A question to the wise ones.
 

I am reading a lot on here about inexperienced flight crews, and things like ALPA should campaign against lesser experienced pilots. My questions are these... Where are we to gain experience? What will happen when ALL of the experienced pilots are no longer allowed to fly?

I think I need to say this is not flame bait. That way I won't get censored. But its not. I am reading these threads and confused about where all of tomorrows professional pilots will come from. There are not enough retiring from the military and regional airline pilots don't seem to meet the standards set by the professionals and of course the media. So what are we to do? Does some one need to have a stroke of luck and ditch a regional sized airplane in the hudson to qualify them as an expert.

There is a lot of finger pointing once again and NO answers. Unity among pilots is of course out the window as well. Instead of pilots at companies with something to loose protecting what they have from the evil corporations that run them they simply want to complain and talk down to those that have no dog in the fight.

It seems this viscous circle repeats itself anytime someone looses flying. This is why half or more of the pilots you fly with have no clue what is going on in the industry, they are tired of the monotony of nothing getting done.

It just dawned on my that I have learned something with this post. Wow.

Moderator, maybe I picked the wrong spot to post this, move it as you wish.

Hey man its been a while. I know I use to really keep up with stuff on APC but you may be on to something there. Maybe I just got so tired of the same BS fighting that I just gave it up....oh well more time for a beer now. :D

Fast answer that is factual, it really points to training. Inexperience is a normal part of the process. It is the training involved and how the 'inexperienced' are trained. The focal point will look at training.
Example: I am a heavy driver Captain very experienced in domestic 121 operations. I now go to a new heavy airplane flying worldwide 121 international operations, Atlantic/Pacific/South America.
I am now an inexperienced pilot despite previous domestic experience.
Now the focal point goes to training, if properly trained and brought online with crews trained and experienced in these operations, chances are that I will become 'experienced' in a safe manner.
The challenge is that many operators want to do it on the cheap. Thus, inexperience can get people into trouble, but really it was often poor training by the company.
Fire away..

The time honored and sacred seniority system does not help much....

Pairing newbees on the worst trips.

The system used to produce experienced pilots for the regionals. Most started out as flight instructors and then went on to some type of job flying twins in charter type operations. This was often very demanding flying. Usually at night and often single pilot IFR. In the last few years what management at the regionals has hired has shifted. Many airlines were highering 300 hour wonders who went through training academies. 10 years ago you would not get a look at most regionals without 1500 or more hours. When they speak of experience this is what they are talking about.

So it seems simple enough to me. Require an ATP (minimum of 1500 hours), to fly in ANY CREW seat that transports people for a 121 carrier. I would also encourage the FAA to change the ATP minimums to 1500 hours as PIC, not simply total time.

Having an ATP is not the answer. If I read the transcripts correctly, the FO had over 1,600 hours when the crash happened, meaning she had ATP standards, yet this was her first experience with icing and deicing. Besides, an ATP obtained on the "outside" (ie. a flight school) is just a glorified instrument check ride, not an accurate barometer of experience and/or judgment.

The issue at hand here is not so much the experience level of the FO but more of the Captain. At the regionals, especially a "bottom feeding" outfit like Colgan where the turnover is so great, finding and keeping experienced Captains is difficult. What happens is that you end up pairing an inexperienced FO with a CA who may not have much more experience than the FO. IOW, the FO doesn't have the opportunity to learn or gain experience from a wisened Captain as it should be.

This is typically not an issue at the larger regionals, where movement is stagnant and you have pilots who have been in their respective seats for years. When you have Colgan pilots leave for other regionals, that should tell you something.

Note that I'm painting with a wide brush. I'm sure Colgan has great, experienced Captains, just as I know that there are Captains at large regionals and majors that have no business being there. But when you pay pilots crap and treat them as such, it's hard to keep an experienced work force.

I'm not not the FAA and I'm not in the training department. Just because you have 1600 hours doesn't necessarily mean you MEET ATP STANDARDS!

