|
Lobbying to roll back 1500 hr rule:
|
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 3417547)
|
Yeah. Right now the biggest constraint is getting the SIC hours needed to upgrade in the regionals. Not enough CAs sticking around long enough to furnish the FOs with the SIC they need to upgrade.
Anyone remember where the 1000 hr requirement came from? Most study derived numbers don’t end in three zeroes. That’s more the number you get when you pull it from some administrator or politicians orifice. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3417625)
Yeah. Right now the biggest constraint is getting the SIC hours needed to upgrade in the regionals. Not enough CAs sticking around long enough to furnish the FOs with the SIC they need to upgrade.
Anyone remember where the 1000 hr requirement came from? Most study derived numbers don’t end in three zeroes. That’s more the number you get when you pull it from some administrator or politicians orifice. the 1498.666666 hour rule just doesn’t roll off the tongue quite as well. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3417625)
Yeah. Right now the biggest constraint is getting the SIC hours needed to upgrade in the regionals. Not enough CAs sticking around long enough to furnish the FOs with the SIC they need to upgrade.
Anyone remember where the 1000 hr requirement came from? Most study derived numbers don’t end in three zeroes. That’s more the number you get when you pull it from some administrator or politicians orifice. Not taking a stand one way or the other. Just asking the question? |
The threat to airlines are lines and waiting.
|
The 1500 hour rule for ATPs isn't really 1500 hrs. It's 1500/1250/1000/750 hrs, depending on how you accumulated your hours.
Plus, you can get the restricted ATP at age 21. Are they trying to roll FO minimums back to Commercial license? |
Up the retirement age to 67 and overnight there’s a to year buffer to sort out the pilot shortage and doesn’t require changes to flight time minimums.
|
Originally Posted by Thor
(Post 3417751)
Up the retirement age to 67 and overnight there’s a to year buffer to sort out the pilot shortage and doesn’t require changes to flight time minimums.
The guys (and gals) who left you are not going to get back. They are either drinking Margueritas on a beach somewhere or have already found a job flying a Pilatus or Bizjet for someone. At 65, a lot of their pilot brethren will join them - far more than would keep flying until 67. And your chances of changing the federal law in the five months run up to an election are pretty near nil anyway. |
When many EAS routes stop getting serviced there's going to be a lot of unhappy politicians. For those familiar with flight training, wouldn't cutting the 1500 hours to a lower number decimate the CFI ranks? Just robbing Peter to pay Paul? Age 65 wouldn't do much as already posted above, but the 1000 hour rule would be the most effective I'd guess. I'd also guess the FAA will push back hard on that thou.
|
Originally Posted by AirBear
(Post 3417780)
When many EAS routes stop getting serviced there's going to be a lot of unhappy politicians. For those familiar with flight training, wouldn't cutting the 1500 hours to a lower number decimate the CFI ranks? Just robbing Peter to pay Paul? Age 65 wouldn't do much as already posted above, but the 1000 hour rule would be the most effective I'd guess. I'd also guess the FAA will push back hard on that thou.
The 1,500 hour rule might be kind of stupid, but it’s not the problem. It’s actually a good idea to force CFI’s to fly 1,500 hours from a stability standpoint. Just to dumb it down, a 141 school graduate requires a 1,000 hours before leaving for a regional. That CFI usually receives all his/her Ratings with around 200 total hours, then has to instruct for another 800 to get their 1,000 hours. That’s around 4 students they can produce to replace their position. That’s good, it produces more future aviators. Maybe Kirby has changed his viewpoint on where the shortage is an issue, but not too recently he blamed it on student training costs and the 1,500 hour rule. That’s not where the major issue lies. It’s regional Captains, that’s where the ranks are on the verge of decimating the future inflow of well trained pilots into the industry. EAS routes will shrink dramatically (and already are) due to lack of Regional Captains to fly those routes, but that’s just the Preliminary or “Undercard” to the Main Event. |
I’m left scratching my head why you all are brainstorming how to fix this problem. The same problem that gives us incredible leverage to advance the profession in our respective Section 6 negotiations.
