Mesa Terminates Pilot Training Program (FMN)
#31
Okay, I agree with the 1500/500 mins but I'm not going to go buy my ATP checkride out of pocket. I've already dumped a load of $$ into this profession just to get furloughed and now you say I need to go get an ATP rating?!?! "Just say no this one". IMHO
#32
But the problem with colgan is at least the CA had very low time when he started at colgan. IMO that is a recipe for diasaster...face it, there are some things you simply don't learn in a 121 cockpit.
Airline ops occur in a multi-layered bubble of protections which insidiously encourage complacency. Nothing like 1000+ hours of piston 91/135 to teach you that things can and will eventually go wrong.
IMO it takes a low-timer a lot longer to learn certain basics in the airline world...and he might never learn them in a jet.
Airline ops occur in a multi-layered bubble of protections which insidiously encourage complacency. Nothing like 1000+ hours of piston 91/135 to teach you that things can and will eventually go wrong.
IMO it takes a low-timer a lot longer to learn certain basics in the airline world...and he might never learn them in a jet.
Furthermore look at what it will do to the supply and demand equation it's a win win.
#33
I guess what I'm missing in all of this is where is the supporting data for the rule change? It seems like the rule change was predicated on assumptions regarding low-time pilots.
Now I agree that low-time pilots can be a lot of work. But that's not the goal of the legislation. The goal of the legislation is to enhance safety. But I have not seen any study saying that a sub-1500 hour pilot without an ATP is more dangerous than a pilot with more than 1500 hours and an ATP.
What are the statistics? Where is the data? Does anyone have anything released from insurance companies that can target or pin-point who the high-risk pilots really are?
Now I agree that low-time pilots can be a lot of work. But that's not the goal of the legislation. The goal of the legislation is to enhance safety. But I have not seen any study saying that a sub-1500 hour pilot without an ATP is more dangerous than a pilot with more than 1500 hours and an ATP.
What are the statistics? Where is the data? Does anyone have anything released from insurance companies that can target or pin-point who the high-risk pilots really are?
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 926
???? makes no sense at all.
If we go to a frozen ATP, we would be right back where we started...250-hour airline pilots, which almost everyone (even the public and congress) can see is a bad thing.
The Europeans get away with it because they really have no other means of acquiring flight time and because their standards are much higher.
If we included european-style ground school and testing for the frozen ATP that would not be so bad at all. It would require real effort and dedication to complete the training...that would scare off many of our entry-level types today. And the airlines would have to pay well enough to attract the type of individual who can excel in school...ie people with other options.
Not sure why you would need to be rich though? But here's a fact of life: money makes almost anything easier. You can enjoy comforts above and beyond your current payscale and you don't have to stress so much over the economic consequences of failure.
If we go to a frozen ATP, we would be right back where we started...250-hour airline pilots, which almost everyone (even the public and congress) can see is a bad thing.
The Europeans get away with it because they really have no other means of acquiring flight time and because their standards are much higher.
If we included european-style ground school and testing for the frozen ATP that would not be so bad at all. It would require real effort and dedication to complete the training...that would scare off many of our entry-level types today. And the airlines would have to pay well enough to attract the type of individual who can excel in school...ie people with other options.
Not sure why you would need to be rich though? But here's a fact of life: money makes almost anything easier. You can enjoy comforts above and beyond your current payscale and you don't have to stress so much over the economic consequences of failure.
You mentioned that the EASA/JAA pilots don't have the means of acquiring flight time....have you ever stopped to consider that the very same thing has started to occur in the good ole' US of A?
Also, standards for EU pilots entry into integrated programs are falling...and falling fast. I work for a very large European FTO, and I'm scared at some of the morons that make it through our program. There are a myriad of reasons for this, and I won't go into them here because, well, it's already past my bedtime, but you can rest assured that if I ever visit the EU, I'll only ride on the likes of BA, Lufthansa, Transavia, or Air France. The second rate outfits will not be considered.
About the rich being the only ones allowed to play....an integrated program (that's the zero-to-hero type) costs around 72,000 pounds sterling.....that's right around $100K with today's exchange rate....that's what I meant.
The 1500-hour requirement will do nothing to drive wages upward. Anyone who thinks that the regionals or other competing operators will just say to themselves "well, we need to start paying more" needs to be very careful the next time they set foot in a car dealership.
#36
Experience and Supply
Being a good stick does not an experienced pilot make.
If a pilot has been "raised in the 121 bubble" then they have missed many vital experience lessons that only occur when solo either flying freight or CFI'ing. In order to make it to 1,500 TT unscathed an individual has to at least be fairly competent. Otherwise the "thinning of the herd phenomena" would have taken over.
Pay would have to increase.... as long as the politicians don't cave to the universities and airlines. How could it not?
If a pilot has been "raised in the 121 bubble" then they have missed many vital experience lessons that only occur when solo either flying freight or CFI'ing. In order to make it to 1,500 TT unscathed an individual has to at least be fairly competent. Otherwise the "thinning of the herd phenomena" would have taken over.
Pay would have to increase.... as long as the politicians don't cave to the universities and airlines. How could it not?
#37
Eats shoots and leaves...
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Didactic Synthetic Aviation Experience Provider
Posts: 849
Also, standards for EU pilots entry into integrated programs are falling...and falling fast. I work for a very large European FTO, and I'm scared at some of the morons that make it through our program. There are a myriad of reasons for this, and I won't go into them here because, well, it's already past my bedtime, but you can rest assured that if I ever visit the EU, I'll only ride on the likes of BA, Lufthansa, Transavia, or Air France. The second rate outfits will not be considered.
#38
Eats shoots and leaves...
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Didactic Synthetic Aviation Experience Provider
Posts: 849
Being a good stick does not an experienced pilot make.
If a pilot has been "raised in the 121 bubble" then they have missed many vital experience lessons that only occur when solo either flying freight or CFI'ing. In order to make it to 1,500 TT unscathed an individual has to at least be fairly competent. Otherwise the "thinning of the herd phenomena" would have taken over.
If a pilot has been "raised in the 121 bubble" then they have missed many vital experience lessons that only occur when solo either flying freight or CFI'ing. In order to make it to 1,500 TT unscathed an individual has to at least be fairly competent. Otherwise the "thinning of the herd phenomena" would have taken over.
#39
exactly!
I guess what I'm missing in all of this is where is the supporting data for the rule change? It seems like the rule change was predicated on assumptions regarding low-time pilots.
Now I agree that low-time pilots can be a lot of work. But that's not the goal of the legislation. The goal of the legislation is to enhance safety. But I have not seen any study saying that a sub-1500 hour pilot without an ATP is more dangerous than a pilot with more than 1500 hours and an ATP.
What are the statistics? Where is the data? Does anyone have anything released from insurance companies that can target or pin-point who the high-risk pilots really are?
Now I agree that low-time pilots can be a lot of work. But that's not the goal of the legislation. The goal of the legislation is to enhance safety. But I have not seen any study saying that a sub-1500 hour pilot without an ATP is more dangerous than a pilot with more than 1500 hours and an ATP.
What are the statistics? Where is the data? Does anyone have anything released from insurance companies that can target or pin-point who the high-risk pilots really are?
what about Cali Colombia American Airlines flight? They had thousands of hours and they managed to fly straight into the side of a mountain, Value Jet, and all the other flights they show us in Indoc class is about Crew Coordination. Maintaining situational awareness is the hardest thing to teach. That is what the emphasis needs to be on. CFI's that fly Peter Pilot around the traffic pattern to attain 1500 hours isn't any safer than a 250 commercial rate pilot when they first sit into the cockpit of a 121 A/C.
#40
This is the battle cry of lower-timers and PFT salesmen. Don't believe it it for a minute...there is far more experience, judgment, and confidence to gained in 1500 hours of GA. Of course it helps if your experience is a mixture of primary, instrument, and ME instruction.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post