Again, that's why I say MAYBE changing the ATP minimums (1500 PIC), and requiring one to fly for ANY 121 carrier, is the answer.

Think about it. You've spent several years as a flight instructor, flying checks, towing banners or whatever to get 1500 hours of PIC time. Hell, even some of the military folks would be required to spend some coin in the civilian world to get to 1500 hours PIC. All this time equates to EXPERIENCE. Now, are you going to take that regional job below minimum wage after enduring several years of this? My guess is some will, but many will not. It creates a barrier to entry and requires that you actually fly an airplane for awhile before becoming an airline pilot.

Regionals just aren't economical without cheap labor. Get rid of cheap labor, regionals of today start to fade away. The strong will survive. They will have better work rules, pay, QOL, etc. and their route stucture will be completely different...it will be regional. The majors will recapture a good chunck of that former RJ flying that's profitable (maybe even with big RJ's at the major), which equates to more jobs at the major level...IMHO of course.:D

First, THERE IS NO PILOT SHORTAGE! There might be a shortage of people wanting to work for $20K/year. I'm one of those. I'm unemployed and I won't work for that. Is 10000+ hours low time?

Second, training is a very important issue. Watch out for this MPL (Multi pilot crew license?) that airlines want to push through. It's basically and ab initio program. You pay for the larger part of it. You spend months in a sim, getting lots of "time." They then put you in the right seat for $20K/yr.

Third, THERE IS NO PILOT SHORTAGE! There are hundreds, if not thousands, of airline pilots put out of work in the last 18 months. Many have gone overseas to find something. Meanwhile, the flight schools are selling a dream (nightmare) to prospective students. It's all BS, but the regionals will be hiring "pilots" with 300TT and a wet CMEL certificate in the next year or so.

That's the problem, though. ATP standards aren't really that high. The check ride itself is just an instrument check ride to slightly higher standards. Since the Colgan FO passed her initial 121 training, she would have had no problem meeting ATP standards.

As for the PIC requirement, today's general aviation flight instructor, because of the stagnation in the industry, will likely have at least 1,500 hours by the time the regionals start hiring again en mass. Almost all of it will be PIC. And most, if not all, of that will probably have been spent flying around the traffic pattern or the practice area in a Cessna or a Piper on sunny days. Provided the pilot has a modicum of skill flying an ILS and a GPS approach on a calm day under the hood, he or she will qualify and obtain an ATP.

I'd rather have someone in the right seat with 750 hours of quality, hard-IMC, four-seasons, high-density airport experience and a Commerical certificate than a 1,500-hour C-172 wonder with an ATP.

But I do agree with you. We need to raise the price of entry without making it totally prohibitive financially. In my opinion, though, requiring an ATP is not the solution. What's also not helping is that the jobs where you can cut your teeth, like flying checks (which I did for 2 years and learned a hell of a lot) are all going away.

So I guess the question remains...how do you get that experience?

Military pilots sure as hell aren't going to go to a regional and sit right seat for $20k/yr. Mainline guys will do it if furloughed, but not many of them. Besides the problem rears its ugly head when times are good and pilots are hard to come by...resulting in so-called pilot mills. I'm not talking about universities, either. I'm talking about the "GO FROM ZERO TIME TO RIGHT SEAT IN 6 MONTHS!!!" places.

That's about as close to no experience as you can get. Airlines are getting away with filling the pilot shortage with pilots who have never scared the crap out of themselves.

So, how do we get them to scare the crap out of themselves?

Well, for one, require them to fly for a bit with that brand new wet commercial. If we made ATP mins a requirement for the 121 world, that would at least make it cost-prohibitive (to most) to buy your time and sit with an instructor who will make the decisions for you. It would therefore force the majority of people to take that wet commercial and go find a job, where, as with any flying job, they will be forced with these types of tough decisions on a daily basis. Or, god-forbid, they will have to continue their training through their CFI and get their experience by keeping their students from killing them.

But, will even these types of flying fully prepare you for an airline? In a word...no.

The airline industry forces you to fly on a daily basis in and around weather that there are very limited ways to experience before you get there (not to mention in aircraft that are much more capable and powerful than most will have experienced). How many 121 pilots out there can say they de-iced an aircraft or referenced their speed via Mach number before they entered the 121 world? Sure, a few did. But I'd be willing to bet that most didn't.

Is that wrong? No. As long as you are trained well and are paired with experienced captains who can walk you through these types of situations the first time you encounter them, then you will be fine. Which brings up another issue...

6-Month upgrades. What? :eek: You mean a regional pilot can upgrade to captain and still never had to fly in icing conditions or reference the holdover tables? I think that, at the very least, a person needs to have at least 40 or 50 hours of 121 experience in every month of the year before they can upgrade to Captain. (I'm probably going to catch a little flak from that from people who upgraded in 6 months.) That way they will have at least experienced the gambit of weather (from storms to wind to icing and blizzards). I'm guessing the fast upgrade will be a rather large problem (again) at the regional level once age-65 catches back up. But it is certainly an issue that needs to be resolved.

There are many more issues (training, our current seniority system of "pairing newbees on the worst trips" as Shoreguy put it, etc., etc.) that are coming to light due to this Colgan accident, and it seems to be a bright enough light that the cockroaches have nowhere to go.

Hopefully some changes (a lot of them overdue) will be coming as a result of this investigations. Will we like them? Some of them...yes. Some of them...no. Will those changes make our industry safer? Time will tell.

But airline experience is exactly that...airline experience. You can't gain it from sitting in a sim or studying in a classroom. You can't get it from instructing or flying freight in a 210 (even though flying freight in a high-performance twin is about as close as you can get). The 121 world is a whole 'nother ballgame. You can't get airline experience until you're right there in the action, sitting on the right side of the plane, with passengers strapped in behind you counting on you and your Captain to make the right string of decisions to get them to their destination safely.

Is that ok? Sure, as I said before, though: As long as your 121 training was good and you are paired with experienced check airmen during IOE or with experienced captains the first time you encounter serious icing or take off in snow, then the system works.

As others have pointed out, there are a number of issues that need attention when it comes to gaining that all-so-elusive "experience". Can it be solved like an accident can by "breaking a link in the chain"? I'm not so sure it can, but a big link for me would be starting with the fast upgrade.

~ksuav8r

The discussion must center around improving safety, not creating barriers to entry, therefore raising compensation.

Just b/c the Colgan FO had the requisite hours to apply for an ATP doesn't nullify the premise that requiring an ATP for all pilots flying FAR 121 would improve safety.

I'm with 'Salty' - after a certain amount of experience, a well-trained pilot is more beneficial to promoting safety than a pilot with lots of experience, but not relevant experience to the operation they are assigned to. And I'd say the minimum experience level needs to be raised. I go with an ATP b/c it's just that, an "Airline Transport Pilot" license. To be an Airline Transport Pilot, you should have to be licensed as such.

I’d like to start by saying: Will anything but 121 experience give you 121 experience? Not exactly. But you must have a good base to begin with in order to properly and successfully build the 121 experience.


Just cuz someone has 1600 hours doesn’t tell the whole story. Rhino Driver made a good point. In addition, I’ll add that I still consider someone with 300 hours coming in the front door and the rest of the time accrued in a year and a half to be inexperienced, period. It is very rare to find a job other than the regionals where you can “drink from the flight-time-building fire hose” like that. And most of those jobs don’t involve taking 50 to 100 people with you on each flight. Part of “experience”—especially at the beginning of the learning curve—is accruing that flight time at a slower rate so that experiences, thought about what is actually happening, working on ways to improve your skills, etc. etc. have time to sink in (even while working as a lowly flight instructor.) This is one of the major differences between past and present to me. We want to bypass a lot of the work and time that used to be required and “live the dream” NOW. Do some adapt to the “fire-hose” treatment quickly? A few. Ultimately almost all eventually adapt after a few more years of it . . . and rely on luck that nothing happens during those first few years that is too far out of “the norm.”

