Originally Posted by
IamEssential
2. I am also confused at the point you are trying to make. Why are you trying to compare hiring and upgrade requirements? I'd be vary wary of upgrading somebody who has 1000 SIC time and only 1250 TT. That CA is a disaster waiting to happen. On average the 1000SIC 2500TT makes a much better and stronger CA candidate.
I don't disagree with that. Perhaps in a theoretical FAA-MPL scenario you would have to get 1000 hours 121 time once your MPL converts to an ATP (at 1500 hours, so 2500 TT)
I am with the Chief above that the quality of the 1500 hours that some people get varies wildly. Teaching to 1500 hours at a Part 61 school in rural Ohio is not the same as teaching at a busy 141 school under the Bravo in Phoenix. And let's not even touch the fact that a lot of people are fine pilots, but terrible teachers. Making everybody be a CFI probably hurts quality of instruction overall. In my experience all CFI's get this blank soul-crushed hopeless stare in the 1000-1500 hour range. That's not good either.
The 1500 is so arbitrary. If 1500 is good, wouldn't 3000 be better? Or is 1500 twice as "safe" as 750? Or what is a Riddle kid learning in their 141 program that makes them eligible to get an R-ATP after 1000 hours that a non-university 141 graduate doesn't get? Is the FAA-Approved 141 syllabus at the non-university materially inferior to the FAA-Approved 141 syllabus at Riddle?
I am certain that you can consistently train a ~300 hour MPL pilot that can perform at or above the level of a 1500 hour CFI. Japan Airlines does it. Etihad and Emirates do it. Those airlines are not deathtraps.
As a pilot who now has run the 1500 hour rule gauntlet, there are plenty of selfish reasons to keep it in place. But I don't think it actually makes anybody safer.