Search
Notices
Flight Schools and Training Ratings, building hours, airmanship, CFI topics

My take on the 1500 hour rule

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-27-2013, 07:45 PM
  #31  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: right seat
Posts: 238
Default

Just a point of information ....a few years ago you needed 200 multi to get a regional job . Unless you were an mei imagine paying to get 200 multi .
Its all relative but unfortunately a terrible accident caused an overreaction by politicians and now the same politicians are reacting to a nut shooting children in a school . This is all a placebo to make the public feel safe .
featheredprop is offline  
Old 01-27-2013, 08:35 PM
  #32  
Eats shoots and leaves...
 
bcrosier's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Didactic Synthetic Aviation Experience Provider
Posts: 849
Default

Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
The FAAs obligation is safety, not to help you progress. That's your problem.
Yeah, that's what they're all about. Keep talking that way and you'll be up for a "random" test. OK, I'm being a bit harsh there - I know a number of local FAA guys and they are interested in safety, but when you move it to the level where the rules actually get made and it becomes a lot more smoke, mirrors, and politics.

500 hour minimums for VFR 135 are too high? Hardly.
I think 500 is about right for VFR.

1200 hour minimums for IFR 135 too high? Not at all.
I disagree. I think, 750 with requisite instrument and X-C time could be plausible, certainly 1000 would be plenty.

Interesting that it's generally the new guy complaining about the times being too high. It's also the new guy that thinks 1,500 hours is high time. It's not. It's barely enough experience to know how to open the door.
Yeah, that would be me - the new guy with just shy of 9000 hours, half a dozen type ratings, almost 20 years of 135 and 121 international experience. Now if I could just figure out how to get this door open...
bcrosier is offline  
Old 01-27-2013, 08:50 PM
  #33  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,023
Default

Yeah, that's what they're all about. Keep talking that way and you'll be up for a "random" test. OK, I'm being a bit harsh there - I know a number of local FAA guys and they are interested in safety, but when you move it to the level where the rules actually get made and it becomes a lot more smoke, mirrors, and politics.
Irrelevant. The FAA's charter is a function of an act of congress. What individuals do, want, or how they behave, is not relevant.

The FAA does not exist to cater to you or anyone else in crafting the regulations to help you progress in your career. It's your problem, not the FAA's.

I disagree. I think, 750 with requisite instrument and X-C time could be plausible, certainly 1000 would be plenty.
Then all you need to do is campaign to change the regulation, then make it happen.

Now if I could just figure out how to get this door open...
Work a little harder. You'll get it.

Just a point of information ....a few years ago you needed 200 multi to get a regional job . Unless you were an mei imagine paying to get 200 multi .
For many years prior to that, 2,500 was barely competitive for many of those jobs. The brief period of 250 and 300 hour wonders was a temporary low, and many here are too young to remember otherwise.

You're not entitled to a job. You may actually have to earn a little more experience to get there. Not a big deal.
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 01-28-2013, 10:03 AM
  #34  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: B744 FO
Posts: 375
Default

Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
For many years prior to that, 2,500 was barely competitive for many of those jobs.
And in addition, they had people paying $10000 to buy the job, and all one got was a right-seat check (no type-rating), AND it was in a small turboprop....

No regional jets except Comair....regional jets were B727/737/DC-9/Fokker/Bae146 flown on REAL salaries)
727gm is offline  
Old 01-28-2013, 11:52 AM
  #35  
Gets Weekends Off
 
atpwannabe's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Math Teacher
Posts: 2,274
Default

Originally Posted by bcrosier View Post
On the other hand, I think the minimums to fly Part 135 DO need to be revisited, and revised downwards to provide a more logical progression.
The more I think about this, the more sense that it makes. Part 135 flying can be used as an industry wide platform or springboard to the Regionals. JMO though.



atp
atpwannabe is offline  
Old 01-28-2013, 02:00 PM
  #36  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 26
Default

If we say goodbye to that rule, then many of us say goodbye to our future airline careers. The competition would grow exponentially.
N1CEandS1MPLE is offline  
Old 01-28-2013, 03:43 PM
  #37  
Eats shoots and leaves...
 
bcrosier's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Didactic Synthetic Aviation Experience Provider
Posts: 849
Default

Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
Irrelevant. The FAA's charter is a function of an act of congress. What individuals do, want, or how they behave, is not relevant.