I think the ATP requirement is a great idea, not just for the check ride alone, but because it would cause people to have to slow down and take some time to develop. Rhino Driver also gave some other good reasons for raising the requirements that I will not re-hash. Would an ATP requirement automatically make every pilot safer? Probably not for “GOD’s gift to aviation” types. They will be good from the get-go. But for most of us folks with average ability (like me,) I believe it would make a difference. In the big picture, the overall odds would move toward the safer side. JMHO

The answer is not by getting an ATP. Rather, it's by flying with seasoned captains. I think that's where the focus needs to be. Look at Europe. Pilots for BA, KLM, AF, Lufthansa, etc. either come from the military or through an ab initio program. The latter may only have 300-400 hours when they start. It works because they are trained to proficiency and they gain the experience by flying with captains with years of airline experience.

Which is what the majority will do, especially now that jobs like check-hauling are going away. 1,500 hours as an instructor doing the same thing over and over is not exactly an experience builder, IMO.

Exactly. Perhaps there needs to be another standard in place to act as Captain in a 121 world, other than an ATP. Maybe require 1,500 hours of Part 121 experience. That would get rid of the 6-month upgrades and perhaps force the regionals to improve wages and work rules in order to attract and retain pilots.

Again, I respectfully disagree. An ATP only proves that you can pass a check ride (and an easy one at that) and doesn't show what experiences you've had leading up to those magical 1,500 hours that made you eligible for the thing. Referencing my analogy in a previous post, the 750-hour pilot who somehow managed to get quality real-life experience is more of an ATP than the 1,500-hour CFI who has spent his entire career in the traffic pattern.

We all agree on this: You've got to get the experience somewhere. The answer lies with having Captains in the left seat only after they have the experience and the hours so they can transfer that experience to their FOs.

Broad Expereince Base
 

The value of experience is all relative. As many here have mentioned in the past professional pilots came from a broad area of experience. They started out as instructors, crop dusters, night piston cargo, military pilots and plenty of other forms of aviation.

Today it seems that many of those kinds of jobs are going away and HR departments seem to prefer long institutionalized pilots with an exclusive part 121 background.

Airline captains use to say that I had a good background as a former forest service and Alaskan bush pilot. Good for what? HR departments do not care if you can properly load a beaver on a beach or that I have over a thousand hours of piston single pilot IFR over the cascades. All they want are 28 year old automaton RJ captains.

Maybe hiring fads will change? I doubt it though.

Skyhigh

upandsky-

You will never cover all your bases. ATP mins, a certain amount of PIC, and say 300 multi-engine minimum requirement to get on at any 121 carrier will squash the chances of any of those issues.

I have 1200 hours of flight instruction given, and not a single one of those hours was the same. Every student is different, every lesson is different with varying weather conditions, time constraints, and so on. It's only 1 hour 1000 times over if you make it that. You are the PIC, you are constantly making command decisions. A CFI that says that quote about how flight instruction was is immediately telling me that they sucked as an instructor.

The multi-engine requirement will make them go out and at the least teach MEI or fly corporate or small time freight. Flying corporate was some of the best experience I gained prior to the airlines and really helped prepare me for being an airline captain. It all rode on me alone- from the normal pilot stuff to taking care of the pax.

Then we come to the issue of the airline training departments. A TRAINING program and not a checking program is what is absolutely necessary. The former is rare at the regionals.

The different takes on this whole experience idea are as varied as the number of different posters. If there is no consensus here, there won't be in the real world either.

