Originally Posted by
TurboDog
I don't really get how you can say that. For one, flight instruction is not just stalls and pattern work in a 172. I left flight instructing with near 200 hours of cross country time. Say I instructed for another 700 hours I would end up with a lot more cross country time. All of this time is PIC experience building time of which a pilot would be exposed to making judgment calls and be faced with new scenarios. No two flights are the same.
Also by you saying that you don't see the difference between 500 and 1500 hours, are you implying that there is no difference in 1000 in a cessna and 5000 hours in a cessna? Or any aircraft for that matter?
When a pilot stops learning, they become dangerous. I believe that every hour you spend in an aircraft regardless if it's a 152, or a G IV is a learning experience.
I'm a huge believer in highly structured, mission oriented training programs like Lufthansa's direct entry program or those used by the US military. Every flight is specifically designed to train, evaluate, and provide experience that closely simulates what those pilots will experience on a daily basis. The academics are of a much higher caliber and far more comprehensive than the jokes that are the ATP written (or Inst., Commercial Pilot, CFI, etc.). In this sort of program candidates are ready to be co-pilots on day number one, regardless of actual flight hours.
I'm less impressed with a totally arbitrary 1500 hour requirement as some sort of litmus for ATP's and regional/major carrier employment. The 1500 hours most CFI's scrape up are of varying utility, and certainly not standardized in any fashion. Pilots get flying wherever and whenever they can, which is fine, but hardly structured or supervised. The "crew concept", checklist discipline, use of high performance aircraft and jets/simulators, exposure to truly high density airports and operations, formal recurrent training, etc. etc. are all going to vary very, very widely.
1500 hours is a blunt instrument that tells a carrier almost nothing. Why not 1000? Why not 2000? Why not 10,000?
It does have the "advantage" of being easy to legislate and costs the airlines and the FAA nothing, which is why it will pass.
Personally, I'd rather see a formula that takes the type of training history into account and formalize minimum hiring requirements on that basis . . . not unlike the JAA, which has something like 14 pretty difficult exams plus sim rides to get fully checked out. Coupled that with a mentoring program mandating new airline hires fly with a highly expereinced captain and you'd actually improve safety. This will never, happen, of course.