“1500 hour rule”
02-13-2019, 10:52 AM
#51
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by stabapch
Now that we’re a little more than 5 years in since the “1500 hour rule” was enacted, I’m curious what other pilots opinions are on this regulation. I think it was great
To Recap: This was enacted as a result of the Colgan Air 3407 crash. The one that revealed some of the truth of the regional airline industry to the public. The law was enacted as the result of the FAA and congress deciding that pilots should have the qualifications to obtain an ATP before flying in 121 airline service and that some other loopholes in the industry needed to be tightened. The accident was just the final thing that brought it to the forefront of their attention
Was lack of experience, defined as logged flight-time, really the cause for this tragedy? Nobody will ever know. But the FAA and congress decided that it likely could have been a contributing factor and that pilots should have a general experience level to obtain an ATP before entering 121 airline service.
Soon after this new regulation took effect back in my CFI days, I was sitting down having lunch with an FAA ASI. I had to ask his opinion of it, expecting a canned answer. He nearly spit out his food, telling me this was the most useless legislation that won’t solve anything and essentially put into law to appease the families of the lost ones on the Colgan flight. I wasn’t expecting that response. That you expected a canned response just showed your lack of experience at that point. FAA inspectors are just like other pilots, largely type A, opionated, and impassioned people that will jump at any chance to share their thoughts. I happen to disagree with that specific FAA ASI
So what do you think... Did this really fix the problems of the regional industry? It helped, hopefully market forces will fix some of the remaining problems
Are the skies really that much safer now? Yes, pretty hard to argue with the current safety record. Always room for more improvement in aviaition
Do regionals still continue to get away with poor pilot treatment, regardless of union representation? Yes, but market forces along with good representation are the best chance for that changing
To Recap: This was enacted as a result of the Colgan Air 3407 crash. The one that revealed some of the truth of the regional airline industry to the public. The law was enacted as the result of the FAA and congress deciding that pilots should have the qualifications to obtain an ATP before flying in 121 airline service and that some other loopholes in the industry needed to be tightened. The accident was just the final thing that brought it to the forefront of their attention
Was lack of experience, defined as logged flight-time, really the cause for this tragedy? Nobody will ever know. But the FAA and congress decided that it likely could have been a contributing factor and that pilots should have a general experience level to obtain an ATP before entering 121 airline service.
Soon after this new regulation took effect back in my CFI days, I was sitting down having lunch with an FAA ASI. I had to ask his opinion of it, expecting a canned answer. He nearly spit out his food, telling me this was the most useless legislation that won’t solve anything and essentially put into law to appease the families of the lost ones on the Colgan flight. I wasn’t expecting that response. That you expected a canned response just showed your lack of experience at that point. FAA inspectors are just like other pilots, largely type A, opionated, and impassioned people that will jump at any chance to share their thoughts. I happen to disagree with that specific FAA ASI
So what do you think... Did this really fix the problems of the regional industry? It helped, hopefully market forces will fix some of the remaining problems
Are the skies really that much safer now? Yes, pretty hard to argue with the current safety record. Always room for more improvement in aviaition
Do regionals still continue to get away with poor pilot treatment, regardless of union representation? Yes, but market forces along with good representation are the best chance for that changing
02-13-2019, 11:08 AM
#52
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2019
Posts: 408
Interesting that this article states that the NTSB and FAA weren’t onboard with this legislation. Or atleast the mandated increase of experience part.
“The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) agrees. Before the 1500-hour rule went into effect, the NTSB stated, “total flight hours . . . does not necessarily equate to the level of knowledge, skills and professionalism required for consistently safe flight operations.” Similar views were held by the FAA. But the agency ultimately caved under pressure from lawmakers and special interest groups.”
https://jdasolutions.aero/blog/1500-hour-pilot-rule/
“The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) agrees. Before the 1500-hour rule went into effect, the NTSB stated, “total flight hours . . . does not necessarily equate to the level of knowledge, skills and professionalism required for consistently safe flight operations.” Similar views were held by the FAA. But the agency ultimately caved under pressure from lawmakers and special interest groups.”
https://jdasolutions.aero/blog/1500-hour-pilot-rule/
02-13-2019, 11:56 AM
#53
Ref +8
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: North by Midwest
Posts: 383
Originally Posted by stabapch
Regardless, somebody came up with 1500 to get an ATP. The point being is that they blamed the crash on inexperienced pilots. This wasn’t the case if were classifying experience as logbook TT. Under the new legislation, both of these pilots were qualified based on hours. If they were trying to justify lack of experience as the problem, maybe the ATP mins should have been raised to 5000..
The Colgan accident wasn’t a question of total time experience but an issue of fatigue, improper training and bad judgement.
