Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




B727CARIB
11-25-2015, 09:15 AM
Great Lakes Airlines would like people to comment on their proposal to exempt them from pilot experience requirements.
Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-4903-0001)
Or go to regulations.gov and search for docket FAA-2015-4903-0001

My vote - no exemption - pay pilots more and solve the problem...


Metering
11-25-2015, 09:20 AM
Great Lakes Airlines would like people to comment on their proposal to exempt them from pilot experience requirements.
Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-4903-0001)
Or go to regulations.gov and search for docket FAA-2015-4903-0001

My vote - no exemption - pay pilots more and solve the problem...

"In a number of EAS markets formerly served by GLA, communities now have to
use air service provided by 9-seat aircraft that do not meet the statutory
requirement for multi-engine aircraft. Granting this exemption will allow GLA to
operate the multi-engine BE-1900D aircraft in a 19 seat configuration thereby
enhancing the level of safety for the flying public."

Its the same damn plane! LOL

Metering
11-25-2015, 09:32 AM
part of my comment:

"The problem with GLA being unable to staff its aircraft has nothing to do with the 1500 hour rule but has everything to do with its own price structure that is based upon paying its pilots poverty wages.

I was contacted once by a recruiter for GLA and essentially, the airline was offering pay that would equate or be less than the national average for a pizza delivery driver.

If GLA would like to step up its appeal for pilots, it should consider raising pilot compensation. Furthermore, the type of flying that GLA does, within mountainous areas with smaller turbo prop aircraft with the older layout of "steam gauge" instruments is often more demanding, more fatiguing and requires a higher level of skill and expertise than some more advanced computerized jets. The exact kind of skill and expertise that the 1500 rule provides. By asking to provide an exemption, GLA is in effect looking to hire less skilled, less proficient pilots and because they are less skilled, GLA will look to offer its usual poverty wages as they hope that their applicants will view GLA as a "entry level, step up" position until they have the experience required to fly for other regional carriers that offer a fair starting salary. This request for an exemption has little to do with fairness to the community or safety. It has everything to do with GLA trying to keep its current cost structure and not wanting to pay a fair livable wage to its pilots. "


prex8390
11-25-2015, 09:33 AM
I didn't know removing 10 seats from a plane makes it that less safe. Boy the things you learn everyday! 🤔

FirstClass
11-25-2015, 10:08 AM
I didn't know removing 10 seats from a plane makes it that less safe. Boy the things you learn everyday! 🤔

Well its unsafe to begin with. The FAA has the 10 seat rule because they know the media threshold is 10 seats whereby fatalities are either reported or not reported on national TV.

joe hokie
11-25-2015, 11:17 AM
Gents and Ladies,

Take a second to post on the above FAA/Govt website, it's very one sided right now. Fellow pilots could provide feedback that would be more meaningful.

Metering
11-25-2015, 11:18 AM
Gents and Ladies,

Take a second to post on the above FAA/Govt website, it's very one sided right now. Fellow pilots could provide feedback that would be more meaningful.

I submitted mine but its not showing up.

All those mayors dont seem to grasp the real reason why GLA cant attract pilots...

iFlyRC
11-25-2015, 11:32 AM
I submitted mine but its not showing up.

All those mayors dont seem to grasp the real reason why GLA cant attract pilots...

They'll attract all the 250 hour pilots they'll ever need, even make them pay for a job!

deltajuliet
11-25-2015, 12:24 PM
Comment submitted. I didn't say this, but you also shouldn't live in BFE, Montana if you want air service, or at least be willing to step up and pay what that service truly costs.

Wileybird
11-25-2015, 12:25 PM
Was in Denver two weeks ago at centennial airport and watched a kid do some sim prep for an interview for Great Lakes! "Wet commercial ticket and 250hrs".

CBreezy
11-25-2015, 01:45 PM
Comment submitted. I didn't say this, but you also shouldn't live in BFE, Montana if you want air service, or at least be willing to step up and pay what that service truly costs.

Because people who live in BFE Montana could own thousands of acres of land to make barley/hops for our beer and raise cattle for our fat butts to eat steak in any other state as cheap as they do.

deltajuliet
11-25-2015, 01:55 PM
What's their excuse in Kingman, AZ?

