AbortAbortAbort

I don't know much about the first and third...but pipeline and ferrying definitely are not 250 hour jobs. The going rate around Dallas for both of those is 1000+, typically double that.

bcrosier

Hmmm...

You need 1000TT to be in the running for a job flying a 172 or 182 solo along a pipeline, or to ferry single or multi-engine aircraft, but (for the moment), a commercial certificate and a smile (smile optional) are all you need to be SIC on a CFR Part 121 airliner hauling 50-70 unsuspecting passengers. I sort of gives one pause.

For who? Probably not for the passengers who assume they are getting an experienced aircrew. Also, the last time I checked, most single engine trainers had slightly more docile characteristics than the typical swept wing jet, so I'm not quite tracking with you on this one.

I do agree with you on this. These people should be banned from the industry. It ultimately comes down to a lack of professionalism on their parts. Sure, it may not be your dream to instruct until you retire - but while your doing it you owe it to your student, the rest of us sharing the airspace with them, as well as yourself to do the best job you can. Certainly not everyone has the same gift for instructing, but don't just sit there and mark time - be a good instructor and learn something along the way yourself.

(Note, not directed at AAA - just general thoughts on the matter)

atpcliff

"I am all for the 1500 hour rule"
The is no 1500 hour rule. There IS a LAW that requires an ATP to fly -121 as of 1 Aug 2013. What the rule will be for the number of hours required for the ATP will be set by the FAA, and if Congress doesn't like the FAA rule, they can change it to whatever they want it to be.

cliff
SYD

AbortAbortAbort

I should have been more clear. I wasn't comparing the difficulty of aircraft between CFI'ing and RJ'ing. I was just stating that it's just as risky to have a 250 hour wonder pilot teaching others to fly as it is to stick them in an RJ. At least in the RJ, there's a senior pilot next to them who knows the ropes, is ahead of the airplane, and is keeping an eye on junior. In the 172 with just him and a student, the instructor is in charge. Every little bad habit, every bit of what he thinks is "experience" he's built over his 250 hours is going to be passed on to his students.

We were all 250 hour pilots at one point. We all made stupid decisions at one point. But I don't think anybody here can look at their current airplane and go "yeah...I could handle this at 250 hours". I know I couldn't.

Fly Boy Knight

Not sure what regionals are taking a CPL with 250 TT and 5-15hrs Multi. Pretty sure you need about the same times to be "in the runnings" for an RJ job too. Let's keep this down to Earth. There are places that take lower time guys for both jobs.

I don't think I am getting an EXPERIENCED crew on an RJ or any plane for that matter. That said, I KNOW I am getting a QUALIFIED and TRAINED crew because the company's insurance would not them fly their stuff otherwise. If passengers cared that much, they have the right to ask the pilots/the airline and if the pilots/airline refuse to tell them, they have the right to get off the airplane.

I see both sides to this argument (both for and against the new ATP) requirement which is why I an nearly indifferent about it but please, let's use facts, and not exaggerations.

Walkeraviator

The time building instructors are not always to blame though. Flight school owners are just as guilty. You will find that a lot of part 61 schools could care less about your ground training. They want that airplane in the air making money. I have a firm belief that a Private requires 40 hours flight time and 20 hours one-on-one ground instruction minimum. But on more than one occasion I have been yelled at by a flight school owner for doing ground instruction when a plane was sittin outside on the ramp.

rickair7777

Bottom-feeder regionals were hiring "wet commercials" in 2006/2007. Nobody is right now, but they probably would do it again if the job market dictated...unless the ATP rule sticks.

dutch747

It's not just about hours though, I've seen low time guys fly better than high time guys. I know it's the only yard stick we have to use to measure one's worth, but personally until I've seen someone fly I'm not going to hold their lack of experience against them.

bcrosier

That is certainly true, but it's not just about stick and rudder skills. While we're at it, I'll also concede thatanyone who's been around a while has also known or flown with a high time guy whose judgment could easily be called into question - but by and large that's an aberration.

That said, I still maintain there is no substitute for actually being up in an aircraft, being an aviator. I don't think it is appropriate to gain that experience with an airliner full of the unwashed masses in the back. But that's just me, I'm sure that not too long after the next shortfall in people willing to spend $100K for a $20K job we'll hear the airlines crying for an MPL, and Washington being what it is, they'll probably get it.

bcrosier

As has already been pointed out, they aren't currently - but they'll drop the minimums about 15 minutes after they can't fill classes and operate flights due to a lack of applicants - so I am keeping it down to earth. The difference again being, there aren't 50 people don't know any better that think they bought a ticket on Continental, not Colgan.


I guess I expect a little more. If I pay the premium to buy a watch that says Rolex, I damn well expect a Rolex (I don't buy Rolex's, BTW). If I find out that the store is actually charging me $6,000 for a $10 Chinese knock off, but they tell me "it's essentially the same, since both look the same and both keep time (at least for a while)," I'm going to cry fraud. "Qualified and trained" is the lowest bar set by the FAA. That's akin to bragging that of all the people that passed high school with a "D" average, yours was the most solid "D!" Also, FWIW, many companies self insure (essentially gambling that an occasional hull loss is cheaper than paying premiums), so there is no "adult supervision" in that department.

Yes the passengers do have the right to refuse to fly, but do they have the knowledge to make an informed decision? Based on that philosophy, why don't we let them choose to fly on airlines that only perform annual inspections instead of phase checks, or do BFR's instead of PC's or AQP events? Heck, why not let them choose whether they actually want a certificated pilot, or save a few bucks and get someone whose training consisted of playing a lot of MS Flight Simulator? Not everyone who travels on the airlines knows enough to make informed decisions, and even if they did, they often have little transparency regarding who will be operating any given flight they are on, so again that's a strawman.

Yes, lets - and let's not conveniently ignore the reality of what has transpired in the industry in recent years.