02-13-2019, 01:19 PM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by stabapch
Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against the legislation solely due to the fact that it forced the regionals to upgrade the QOL offered as a result market forces.
What I think is wrong is that the crash that triggered these reforms was mainly blamed on lack of experience. The general public seen it this way. Facts as in logbook hours refute this claim. Nobody will ever know, but I would contest the actions they took were caused by far more negative variables due to what the industry forced on them and lack of experience was not one. But, non-pilots or people with no 121 won’t see this side of things.
At that time I was just a CFI and didn’t really know much about the airline industry. But now as I’m part of it, maybe the more ethical reform (because lawmakers care about ethics.....) I would have been looking for is a law that protects passengers and employees from airlines being able to outsource any type of work. That would be more just.
What I think is wrong is that the crash that triggered these reforms was mainly blamed on lack of experience. The general public seen it this way. Facts as in logbook hours refute this claim. Nobody will ever know, but I would contest the actions they took were caused by far more negative variables due to what the industry forced on them and lack of experience was not one. But, non-pilots or people with no 121 won’t see this side of things.
At that time I was just a CFI and didn’t really know much about the airline industry. But now as I’m part of it, maybe the more ethical reform (because lawmakers care about ethics.....) I would have been looking for is a law that protects passengers and employees from airlines being able to outsource any type of work. That would be more just.
02-13-2019, 02:18 PM
#55
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2019
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by word302
The part you're missing is that neither of these pilots would have been hired by the airlines as early in their careers under the new rule. Sure they both had 1500 at the time of the crash, but neither of them had significant experience before working for a 121 operation. Experience=more than just time in your logbook.
02-13-2019, 02:19 PM
#56
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,211
Originally Posted by word302
The part you're missing is that neither of these pilots would have been hired by the airlines as early in their careers under the new rule. Sure they both had 1500 at the time of the crash, but neither of them had significant experience before working for a 121 operation. Experience=more than just time in your logbook.
- You're actually in charge.
- You get to lead/manage a crew (for most folks who do the CFI thing).
- You will experience some equipment failures (more significant than FADEC Channel 2a).
- You'll probably get nervous or even scared once or twice.
- You'll learn about complacency.
- You'll learn about competing economic and safety demands.
Zero-to-hero 121 FO's don't have any of that. Odds are very, very low that they'll have to make tough calls or get scared. They will get complacent as all hell, and won't get cured of that until they learn the hard way as a CA. They've had a babysitter for every or almost every hour they've flown.
02-13-2019, 02:35 PM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Position: Semi-Retired...
Posts: 3,123
Originally Posted by flywithjohn
.....
The Colgan accident wasn’t a question of total time experience but an issue of fatigue, improper training and bad judgement.
The Colgan accident wasn’t a question of total time experience but an issue of fatigue, improper training and bad judgement.
Please learn long before when 50+ people are depending on you.
02-13-2019, 02:53 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Position: Semi-Retired...
Posts: 3,123
Originally Posted by vdawson
Tail stall was relevant because that’s the inputs the crew made for recovery. One of the reasons suspected is that there had recently been very extensive training on tail stalls and recoveries due to the Roselawn ATR crash in 1994. Both pilots were actually performing to recent training. The FO by retracting flaps and the CA by pulling aft on the yoke. They were also in icing conditions. It is not that hard to understand how they might have been confused. Now training for tail stalls also highlights understanding the difference in tail stalls and normal stalls.
He responded exactly as they were training transport category crews at the time, that a shaker is not stalled... it’s a warning of extreme slow flight and an impending stall... that max power and holding altitude will fly you out of the slow flight condition.
The only thing I can come up with to explain her reactions is that during stall recovery training, while going to max power and holding altitude they eventually return to clean configuration; either that or she went into go-around thought processes.
In either case, both were hired at low time and gained their “experience” watching an autopilot fly.
02-13-2019, 03:00 PM
#60
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,002
Originally Posted by DarkSideMoon
I read the report, it’s just been at least six years. Good point, my bad. My shaker is AOA derived and I forgot that that’s not how the -8 works.
The crew had activated the ice switch for the stall warning, which reset the AoA indication (which also uses a number of other inputs). The crew had not been trained for tailplane stalls, and the manufacturer is adamant that the Q400 is not susceptible. It's also covered in the report.
Regarding the 1500 hour "rule," it's the basic requirement for the Airline Transport Pilot certificate. Setting a requirement for airline applicants to meet the requirements of the ATP certificate, which has had that requirement for many decades isn't really much of a stretch. Raising the standard to ATP standards isn't arbitrary, either, given that it's been a baseline standard for decades.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
