EAS is on the chopping block!!!
03-24-2017, 04:27 PM
#141
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2016
Posts: 54
[QUOTE=CBreezy;2327061]The ATP rule was implemented to get pilots more exposure to aviation before stepping into the cockpit of a 121 airline. The Captain of the Colgan accident was a 200 hour wonder, then slung gear at the pay to play airline Gulfstream. He had several training failures and lacked basic airmanship skills. He had more than 1500 hours when he killed all those people in Buffalo but had he accomplished a standard stall recovery when he got the stall warning and pusher, this wouldn't even be a discussion. If he had instructed to 1500 hours or flew boxes in IFR solo or any number of low time jobs, he would have been better equipped to handle the thing you're supposed to perfect as a commercial pilot. Since regional airlines couldn't be trusted to weed out bad pilots, the government mandated the pilots they hired have more experience.
The only problem I have with this argument is now that the 1500 hr rule has been in play for a few years now, has the quality of first officers gone up? If it has or has not gone up, what sort of empirical evidence are you referencing.
I don't necessarily disagree with you that 250 hr wonders are the way to go. I would say it's absolutely true having higher time FOs is ALWAYS great, but idk if I buy the whole idea that some kid with 1500hrs of flight instructing time makes all that big of a difference, and will be the deciding factor in preventing g the next crash. Remember both captain Renslow and FO Shaw had well over 1500 hrs (3,400 and 2,300 hrs respectively).
Before colgan many airlines weren't hiring people at 250 hrs, And aviation was arguably still very safe.
Also. You contradict your self. You make fun of Captain Renslow for "swinging gear". But isn't that the best sort of experience that you speak of with the 1500 hr rule? Hands on, in the seat, doing the actual job sort of experience. I would say this is much better than "steep turn left, steep turn right."
The only problem I have with this argument is now that the 1500 hr rule has been in play for a few years now, has the quality of first officers gone up? If it has or has not gone up, what sort of empirical evidence are you referencing.
I don't necessarily disagree with you that 250 hr wonders are the way to go. I would say it's absolutely true having higher time FOs is ALWAYS great, but idk if I buy the whole idea that some kid with 1500hrs of flight instructing time makes all that big of a difference, and will be the deciding factor in preventing g the next crash. Remember both captain Renslow and FO Shaw had well over 1500 hrs (3,400 and 2,300 hrs respectively).
Before colgan many airlines weren't hiring people at 250 hrs, And aviation was arguably still very safe.
Also. You contradict your self. You make fun of Captain Renslow for "swinging gear". But isn't that the best sort of experience that you speak of with the 1500 hr rule? Hands on, in the seat, doing the actual job sort of experience. I would say this is much better than "steep turn left, steep turn right."
03-24-2017, 10:14 PM
#142
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2016
Posts: 846
EAS is on the chopping block!!!
[QUOTE=AuxPumplow;2328627]
The problem was pilots getting hired at low time with barely any PIC. Even as an instructor, PIC is valuable, let alone what you learn from watching your students making mistakes and learning from them. So you have a pilot get hired at a 121 airline with very little PIC time and the next time they start making PIC decisions again, they have 30-76 passengers' lives on their hands. The building block of ADM was never there to begin with so when it comes to crisis time (whether created by their own errors or from external threats), they are not as well equipped to make good decisions and break the accident chain.
That is the issue that the ATP rule is trying to address. In any case, any hour requirement is arbitrary. The 250 hours for a commercial is just as arbitrary as the 1500 hours. I rather error on the safe side.
Originally Posted by CBreezy
The ATP rule was implemented to get pilots more exposure to aviation before stepping into the cockpit of a 121 airline. The Captain of the Colgan accident was a 200 hour wonder, then slung gear at the pay to play airline Gulfstream. He had several training failures and lacked basic airmanship skills. He had more than 1500 hours when he killed all those people in Buffalo but had he accomplished a standard stall recovery when he got the stall warning and pusher, this wouldn't even be a discussion. If he had instructed to 1500 hours or flew boxes in IFR solo or any number of low time jobs, he would have been better equipped to handle the thing you're supposed to perfect as a commercial pilot. Since regional airlines couldn't be trusted to weed out bad pilots, the government mandated the pilots they hired have more experience.
The only problem I have with this argument is now that the 1500 hr rule has been in play for a few years now, has the quality of first officers gone up? If it has or has not gone up, what sort of empirical evidence are you referencing.
I don't necessarily disagree with you that 250 hr wonders are the way to go. I would say it's absolutely true having higher time FOs is ALWAYS great, but idk if I buy the whole idea that some kid with 1500hrs of flight instructing time makes all that big of a difference, and will be the deciding factor in preventing g the next crash. Remember both captain Renslow and FO Shaw had well over 1500 hrs (3,400 and 2,300 hrs respectively).
Before colgan many airlines weren't hiring people at 250 hrs, And aviation was arguably still very safe.
Also. You contradict your self. You make fun of Captain Renslow for "swinging gear". But isn't that the best sort of experience that you speak of with the 1500 hr rule? Hands on, in the seat, doing the actual job sort of experience. I would say this is much better than "steep turn left, steep turn right."
The only problem I have with this argument is now that the 1500 hr rule has been in play for a few years now, has the quality of first officers gone up? If it has or has not gone up, what sort of empirical evidence are you referencing.
I don't necessarily disagree with you that 250 hr wonders are the way to go. I would say it's absolutely true having higher time FOs is ALWAYS great, but idk if I buy the whole idea that some kid with 1500hrs of flight instructing time makes all that big of a difference, and will be the deciding factor in preventing g the next crash. Remember both captain Renslow and FO Shaw had well over 1500 hrs (3,400 and 2,300 hrs respectively).
Before colgan many airlines weren't hiring people at 250 hrs, And aviation was arguably still very safe.
Also. You contradict your self. You make fun of Captain Renslow for "swinging gear". But isn't that the best sort of experience that you speak of with the 1500 hr rule? Hands on, in the seat, doing the actual job sort of experience. I would say this is much better than "steep turn left, steep turn right."
The problem was pilots getting hired at low time with barely any PIC. Even as an instructor, PIC is valuable, let alone what you learn from watching your students making mistakes and learning from them. So you have a pilot get hired at a 121 airline with very little PIC time and the next time they start making PIC decisions again, they have 30-76 passengers' lives on their hands. The building block of ADM was never there to begin with so when it comes to crisis time (whether created by their own errors or from external threats), they are not as well equipped to make good decisions and break the accident chain.
That is the issue that the ATP rule is trying to address. In any case, any hour requirement is arbitrary. The 250 hours for a commercial is just as arbitrary as the 1500 hours. I rather error on the safe side.
03-25-2017, 07:09 AM
#143
patience
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,068
Originally Posted by Nevjets
When I look at my budget and notice that 2% of my budget deficit is being wasted, I'm going to cut that out as part of the process to balance my budget. It makes absolutely no sense to keep wasting that 2% and find another 100% of my overspending to cut! It makes perfect sense to cut the 2% and find another 98% of what I'm overspending on.
And like I said, I'm all for cutting 10% on EVERYTHING and then going in and COMPLETELY illuminating waste. And after all said and done, we are under budget, divy up that among things like the DoD and other administration priorities.
This all makes sense unless there is some other hidden agenda.
And like I said, I'm all for cutting 10% on EVERYTHING and then going in and COMPLETELY illuminating waste. And after all said and done, we are under budget, divy up that among things like the DoD and other administration priorities.
This all makes sense unless there is some other hidden agenda.