The FAA does not exist to cater to you or anyone else in crafting the regulations to help you progress in your career. It's your problem, not the FAA's.
I'm sort of puzzled as to why you aren't able to comprehend what I've written. I'm well past the point of any of this being relevant to my career - I'm not quite certain why you aren't picking up on that. I personally have other issues to address beyond this to address.

Then all you need to do is campaign to change the regulation, then make it happen.
If safety is the only issue you feel should have a bearing on the issue, then YOU should be busy campaigning to raise the minimums to 5000TT, 2000XC, and 500 instrument.

Work a little harder. You'll get it.
I'm trying to approach you with a bit of humor. If I were to describe how you are coming across it would be a violation of the TOS on here. I'm not impressed.

For many years prior to that, 2,500 was barely competitive for many of those jobs. The brief period of 250 and 300 hour wonders was a temporary low, and many here are too young to remember otherwise.
Congratulations, you've just reposted what I already stated 13 posts ago.

You're not entitled to a job. You may actually have to earn a little more experience to get there. Not a big deal.
I don't recall saying I thought I or anyone else was entitled to a job. Given my background, exactly what additional experience do you feel I should "earn" to "get there?"

What I know is that there is by regulatory definition in most other areas a less demanding set of criteria for operations under Part 135 vs. 121. If you doubt me, read through both parts and tell me which places more demands on the operator in general. Given that, I find the fact that the requirement to have only 250 hours less for a 135 PIC vs. a 121 PIC to not be reasonable, nor logical. Before you start inflating puffing yourself up again, yes - I realize there are darn few 121 PIC's around with 1501 hours; as you so quaintly put it, "Irrelevant." If the FAA's duty is simply to maximize safety, then either regulatory requirements for 121 PIC should be drastically increased (which is a possibility) or 135 should be lower.
bcrosier is offline  
Old 01-28-2013, 04:00 PM
  #38  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,281
Default

Originally Posted by 727gm View Post
And in addition, they had people paying $10000 to buy the job, and all one got was a right-seat check (no type-rating), AND it was in a small turboprop....
But if you made it to a major, you were set for life. Back then it was a reasonable calculated risk to pay a lot of dues for a shot at the brass ring.

Problem is the brass ring is now gone, or at least there are only a tiny handful left.

It's hard to justify a lot of money and sacrifice to get a job that pays less than fast-food and doesn't have a remote hope of any kind of of stability.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 01-28-2013, 04:00 PM
  #39  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 46
Default

Originally Posted by atpcliff View Post
I got out of the USAF and had an ATP-MEL.

I applied at about 80 places and got one interview. I didn't have enough experience.
First off, thanks for your service to our Country.

Our current job market is really competitive. I have almost 8,000 hours, 5 type ratings, 1,500+ TPIC and I don't get called for every interview. Don't take this the wrong way, but did you think you would get an interview every time?
Undaunted is offline  
Old 01-28-2013, 04:07 PM
  #40  
Gets Weekends Off
 
JamesNoBrakes's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,982
Default

Originally Posted by bcrosier View Post
I disagree. I think, 750 with requisite instrument and X-C time could be plausible, certainly 1000 would be plenty.
Do you realize a lot of 135 is carrying passengers IFR?
JamesNoBrakes is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Vito
Flight Schools and Training
41
10-15-2012 06:34 AM
wxman
Aviation Law
2
06-09-2012 10:27 PM
VIIPILOT
Regional
266
05-08-2012 05:48 AM
coryk
Regional
36
03-22-2012 11:12 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices