How many pilots stagnate getting to 1,500 hrs
05-13-2018, 11:31 AM
#51
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
kevbo,
What “rich kids” are buying 1500 hours? The military is open to anyone who qualifies and, after spending months in the desert getting shot at, is hardly “golden” deal. If they’re reserved a spot up front, not saying they are, they worked for it.
GF
What “rich kids” are buying 1500 hours? The military is open to anyone who qualifies and, after spending months in the desert getting shot at, is hardly “golden” deal. If they’re reserved a spot up front, not saying they are, they worked for it.
GF
05-13-2018, 01:14 PM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 131
Pilatus
And what do you think about the college degree requirement? You really don't need a degree to be an airline pilot? I bet that you don't like it if you don't have it. As many have told you here, in the 80's and 90's hardly anyone got hired by a commuter to fly a turboprop with less than 1500 hrs. And now you want to be able to get hired by a regional to fly a jet right after you get your comm.- inst. Get your CFI and build some hours. You can also get other jobs with 500 hrs.
And what do you think about the college degree requirement? You really don't need a degree to be an airline pilot? I bet that you don't like it if you don't have it. As many have told you here, in the 80's and 90's hardly anyone got hired by a commuter to fly a turboprop with less than 1500 hrs. And now you want to be able to get hired by a regional to fly a jet right after you get your comm.- inst. Get your CFI and build some hours. You can also get other jobs with 500 hrs.
05-13-2018, 01:35 PM
#53
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2018
Posts: 33
I’m glad they bumped it to 1500. Someone fresh out of flight training with 250 hours doesn’t have much self worth. When you’re spending 300$ for an hour flight, you’ll pretty much work for free, and some people actually pay to work. Now that you have 1500 hours you’ll place more effort in determining if a certain employer is a viable option. That thought process then forces the airlines or anyone hiring pilots to step up their game in regards to pay and QOL. And honestly, being a CFI for two years (or 1000 dual given) should be required by the FAA to hold any 121 or 135 position. Being a CFI solidifies so much knowledge and it gives you the opportunity to fix problems on a daily basis like a student trying to nose dive on flare. I have flown with many CFI pilots and non CFI pilots and there is typically a huge difference.
05-13-2018, 03:43 PM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 3,595
Originally Posted by Rotors2Planks
As far as government involvement and economics, the FAA gave Regionals plenty of latitude for a long time... then they abused it by squeezing everything possible out of pilots and started getting passengers killed. We wouldn't be here if they had implemented ethical practices as far as pilot pay and QoL on their own. The government will always step in when enough innocent people start getting killed. Even if 1500 hours is arbitrary as far as ADM/experience, it raises the pay significantly, which I think can be argued that it makes safer pilots. You aren't going to make as good of decisions making 20k a year, stressed out about making ends meet, living on a couch, always tired, etc. vs 50-60k a year with better rest rules and knowing you can go somewhere else if they jerk you around too much.
05-13-2018, 05:03 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,177
Originally Posted by kevbo
Rich kids are able to buy the extra expensive education that cuts the required hours for an ATP. Military may not be such a good deal when times are really good. Historically it has been better than average. I would never fly military equipment after knowing who maintains it. They kill more pilots than the enemy!
GF
05-13-2018, 08:04 PM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Left seat of a Jet
Posts: 514
Originally Posted by Excargodog
$7.00 a gallon 100LL is as much or more of a problem. We need general aviation engines that do not harken back to the 1930s, that can reliably and safely get 200 horsepower from 200 cubic inches displacement with decent economy on 86 octane mogas.
Then we need a cheap rugged airframe to put that engine in. Something akin to an RV with the sort of instruments, avionics, and autopilots the EAA community has demonstrated can work quite well at a small fraction of the cost of TSO'd instruments.
Then put one of those engines on either side of a light twin retractable, even just a two seater, that is reasonably economical to produce and reasonably economical to fly.
Jump starting general aviation is the only reasonably economical way to bring the cost of getting the cost of those hours down.
Then we need a cheap rugged airframe to put that engine in. Something akin to an RV with the sort of instruments, avionics, and autopilots the EAA community has demonstrated can work quite well at a small fraction of the cost of TSO'd instruments.
Then put one of those engines on either side of a light twin retractable, even just a two seater, that is reasonably economical to produce and reasonably economical to fly.
Jump starting general aviation is the only reasonably economical way to bring the cost of getting the cost of those hours down.
05-14-2018, 12:30 AM
#57
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
Before you make blanket statements like that, care to tell us what you actually know about military aviation? Have been offered the chance. I have 30 years in fighters and heavies; been a crew dog, an instructor and evaluator and at the end a commander. Everyone of the friends I lost, none due to maintenance. Not saying it doesn’t factor in, but the military record, like civil, shows pilot error is 90% of the problem.
GF
GF
05-14-2018, 06:09 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,177
kevbo,
What are you talking about-civil or military? You seem to be mixing them up. Again, making blank assertions without substance. Are you saying aviation maintenance everywhere is poor? We’re you a maintainer?
GF
What are you talking about-civil or military? You seem to be mixing them up. Again, making blank assertions without substance. Are you saying aviation maintenance everywhere is poor? We’re you a maintainer?
GF
05-14-2018, 07:19 AM
#59
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,289
Originally Posted by kevbo
Military aviation has kept the civian job market flooded with out of work aviators since the beginning.
Not true today, the civilian fleet is vastly larger than the military fleet, the military is not "demobilizing" aviators in large quantities (quite the opposite in fact). Also the military staffs slightly over one crew for each airframe on average while airlines staff about five crews per plane.
But bottom line military aviators have an advantage in hiring because they have a known and proven lowest common-denominator... basic pilot skills and train-ability, but also personality/people skills. Doesn't mean ALL military aviators are better than you, just that their LCD is more predictable than yours.
Last edited by rickair7777; 05-14-2018 at 09:29 AM.
05-14-2018, 09:05 AM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: Family guy
Posts: 144
On a more serious note...i found the real reason there is a pilot shortage.....
Be careful out there.
https://youtu.be/MY6e5vHyZjM
Be careful out there.
https://youtu.be/MY6e5vHyZjM
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