I hope to hell that the 1.500 rule doesn’t get repealed (for safety’s sake as well). |
It seems to me the only realistic long term solution is for mainline aircraft to pick up the slack. More 737s and A320s will be on routes once serviced by 175s. The A220 will become a much more popular aircraft. Overall a great thing for pilots. But I don’t think the realistic solution lies in changing hours one way or another. Adapt to the pilots that are available.
|
Once the E295 shows up on American shores I’ll believe it.
|
Originally Posted by WHACKMASTER
(Post 3417795)
I hope to hell that the 1.500 rule doesn’t get repealed (for safety’s sake as well).
|
Originally Posted by ASAP
(Post 3417968)
Man, you and I both. And the talk about reducing the SIC time of 1000 hours to upgrade makes me cringe. 1000 hours in the right seat is absolute minimum to be qualified to sign for a jet in which 76 souls are entrusting their safety.
|
Originally Posted by Jhsouders
(Post 3418013)
I am coming out the military next year as a Aircraft Commander in the V-22 (24 passenger capacity) and I will only have restricted ATP mins. I am having a hell of a time finding a job besides the regionals. I would say your ability to conduct safe flight operations highly depends on the quality of flight time that a pilot has.
Most majors do not hire R-ATPs, the best ones require full ATP. Maybe some ULCC's do, but they might to be VERY reluctant to hire a winged mil guy/gal, because they know for sure you'll be gone once you get 1500-2000 hours. So kind of catch-22, probably just need to pick a regional with a junior base near where you want to live and get on with it. It's OK to line up an airline job in advance and then drop out with some reasonable notice if you get a better offer later. Keep pressing, in this climate you never know. But where you ultimately want to end up at your age is big three or FDX, due to mass retirements. You could also do corporate/135 but regional 121 experience and a transport-category type rating will do more for you app scoring than most corporate. |
Originally Posted by Jhsouders
(Post 3418013)
I am coming out the military next year as a Aircraft Commander in the V-22 (24 passenger capacity) and I will only have restricted ATP mins. I am having a hell of a time finding a job besides the regionals. I would say your ability to conduct safe flight operations highly depends on the quality of flight time that a pilot has.
|
Originally Posted by Jhsouders
(Post 3418013)
I am coming out the military next year as a Aircraft Commander in the V-22 (24 passenger capacity) and I will only have restricted ATP mins. I am having a hell of a time finding a job besides the regionals. I would say your ability to conduct safe flight operations highly depends on the quality of flight time that a pilot has.
Also, the fact that you even have an R-ATP is because someone agreed with you about the quality of the flight time. Instead of feeling sorry for yourself, you should be thanking your lucky stars you can go straight to a regional instead of hacking out hundreds of hours as a CFI. Also, you should have known what the requirements for airlines were before you jumped ship. Being salty about a rule that benefits the profession as a whole because of your (possibly) poor planning is not a good look. And this is no hate toward mil guys, I was/am one. |
Originally Posted by jaxsurf
(Post 3418074)
So what’s your suggestion? Repeal the 1,500 hour rule because it doesn’t benefit you personally?
Also, the fact that you even have an R-ATP is because someone agreed with you about the quality of the flight time. Instead of feeling sorry for yourself, you should be thanking your lucky stars you can go straight to a regional instead of hacking out hundreds of hours as a CFI. Also, you should have known what the requirements for airlines were before you jumped ship. Being salty about a rule that benefits the profession as a whole because of your (possibly) poor planning is not a good look. And this is no hate toward mil guys, I was/am one. And no way in hell we should repeal or roll back the 1500 rule. Same goes for the 1000sic to upgrade. Hell no |
Originally Posted by jaxsurf
(Post 3418074)
So what’s your suggestion? Repeal the 1,500 hour rule because it doesn’t benefit you personally?