Czech Airman
11-25-2015, 02:12 PM
Was in Denver two weeks ago at centennial airport and watched a kid do some sim prep for an interview for Great Lakes! "Wet commercial ticket and 250hrs".

Just a few years ago, he'd be stepping directly into the right seat of an RJ.

Crucero
11-25-2015, 03:01 PM
My response:

Great Lakes Airlines should not be granted exemption.

First,

The FAA's mission is as follows:

" Mission

Our Mission
Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.

Our Vision
We strive to reach the next level of safety, efficiency, environmental responsibility and global leadership. We are accountable to the American public and our stakeholders.

Our Values
Safety is our passion. We work so all air and space travelers arrive safely at their destinations.
Excellence is our promise. We seek results that embody professionalism, transparency and accountability.
Integrity is our touchstone. We perform our duties honestly, with moral soundness, and with the highest level of ethics.
People are our strength. Our success depends on the respect, diversity, collaboration, and commitment of our workforce.
Innovation is our signature. We foster creativity and vision to provide solutions beyond today's boundaries." (source:FAA.gov)

The FAA should continue its focus on what is SAFEST for the flying public and not what is in the best economic interest of a specific company or community.

Should Great Lakes Airlines be exempt from performing required maintenance requirements as required by the FAA?
Should Great Lakes Airlines be exempt from having its pilots not receive the mandated training as required by regulations?

What other regulations that promote SAFETY in air travel should Great Lakes be exempt from in order to make it convenient enough to operate as a viable and responsible airline?

Second:
The economic impact to affected communities caused by Great Lakes' unreliable and inadequate air service, is not a bi-product of SAFETY enhancements such as the "1500 hour rule", but rather it's the result of Great Lakes' inability to staff its operation due to the poverty level wages it offers to qualified pilots.

A beginning first officer at Great Lakes Airlines is paid $1561.00 per month at minimum guarantee of 75 hours at just over $21.00/hr. (source: Great Lakes Airlines | AirlinePilotCentral.com (http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/airlines/regional/great_lakes_airlines))

In a time when pilot applicants are diminishing, and the remaining ranks are opting to pursue more lucrative flying positions, air transportation companies such as Great Lakes should address it's sub-par work rules and low compensation package first, in order to attract the talent to staff its operation before asking for an exemption.

It is my hope that the FAA stays true to its mission, vision, and values as stated above, and rejects granting an exemption to Great Lakes Airlines or any other carrier in the name of safety for the flying public.

Thank you.

Aviation Professional

DOGIII
11-25-2015, 05:08 PM
My response:

Great Lakes Airlines should not be granted exemption.

First,

The FAA's mission is as follows:

" Mission

Our Mission
Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.

Our Vision
We strive to reach the next level of safety, efficiency, environmental responsibility and global leadership. We are accountable to the American public and our stakeholders.

Our Values
Safety is our passion. We work so all air and space travelers arrive safely at their destinations.
Excellence is our promise. We seek results that embody professionalism, transparency and accountability.
Integrity is our touchstone. We perform our duties honestly, with moral soundness, and with the highest level of ethics.
People are our strength. Our success depends on the respect, diversity, collaboration, and commitment of our workforce.
Innovation is our signature. We foster creativity and vision to provide solutions beyond today's boundaries." (source:FAA.gov)

The FAA should continue its focus on what is SAFEST for the flying public and not what is in the best economic interest of a specific company or community.

Should Great Lakes Airlines be exempt from performing required maintenance requirements as required by the FAA?
Should Great Lakes Airlines be exempt from having its pilots not receive the mandated training as required by regulations?

What other regulations that promote SAFETY in air travel should Great Lakes be exempt from in order to make it convenient enough to operate as a viable and responsible airline?

Second:
The economic impact to affected communities caused by Great Lakes' unreliable and inadequate air service, is not a bi-product of SAFETY enhancements such as the "1500 hour rule", but rather it's the result of Great Lakes' inability to staff its operation due to the poverty level wages it offers to qualified pilots.

A beginning first officer at Great Lakes Airlines is paid $1561.00 per month at minimum guarantee of 75 hours at just over $21.00/hr. (source: Great Lakes Airlines | AirlinePilotCentral.com (http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/airlines/regional/great_lakes_airlines))

In a time when pilot applicants are diminishing, and the remaining ranks are opting to pursue more lucrative flying positions, air transportation companies such as Great Lakes should address it's sub-par work rules and low compensation package first, in order to attract the talent to staff its operation before asking for an exemption.

