My take on the 1500 hour rule
02-09-2013, 10:05 PM
#61
Eats shoots and leaves...
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Didactic Synthetic Aviation Experience Provider
Posts: 849
Saturn, I appreciate where you are coming from, and don't completely disagree with you. Permit me to elaborate:
I think you will find there is a general consensus amongst those who've been doing this a while that there are some real (if difficult to quantify) attributes which one acquires along the line which give depth and breadth to one's "tool kit" from which you will draw later in your career. As has been pointed out may times before, the norm once was well over 2000 hours to even be considered for a commuter job (as they were then known). Was it knee jerk by congress? I won't say it wasn't, but I (and many others) believe there is some merit to it.
I'll actually agree with you on this point (we can debate the hours, but I think there is some sound rationale behind it. That said, these aircraft are certificated for two crewmembers; the one in the SIC should be fully capable of assuming command and control of the aircraft if the PIC is incapacitated. More importantly (at least to my way of thinking, since it's a lot more probable), the SIC needs to have enough experience and judgement to be and effective backup to the PIC in the event the PIC does make a bad decision, as you have pointed out. Back in the really old days the co-pilot was generally viewed as a nuisance put there by the government; we've learned a lot as an industry since then, particularly the idea that an effective crew generates a great deal of synergy - to do so you need to have to crewmembers who are effective in their respective positions.
Again, I think this is a good idea - but as an additional requirement, not in lieu of operating experience.
Being non-military it's hard for me to comment on part of this, but from any account I've heard there aren't many parallels to be drawn between military and civilian training; significantly that individuals or carriers would balk at both the expense and washout rate of such training.
As far as the rest of the world, there are problems with those models as well. You have cruise only pilots at many Asian carriers, who will spend years there virtually never touching the controls. There are cost and sponsorship issues with the systems such as the one Lufthansa has used; as well as a constrained time line for development and upgrades from what I understand.
I've also seen the hand flying skills of pilots from some other areas of the world - trust me when I say this is NOT what you want to shoot for.
Again, as I understand it, this system has some rather rigid constraints to attempt to prevent upgrades before the level of experience deemed necessary is achieved; and I remain unconvinced that an aircraft with a very senior captain and a 300 hour FO is generally as effective an operation as the same aircraft with a more balanced crew (trans-cockpit gradient of authority issues).
Block30 brings out a couple of good points which I also agree with:
This is the horse I keep beating, and I see evidence of it continually - if you don't develop and integrate certain fundamentals, you are more of a passenger with a yoke (or joystick) than a pilot.
I agree with this 200%. I wish the FAA would not move at such a glacial pace and would actually allow innovation which promotes better training and focuses less on box checking.
Absolutely - but of course Roger Cohen (the professional liar for the RAA) doesn't want to touch that issue with a 12 mile long pole. "Remain calm, all is well..."
I do agree there is a disconnect which now exists as a result of the changes in the aviation industry as a whole; and that there needs to be some better mechanism of developing pilots which provides a rational career progression.
Originally Posted by saturn
...Yes. Is this the way it should be done, with some arbitrary number? Definitely not! Why not 1600hrs, or 2700, or 1010, or 251, or 5,000? Why 1500?
Originally Posted by saturn
Why dont we hear screams for requiring more flight experience to become a captain? Isn't the CPT the final authority of safety for every flight? Why not 3,500hrs in the right seat, and 5,000TT for initial upgrades? If people want a Sullenberger in very cockpit than we're are looking at the wrong seat. What should scare the public more, a new hire at 1,000 hours or a 1.5-2 year upgrade? I'd pick a 1,000 pilot paired with a check airmen/experienced captain over a 2000hr FO new hire paired with a 2 year capt personally. But of course no airline pilot wants more PIC mins because that would tamper with their career progression. Also, in any of those accidents did anybody have less than 1,500 in the right seat? Would those accidents have been prevented by implementing this 1,500hr rule?
Its pretty easy. You want an FO to meet a safety standard, train him to that standard before he flies people. After the commercial license, for those interested in 121 enviroment, why not make a rating or add-on that would add some turbine sim that stresses CRM and handling emergencies, decision making, systems, cruise and decent planning, etc?
Instead of doing touch'n goes in a 172 and VFR laps over the grand canyon for 1,200 hrs, train them like our military trains them and the rest of the world for that matter. Yet 75% of the future new blood at regionals are going to have to hack it out for another year in a not-very-similar enviroment of the part 91 world and take another glorified commercial checkride for 5k, just so we can feel assured they wont pull-up if they get a shaker or takeoff on the wrong runway.
As far as the rest of the world, there are problems with those models as well. You have cruise only pilots at many Asian carriers, who will spend years there virtually never touching the controls. There are cost and sponsorship issues with the systems such as the one Lufthansa has used; as well as a constrained time line for development and upgrades from what I understand.
I've also seen the hand flying skills of pilots from some other areas of the world - trust me when I say this is NOT what you want to shoot for.
...With the rise of regionals, the public was shocked to find that most places hired the Second in Command with only about 1,000 hrs and no previous jet time, as if they should just get that experience magically, all the way ignoring that the Luftansas of the world have being flying larger aircraft with less experienced 200hr FO's for decades.
Block30 brings out a couple of good points which I also agree with:
Originally Posted by block30
Honest question, how many hours did these folks have prior to their first 121 gig? Odds are those are the hours spent perfecting basic flying skills and judgement. Rod Machado wrote an interesting article about the degrading in basic airmanship skills he sees-and he included professional pilots in this grouping. I wish I had a link.
If we simply raise total hours only, I'd say that we missed the mark. Enhancing training at part 61, 141, 135, and 121 levels is another risk management tool.
If as a corollary to this law, pilots are compensated better, I think pilots will lead better lives. A better taken care of work force will be more vibrant and lucid at work, and therefore less risk prone than workforce living at/near the poverty level. The mantra from my military leadership has always been, "If you're worried about what's going on at home, you are not focused on the mission." (and therefore a liability to that mission). Bottom line-they take care of you, so you take care of yourself and family, and ultimately execute the mission clear of mind and of sound body.
I do agree there is a disconnect which now exists as a result of the changes in the aviation industry as a whole; and that there needs to be some better mechanism of developing pilots which provides a rational career progression.
02-09-2013, 11:50 PM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2007
Position: Sr. VP of button pushing
Posts: 2,730
Originally Posted by saturn
Its pretty easy. You want an FO to meet a safety standard, train him to that standard before he flies people. After the commercial license, for those interested in 121 enviroment, why not make a rating or add-on that would add some turbine sim that stresses CRM and handling emergencies, decision making, systems, cruise and decent planning, etc?
(a)
Academic training. The applicant for the knowledge test must receive at least 24 hours of classroom instruction that includes the following:
(1) At least 5 hours of instruction on high altitude operations, including aerodynamics and physiology;
(2) At least 3 hours of instruction on meteorology, including adverse weather phenomena and weather radar; and
(3) At least 12 hours of instruction on air carrier operations, including turbine
engines, transport category aircraft performance, automation, communications, checklist philosophy, and operational control.
(b) FSTD Training. The applicant for the knowledge test must receive at least 16 hours of training in a flight simulation training device qualified under part 60 of this chapter that
represents a multiengine turbine airplane. The training must include the following:
(1) At least 8 hours of training in a Level C or higher full flight simulator on
(i) Low energy states/stalls;
(ii) Upset recovery techniques; and
(iii) Adverse weather conditions, including icing, thunderstorms, and crosswinds with gusts; and
(2) At least 8 hours of training in a Level 4 or higher flight training device or a full flight simulator on
(i) Aircraft performance;
(ii) Navigation;
(iii) Automation; and
(1) At least 5 hours of instruction on high altitude operations, including aerodynamics and physiology;
(2) At least 3 hours of instruction on meteorology, including adverse weather phenomena and weather radar; and
(3) At least 12 hours of instruction on air carrier operations, including turbine
engines, transport category aircraft performance, automation, communications, checklist philosophy, and operational control.
(b) FSTD Training. The applicant for the knowledge test must receive at least 16 hours of training in a flight simulation training device qualified under part 60 of this chapter that
represents a multiengine turbine airplane. The training must include the following:
(1) At least 8 hours of training in a Level C or higher full flight simulator on
(i) Low energy states/stalls;
(ii) Upset recovery techniques; and
(iii) Adverse weather conditions, including icing, thunderstorms, and crosswinds with gusts; and
(2) At least 8 hours of training in a Level 4 or higher flight training device or a full flight simulator on
(i) Aircraft performance;
(ii) Navigation;
(iii) Automation; and
(iv) Crew resource management.
There's also a requirement for pilots to have 1000 SIC time in 121 or 135 ops before upgrade.
02-10-2013, 12:33 AM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 744 CA
Posts: 4,772
Better training would be the result of stricter course schedules and training standards and time to complete them. This will never happen in the civilian world because its about the puppy mills getting students and the mom and pops FBO's of the world making money. No body cares if "andy" takes 30 or 40 hours to solo... or 25 flights to get the hang of ILS approaches and holding patterns.... not good enough today? just schedule another lesson...there is ALWAYS another day... or another instructor who will take your money. THAT is the difference in military style training and civilian training. Military training programs are on a fairly tight schedule.... learn within those constraints.... or hit the road... there are not unlimited chances to learn.
02-10-2013, 12:55 AM
#64
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,026
There's no reason to insist that one get it or hit the road within a given schedule of hours. Military pilots tend to think that their training and ultimately the product of that training is the best that is to be found, but that's self aggrandizing. I've met quite a few military aviators with whom I wouldn't dream of sending my dog on a flight, let alone myself or my family.
A tight, concise training regime is no assurance of competence, any more than completion of that regime. Half of the doctors out there graduated in the bottom half of their class, as did half of those who completed UPT.
A student who takes 80 hours to obtain a private pilot certificate rather than 40 may not have the benefit of having been subsidized to the tune of a million and a half dollars, to get through his or her flight training. He or she may take a little longer (the national average hovers at around 70 hours for a private). This is a big deal? Hardly.
The student who doesn't complete his training in a minimum amount of time isn't a lesser pilot. The student who requires additional training isn't a lesser pilot, either. Neither is a program that devotes singular attention to each student, tailoring the course of instruction to that students needs, and which adjusts to that individual student's strengths and weaknesses, a poor substitute. Quite the contrary. A program which has the luxury of being individually tailored to a student has the potential to be a much more effective program, and one which is far more efficient than a cookie-cutter get-it-right-or-hit-the-road mould.
The military is on a budget, just as one who pays for his own training privately is on a budget. The big difference, aside from the military aviator having benefitted form someone else buying his training for him, is that the military cannot waste additional resources on those who strain at the program. In private civil training, quite the opposite is true, and a student who needs additional training (and gets it) very often turns out to be a highly competent, well trained aviator.
A tight, concise training regime is no assurance of competence, any more than completion of that regime. Half of the doctors out there graduated in the bottom half of their class, as did half of those who completed UPT.
A student who takes 80 hours to obtain a private pilot certificate rather than 40 may not have the benefit of having been subsidized to the tune of a million and a half dollars, to get through his or her flight training. He or she may take a little longer (the national average hovers at around 70 hours for a private). This is a big deal? Hardly.
The student who doesn't complete his training in a minimum amount of time isn't a lesser pilot. The student who requires additional training isn't a lesser pilot, either. Neither is a program that devotes singular attention to each student, tailoring the course of instruction to that students needs, and which adjusts to that individual student's strengths and weaknesses, a poor substitute. Quite the contrary. A program which has the luxury of being individually tailored to a student has the potential to be a much more effective program, and one which is far more efficient than a cookie-cutter get-it-right-or-hit-the-road mould.
The military is on a budget, just as one who pays for his own training privately is on a budget. The big difference, aside from the military aviator having benefitted form someone else buying his training for him, is that the military cannot waste additional resources on those who strain at the program. In private civil training, quite the opposite is true, and a student who needs additional training (and gets it) very often turns out to be a highly competent, well trained aviator.
02-10-2013, 09:26 AM
#65
Eats shoots and leaves...
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Didactic Synthetic Aviation Experience Provider
Posts: 849
Originally Posted by Twin Wasp
Ask and ye shall recieve. Buried in the ATP NPRM is a requirement for any ME ATP to have 24 classroom and 16 sim hours:
{snip}
There's also a requirement for pilots to have 1000 SIC time in 121 or 135 ops before upgrade.
{snip}
There's also a requirement for pilots to have 1000 SIC time in 121 or 135 ops before upgrade.
Three hours on meteorology?!? Crap, you can hardly do a decent overview in three hours, how are you supposed to cover anything meaningful in such a short module?
And sixteen hours of sim? Again, pretty minimal in my estimation.
At a glance, an initial course for a common light jet is nearly fifty hours of class and twenty four of simulator (plus some CPT on top of that), and I know that is still pretty minimal for someone transitioning with no prior jet experience - and that's just focused on learning the aircraft, not covering additional topics such as those described in the NPRM.
While hopefully any candidate for the ATP would already be well versed in these topics, we all know that isn't always the case.
I also realize the numbers in the NPRM are minimums, but we all know that there will be plenty of operators and/or schools that will program for the absolute minimum.