There is a therapeutic value to setting up the "ideal scene" and thinking about it. But we must think in terms of reality. No one knows where the industry is going long term. My belief is that it isn't going to get much better, but I hope I am wrong.

Those who have already made it are likely going to be alright in the long term. Those with around 2,000 hours and some turbine time (right now) will likely be given a second chance at this game in about 3-4 years. Once they are all used up, the general rule is going to be less and less qualified pilots available. Flying is just too damned expensive and just doesn't pay off nearly quickly enough for most people.

Those who just HAVE TO FLY!!! and so will not do anything else will still follow through the ranks, but those who do it for money and QOL will find happiness in another route.

More and more airline pilots are steering their kids away from this profession.

But, as the saying goes, the gold lies at the bottom of a barrel of crap. Those who do endure will likely be satisfied in the end. From what I hear, it does/can get better. Its the rat race to the top that makes it so unfulfilling. My guess is the UPS guys, wide-body captains, SWA guys, are all happy with their career choices.

Just my $.02.

Clamp,

I'm glad you found your instructing experience rewarding. I can't say the same about mine. I instructed at a small flight school where the majority of students were getting their Private. I'd occasionally have an instrument student and we'd try to get in the clouds but that was hit and miss. Teaching was great for my confidence as a pilot but flying to and from the traffic pattern or the occasional cross country did very little to prepare me for the skills and experiences I would eventually need to be an airline pilot. That included 100 hours teaching in a Seminole. Shutting off a fuel tank and watching someone go through the single engine drill for the umpteenth time only goes so far. I don't know. Maybe I'm one of those that sucked as an instructor.

I left instructing after 1200 hours and hauled checks single-pilot for two years. By the time I got to the regionals, I didn't know how to fly a jet per se, but I sure as hell knew a lot more about weather, ATC, busy airspace, command decisions and risks than I ever did before.

You and I had the fortune to find experiences elsewhere, you with corporate, me with freight. Unfortunately for the majority of others, their experience will be limited to the traffic pattern and the 100 hours of twin time that they will beg, borrow or steal, more so now than ever, since many of the skill-building jobs are going away.

And you're right. An airline training program should be exactly that, a training program. Fortunately, I had the choice to go to a respectable regional that did that. But from what I hear from others, that can't be said for all regionals.

Lower Part 135 PIC minimums for non-passenger operations from 1200tt to 750tt.

This would enable a person to go to a place like Central Air Southwest or Flight Express after putting in a bit of work as a CFI or banner tower and start getting experience MUCH more applicable to a 121 environment than flight instructing MUCH more quickly.

Really though, and I don't intend this to come off as devil's advocate talking...but is the current setup of 500-1200tt pilots hired as regional FOs (because lets face it, there haven't been that damn many 300hr pilots hired at the 121 level even over the last decade) and seasoned to get experience by flying with captains really that different than the current setup in the medical field, where med school students become interns, then residents who supervise interns, then finally attending physicians who supervise residents?

Yes and no. The difference is that interns work under the supervision of experienced doctors who have spent years in their field. There are no 6-month attending physician "upgrades." That can't be said about the regionals, as the Colgan and Pinnacle crashes attest.

I agree. 1,200 hours just to haul checks is too much.

I am glad we are having great conversation about the training levels and requirements, a lot of good ideas are being bounced around.

There were a couple of things I saw that I have to disagree with though.

Currently, there is no shortage of pilots. 18 months ago there was absolutely a shortage of applicants. And although I agree with the argument that many are not willing to work for $20k a year it unfortunately is a means to an end for many and certainly goes a lot further toward experience then working 3 jobs while flight instructing trying to make $20k a year. So while their are pilots available, airlines are not going to simply revamp negotiated contracts to attract more applicants.

I also read something about the Colgan pilot stating this was her first experience in icing. I believe that was the USA Today version of the story. I believe what she had said was that “she had seen more icing on IOE then she ever say flying in Phoenix“. Which of course makes sense. But where does one see icing unless in an aircraft certified to fly into icing conditions. Again, where do we get the experience?

135 jobs are going away and it is quickly becoming a rich mans game to even become a pilot. An ATP is a great idea because at the very least it thins the heard of applicants but if that stance is taken there will be a lot of very good pilots eliminated from the pool and a lot of very poor ATP qualified applicants getting hired because they have seats to fill.

Some of you had mentioned training and IMHO I think that is huge. At my regional we take things to the shaker and do unusual attitudes but I will fly along at FL370 with 15 year captains asking me questions about high altitude aero dynamics because they don't know the answers. Frankly neither do I. These should be the things taught and stressed in initial. Not breezed over to get through the course on schedule. I also don’t think its fair to spend the entire training session fearing for your lively hood in the crunch to learn/pass/fail environment.

I was telling my wife we carry defibulators on the plane but our flight attendants are not given first aid training. Most of them couldn't handle it, others will just freeze if something happens and there are others that will handle every situation like a true professional.

Bottom line the training falls short because its expensive. The American public and most certainly the media have demanded cut rate cost on air travel. And only when a disaster happens do they demand higher standards of safety. That mentality needs to change. Good luck with that one, if you‘ve got the answer NASA needs to speak to you about your thoughts on destroying this asteroid coming our way..

I say, charge what needs charged, pay what needs to be paid and by all means and train what needs trained. The traffic will fall off, the strong will survive and the weak will move on. But, until the money is there and the public is no longer willing to take a calculated risk for $79 dollar flights nothing will change.

The quote above is pretty close, but it was more "IMC on IOE," not icing. You can get plenty of IMC experience, and you should, before becoming an airline pilot!:eek:

Future
 

As everyone begins to hire straight into a regional I winder if in the future piston twin pilots will be worth more than regional captains.

Skyhigh

I still believe that "magical" 1500 hours counts for something. You miss my point. Yes we can all tell specific stories of this "750 hour pilot" that I know who is lots better than this other "1500 hour pilot" I know. What I am talking about is in the BIG picture, if you are selecting from a pool of pilots who has 1500 hours and an ATP or better as opposed to a pool that has 300 hours or better, the OVERALL level of quality and quality of experience is higher. This to me = safer. It raises the level of the quality of the base (on the average-yes we can all find specific examples where this is not true) on which that 121 experience will be built.

Yes, as you mentioned flying the new 121 FO's with experienced Captains for a time period is a great idea as well.:cool:

Agreed. My only contention with requiring an ATP is that we would potentially be bypassing candidates that are as if not more qualified just because they haven't reached that 1,500 hour mark.

Sailing is right.

They pay Captains more than FO's. I think that is a fair situation for both parties. Experience is a very much worth what you pay for it. Also, "experience" comes at unexpected times and usually when you don't anticipate it. You can learn more on a four day in some areas than you can in a decade of flying early morning flights in the Caribbean.

ALPA is not going to say much about inexperience and low pay at regionals because ALPA literally wrote the contracts that facilitate this arrangement. "One Level of Safety" fell by the wayside when they endorsed outsourcing.

You are going to have a certain amount of that no matter what you do. What I am saying is just the opposite: You will decrease the number of those hired into 121 that are not quite "ripe" yet, putting less stress on the system safety-wise. Then there are the other benefits mentioned earlier about the possibility of pay, QOL, etc. being raised with the qualifications required.:cool:

I tend to go with you on this one. The problem will be that if this is somehow law then any pilot meeting the "mins" will get hired because they will need to fill the seats and there will not be enough applicants to choose from. There will not be a selection process when things get "good" again, it would simply be a where do you want to work and if you meet the atp requirements you are going to be able to pick your airline.

This would possibly kick the airlines in the right direction because they would need to compete for applicants but I think you'd need to be a real tool in the interview or fail all the exams to not get the job.

THERE IS NO PILOT SHORTAGE

let's all say it again:

THERE IS NO PILOT SHORTAGE

...only a shortage of pilots willing to work for regional FO compensation.

Raise the compensation (be it via higher minimum requirements reducing the supply of pilots available to Part 121 operators or otherwise) and a whole new demographic of 91/91k/135 pilots will emerge interested in flying a small get for an airline.

So if we're talking "extreme" situations, would you rather see everyone with an ATP hired and the airlines scrambling to find pilots and raising pay, QOL, etc. to attract them? Or would you rather see airlines filled with 300 hour wonders no matter what because they are so desperate for pilots? As the hours go lower so does the AVERAGE valuable experience. And don't start inventing situations here. I just know the next argument will be along the lines of: "Well, the pilot shortage would only get to the point where only the truly qualified people would be hired because there would be enough at that point to satisfy the numbers required.":rolleyes:

The problem is, those established regionals become too costly, thus the stagnation you speak of. In swoops the upstart regional, underbids the established regional, and gets awarded flying from mainline.

The upstart regional fleet doubles in size faster than they can hire pilots, but pay is not a problem because "who cares what the FO makes, I'll be Captain in a year!"

As soon as the 600-hour wunder-FO has ATP mins he's off to the left seat without ever deicing or painting an imbedded line of weather. And who does this newly-minted, 1500-hour Captain have to watch his back? Another 600-hour wunderkind just off IOE and ready to serve his year in the right seat, hoping the captain gets his 1000 TurbinePIC and moves on so he can have his shot too.

In theory, when things turn around these guys may go to the majors in droves, having seen icing a half dozen times and still knowing very little other that they kept each other alive for two years.

On the other hand, the 7,000 hour FO from the stagnant regional won't get an interview because he lacks 1000TPIC and leaves the airlines to fly for NetJets or whatever, taking his 8 years of airline experience with him.

What I found interesting in the Colgan transcript is the FO stating that she didn't want to upgrade until she had flown a winter in the right seat, so she would have experience in all types of weather. Her new-hire chums wanted to upgrade now, but she wasn't comfortable with that.

She sounded like she wanted to expand her envelope at a comfortable pace, but wound up on the ground anyway. I wonder if her "take it slow, learn a while" mindset is the norm at many regionals these days.

I'd take a hard look at how much "overlap" really exists between experienced CAs and new FOs at some of the regionals who have enjoyed explosive growth in recent years.

I never said there was a pilot shortage, I said applicant shortage. Read and comprehend before you quote someone and jump up and down about something I agree with you on.

I don't know what you are talking about, I never said any of those things. You and the guy above have me confused with someone who said there is a pilot shortage. An applicant shortage and a pilot shortage are two entirely different things. If you'd have read my posts I also said both crew members should be typed at initial which would require an ATP.

Find me a CEO who has negotiated a union contract for wages and benefits and has budgeted the next 4 years of business based on pay scales and work rules that is suddenly going to do anything with real serious value to attract new applicants. He's going to go to the government and plead his case and have a lobbyist get the hiring minimums reduced.

My opposing view was that airlines are going to be hiring flight instructors with ATP mins and 1500 hours of 172 time getting hired. Meanwhile the 1000 hour pilot who stuck their neck out, did the leg work, found the freight job and was willing to break their backs for the last 500 hours of multi/imc/maybe even turbine that are are going to get passed up for "Mr Gold Seal". I think that person is much more experienced then the cfi for this kind of flying. And I am not just trumping up a situation. How the hell did this become an attack on me????

I found that both interesting and sad as well. Here was someone that wanted and I think respected the idea of actually having experienced these things before taking command of the aircraft.

I also find it sad how she is being attacked in the media. From the time the captain made a bad situation worse I think I counted 30 seconds until (Thump) most of you would agree it was beyond saving about 10-15 seconds into the stall. How many of you would call my controls with the nose 45 degrees down in a 100 degree bank 200 feet off the ground. To sit quietly behind your computer and watch 10 seconds count off the clock seems like forever. Now throw in alarms, shakers, pushers, call outs and panic. Goes by pretty quick.

Coffee induced idea
 

Call me crazy but here's an idea , ATP mins schould be 1000 hours of turbine time.
So you would have a comm lic and then when one reaches the magic number of 1000 in turbine time you go get an ATP .It also would be a way to raise standards and possibly result in higher pay
Is this idea too far fetched?


Fred

I think you can partially fix this by raising the requirements to act as a Part 121 Captain beyond just having an ATP. When you take the quick upgrade away, it would force the airlines to improve wages and work rules to attract and retain pilots. In essence, it would help level the playing field by reducing the cost advantages an upstart or bottom feeding regional may have.

Not every regional allows 1500TT pilots to become Part 121 PICs and thus they hire Street Captains. I believe Mesaba, Colgan and Chautauqua did this at some point in the last few years, Colgan I believe was most recent. This is a guess but I don't think its necessarily a "we're being extra safe" but more like insurance won't cover us. Dent a few airplanes and you'll see an airline react pretty quick as insurance becomes an issue. Maybe someone with a plethora of insurance experience that posts a good bit around here might know more or if I'm guessing right.

Anyways, Street Captains are hired at the bottom of the seniority list but they're PICs. FO's currently on the list will once they upgrade be senior Captains to them. Not exactly wise or necessarily the safest thing to do but if you need some PIC time it doesn't hurt to jump ship from a stagnant large regional to Dash 8-400 CA at Colgan to help get the magic 1000TPIC. If you increase CA minimums you'll increase the probability of Street Captains and thus I think you have to automatically also require a minimum amount of SIC time at said airline prior to upgrade to the PIC position you were hired into.

But again, not the wisest or safest idea to go from 0 to CA at any airline. I flew with a Comair CA turned Continental FO turned flowback CA at XJT and he said it sucked being "hired" to be in charge of an airplane at an airline operation you never have seen before.

As far as I am concerned, increase scope before you create minimum hour requirements for any position. It'll solve most of the issues and achieve most of the objectives without creating more problems. But if you want to do something industry wide then start with FAA min rest requirements to at least Part 135 mins, 10 hours between flying.

Also, if you want to do something constructive in the name of safety then require the FAA to make training as easy for regional pilots with more sim time, checkrides split into two, etc. as it is for major airline pilots. RJ pilots would welcome it with open arms. I agree with others who posted here, training and strict standardization rules trump experience in the Part 121 world.

Here's a novel idea!
 

How about training that goes beyond the FAA min's?
Have regionals train to the same standards as mainline or is this not practical?


Fred

All 121 airlines, regardless if they fly a 1900 or a 744, are held to the same training standards.

The type and style of training (jeopardy training vs. train-to-proficiency) can affect the overall quality, but the standards are the same.

I believe that if you were to wait until someone had the ATP under their belt you'd still be better off than hiring the 300TT wonder. The odds are better that the person with ATP minimums would have flown more than just 20 hours in a piston twin. They'd have a better chance of having that Part 135 job (the IFR job...not the lowly VFR one).

And then you knock operators such as Cape Air out of business. Creating different levels of the ATP is a consideration.

That 1000 hour pilot probably couldn't get the job flying freight...at least IFR.

There's so many holes in these arguments--because our industry has so much varied flying--that there is no cure all. The closest you can come is to have someone with more time and varied experience in their logbook. If there was a way to train for it in simulators it'd be through the extension of the LOFT periods. Consider having two checkrides: the basic maneuvers, approaches, holding, etc. variety and then, after four or five LOFT periods, a LOFT check. But it won't happen because the industry will scream about the cost.

IMHO, the industry "got what it paid for." Now if the public only knew.

X

Horizon Air
 

Horizon Air use to have a 4500 hour total time minimum before upgrade.

Skyhigh