Also, the fact that you even have an R-ATP is because someone agreed with you about the quality of the flight time. Instead of feeling sorry for yourself, you should be thanking your lucky stars you can go straight to a regional instead of hacking out hundreds of hours as a CFI. Also, you should have known what the requirements for airlines were before you jumped ship. Being salty about a rule that benefits the profession as a whole because of your (possibly) poor planning is not a good look. And this is no hate toward mil guys, I was/am one. https://youtu.be/syV2LkGpQB0 |
They need to readjust the rule. 1000 because you paid an enormous amount of money to get a 4 yr degree in Aviation doesn’t make you a better pilot than someone who passed the same checkrides with 1000TT but has a 4 yr degree in a different subject matter. Actually the 2nd student is smarter so when he/she gets furloughed (not if but when), they have another field to fall back on. So if you want to change anything, make the Mins 1000TT with any 4-yr degree. (Now here come the Aviation Universities whining and protesting that idea)
|
Originally Posted by CFIsoonToBeFO
(Post 3418213)
They need to readjust the rule. 1000 because you paid an enormous amount of money to get a 4 yr degree in Aviation doesn’t make you a better pilot than someone who passed the same checkrides with 1000TT but has a 4 yr degree in a different subject matter. Actually the 2nd student is smarter so when he/she gets furloughed (not if but when), they have another field to fall back on. So if you want to change anything, make the Mins 1000TT with any 4-yr degree. (Now here come the Aviation Universities whining and protesting that idea)
|
Originally Posted by CFIsoonToBeFO
(Post 3418213)
They need to readjust the rule. 1000 because you paid an enormous amount of money to get a 4 yr degree in Aviation doesn’t make you a better pilot than someone who passed the same checkrides with 1000TT but has a 4 yr degree in a different subject matter.
|
Originally Posted by Slow2Final
(Post 3418288)
No military exceptions either.
|
Originally Posted by jaxsurf
(Post 3418337)
What’s your reasoning for this?
One could argue it shouldn't apply equally either. An army helicopter pilot has no business with an ATP at 750 hours, I'd rather have a green CFI next to me. |
Originally Posted by povertyeagle
(Post 3418352)
There is a shortage of Military pilots because of it. They can stay there to the full 1500.
One could argue it shouldn't apply equally either. An army helicopter pilot has no business with an ATP at 750 hours, I'd rather have a green CFI next to me. I agree with the rest though. |
There is a shortage of pilots because they no longer train the number of pilots they once did. BRAC closed UPT bases like Reese, Williams, Laredo, Webb, Craig and allowed NATO allies to do their training at others like Sheppard. Their Associated MOAs and training areas went with them and will never be recovered. Back in WWII the military turned out 50,000 pilots a year. Then came the post Cold War drawdown of active squadrons.
From a recent RAND study: Origins of the Current Pilot Shortage To ensure the Air Force remains staffed with the appropriate quantities of all types of pilots the Service monitors the aircrew management pipeline. This framework encompasses three components: pilot production, absorption and retention. Each segment is equally important, and the flow of pilots through each phase must be balanced to ensure aircrew communities are fully staffed with pilots of all experience levels. Following the end of the Cold War, the USAF underwent a massive drawdown that limited production and absorption capacity. The drawdown decreased USAF manpower end strength which greatly reduced the number of pilot positions, and decreased the total number of flying units. The active component endured a 48% decrease in the primary mission aircraft inventory (PMAI) (Taylor, Bigelow and Ausink, 2009). With fewer line aircraft on the tarmac, fewer sorties could be flown each day. This reality was felt most severely by junior pilots, who needed to fly frequently in order to promptly complete their training objectives. With a decreased stock of aircraft, the service could not absorb as many new fighter pilots. The scarcity of training sorties increases the challenge for new fighter pilots to fly 500 training hours, and officially be recognized as “experienced” pilots.1 The post-Cold War drawdown also motivated the closure of one of the service’s four primary pilot training bases (Taylor, Bigelow and Ausink, 2009).2 The Air Force closed Williams AFB in 1993, decreasing the USAF’s pilot production capability. With only three undergraduate pilot training (UPT) bases remaining, the USAF simply could not produce as many pilots per year as it could during the Cold War Today the three remaining UPT bases struggle to turn out 1100 pilots a year. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3418497)
There is a shortage of pilots because they no longer train the number of pilots they once did. BRAC closed UPT bases like Reese, Williams, Laredo, Webb, Craig and allowed NATO allies to do their training at others like Sheppard. Their Associated MOAs and training areas went with them and will never be recovered. Back in WWII the military turned out 50,000 pilots a year. Then came the post Cold War drawdown of active squadrons.r.
