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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by higney85

So when do you start a regional?

Originally Posted by BobJenkins

Soon enough. Does that have anything to do with the topic?

Originally Posted by higney85

welcome to your first 121. That makes the point. Sorry if it's harsh, just the point that experience in 121 is only learned from experience.

Originally Posted by BobJenkins

I absolutely agree with you. As I do with most of your posts. You seem to be a voice of reason among much drama and trolls. I admire that. Not harsh at all, IMHO, don't know why you thought it was. Each "arena" one flies in is slightly different as to the rules that guide us. Doesn't mean previous experience is any less valuable, of course, just means we have to do what we do a little differently.

Originally Posted by BATOL

Between us, congress, and the FAA, am I the only one that realizes there are an infinite number of values between 250 and 1500? I don't understand why it's either one or the other. Drop it to 1000 or 1200 or 800. Then the industry gets less onerous hiring requirements and the pilots and survivors families still get higher minimum experience airline pilots. This doesn't seem like rocket science to me: