According to IATA, the overall rate of jet hull losses per 1 million flight hours from 2011 to 2015 was 0.12 for Europe and 0.17 for North America. In 2016 Europe had a rate of 0.27 while North America had 0.31. The data indicates the safety rate for commercial jet air transportation is very similar between North America and Europe.

Source:
http://www.iata.org/pressroom/facts_...eet-safety.pdf

So shortage or not shortage, what's gonna be :)


Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Jeez.. whats difficult to understand. You should have an AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT certificate to fly in a commercial passenger operation. I dont think thats too much to ask. I also feel that I would have no problem with allowing exceptions for those who go thru very structured "cadet'" type programs with strict time lines and standards... ie.... if a guy is scheduled to solo at 10 hours he damn well be ready to solo plus or minus an hour or so of that mark. Same for other things. If the syllabus requires the CPL at 250 hours with "X" number of flights.. DO it.. if they can't get it done in the required time line... maybe they are not cut out to do this for a living...... The REASON I think the ATP rule is good is it allows under our CURRENT system.. those who are lets say.. not as quick to get it.. to get some experience and perhaps raise their skill levels...

Yes ..yes.. what I propose would be akin to old style military training programs...... many who could have passed didnt because they couldn't do it under the stress and timelines presented. And really.. do you want your family flying with the guys who barely got thru???

This business is NOT cut out for everybody.. hell I know guys who can fly the crap out of an airplane but put them under a stressor... and they can't keep it all together. NO system is perfect... but if you want 250 hour pilots in commercial jets I personally think we need a much much stricter training system in place.

The "250 hour B737/A320 pilot" has been on the scene for many years. I can attest that fact. Some 14 years ago, while flying for a Euroland LCC, I flew with newbies. Fresh from flight training in the U.S. then assessed by the carrier they wanted to fly with. Earned a frozen ATPL with CAE or Oxford. Final assessment with the airline they wanted to fly for then hired if all went well. These newbies were given two stripes and labeled "cadets", and off to line training they went. Were they perfect, not in the least. But did they want to learn? Most did. Where are they now 14 years later? Some are now captains flying heavies, while some are still at the carrier where their career started. They airline I was with had some of the strictest training and checking standards. In fact this is a method practiced in many countries around the world. Safety? Well, some will argue the case that it's a single pilot operation. But at the end of the day, how many hull losses involved newbies in the right seat versus a seasoned pilot who came up through the commuters or military?

The "250 hour B737/A320 pilot" has been on the scene for many years. I can attest that fact. Some 14 years ago, while flying for a Euroland LCC, I flew with newbies. Fresh from flight training in the U.S. then assessed by the carrier they wanted to fly with. Earned a frozen ATPL with CAE or Oxford. Final assessment with the airline they wanted to fly for then hired if all went well. These newbies were given two stripes and labeled "cadets", and off to line training they went. Were they perfect, not in the least. But did they want to learn? Most did. Where are they now 14 years later? Some are now captains flying heavies, while some are still at the carrier where their career started. They airline I was with had some of the strictest training and checking standards. In fact this is a method practiced in many countries around the world. Safety? Well, some will argue the case that it's a single pilot operation.

In recent years, there has been a rash of incidences, thankfully non-fatal, with air carriers ranging from landing at the wrong airport, and on taxiways. And there were fatal incidences resulting from a missed approach to jet upset, all with significant time and adequate training.

That said, one can't assume that hull losses or incidences is related to the experience of the individual in the right seat.

The final gate keeper, is the training and checking department of the airline. Through their processes, they deem a crew member to be adequate to serve as a member of their flight deck.

With the right training sure... I have no issues with the premise.

Productivity wins out over protection any day/every day.

Help me understand how 1250 hrs of banner tow, glider tug, or diver driver will better prepare me for the right seat of an RJ? It just seems like a time burn. Is it really much more than that?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think the argument is that during that 1250 hours, as PIC, you will be the one making the decisions. Sure, there may be no big specific events that occur during that time, but perhaps there will be. But regardless of whether "big" events happen to you, for 1250 hours you are the guy making the decisions, whether you have enough fuel, if the weather is acceptable, whether the aircraft is airworthy, etc. Even those seemingly mundane or routine decisions do build a solid foundation for bigger, or more consequential decisions down the road.

That being said, as I pointed out earlier, the more recent data from IATA shows that there is negligible difference in safety between the U.S. approach and the European approach.

I concur with the growth and strengthening of decision making. My only argument would be the opportunity to practice 1250 hrs of bad habits. Some appear innocuous but habits that have had so long to fester may either cause you to miss an opportunity, or be something the airline will need to address. Training in a 121 environment sooner may circumvent that. Unless I am missing something, what is the 1500hr rule really trying to establish?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk