Originally Posted by sulkair

Block, have you been speaking with the check-airman here? I have. It has been very frustrating for them. What you say about a young low time pilot is true, but the trend vector is toward improvement - vast quick improvement. Generally speaking (there are exceptions) the old guys with 2000 hours logged someplace in time tend to resist new ideas, have less mental plasticity, and generally speaking, struggle more with 121 training.

I agree with you, experience is the great and invaluable gem us 'older timers' have to offer, but you have to get through the training pipeline first. That's the problem. It's taking a lot of effort and money for many of these guys.

Believe me when you have a fifteen year check-airman very regrettably tell you he's failed more people in the last 6 months than in his whole career, and directly places his frustration on the older candidates, you get a picture of what's going on.

It's nothing personal, just what's going on. Many push through and will become awesome experienced additions to the cockpit, but it's getting them there that's the challenge. Good thing our training dept is among the best in the biz.

Originally Posted by block30

...is the frustration an experience thing or an age thing?

Originally Posted by block30

...As "PilotAnalyst", a poster, pilot, and statistician pointed out; 1,000 hours total time was generally the norm in regional pilot hiring. Things haven't changed as much as the "sky is falling" crowd believes.

Originally Posted by johnso29

How so? Expand, because you're not supporting your argument at all.

Originally Posted by johnso29

Good. I'm glad they're running into these issues. Let it happen industry wide. Then maybe regionals will actually pay a livable wage, & make the investment worth it.

Better yet, maybe the RJs will go to Mainline.

Originally Posted by sulkair

Specifically I'm arguing that tooling around in a 172 in the 1980's for 1500 some odd hours in no way makes you a safer airman than a 300 hour wonder out of some academy.

The idea, obviously was that if we require all 121 FO's to have 1500 hours before they can work 121, then we've got a more safe base of FO's.

Many of the 1500 plus guys will be safer than the 300 hour wonders, but many will not. An unscientific approach to fix a problem that never existed.

Originally Posted by johnso29

That's debatable. Flying around in a C172 absolutely can make someone safer then a 300 hour wonder. In 1500 hours, one will have to make more decisions, face more weather, learn new personal limits, etc. A 300 hour wonder has been zoomed through a program under mostly ideal conditions & has little experience in making decisions, multi tasking, etc. Beyond the required cross countries, the 300 hour wonder has done little to no flying outside of a training environment. CA Renslow was a technically a 300 hour wonder. A PFT guy that pulled through a pusher and killed 50 people.

I think the issue your LCA are encountering has more to do with the quality of applicants that Mesa attracts, rather then the 1500 hour rule. Please don't take that as a shot. It isn't intended to be one. Regionals in general are becoming less desirable. LCA at other Regionals are likely encountering the same issues. The interview process should be designed to weed undesirable applicants out, but I believe the Regional industry has little to no room to be picky right now.

Originally Posted by sulkair

You know what, appearance of weakness notwithstanding, I'm going to concede that you're probably right.

I was probaby comparing apples to oranges anyway. The 1500 hour 172 guy will undoubtedly have better instincts as it applies to "not stalling the airplane"... "recovering from a stall, once you stall the airplane" as well as everything you mentioned about personal limitations, weather etc. You're absolutely right.

The 300 hour airline pilot academy with a glass jet trainer guy will be better at navigating the 121 methodology. Call outs, checklists, CRM, flight director, automation, you name it will probably be much better. But all that don't mean crap if you can't figure out you need to go-around on a bungled approach. Decision making is tough to teach. It takes experience, I agree 100%.

Great debate, and I've learned something today. I know that sounds trite given the tone of my earlier posts, but it's a computer screen, so I acted cooler than I really am

Originally Posted by sulkair

The 300 hour airline pilot academy with a glass jet trainer guy will be better at navigating the 121 methodology. Call outs, checklists, CRM, flight director, automation, you name it will probably be much better. But all that don't mean crap if you can't figure out you need to go-around on a bungled approach. Decision making is tough to teach. It takes experience, I agree 100%.

Originally Posted by sulkair

Great debate, and I've learned something today. I know that sounds trite given the tone of my earlier posts, but it's a computer screen, so I acted cooler than I really am

Originally Posted by sulkair

Specifically I'm arguing that tooling around in a 172 in the 1980's for 1500 some odd hours in no way makes you a safer airman than a 300 hour wonder out of some academy.

The idea, obviously was that if we require all 121 FO's to have 1500 hours before they can work 121, then we've got a more safe base of FO's.

Many of the 1500 plus guys will be safer than the 300 hour wonders, but many will not. An unscientific approach to fix a problem that never existed.