There is a huge retirement wave to age demographics in the US pilot force right now. Military aircraft tend to be more capable than they used to be, and therefor more costly. Especially tacair... to do X warfighting you need Y logistic aircraft and that hasn't changed much. But you can get by with a lot fewer fighters today, and as always budgets constrain. The military is a minority producer of airline pilots and will stay that way for the foreseeable future. Our opponents may increase numbers but they can neither develop nor afford the kind of bleeding-edge hardware that would be required to force us dramatically increase our tacair inventory. In fact the DoD is actually now buying updated 4th gen fighters as a cheaper, faster alternative to costly 5/6 gen hardware... 4-1/2 gen hardware is plenty sufficient for many roles in a peer fight. The reason we have a pilot shortage, fundamentally, is that the industry somehow disregarded the very simple math involving retirement age, mil pilot output, and civilian flight training output. Also maybe blind to the fact that younger generations are not quite as oriented to get away from the farm and have some adventures as the pre-internet demographic. They could very easily have solved this in advance by setting up schools, recruiting suitable and applicants, then paying them to do primary training. The problem with that is long lead-time and they missed the boat. If push comes to shove you can give somebody 1500 hours in a crew-oriented program (you can do simulated crew ops in a 172) and put them in the right seat of a legacy narrowbody. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3418538)
It's not as simple as Drawdown/BRAC.
There is a huge retirement wave to age demographics in the US pilot force right now. Military aircraft tend to be more capable than they used to be, and therefor more costly. Especially tacair... to do X warfighting you need Y logistic aircraft and that hasn't changed much. But you can get by with a lot fewer fighters today, and as always budgets constrain. The military is a minority producer of airline pilots and will stay that way for the foreseeable future. Our opponents may increase numbers but they can neither develop nor afford the kind of bleeding-edge hardware that would be required to force us dramatically increase our tacair inventory. In fact the DoD is actually now buying updated 4th gen fighters as a cheaper, faster alternative to costly 5/6 gen hardware... 4-1/2 gen hardware is plenty sufficient for many roles in a peer fight. The reason we have a pilot shortage, fundamentally, is that the industry somehow disregarded the very simple math involving retirement age, mil pilot output, and civilian flight training output. Also maybe blind to the fact that younger generations are not quite as oriented to get away from the farm and have some adventures as the pre-internet demographic. They could very easily have solved this in advance by setting up schools, recruiting suitable and applicants, then paying them to do primary training. The problem with that is long lead-time and they missed the boat. If push comes to shove you can give somebody 1500 hours in a crew-oriented program (you can do simulated crew ops in a 172) and put them in the right seat of a legacy narrowbody. There are a variety of things causing the overall shortfall. Just the demise of general aviation for example. CFIs need more people to teach than just other aspiring CFIs (and eventual ATPs) but with 172s going for $400k and a Cirrus going for $750k, general aviation has become an exceedingly expensive hobby. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericteg...of-the-market/ Most trainers are going to burn 7-8 gallons per hour and at $7 a gallon for avgas 1000 hours of time in anything is going to cost $50k in fuel alone. Add in insurance, Mx, tie down/hangar, initial instruction, BFRs, and it starts to add up to real money. And that’s for a simple trainer. Anything multi engine and it starts to get much worse. Well, not ANYTHING maybe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colomb...2007-05-12.jpg but damn near anything. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3418552)
I agree. My post was in response to the assertion that the airlines were CAUSING the military pilot shortfall.
There are a variety of things causing the overall shortfall. Just the demise of general aviation for example. CFIs need more people to teach than just other aspiring CFIs (and eventual ATPs) but with 172s going for $400k and a Cirrus going for $750k, general aviation has become an exceedingly expensive hobby. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericteg...of-the-market/ Most trainers are going to burn 7-8 gallons per hour and at $7 a gallon for avgas 1000 hours of time in anything is going to cost $50k in fuel alone. Add in insurance, Mx, tie down/hangar, initial instruction, BFRs, and it starts to add up to real money. And that’s for a simple trainer. Anything multi engine and it starts to get much worse. Well, not ANYTHING maybe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colomb...2007-05-12.jpg but damn near anything. Regionals already hire at 25 ME hours. In fairness the old standard of 300-500 ME hours isn't really about OEI handling, it's more about experience with complexity and speed. For OEI experience, better to just do it in the sim. Out of my hundreds of ME hours prior to 121 I never had an engine out, and twins flew just like an ASEL. Current requirements for complex/TAA time for the CPL are also pretty minimal. Cost could be offset by offering three paths for post-CPL time building. Everything up to CPL would be sponsored... 1) Paid to burn holes in the sky for 1500. Incurs the longest payback obligation, no CFI ratings required. Easy. 2) Paid to teach, medium-duration obligation, CFI ratings provided by the sponsor. 3) DIY. Get your sponsored CPL, them go build time on your own any way you like. Shortest obligation, and you're allowed say two years before you need to be at R-ATP mins and start work. Considering they pay major FO's $200K+ year in and year out, spending $100k to create a new pilot who is obligated for say five years is not a real economic stretch. The problem is that they're in denial and always assumed the problem would fix itself, or somebody would fix it for them. Also the rapid, mass retirements reduce the average longevity on narrowbody fleets, so there's some silver lining there. That doesn't apply much to WB's since almost all CA's and most FO's are probably maxed out at 12 years. |
Nevermind.
|
With reducing the 1000 hr upgrade think of the quality of captain you would get. Heck the way some FOs perform make you feel like you are flying single pilot ops with 76 random strangers in the back.
|
Originally Posted by FAR121
(Post 3418840)
With reducing the 1000 hr upgrade think of the quality of captain you would get. Heck the way some FOs perform make you feel like you are flying single pilot ops with 76 random strangers in the back.
Further wish people would quick referencing the "1500 hour rule". It's 1500 hours for an ATP. Has been as far back as I can remember. What they did was make ATP a requirement for FO and actually added a relaxation on the 1500 hours via certain avenues. If you don't think FOs should need ATPs, say so (not pointing fingers at you per se, just this thread in general). |
Originally Posted by highfarfast
(Post 3418853)
Definitely think the 1000 hr rule should stay.
Further wish people would quick referencing the "1500 hour rule". It's 1500 hours for an ATP. Has been as far back as I can remember. What they did was make ATP a requirement for FO and actually added a relaxation on the 1500 hours via certain avenues. If you don't think FOs should need ATPs, say so (not pointing fingers at you per se, just this thread in general). As a Captain I was worried about knowing when to take control from the F/O. I had never been an instructor. All my friends said "don't worry, you'll know". They were right. I was flying with a 500 hour F/O who had just finished IOE and almost all her landings were in the CRJ700 or 900, she just got the min required in the 200. We got slam dunked into 18R in CLT. She did mostly OK until she flared 50 feet too high. I saw the airspeed rapidly going below ref. Just like my friends said it was totally automatic, no thought process involved. If I had become incapacitated I don't think she could have landed the jet in one piece. Not her fault, they should have required more landings in the 200 since it's a very different picture from the 700/900 due to no leading edge slats. They really need to keep the ATP requirement. As someone already posted it's just going to decimate the CFI ranks if they lower it. |
Alternate take:
1500 hour rule makes us less safe. Why? Because now the regionals are so desperate to put someone in the right seat, they will hire nearly anyone who meets the hour time requirement ignoring other potential factors. Quality of FO's decrease as a result. |
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 3418882)
Alternate take:
1500 hour rule makes us less safe. Why? Because now the regionals are so desperate to put someone in the right seat, they will hire nearly anyone who meets the hour time requirement ignoring other potential factors. Quality of FO's decrease as a result. Unfortunately, we may not be able to avoid this with today’s hiring environment and movement in the airlines |
Originally Posted by DarkSideMoon
(Post 3418244)
That degree will be basically useless in a down job market (read: if you’re getting furloughed). No one wants to hire an engineer in a competitive job market who hasn’t engineered in 5 years. At best it’s a launchpad for going back for a masters.
Had a six figure engineering job before I was off terminal leave. And no, it had nothing to do with the military nor did it require a security clearance. Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by CX500T
(Post 3418941)
I was out of engineering for over a decade when I got let go by the Navy in 2011.
Had a six figure engineering job before I was off terminal leave. And no, it had nothing to do with the military nor did it require a security clearance. Being security clearance eligible is a very nice enhancement, there are many projects which DoD won't let mfgs outsource to New Dehli. Of course having an active clearance is the best icing on the cake, but even eligibility is enough. If you're SIDA eligible you're probably good for a TS. |
I don't have any 121 time but wondering about this thought of reducing the SIC time needed to upgrade. Quality of time does matter, yeah? That is why they offer an exception for 135 PIC but they add in that it must be passenger ops, while excluding others like cargo. Why is that? Does my E120 PIC time somehow count less because I don't have any panicky passengers in the back leaving nail marks on the armrests?
Instead of reducing the 1,000 hrs 121 SIC required, how about just making ALL 135 PIC time count toward that? (Not that anything I say on here is going to change the rules, just asking. lol) |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:28 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands