MAJOR news about 1500 hour rule change
11-15-2017, 10:59 AM
#1
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Position: CFI
Posts: 88
MAJOR news about 1500 hour rule change
I just got done with a lecture at University of North Dakota and decided to ask the professor a question about this new proposal. He was the Master Executive Council Chairman at American eagle along with being the Department Chair in the aviation department up at UND, Very respected guy within the aviation industry.
He has been in communication with people in Washington D.C and he told me that probably within 6-12 month there will be at-least a 250 hour reduction to the hours. This would mean that for us at UND we will go down to 750 hours.
He said he along with the lawmakers are about 80% sure it will be passed. He seemed very confident as well.
He went on to say the UND will be reducing students accepted next year due to the major shortage of CFI's available. Things are gonna get a little messy up here. He said the average student who will get accepted into the program will have to have at-least a 22 ACT along with 3.0GPA which is a big step up from before. The industry is about to have a massive issue with staffing CFI's..... Also mentioned even if UND offered 50K to flight instructors why would they stay when they can clear that easily at a regional and later on major? sh*t is gonna hit the fan in my opinion
Also he mentioned legacy carriers have been approaching UND about putting together a pathway program direct to the major airline. He said the discussion was started roughly at the start of this school year. He said even though this is just the beginning of the talks that he would not be surprised if we saw a pathway program setup within the next 1-4 years.
Let me know what you guys think.
-John
He has been in communication with people in Washington D.C and he told me that probably within 6-12 month there will be at-least a 250 hour reduction to the hours. This would mean that for us at UND we will go down to 750 hours.
He said he along with the lawmakers are about 80% sure it will be passed. He seemed very confident as well.
He went on to say the UND will be reducing students accepted next year due to the major shortage of CFI's available. Things are gonna get a little messy up here. He said the average student who will get accepted into the program will have to have at-least a 22 ACT along with 3.0GPA which is a big step up from before. The industry is about to have a massive issue with staffing CFI's..... Also mentioned even if UND offered 50K to flight instructors why would they stay when they can clear that easily at a regional and later on major? sh*t is gonna hit the fan in my opinion
Also he mentioned legacy carriers have been approaching UND about putting together a pathway program direct to the major airline. He said the discussion was started roughly at the start of this school year. He said even though this is just the beginning of the talks that he would not be surprised if we saw a pathway program setup within the next 1-4 years.
Let me know what you guys think.
-John
Last edited by jdebrey; 11-15-2017 at 11:11 AM.
11-15-2017, 11:12 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 521
If true, that would be terrible for pilots and aviation in general.
The CFI's that are coming out of these programs are usually the weakest in training anyways. Why would we lessen the requirements even more?
I would much rather lower the requirements for those that went and flew 135, in a real airplane, in a variety of airspaces and conditions. CFI's typically have very little experience in busy airspace (and different areas of the country), little experience in bad weather, and fly very simple airplanes.
There are CFI's going to the airlines right now that have zero hours in actual IMC, have zero hours in a class B airport, and have only 25 hours in a multiengine airplane. 1000 hours at the airlines later, they are captains. Some have never deiced an airplane, never had an emergency, never navigated around a real thunderstorm, and are now captains of a regional jet.
Many CFI's have flown the same hour, over and over, 1500 times. The good ones go out and get real experience, but many do not.
The CFI's that are coming out of these programs are usually the weakest in training anyways. Why would we lessen the requirements even more?
I would much rather lower the requirements for those that went and flew 135, in a real airplane, in a variety of airspaces and conditions. CFI's typically have very little experience in busy airspace (and different areas of the country), little experience in bad weather, and fly very simple airplanes.
There are CFI's going to the airlines right now that have zero hours in actual IMC, have zero hours in a class B airport, and have only 25 hours in a multiengine airplane. 1000 hours at the airlines later, they are captains. Some have never deiced an airplane, never had an emergency, never navigated around a real thunderstorm, and are now captains of a regional jet.
Many CFI's have flown the same hour, over and over, 1500 times. The good ones go out and get real experience, but many do not.
11-15-2017, 11:15 AM
#3
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Position: CFI
Posts: 88
Originally Posted by AboveAndBeyond
If true, that would be terrible for pilots and aviation in general.
