Any "Latest & Greatest" about Endeavor?
02-03-2016, 12:57 PM
#2751
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Position: fatigued
Posts: 1,397
Way too many people here are completely missing the point by getting wrapped around 1500 hours and "safety."
If you cannot comprehend how keeping 1500 hours intact is good for pilots and the industry you lack a fundamental understanding of supply versus demand.
If you cannot comprehend how keeping 1500 hours intact is good for pilots and the industry you lack a fundamental understanding of supply versus demand.
02-03-2016, 01:46 PM
#2752
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Position: CA
Posts: 170
Originally Posted by snackysmores
Way too many people here are completely missing the point by getting wrapped around 1500 hours and "safety."
If you cannot comprehend how keeping 1500 hours intact is good for pilots and the industry you lack a fundamental understanding of supply versus demand.
If you cannot comprehend how keeping 1500 hours intact is good for pilots and the industry you lack a fundamental understanding of supply versus demand.
02-03-2016, 01:48 PM
#2753
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
Posts: 3,543
Originally Posted by BobJenkins
^^^^This. Times 100.
200 hundred or 2,000 hours, a person's willingness to learn, to adapt, to progress, regardless of the seat he or she holds, is much more important. I have flown with zero time pilots who want to learn, and 4,000 pilots who have no desire to be there, and the difference is night and day. With the 4,000 hour guy being night, of course.
There is no doubt that experience and capability comes with time. But some people simply lack the ability to put them to good use. And should not be pilots.
200 hundred or 2,000 hours, a person's willingness to learn, to adapt, to progress, regardless of the seat he or she holds, is much more important. I have flown with zero time pilots who want to learn, and 4,000 pilots who have no desire to be there, and the difference is night and day. With the 4,000 hour guy being night, of course.
There is no doubt that experience and capability comes with time. But some people simply lack the ability to put them to good use. And should not be pilots.
02-03-2016, 02:16 PM
#2754
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by vilcas
I have flown with 200 pilots and 20,000 hour pilots and one thing I can assure you of, is time means nothing. If you are eager to learn your craft and stay focused on continued education as well as refreshing skills that may have become rusty you will be a useful crew member in a 121 environment. So I say attitude beats flight time everyday. No flight deck will ever have a combined flight time of less than 1500 hours so this rule is silly. This rule wouldn't have prevented any of the last 15 years of accidents that were deemed the result of pilot error. If you want quality airman you must maintain and high standard. The FAA needs to impose a standard on their own FSDO's as well. There should not be such a difference between the MEM and MSP FSDO'S.
The pilots of FLG 3701, FO of Comair 5191, and both pilots of CJC 3407 wouldn't have been in their seats had the 1500 hour rule been in effect, by the way.
02-03-2016, 02:39 PM
#2755
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 294
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
Time means nothing, eh? That's very black and white and simplistic for something that is extremely complex and not black and white.
The pilots of FLG 3701, FO of Comair 5191, and both pilots of CJC 3407 wouldn't have been in their seats had the 1500 hour rule been in effect, by the way.
The pilots of FLG 3701, FO of Comair 5191, and both pilots of CJC 3407 wouldn't have been in their seats had the 1500 hour rule been in effect, by the way.
02-03-2016, 03:30 PM
#2756
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2015
Position: Inverted
Posts: 402
Any "Latest & Greatest" about Endeavor?
I just can't comprehend how 1250 more hours of instructing in a 172 makes you more fit for the role of an FO.
1) Aircraft weight and speeds are vastly different.
2) You are not acting as a crew. As the CFI you are instructing not working together.
3) Zero high altitude experience
4) Zero advanced systems experience
The list goes on. The requirements should be quality over quantity with the bare minimum being a high requirement like 1500.
You should get a credit for quality of time. Total time drops with time in multi/turbine aircraft.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1) Aircraft weight and speeds are vastly different.
2) You are not acting as a crew. As the CFI you are instructing not working together.
3) Zero high altitude experience
4) Zero advanced systems experience
The list goes on. The requirements should be quality over quantity with the bare minimum being a high requirement like 1500.
You should get a credit for quality of time. Total time drops with time in multi/turbine aircraft.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
02-03-2016, 03:49 PM
#2757
Property of Scheduling
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Bus driver
Posts: 2,524
Originally Posted by HeyOneTaco
I just can't comprehend how 1250 more hours of instructing in a 172 makes you more fit for the role of an FO.
1) Aircraft weight and speeds are vastly different.
2) You are not acting as a crew. As the CFI you are instructing not working together.
3) Zero high altitude experience
4) Zero advanced systems experience
The list goes on. The requirements should be quality over quantity with the bare minimum being a high requirement like 1500.
You should get a credit for quality of time. Total time drops with time in multi/turbine aircraft.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1) Aircraft weight and speeds are vastly different.
2) You are not acting as a crew. As the CFI you are instructing not working together.
3) Zero high altitude experience
4) Zero advanced systems experience
The list goes on. The requirements should be quality over quantity with the bare minimum being a high requirement like 1500.
You should get a credit for quality of time. Total time drops with time in multi/turbine aircraft.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When I upgraded, I was the junior guy on reserve. That by luck/default/reality had me flying with brand new FO's. Flying the plane wasn't the issue, but sure some mentoring went on when a guy was completely green in a jet, but the bigger thing noticed was decision making and ability to deal with multiple things at once when things went south. That only comes from experience. Is 1500 the answer? Maybe, for some. Some would be great at 250,500,750,1000....4,000? I would agree with the idea of quality vs quantity, but in both aspects the decision making is the big ticket item in terms of time. By 250 hours, a pilot has shown they can (in theory) fly the plane. In 8 weeks of ground school systems should be understood. It's putting it all together to become an asset of safety to also encompass judgement and decision making, that is the key.
02-03-2016, 04:11 PM
#2758
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by Ray Red
I know exactly who you are talking about. Hands down the worst attitude I've ever seen in the business.
02-03-2016, 05:18 PM
#2759
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 519
All of this. 250 or 1500 hours, the "magic" has moved over the years. Some people have the maturity to lead at a young age. Some people, no matter their experience, will never be leaders. Likewise, some people are better PICs at 250 hours than others at 1500 hours. Unfortunately, there is no way to quantify this ability, and no way to quantify it during an interview.
1500 hours means a person has more stick time. Does it equate to problem solving, and mature decisions? Sometimes, yes. From the viewpoint of the FAA, or anyone who is mandating the "magic", more increases the likelihood of being better. Since no one has the time nor the resources to sit down and figure out the maturity level of every pilot, they set a number and hope for the best.
Logically, a 1500 hour pilot has the POTENTIAL to be a better candidate for a high-risk position than a 250 or 500 hour pilot. It's the best measure they probably have at their disposal. Having two pilots in the cockpit increases that safety margin exponentially. Hopefully, the training department has the time to weed out the knuckleheads, and the intestinal fortitude to prevent those who shouldn't be in the left seat from ever getting there.
1500 hours means a person has more stick time. Does it equate to problem solving, and mature decisions? Sometimes, yes. From the viewpoint of the FAA, or anyone who is mandating the "magic", more increases the likelihood of being better. Since no one has the time nor the resources to sit down and figure out the maturity level of every pilot, they set a number and hope for the best.
Logically, a 1500 hour pilot has the POTENTIAL to be a better candidate for a high-risk position than a 250 or 500 hour pilot. It's the best measure they probably have at their disposal. Having two pilots in the cockpit increases that safety margin exponentially. Hopefully, the training department has the time to weed out the knuckleheads, and the intestinal fortitude to prevent those who shouldn't be in the left seat from ever getting there.
Originally Posted by higney85
Maybe a different viewpoint for the thread. 1500 isn't time needed to fly the airplane or know the systems. 1500 is a "magic" number hoping to capture actual experience making decisions. Realizing, "this is a bad situation" and afterwards not just saying "never again" but taking a look at the ingredients and logging into the logbook not just the time but understanding of how a situation became unsafe.
When I upgraded, I was the junior guy on reserve. That by luck/default/reality had me flying with brand new FO's. Flying the plane wasn't the issue, but sure some mentoring went on when a guy was completely green in a jet, but the bigger thing noticed was decision making and ability to deal with multiple things at once when things went south. That only comes from experience. Is 1500 the answer? Maybe, for some. Some would be great at 250,500,750,1000....4,000? I would agree with the idea of quality vs quantity, but in both aspects the decision making is the big ticket item in terms of time. By 250 hours, a pilot has shown they can (in theory) fly the plane. In 8 weeks of ground school systems should be understood. It's putting it all together to become an asset of safety to also encompass judgement and decision making, that is the key.
When I upgraded, I was the junior guy on reserve. That by luck/default/reality had me flying with brand new FO's. Flying the plane wasn't the issue, but sure some mentoring went on when a guy was completely green in a jet, but the bigger thing noticed was decision making and ability to deal with multiple things at once when things went south. That only comes from experience. Is 1500 the answer? Maybe, for some. Some would be great at 250,500,750,1000....4,000? I would agree with the idea of quality vs quantity, but in both aspects the decision making is the big ticket item in terms of time. By 250 hours, a pilot has shown they can (in theory) fly the plane. In 8 weeks of ground school systems should be understood. It's putting it all together to become an asset of safety to also encompass judgement and decision making, that is the key.
02-03-2016, 05:20 PM
#2760
Property of Scheduling
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Bus driver
Posts: 2,524
Originally Posted by BobJenkins
All of this. 250 or 1500 hours, the "magic" has moved over the years. Some people have the maturity to lead at a young age. Some people, no matter their experience, will never be leaders. Likewise, some people are better PICs at 250 hours than others at 1500 hours. Unfortunately, there is no way to quantify this ability, and no way to quantify it during an interview.
1500 hours means a person has more stick time. Does it equate to problem solving, and mature decisions? Sometimes, yes. From the viewpoint of the FAA, or anyone who is mandating the "magic", more increases the likelihood of being better. Since no one has the time nor the resources to sit down and figure out the maturity level of every pilot, they set a number and hope for the best.
Logically, a 1500 hour pilot has the POTENTIAL to be a better candidate for a high-risk position than a 250 or 500 hour pilot. It's the best measure they probably have at their disposal. Having two pilots in the cockpit increases that safety margin exponentially. Hopefully, the training department has the time to weed out the knuckleheads, and the intestinal fortitude to prevent those who shouldn't be in the left seat from ever getting there.
1500 hours means a person has more stick time. Does it equate to problem solving, and mature decisions? Sometimes, yes. From the viewpoint of the FAA, or anyone who is mandating the "magic", more increases the likelihood of being better. Since no one has the time nor the resources to sit down and figure out the maturity level of every pilot, they set a number and hope for the best.
Logically, a 1500 hour pilot has the POTENTIAL to be a better candidate for a high-risk position than a 250 or 500 hour pilot. It's the best measure they probably have at their disposal. Having two pilots in the cockpit increases that safety margin exponentially. Hopefully, the training department has the time to weed out the knuckleheads, and the intestinal fortitude to prevent those who shouldn't be in the left seat from ever getting there.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