It is my hope that the FAA stays true to its mission, vision, and values as stated above, and rejects granting an exemption to Great Lakes Airlines or any other carrier in the name of safety for the flying public.

Thank you.

Aviation Professional


Good response.

Iowa Farm Boy
11-26-2015, 08:24 PM
Everyone on here needs to comment on this. Reading the comments almost all are from Civic Leaders/ business people supporting the waiver.

GLA shouldn't be allowed to subvert the industry standard for financial expediency. If GLA can't pay their employees the new industry standard Doug needs to pack up and go home. He is longing for "the good old days" when pilots were willing to work for peanuts and live in a van in the Fort Dodge airport parking lot just to work for him. The industry has fundamentally changed (regardless of the 1,500 rule) and he needs to change too. Perhaps the van is still in FOD.

BobJenkins
11-26-2015, 10:23 PM
It appears as though any comments from folks here about poor wages are not being posted to the site. Only 81/162 comments show, and they are all in support of the reduced hours.

sweetholyjesus
11-27-2015, 03:55 AM
"The FAA should not change a regulation that is in the interest of public safety in order to accommodate an airline's cost structure. Pay the pilots a proper living wage and they will come to work for you. Pay the employees what they're worth, and charge the customers accordingly. That is how most other businesses operate, simple supply and demand. Other industries don't get laws manipulated so they can pay their employees less. Of course no experienced pilots want to work for Great Lakes Airlines when their wages are some of the lowest in the industry.

Also, it's ludicrous to think that reducing the amount of experience required to fly these passengers would improve their safety. This exemption request does not have public safety in mind, it is only a ploy for Great Lakes Airlines to save a dollar by paying its employees less."

Did my part I guess. Looks like the comments have to be reviewed first, not sure if that's why some of yours haven't showed up yet..:o

wmupilot85
11-27-2015, 05:27 AM
I love this comment:

More hours does no mean better prepared pilots.

Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-4903-0092)

Just searched the name he used (Vicente Quesada), and no one by that name in the FAA database.

USMCFLYR
11-27-2015, 05:39 AM
I love this comment:


More hours does no mean better prepared pilots.
Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-4903-0092)

Just searched the name he used (Vicente Quesada), and no one by that name in the FAA database.
A sentiment often repeated by users of this forum.

wmupilot85
11-27-2015, 06:41 AM
A sentiment often repeated by users of this forum.

I do believe there is SOME validity to the argument. Quality is better than quantity to an extent. But, the more quality hours you have are significantly better than a low quantity or quality hours. 5,000 hours in a C152 flying day VFR in no weather at all on perfect CAVOK days, isn't as significant as 1,000 hours of flying hard IMC, shooting approaches to minimums, etc.

USMCFLYR
11-27-2015, 07:22 AM
I do believe there is SOME validity to the argument. Quality is better than quantity to an extent. But, the more quality hours you have are significantly better than a low quantity or quality hours. 5,000 hours in a C152 flying day VFR in no weather at all on perfect CAVOK days, isn't as significant as 1,000 hours of flying hard IMC, shooting approaches to minimums, etc.
It all depends on what type of skill set you are comparing.
A lot of instrument time will not prepare you well for aggressively maneuvering an aircraft for example just as that recreational VFR flying you mention above would not be very useful for sharpening instrument skills.

twebb
11-27-2015, 08:49 AM
Looks like a lot of comments made the last few days were posted today. Many against Great Lakes.

iahflyr
11-27-2015, 09:27 AM
Was in Denver two weeks ago at centennial airport and watched a kid do some sim prep for an interview for Great Lakes! "Wet commercial ticket and 250hrs".

Do you also make fun of 16 year olds who work at McDonald's to make some money and get some experience in a real job???

Then back off the guy who has a commercial license and is getting his first real flying job.

When I started off in this industry, the attitude seemed to be do whatever you can to help the younger generation of pilots get into aviation. Be a good mentor. Don't make fun of these people for taking one of the only jobs they qualify for. We were all there one day.

Phteven
11-27-2015, 10:27 AM
It all depends on what type of skill set you are comparing.

A lot of instrument time will not prepare you well for aggressively maneuvering an aircraft for example just as that recreational VFR flying you mention above would not be very useful for sharpening instrument skills.


