The US also operates thousands more flights a day than all of Europe combined. I’d bet fatalities are less per 100,000 pax carried in the same time frame.

They do all the time.

The difference IMO is the visibility with this one. It's far simpler and more direct if something goes wrong.

Last 121 passenger fatality:
https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/avia...ocuments-show/

But if you want to look at air carriers, as in scheduled operations, numbers might be quite a bit different. The US tends to have a lot more places with air service/flights, given we don't have the rail-network of Europe with all the big countries so close. Air carriers should be the only important number, rather than chopping it up 121 vs 135. 135 includes both on-demand and commuter air-carrier, which feeds larger airlines. Of course "regionals" used to all be 135, then there was the rule change, but there are still lots and lots of 135 air carriers doing scheduled service to places every day. These should count just as much.

sooo…you’re comparing Europe 121 to US 121 and 135 combined? Doesn’t quite sound like a fair comparison

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...322eaa3341.jpg

Also...

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...28ea98c33b.jpg

Comparing 121 to 135 is apples to oranges with different standards under each reg……

Where are you getting these stats? Do you even google? Holy crap you're way off.

​​​​​​We have, by far, the safest aviation system in the world. Not even close.

This is just the neo-conservative tinfoil BS that permeates 90% of your posts.

LOL if you think I'm a "neo-conservative" then you don't understand what that means ha ha ha

18k to start!?!? Damn, you got lucky! Some of the regionals started at 14–16k. And were based up in the Northeast, to boot! I remember a buddy of mine telling me how management at his outfit sent a memo to the pilots telling them not to buy food with food stamps while in uniform. Yea, the pay back in the day was awful.

Yep. Mohawk.

No, not a valid comparison.

135 is another animal entirely. Among many other differences they don't have a 1500/ATP rule so irrelevant to this discussion.

Basically some dude just said 1500 hours doesn't make a difference, while pointing out that we've had 1 fatality in 121 in the last five years but 1200 in 135???

I excluded SWA because that had nothing to do with pilots.

Your numbers are grossly wrong, two orders of magnitude too high. We're talking 121 here, not 135/GA. The 1500 hour rule applies only to 121.

Go to the FAA website and do the math


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thats not at all helpful, but okay.

Show your work. You made the claim.

You’re telling me that 2500 hrs 121 plus checking and testing couldn’t fix what another 1000hrs part 91 SE piston would have?

Everyone is going in circles. Here’s what we know.

- Fatigue played a HUGE part in the accident.
- He had subpar performances and Evals dating back to flight school. It followed him into his professional career.


If it wasn’t P2F, he probably would’ve been kicked out a long time ago.

It *should* have filtered him out but that was a different failing.

1000 hours in GA might have scared him... either scared straight or maybe into quitting. I knew people who did both.

The guy did not understand his own limitations, somebody with his natural aptitude attempting to perform a brutally complex coupled straight-in ILS should not have been shooting the breeze with the FO, he should have been sitting up straight, laser-focused on managing his airspeed (since the AP was doing everything else).

Also the colgan crash was the chickens coming home to roost... for decades the regionals wouldn't touch pilots with less than 1000-3000 hours, but they got a little shortage going on and suddenly decided (some of them) to break their own rules. The fed just intervened to remove the temptation to make bad choices.

135 is also air carrier.

You know it’s not the same as 121. Different requirements on almost every single level. Please don’t play stupid.

Mmmmm….I certainly wouldn’t call him stupid.
Next to Rick he’s one of the most level headed guys here.
I’ll take the bait, how is it different?
Approved training providers, testing, checking, POI’s, record keeping, duty and rest rules etc etc etc.
Like how is a BBJ on a 135 certificate different from your 121 ops?

This thread is the **** show that I expected it to be. Bottom line is for all those people saying that you can't prove that the 1500 hour rule is responsible for America's impeccable safety record since Cogan, well you can't prove that it hasn't been a significant factor either. Also you act like Cogan is the only reason it came about and ignore all the accidents and incidences before that were a result of bad airmanship and poor aeronautical decision making.

Regardless of the impact if the 1500 hour rule if you are a pilot and you are against it then you are an idiot. Someone who loves bite off their nose to spite their own face. Perfect airline management material.

Quite some assumptions there.
Let me ask you this, how many of you were against it when it was a proposed rule?
At 250 hrs you still need to pass training, a type ride, OE etc etc etc.
Why would you want to put a completely arbitrary number there?
HTF does doodling around help you in a 121 world? It’s a different universe.
Like you failed your Private and your Instrument 25 years ago, it’s ludicrous to hold that against somebody.
A degree in underwater basket weaving or god forbid, Liberal arts….smh

probably not much different. But you do understand that part 135 also includes Cessna 207 operators in Alaska, right? To compare that directly to large jetliners in Europe is ludicrous

‘Come on man, you know the FAA has loose oversight of 135 operators to the point that many of them get away with shady stuff because of it. Barriers of entry to getting a 135 certificate is also much lower than getting a 121 operating certificate. There’s a big difference between 135 and 121 certificates.