The CFI's that are coming out of these programs are usually the weakest in training anyways. Why would we lessen the requirements even more?
I would much rather lower the requirements for those that went and flew 135, in a real airplane, in a variety of airspaces and conditions. CFI's typically have very little experience in busy airspace (and different areas of the country), little experience in bad weather, and fly very simple airplanes.
There are CFI's going to the airlines right now that have zero hours in actual IMC, have zero hours in a class B airport, and have only 25 hours in a multiengine airplane. 1000 hours at the airlines later, they are captains. Some have never deiced an airplane, never had an emergency, never navigated around a real thunderstorm, and are now captains of a regional jet.
Many CFI's have flown the same hour, over and over, 1500 times. The good ones go out and get real experience, but many do not.
The CFI's that are coming out of these programs are usually the weakest in training anyways. Why would we lessen the requirements even more?
I would much rather lower the requirements for those that went and flew 135, in a real airplane, in a variety of airspaces and conditions. CFI's typically have very little experience in busy airspace (and different areas of the country), little experience in bad weather, and fly very simple airplanes.
There are CFI's going to the airlines right now that have zero hours in actual IMC, have zero hours in a class B airport, and have only 25 hours in a multiengine airplane. 1000 hours at the airlines later, they are captains. Some have never deiced an airplane, never had an emergency, never navigated around a real thunderstorm, and are now captains of a regional jet.
Many CFI's have flown the same hour, over and over, 1500 times. The good ones go out and get real experience, but many do not.
11-15-2017, 11:25 AM
#4
2 days off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: Embraer Systems Analyst
Posts: 1,853
Of course they would be confident in that because their ability to keep the pilot mill going puts food on the table. Your school wants the hours dropped. I hope it doesnt, we already have low time guys in the left seat but introducing low time FOs again would be unsafe.
11-15-2017, 11:29 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,542
I mentor a guy who has a Masters Degree in Aerospace Engineering. He has forgotten more about airplanes than most of us will ever know.
Yet someone with an Associates Degree in Aviation from some low tier school can get hired with 250 hours less than him.
In my mind, lower all mins to 1,000 hours (maybe keep military training at 750). This carve out for special interest Aviation universities is BS!
Yet someone with an Associates Degree in Aviation from some low tier school can get hired with 250 hours less than him.
In my mind, lower all mins to 1,000 hours (maybe keep military training at 750). This carve out for special interest Aviation universities is BS!
11-15-2017, 11:35 AM
#6
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Position: CFI
Posts: 88
Originally Posted by minimwage4
Of course they would be confident in that because their ability to keep the pilot mill going puts food on the table. Your school wants the hours dropped. I hope it doesnt, we already have low time guys in the left seat but introducing low time FOs again would be unsafe.
Maybe I'm not looking at it correctly.
11-15-2017, 11:42 AM
#7
Just Plane Stupid
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Captain
Posts: 457
I'm an instructor at my airline. Most of the pilots that I have experienced over the last 2 years, SUCK! No, they really SUCK! Their attitude is another topic for discussion. Automation is definitely keeping passengers safe in this world of risk management.
11-15-2017, 11:44 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 521
The schools have been lobbying for the reduction.
Why would anyone spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for their flight training at a major university when most part 61 schools turn out pilots that are as good or better (depending on the school) for thousands of dollars less? The schools are using the reduced minimums as a selling point to get students to waste their money.
Why would anyone spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for their flight training at a major university when most part 61 schools turn out pilots that are as good or better (depending on the school) for thousands of dollars less? The schools are using the reduced minimums as a selling point to get students to waste their money.
11-15-2017, 11:52 AM
#9
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Position: CFI
Posts: 88
Originally Posted by AboveAndBeyond
The schools have been lobbying for the reduction.
Why would anyone spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for their flight training at a major university when most part 61 schools turn out pilots that are as good or better (depending on the school) for thousands of dollars less? The schools are using the reduced minimums as a selling point to get students to waste their money.
Why would anyone spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for their flight training at a major university when most part 61 schools turn out pilots that are as good or better (depending on the school) for thousands of dollars less? The schools are using the reduced minimums as a selling point to get students to waste their money.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
aviatoralex
Flight Schools and Training
18
06-27-2011 01:51 PM
