rickair7777

You're going to learn *something* flying 1500 hours for sure. Will a CFI learn more than traffic watch? Probably. Will a mil pilot learn even more doing UPT + 1200 hours in a fighter/attack aircraft? Yup. But either way it's a lot better than 190 hours.

FXLAX

The ATP rule (not necessarily 1500 hours) allows enough time for the opportunity to find yourself in situations you learn from. It allows enough time to find yourself in situations that require aeronautical decision making, being a pilot in command where you are the only one that is going to get yourself on the ground safely. Otherwise, we would have pilots who go from being supervised throughout their entire training up to 190 hours and then into the right seat of an RJ, being supervised by captains. Then finally being the PIC for the very first time when they upgrade.

It’s not a political taking point. It’s real life experience you get from forcing you to go through the time building. That’s why it enhances safety. Nothing is ever 100% but like someone, it’s a good start.

If hours don’t make a difference, then you should ague to get rid of ALL hour requirements found in the FARs, not just the “1500 hour” rule.

SonicFlyer

How many hours did the Colgan pilots have when they were hired into the right seat of the Dash8?

rickair7777

CA: 618 hours. Including GIA "pay to play" airline FO-for-a-day program.

FO: 1470 hours. She had about 800 more at colgan. Apparently that wasn't enough to overcome the multiple failings on the part of the CA (including the CRM and complacent atmosphere).


The fundamental problem was the CA.

SonicFlyer

But she was the one who retracted the flaps though, right?

Cameronhoward

I remember going through my flight training all the way through CFI, CFII and MEI, that nothing ever went wrong with the plane. In my 1200hrs of dual given there were all kinds of problems I learned from. Loss of airspeed indications in flight, inadvertent ice accretion, partial power loss in flight, runaway trim, alternator failures, etc. By the time you get your commercial certs you've never really been PIC, your instructor was always there to bail you out. Things get real when you have a 90hr instrument student on a XC and you start picking up ice where all available forecasts said you wouldn't. Now the weight of being PIC really is felt. All of those things were invaluable experience and I couldn't imagine flying a jet without them.

rickair7777

Yes. That probably contributed. But the many holes in the swiss cheese that got them into that situation in the first place are all on the CA, the company, and the system that put the CA in the left seat in the first place. I actually blame the system way more than the dude.

I'm guessing with a high degree of confidence that Renslow would not have ended up at the airlines if he had tried to CFI his way to 1500 hours. One way or another. Of if he had, he'd have been a better PIC. Might have still sucked at stick and rudder but might have been aware of his shortcomings and the potential consequences thereof.

SonicFlyer

Yeah the argument for 1500 holds no water in regards to safety. 500, 750, or even 1000 hours? yeah, sure, maybe that makes some sense. But 1500 was an arbitrary political number that some politicians pulled out of their butts.

DarkSideMoon

She did, although while I’m not a -8 pilot I’d assume Renslow burying the control column into his chest in reaction to the stall warning probably did more damage than the flap retraction.

rickair7777

The 400-hour complacency effect is very well known and statistically obvious, so 500 is too low IMO.

Agree that there are diminishing returns somewhere between 800-2000 hours. But hard to say where exactly, and it varies by individual and circumstances.

You could in theory classify various types of flying and give extra credit for some (already do it with mil @ 750), but that gets hard to adjudicate (mil is easy, you either graduated or not and there are well-known federal documents which certify it).