My take on the 1500 hour rule
01-28-2013, 07:49 PM
#41
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,003
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.
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.
I'm not impressed.
Shocking as this may be to you, I didn't wake up this morning concerned with impressing you. I'll go to sleep equally as unconcerned.
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?"
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.
01-28-2013, 08:16 PM
#42
Eats shoots and leaves...
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Didactic Synthetic Aviation Experience Provider
Posts: 849
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
Do you realize a lot of 135 is carrying passengers IFR?
This discussion has prompted me to go back and review my logbook a bit, and based on that and some honest reflection I'm going to revise my position on this matter a somewhat.
Do I think that 1000 hours is a reasonable total time for 135 IFR PIC? Yes, I still do - but with some caveats or stipulations. I'm not certain exactly what they should be, but definitely some more in depth training and checking with and emphasis on real-world operations, not just passing a check ride. An extended period of IOE perhaps? Maybe a requirement to operate with an SIC? Perhaps only cargo operations until a higher total time? I'm not quite certain what the answer would be.
I do know that for the average pilot, the experience gap between 1000 & 1200 hours is not that great; certainly not on the order of the experience gained between 500 and 1000 hours. We're currently willing to accept 1200 hours as a regulatory minimum, reducing that by 200 hours is not going to radically alter the level of safety which is achieved by regulation.
Ultimately, given all that - for a mere 200 hours there probably isn't any real substantial reason to alter the regulation. No great detriment to safety, but no real substantial gain either. Sorry for making us all go through that...
Last edited by bcrosier; 01-28-2013 at 08:32 PM. Reason: Cut out a lot of irrelevant, self indulgent BS
01-28-2013, 08:22 PM
#43
Eats shoots and leaves...
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Didactic Synthetic Aviation Experience Provider
Posts: 849
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
I wasn't talking to you.
I don't know your background. Don't care, remember?
I'm done conversing with you on the topic - I'm open to discussion on the issue, you on the other hand clearly already know everything there is to know.
With your attitude you're undoubtedly a real joy to fly with on a week long trip.
01-28-2013, 09:06 PM
#44
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,003
The fact is that your are responding to my post using my quotes.
Suffice it say that the conversation isn't all about you, and you're not the only one here.
I posted it, your failure to read and comprehend is your problem, not mine.
With your attitude you're undoubtedly a real joy to fly with on a week long trip.
01-28-2013, 10:42 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Math Teacher
Posts: 2,273
Originally Posted by bcrosier
I think, 750 with requisite instrument and X-C time could be plausible, certainly 1000 would be plenty.
atp
01-28-2013, 10:45 PM
#46
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,003
The majority of civil pilots have had little or no interaction with instrument conditions by the time they hit 750 hours. It's just 250 hours past the minimum for VFR, and many civil trained pilots are still giving primary instruction at that point.
01-29-2013, 06:00 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: Airbus 319/320 Captain
Posts: 880
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
The majority of civil pilots have had little or no interaction with instrument conditions by the time they hit 750 hours. It's just 250 hours past the minimum for VFR, and many civil trained pilots are still giving primary instruction at that point.
01-29-2013, 06:11 AM
#48
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,003
Unfortunately, most charter operations don't use simulators, or use very minimal simulation. Especially at the lower rungs of the charter business, it can prove nearly cost-prohibitive, and in many cases, simulation isn't available.
Much of the training tends to be done in the aircraft, which naturally limits the scope of what can be demonstrated or performed during simulation. This can be especially true in light twins.
Much of the training tends to be done in the aircraft, which naturally limits the scope of what can be demonstrated or performed during simulation. This can be especially true in light twins.
01-29-2013, 05:39 PM
#49
New Hire
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by PearlPilot
As some of you know I am a full time CFI. I currently have 1150 TT and 35 ME. I am of course in the process of building 1500 hours and 50 hours ME that qualifies for me to apply for a part 121 airline. Without surprise I received numerous responses from airlines kindly asking me to reapply once I reach the minimums. I have been a flight instructor for about a year as of date, and I expect to reach minimums in about six months or so. In my case I can't wait to reach 1500 hours and start applying for the regionals. However, I do feel kind of bad for those new CFIs entering hoping to jump in a right seat of a CRJ or a turboprop. Flight instructing, during the first couple of months can be scary, then it hopefully becomes easy at least in my case. However it is still an exhausting profession. I made 23K last year! Being 27 and living with my folks and having no major loans enabled me to support the life.
How will the 1500 hour rule change the industry? Would it force more applicants to seek aviation degrees or join the military as it will reduce hiring criteria? On a side note, my answer to safety is not 1500 hours and I personally don't think hours can make a pilot safe. If I were the king of the FAA I would perhaps implement more training on stalls, icing and any other aspects of flying that pertains to air carrier operations. (Yes Colgan 3407 comes to my mind) I don't however think a 250 hour candidate is qualified to fly a CRJ.
Flight instructing is a great way to go, but I think, (and this is something I feel that may happen) the number of candidates who are willing to give 1250 dual time may drastically decrease...
Therefore, how would a candidate build 1500 hours if they happened to be purely "civilian" (non-military, non aviation degrees). I truly hope it will not result in a decrease in the already declining pilot population. Should the FAA revisit the rule? If not, perhaps flight schools should or will have to drastically increase the pay of CFIs...
How will the 1500 hour rule change the industry? Would it force more applicants to seek aviation degrees or join the military as it will reduce hiring criteria? On a side note, my answer to safety is not 1500 hours and I personally don't think hours can make a pilot safe. If I were the king of the FAA I would perhaps implement more training on stalls, icing and any other aspects of flying that pertains to air carrier operations. (Yes Colgan 3407 comes to my mind) I don't however think a 250 hour candidate is qualified to fly a CRJ.
Flight instructing is a great way to go, but I think, (and this is something I feel that may happen) the number of candidates who are willing to give 1250 dual time may drastically decrease...
Therefore, how would a candidate build 1500 hours if they happened to be purely "civilian" (non-military, non aviation degrees). I truly hope it will not result in a decrease in the already declining pilot population. Should the FAA revisit the rule? If not, perhaps flight schools should or will have to drastically increase the pay of CFIs...
I recently started my pilot training and currently have just over 20 hours logged. I'm going to be soloing soon and am pretty excited about it. Maybe it is just the fact that I just started but I really enjoy flying and do not have a problem being a CFI in the future or towing banners, carrying skydivers, etc. because I enjoy flying. Bottom line: I would rather have a low paying job that I love then a high paying job that I am miserable at. Does that mean I don't want to make it to a regional in the future and perhaps a major after? Not at all, but I understand that it is a long way to go and I am going to enjoy every second of it.
01-30-2013, 02:04 PM
#50
Flying Farmer
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Turbo-props' and John Deere's
Posts: 3,160
Originally Posted by Chris728
Bottom line: I would rather have a low paying job that I love then a high paying job that I am miserable at. Does that mean I don't want to make it to a regional in the future and perhaps a major after? Not at all, but I understand that it is a long way to go and I am going to enjoy every second of it.
Hope you brought some lube, that statement tends to ruffle some feathers in these forums.
I know what you mean, but with that said, plenty will take it the wrong way and say you will be bringing the industry down.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