I think this is only part of the picture. I think I was the normal amount of ***holes and elbows through my private and instrument training. Got my commercial and flew skydivers, traffic watch, and CFI'd until about 1000 hours when I got hired at a 135 op. In getting ready for that I got an IPC and it was infinitely easier than when I was working on my instrument rating even though it had been about two years since I last shot a real approach. I attribute that to time spent getting really comfortable flying airplanes. I also made PIC decisions, overly conservative weather no-go's, overly cavalier weather go's, and came out of that with more comfort on the radio, in congested airspace, etc.

I really don't get the argument that flying VFR for a year is a waste of time because good instrument flying is much, much more than centering needles on an ILS. If you want a gear jockey who has never made a PIC decision good or bad who has been trained to watch an autopilot fly an airplane then sure, 250 hours should do it. Hell, why 250? Might as well be 100!

gojo
11-27-2015, 10:34 AM
Do you also make fun of 16 year olds who work at McDonald's to make some money and get some experience in a real job???

Then back off the guy who has a commercial license and is getting his first real flying job.

When I started off in this industry, the attitude seemed to be do whatever you can to help the younger generation of pilots get into aviation. Be a good mentor. Don't make fun of these people for taking one of the only jobs they qualify for. We were all there one day.

It's hard to accept sometimes, but times change. Today's generation of new pilots are not as aggressive.

USMCFLYR
11-27-2015, 10:45 AM
I think this is only part of the picture. I think I was the normal amount of ***holes and elbows through my private and instrument training. Got my commercial and flew skydivers, traffic watch, and CFI'd until about 1000 hours when I got hired at a 135 op. In getting ready for that I got an IPC and it was infinitely easier than when I was working on my instrument rating even though it had been about two years since I last shot a real approach. I attribute that to time spent getting really comfortable flying airplanes. I also made PIC decisions, overly conservative weather no-go's, overly cavalier weather go's, and came out of that with more comfort on the radio, in congested airspace, etc.

I really don't get the argument that flying VFR for a year is a waste of time because good instrument flying is much, much more than centering needles on an ILS. If you want a gear jockey who has never made a PIC decision good or bad who has been trained to watch an autopilot fly an airplane then sure, 250 hours should do it. Hell, why 250? Might as well be 100!
I agree completely with what you say.
I'm all about quality of time -vs- *strictly* quantity of time having a bearing on ability, experience, and every aspect of CRM.
Not sure if you got something else from my post.
My opinion has been stated numerous times on this forum - - I'm for 1500 hrs across the board - not exceptions.

sweetholyjesus
11-27-2015, 10:53 AM
Yes and with a 6-fold increase in experience required there should be a 6-fold increase in starting pay :)

WesternSkies
11-27-2015, 10:57 AM
Looks like Doug Parker chimed in. :)

Phteven
11-27-2015, 12:30 PM
I agree completely with what you say.
I'm all about quality of time -vs- *strictly* quantity of time having a bearing on ability, experience, and every aspect of CRM.
Not sure if you got something else from my post.
My opinion has been stated numerous times on this forum - - I'm for 1500 hrs across the board - not exceptions.


I didn't mean to criticize you as being against the 1500 hour rule, sorry if it came across that way. Rather I was just giving my 0.02 that I think recreational VFR DOES improve one's real-world instrument flying skills. Shooting approaches in a sim is one thing, but shooting an approach while not being saturated with basic flying tasks only comes from experience.

USMCFLYR
11-27-2015, 12:39 PM
I didn't mean to criticize you as being against the 1500 hour rule, sorry if it came across that way. Rather I was just giving my 0.02 that I think recreational VFR DOES improve one's real-world instrument flying skills. Shooting approaches in a sim is one thing, but shooting an approach while not being saturated with basic flying tasks only comes from experience.
Both the highlighted above are true - - but it is often said on the forum that some of the people who have the most trouble with the sims (whether it be airline training programs or other type rating programs) are the ones who are not proficient with their IFR skills precisely because they have not been flying much at all, OR having been flying all VFR without much recent experience either in the IFR system or flying/shooting approaches in actual IMC (traffic watch and flying jumpers are two of the most often cited examples).

Of course with the more overall experience, it stands to reason that gaining back that IFR/real world IMC proficiency comes easier to the more experience pilot than the fresh instrument rated pilot.

iFlyRC
11-27-2015, 01:01 PM
There's good pilots and bad pilots, past experience doesn't always correlate. I've seen it way too many times to place a blanket statement.

Phteven
11-27-2015, 01:06 PM
Both the highlighted above are true - - but it is often said on the forum that some of the people who have the most trouble with the sims (whether it be airline training programs or other type rating programs) are the ones who are not proficient with their IFR skills precisely because they have not been flying much at all, OR having been flying all VFR without much recent experience either in the IFR system or flying/shooting approaches in actual IMC (traffic watch and flying jumpers are two of the most often cited examples).

Of course with the more overall experience, it stands to reason that gaining back that IFR/real world IMC proficiency comes easier to the more experience pilot than the fresh instrument rated pilot.

Absolutely. This speaks to the sad state of regional hiring right now. I used to do hiring for a 135 company and I didn't even look at resumes from people who needed an IPC because 1.) they clearly must not want it that much, and 2.) I don't want to risk wasting money on them washing out. In the new hiring environment, lots of these guys think because they'll get the job that they'll pass the training. I was in class with a guy just like that - 15 years since his last IPC and only recently hit 1500 flying skydivers. He washed out in IOE.

mpmp
11-27-2015, 01:06 PM
Abandon ship!!!

Form 10-Q (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/914397/000119312515384818/d63527d10q.htm)
Great Lakes Aviation, LTD
Pilot Shortage
New Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), pilot qualification rules imposed as part of the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 in combination with revised FAR Part 117 Flight Crewmember Flight and Duty Limitations and Rest Requirements, (“FAR Part 117”), created an industry-wide shortage of qualified pilots negatively effecting our level of operations and financial performance.
The new rules have increased the demand for qualified pilots among air carriers as they strive to offset the loss in flight crew productivity that has resulted from the increased rest period requirements. In addition, the new and more stringent qualification requirements have reduced the supply of pilots qualified to fly for FAR Part 121 carriers. The net result of the new regulations is that Great Lakes has lost large numbers of Airline Transport Pilot (“ATP”) certified crewmembers to airlines operating larger jet aircraft and offering greater compensation...

...Until the Company is able to cure the covenant violation or to successfully renegotiate our existing debt obligations, it is expected that the Company will not have sufficient liquidity to service its existing debt obligations for the next 12-month period. These factors raise significant doubts about our ability to continue as a going concern.
------------------------------------------------------
Notification of Late Filing (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/914397/000119312515378249/d63527dnt10q.htm)
State below in reasonable detail the reasons why Forms 10-K, 20-F, 11-K, 10-Q, 10-D, N-SAR, N-CSR, or the transition report or portion thereof, could not be filed within the prescribed time period.
The management of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (the “Company”) has determined that the Company is unable to file its Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended September 30, 2015 within the prescribed time period, without unreasonable effort and expense, due to the lack of personnel necessary to complete the information required for the filing on a timely basis.

BIueSideUp
11-27-2015, 01:38 PM
This is laughable. Even if more hours does not equate to more skill; wouldn't it be better to make a good pilot build a few hundred extra hours than to risk letting a ******* pilot into the cockpit right after their CAMEL checkride? Good pilots will put in their time and work quickly towards the goal. ******* pilots will get caught up and weeded out somewhere in the middle.

flapshalfspeed
11-27-2015, 01:54 PM
Do you also make fun of 16 year olds who work at McDonald's to make some money and get some experience in a real job???

Then back off the guy who has a commercial license and is getting his first real flying job.

When I started off in this industry, the attitude seemed to be do whatever you can to help the younger generation of pilots get into aviation. Be a good mentor. Don't make fun of these people for taking one of the only jobs they qualify for. We were all there one day.

Are you going to complain about having to do VOR checks? Are you going to complain about having to go around at mins? Do you complain about having to have service checks and recurring inspections per airworthiness directives?

Stop pouting about it like a butthurt 16-year old who didn't get the bb gun he wanted for Christmas--the 1,500 hour reg is there for a reason like all the other regs.

FloridaLarry
11-27-2015, 04:38 PM
GLA management is caught between the 1,500 hour rule, the economics of their service model and the number of customers in their geographical area. In addition, they are now stuck with a fleet of aging twin turboprops that made sense at one time, but now are higher-cost to operate (fuel, flight crews and maintenance on older airframes).

They can't do anything about the cost of fuel. They've tried several things to staff their cockpits, but despite raising wages, in today's pilot competition they (like virtually every regional) can't attract and retain enough flight crew. They don't have the money, or investors, to replace their Beeches and Brasilias with newer planes that take less maintenance, or to right-size the fleet to Pilatuses and Cessnas to match their route structure and number of customers. I don't see EAS coming to their rescue with huge increases in subsidy payments (more than half GLA's cash flow comes from EAS flying).

What once worked, now doesn't. Too bad.

Wileybird
11-27-2015, 05:43 PM
Do you also make fun of 16 year olds who work at McDonald's to make some money and get some experience in a real job???

Then back off the guy who has a commercial license and is getting his first real flying job.

When I started off in this industry, the attitude seemed to be do whatever you can to help the younger generation of pilots get into aviation. Be a good mentor. Don't make fun of these people for taking one of the only jobs they qualify for. We were all there one day.

"EASY FRANCIS". Was just saying I talked to a kid who was prepping for an interview with lakes! Nowhere in my statement did I make fun of the guy.

deltajuliet
11-28-2015, 08:43 AM
Our comments are showing up now.

FirstClass
11-28-2015, 09:04 AM
Can you guys start a new thread in the 135 section?

Iowa Farm Boy
12-08-2015, 04:11 AM
How many pilots does GLA currently have?

My FO yesterday recently left GLA and he said they only have 14 CA's?

If that is true than the end is nigh. :eek:

Day4mx
12-08-2015, 07:51 AM
The end has been nigh for mesa, TSA, awac, gla, commutair, Gulfstream/silver and just about every other regional since I've been a student pilot

threeighteen
12-14-2015, 12:35 PM
Can you guys start a new thread in the 135 section?

Why?

Great Lakes is a regional airline that has a part 121 op certificate....

prex8390
12-14-2015, 01:09 PM
How many pilots does GLA currently have?

My FO yesterday recently left GLA and he said they only have 14 CA's?

If that is true than the end is nigh. :eek:
Ive heard anywhere from 30-80 in the last 6 monthes. I'll assume the only people left are old crusty captains and super junior fo's who are figuring out they should have just kept instructing 5 more monthes

NeverHome
12-21-2015, 02:03 PM
Hmmm here is some fun food for thought...

In terms of the age old hours vs. type of flying debate here is my $.02:
1. Recency of experience, I have been flying heavy turbine aircraft in IFR, IMC and have become quite comfortable with it. Now put me into a 172 VFR, VMC and I will either kill myself or get violated (or violated on my deathbed :D)
2. These dayz in our fancy turbine aircraft flying skills degrade, best get some solid handflying and instrument skills before 121.
3. In my humble experience the most dangerous guys to fly with are the total D-bags that believe they are Gods gift to aviation. Somewhere along the lines somebody has to get some CRM personality. Perhaps as a CFI?
4. When I started out I had 2 bags. One full of luck and one empty bag labeled experience. In time I managed to drain the luck bag and fill the experience bag. That did not happen in 250, 1000, or even 3000 hours. It was and IS a continuing process.

Now for GLA, I believe that the hour rule doesnt do a whole lot for us in terms of safety (directly). I say that because I have flown with some high time [email protected]$ses. Rather the 1500 rule is better in terms of economics. It weeds out the less than faithful pilots. AND the less than faithful AIRLINES. Who knows, did the 1500 rule and reduction in GLA staffing save us from another 3407? We will never know. But I like to think that the rule brings us closer to the industry that we should be. I mean who the hell ever heard of a Regional handing out $10000 bonus and voluntarily raising pay??? Never happened till the 1500 hour rule.

Finally, to the younger guys trying to get to 1500 hours. I offer this: Do your time and ENJOY it. Many dayz I wish I could go back and fly GA again. I sometimes think I haven't flown since I was hired by the Regionals. Enjoy the flying (teaching, banner, skydiver, etc.). Once you get to the Regionals its not what you thought. The glitz and glam go away quick.

Oh and before anybody starts thinking, I am not Knocking on the GLA pilots. They are doing some tough flying. Harder than what Im currently doing. I wish them the Best because they are some of the best.



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1