BB and the "1500 hr rule"
07-18-2022, 09:51 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,112
Originally Posted by Seneca Pilot
The 152 pilot is going to be more experienced than the CFI. They have to fly into unfamiliar airports, deal with schedules vs weather, and make go-no go decisions instead of relying on school policies for their decisions. I have flown with a few CFIs who clearly flew the same hour hundreds of times and had little to no decision making skills at 250 knots ten miles out.
I guess that depends on your flight school. I routinely flew in hard IMC and to random airports all the time. If you teach in a commercial program, there is no way you'll be just beating up the pattern and your local untowered.
And if anything, the airline policies and SOPs are far more restrictive than any flight school I worked at.
Plus, the 152 pilot never has to go anywhere. The difference between making rent and tapping into savings pushed me to only cancel unless I absolutely had to.
07-18-2022, 12:14 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
Originally Posted by threeonefive
I don’t have a problem with the 1500hr rule, in fact I generally support it. But if it were so important to have 1500hrs, why is it reducible based on what school the pilot attended? Part 141 programs may have more similarities to airline training programs. But as someone who taught in a part 141 program as a 250hr CFI, it doesn’t make sense that a part 61 student who likely learned from an experienced instructor who instructs because they enjoy it, has to sit in the traffic pattern for 500 more hours than someone who learned in a very sterile, restrictive, 141 environment from a 250hr CFI. If 1500hrs is important, less experience shouldn’t be.required based on the institution to whom one pays tuition money. (military trained pilots—different story)
In the 2 year and 4 year college programs, you get academics on top of the flight training. The more academics, the more credit you get.