I somewhat agree with you but there are areas of the budget that shouldn't be cut at all. You start cutting some important areas of your budget just for budget reduction sake and you end up spending more money in the long run due to the damage caused. At the very least though, spending should be frozen in every possible area and 10% cuts in other areas and larger cuts to the wasteful programs until the deficit is gone and budget is balanced. It's idiotic that our POTUS wants to increase DOD spending by $60 billion while we have a $600 billion deficit. I agree with you, wait until the budget is completely balanced before you start increasing spending on areas of priority such as DOD. And cutting massive funding to the Coast Guard to pay for the wall is more idiotic.
03-25-2017, 08:12 AM
#144
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2016
Posts: 54
[QUOTE=Nevjets;2328772]
The problem was pilots getting hired at low time with barely any PIC. Even as an instructor, PIC is valuable, let alone what you learn from watching your students making mistakes and learning from them. So you have a pilot get hired at a 121 airline with very little PIC time and the next time they start making PIC decisions again, they have 30-76 passengers' lives on their hands. The building block of ADM was never there to begin with so when it comes to crisis time (whether created by their own errors or from external threats), they are not as well equipped to make good decisions and break the accident chain.
That is the issue that the ATP rule is trying to address. In any case, any hour requirement is arbitrary. The 250 hours for a commercial is just as arbitrary as the 1500 hours. I rather error on the safe side.
The 1500 hr rule isn't necessarily about pic time. Technically it only requires you to have a min of 250 hrs pic.
And you're right. The 1500 hr rule is totally arbitrary. Just Look at how someone from Embry riddle qualifies at 1000 hrs, a community college grad 1250, and military at 750. But some kid at atp flight school needs 1500. Entirely arbitrary to give those graduates an hour exemption.
Originally Posted by AuxPumplow
The problem was pilots getting hired at low time with barely any PIC. Even as an instructor, PIC is valuable, let alone what you learn from watching your students making mistakes and learning from them. So you have a pilot get hired at a 121 airline with very little PIC time and the next time they start making PIC decisions again, they have 30-76 passengers' lives on their hands. The building block of ADM was never there to begin with so when it comes to crisis time (whether created by their own errors or from external threats), they are not as well equipped to make good decisions and break the accident chain.
That is the issue that the ATP rule is trying to address. In any case, any hour requirement is arbitrary. The 250 hours for a commercial is just as arbitrary as the 1500 hours. I rather error on the safe side.
And you're right. The 1500 hr rule is totally arbitrary. Just Look at how someone from Embry riddle qualifies at 1000 hrs, a community college grad 1250, and military at 750. But some kid at atp flight school needs 1500. Entirely arbitrary to give those graduates an hour exemption.
03-25-2017, 08:29 AM
#145
MK Ultra Candidate
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: Prime Leader of Boko Harumph
Posts: 1,167
Originally Posted by Systemized
Cutting EAS spending won't even dent the budget deficit. Our budget deficit is roughly 3% GDP and DOD spending is 5% GDP and going higher. Last balanced budget had DOD spending at 3.5% GDP and higher taxes. The country will never have a balanced budget with a military build up agenda and history proves so. If we should reduce spending like you want, the most obvious area is DOD followed by social security, cutting EAS spending is chump change.
03-25-2017, 09:56 AM
#146
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 2,559
I understand the point you are attempting to make, but if you want to be taken seriously, use facts, not opinions.
The fact is, Alasaka is about 19.3% the size of the lower 48, not 33%. That's closer to 1/5, not 1/3. (An interesting factoid is that it is larger than all but 18 countries!)
And with all that land mass, it only has 0.2% of the US population.
All of that being said, people choose to live where they live. They could also choose to live closer to an airport. Or choose not to fly. Or choose to fly in a bush plane they they pay for themselves.
The fact is, Alasaka is about 19.3% the size of the lower 48, not 33%. That's closer to 1/5, not 1/3. (An interesting factoid is that it is larger than all but 18 countries!)
And with all that land mass, it only has 0.2% of the US population.
All of that being said, people choose to live where they live. They could also choose to live closer to an airport. Or choose not to fly. Or choose to fly in a bush plane they they pay for themselves.
Originally Posted by F15Cricket
And for many of you on here, may I suggest you look at a "to scale" map of Alaska (first hint: it is not a small island off the southwest coast of California. Second hint: Alaska is about 1/3 the size of the lower 48.). We are not talking about a convenience to avoid driving two hours to another airport. .... avoiding a two week sled dog trip to another airport, maybe...
03-25-2017, 10:06 AM
#147
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 2,559
Say WHAT? Social security isn't government spending my friend. You fund it when you work, and withdraw when you retire. The 12.4% you and your employer contribute are not subsidized by the government.
Originally Posted by Systemized
If we should reduce spending like you want, the most obvious area is DOD []b]followed by social security,[/b] cutting EAS spending is chump change.
03-25-2017, 05:52 PM
#148
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2016
Posts: 846
[QUOTE=AuxPumplow;2328935]
The 1500 hr rule isn't necessarily about pic time. Technically it only requires you to have a min of 250 hrs pic.
And you're right. The 1500 hr rule is totally arbitrary. Just Look at how someone from Embry riddle qualifies at 1000 hrs, a community college grad 1250, and military at 750. But some kid at atp flight school needs 1500. Entirely arbitrary to give those graduates an hour exemption.
If it's going to be arbitrary, I rather it be 1500 hours than 250 hours. By the way, now that you require an atp for 121, and most 125/135, almost everyone will have at least 1,000 hours PIC.
Originally Posted by Nevjets
The 1500 hr rule isn't necessarily about pic time. Technically it only requires you to have a min of 250 hrs pic.
And you're right. The 1500 hr rule is totally arbitrary. Just Look at how someone from Embry riddle qualifies at 1000 hrs, a community college grad 1250, and military at 750. But some kid at atp flight school needs 1500. Entirely arbitrary to give those graduates an hour exemption.
If it's going to be arbitrary, I rather it be 1500 hours than 250 hours. By the way, now that you require an atp for 121, and most 125/135, almost everyone will have at least 1,000 hours PIC.
03-25-2017, 06:19 PM
#149
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2016
Posts: 54
[QUOTE=Nevjets;2329267]
If it's going to be arbitrary, I rather it be 1500 hours than 250 hours. By the way, now that you require an atp for 121, and most 125/135, almost everyone will have at least 1,000 hours PIC.
Actually.... That's quite debatable if everyone is going to get that sort of pic time.
Theres lots of 135 operators (boutique, cape air, ameriflight, mokulele, key lime, Sierra west, great lakes, surf air, trade wind, etc etc) who hire low time guys (around 500 hrs) they "swing gear" as sics for a couple hundred then break their training agreements and go to regionals. So yeah it is kind of bull****.
And Yeah I agree. Now that I have well over 1500 hrs keep the 1500 hr rule. In fact make it 2000 hrs. Hell make it 3000. The more it keeps the wide eye, bushy tail, sjs kids (will fly for food) out of the industry the better it is.
Originally Posted by AuxPumplow
If it's going to be arbitrary, I rather it be 1500 hours than 250 hours. By the way, now that you require an atp for 121, and most 125/135, almost everyone will have at least 1,000 hours PIC.
Theres lots of 135 operators (boutique, cape air, ameriflight, mokulele, key lime, Sierra west, great lakes, surf air, trade wind, etc etc) who hire low time guys (around 500 hrs) they "swing gear" as sics for a couple hundred then break their training agreements and go to regionals. So yeah it is kind of bull****.
And Yeah I agree. Now that I have well over 1500 hrs keep the 1500 hr rule. In fact make it 2000 hrs. Hell make it 3000. The more it keeps the wide eye, bushy tail, sjs kids (will fly for food) out of the industry the better it is.
03-25-2017, 08:25 PM
#150
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,275
The irony is that if they did away with the 1500 hour rule, people wouldn't flock back into the profession. The Regionals would still need to pony up to attract people. The cost of training will keep the majority out. I'd say a generation of people have been put off by the publicity of low pay, high expense, and bad QOL.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
