Originally Posted by
The Duke
I guess what I'm missing in all of this is where is the supporting data for the rule change? It seems like the rule change was predicated on assumptions regarding low-time pilots.
Now I agree that low-time pilots can be a lot of work. But that's not the goal of the legislation. The goal of the legislation is to enhance safety. But I have not seen any study saying that a sub-1500 hour pilot without an ATP is more dangerous than a pilot with more than 1500 hours and an ATP.
What are the statistics? Where is the data? Does anyone have anything released from insurance companies that can target or pin-point who the high-risk pilots really are?
There aren't any solid statistics for low time 121 pilots that had major accidents. Colgan 3407 is a rare incident and the pilot flew through SLD and couple that with slow a/c they were in a bad place at a bad time.
what about Cali Colombia American Airlines flight? They had thousands of hours and they managed to fly straight into the side of a mountain, Value Jet, and all the other flights they show us in Indoc class is about Crew Coordination. Maintaining situational awareness is the hardest thing to teach. That is what the emphasis needs to be on. CFI's that fly Peter Pilot around the traffic pattern to attain 1500 hours isn't any safer than a 250 commercial rate pilot when they first sit into the cockpit of a 121 A/C.