So whose fault is that?
There’s as much shady stuff going on in 121 as there is in 135.
That was a dream shattered when I went from a ‘good’ 135 operator to a ‘shady’ 121(s).
I was seriously taken aback that scumbag operators could make it to that level in commercial aviation.
That’s because somebody lets them.
F-A-A

Consider this: Dropping part 121 hiring minimums to 250 or 500 hours will *WIPE OUT* the current supply of CFI’s. Who will then be there to train the next wave of pilots??? And the next, and the next, and the next.

For the regional airline industry, lower hiring minimums will be a short-term gain,….. with LONG TERM PAIN,…. for the ENTIRE aviation world.

Not to be a pain but how much do you know about “Airline training” in Europe?
https://www.pilotcareernews.com/blac...avia-training/
The MPL program mentioned in this article is 22(!) months. Then it’s right seat 737.
Thats a far cry from a Part 61 3-months Commercial then right seat Regionals.
Same number of hours.
You tell me if there’s a difference.

The difference is that once you get to the right seat of an airliner, there are some things which you stop learning because the operation is safety buffered to keep you away from many "learning opportunities".

The bigger the airliner, the less opportunity to learn basic airplane stuff. Long haul is mostly computer programming and plotting ETOPS waypoints. Maybe a landing every few weeks (or maybe just a quarterly trip to the sim).

IMO book learning and computer programming don't make up for lack of airplane experience (I'm well educated and I even know how to write code).

I’m not sure I follow. My point is that a Cessna 207 single pilot operation is in no way comparable to a crewed jetliner operation. I’m not talking about experience, but rather I’m pointing out that the poster’s comparison is completely invalid.

I used to teach in an EASA MPL program for a European LCC.

The washout rate is more than 50%, students pay their own training. The actual timeline is 3-4 years. A majority of students end up with several training failures and restarts. It's not pretty.

135 commuter air carrier is only "one level" below 121, in many cases, they run more complex operations with many more airplanes, staff, etc. There are some pretty small 121 operations out there. If you want to be grouping "airlines" though, it's best to specify, since airline and air carrier are words that can easily contain both parts, based on all the requirements they meet and the service they provide. There are lot more of these options (both small 121 and large 135) than many people know about. Yes, many 135 operators with two-crew operations/environments, FOs, etc. For the larger aircraft, many of the requirements are the same or very similar. 121 goes into more depth in most cases, but not all. If one is looking at airliner fatalities, why wouldn't we consider all scheduled operations?

Because they’re not at all comparable. You’re comparing piston singles to jetliners.

So what kind of airplane do you have to fly to be an "airline"? Where is that written down? Many, probably over half, of the commuter (scheduled) operations are turboprop and/or multi-engine and/or multi-crew operations. The single-pilot piston stuff mainly on-demand. Air carrier is what I'm talking about.

So my question is, why wouldn't you consider all of the air carrier fatalities for the accident rate? If you are going to limit to 121, that's fine, just say "121".

This thread is about “Regional Airlines” and axing the “1500 Hour Rule” (which doesn’t exist for part 135). It should be self evident that we are trying to discuss only the 121 world.

The 1,500 hour rule was pretty arbitrary, but at the same time it forces new pilots to get experience flying outside of a training environment. Those hours of flying without a flight instructor next to you is where you really build your Aeronautical Decision Making, and you probably make some bad calls that you get to learn from because of the lower stakes involved. Especially since these days a new hire is likely to be a Captain within two years at a regional, I do think those extra hours really make a difference.

FAR 61.160 is what we are discussing in this thread, and it only applies to certain operations. It appears you would like to have a discussion about something else, which is confusing the rest of us.

Doesn't 135 still require a minimum of 1200TT? Seems like that's what I remember from my check hauling days before I could be assigned an IFR run.

Thats a very idealistic view.
Especially since there’s no requirement for those hours to be anything but drilling holes in the sky.
I know of people that bought their own clapped out Cherokee 140 because they didn’t want to flight instruct.
Look at all the shared time building threads on this forum. Safety pilot “PIC” what a joke.
So you think another 400 hrs in your uncle’s Arrow and 400 hrs of banner towing and 400 hrs of flight instruction magically makes you the better pilot?

Let’s say 0-CFI at a 141 school then 1200 hrs of flight instruction at same school:
Designated practice area’s, assigned cross countries, canned stage checks.
1500 hrs and a ATP-ME and you’ve literally not been out of State.

That’s why a numerical threshold doesn’t mean anything.
Period.