. When I hear some of the stories about back in the day the more I appreciate these regulations.
Am I for getting rid of the 1500 rule? Absolutely not. I don't know if it does much for safety, but the extra experience can't hurt. But it has done wonders for pay in the Regional industry.