As for the 1000 hours SIC to upgrade, again it's a start; but as I've been saying for several years there needs to be a chronological component to it as well. I'd rather see 1000 hours AND two years of active 121 or 135 flying (defined as say, at least 50 hours per quarter). There is more to the whole gaining experience than just a race to a set number of flight hours (though hours are important too).
Like I said though - at least it's a start.
02-10-2013, 01:21 PM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Position: Supreme Allied Commander
Posts: 1,055
Well one way or another, its hard for the next generation to enter this industry when most flying for a living from 250-3500 hrs at the poverty level. Add to that the considerable amount of debt that is normally incurred and being repaid with interest at this same time period. Unfortunately each year the wages just seem to get lower, the time it takes to make a decent wage takes longer, and the cost of training just goes up each year, not even mentioning the now required 5k checkride for the ATP
02-10-2013, 08:53 PM
#67
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 saturn
Well one way or another, its hard for the next generation to enter this industry when most flying for a living from 250-3500 hrs at the poverty level. Add to that the considerable amount of debt that is normally incurred and being repaid with interest at this same time period. Unfortunately each year the wages just seem to get lower, the time it takes to make a decent wage takes longer, and the cost of training just goes up each year, not even mentioning the now required 5k checkride for the ATP
Some things to think about; Pay for job operations are going away. Pay for training is going away. Regionals are paying pilots from day one of training. Some companies are offering signing bonuses. Maybe pilots are becoming less easily replaced and slowly worth more?
02-16-2013, 09:58 AM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: AC90 Left
Posts: 114
Ride before August
Originally Posted by Twin Wasp
Ask and ye shall recieve. Buried in the ATP NPRM is a requirement for any ME ATP to have 24 classroom and 16 sim hours:
(iv) Crew resource management.
There's also a requirement for pilots to have 1000 SIC time in 121 or 135 ops before upgrade.
(a)
Academic training. The applicant for the knowledge test must receive at least 24 hours of classroom instruction that includes the following:
(1) At least 5 hours of instruction on high altitude operations, including aerodynamics and physiology;
(2) At least 3 hours of instruction on meteorology, including adverse weather phenomena and weather radar; and
(3) At least 12 hours of instruction on air carrier operations, including turbine
engines, transport category aircraft performance, automation, communications, checklist philosophy, and operational control.
(b) FSTD Training. The applicant for the knowledge test must receive at least 16 hours of training in a flight simulation training device qualified under part 60 of this chapter that
represents a multiengine turbine airplane. The training must include the following:
(1) At least 8 hours of training in a Level C or higher full flight simulator on
(i) Low energy states/stalls;
(ii) Upset recovery techniques; and
(iii) Adverse weather conditions, including icing, thunderstorms, and crosswinds with gusts; and
(2) At least 8 hours of training in a Level 4 or higher flight training device or a full flight simulator on
(i) Aircraft performance;
(ii) Navigation;
(iii) Automation; and
(1) At least 5 hours of instruction on high altitude operations, including aerodynamics and physiology;
(2) At least 3 hours of instruction on meteorology, including adverse weather phenomena and weather radar; and
(3) At least 12 hours of instruction on air carrier operations, including turbine
engines, transport category aircraft performance, automation, communications, checklist philosophy, and operational control.
(b) FSTD Training. The applicant for the knowledge test must receive at least 16 hours of training in a flight simulation training device qualified under part 60 of this chapter that
represents a multiengine turbine airplane. The training must include the following:
(1) At least 8 hours of training in a Level C or higher full flight simulator on
(i) Low energy states/stalls;
(ii) Upset recovery techniques; and
(iii) Adverse weather conditions, including icing, thunderstorms, and crosswinds with gusts; and
(2) At least 8 hours of training in a Level 4 or higher flight training device or a full flight simulator on
(i) Aircraft performance;
(ii) Navigation;
(iii) Automation; and
(iv) Crew resource management.
There's also a requirement for pilots to have 1000 SIC time in 121 or 135 ops before upgrade.
02-16-2013, 10:43 AM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2007
Position: Sr. VP of button pushing
Posts: 2,730
Correct, you're good to go at least till September. Remember, all of this is just proposed as of now. What's funny (and shows the disconnect between the rule writers and reality) is that the academic training requirement only applies if you are going to take the written test for the ME ATP. But there are only 2 ATP airplane writtens, one based on 121 rules and one based on 135. There's no single engine or multiengine test. So how are the proctors at CATS or the other testing center going to know if you have to present the record of academic training?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
