John Stossel on the pilot shortage.
05-25-2022, 09:59 AM
#31
On Reserve
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 19
Originally Posted by 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.
05-25-2022, 10:02 AM
#32
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,293
Originally Posted by jakeinthesky
I'm not saying it makes sense, but if you read the transcript from the senate hearing committee on Colgan it's mentioned several times by folks on that committee that barbers need 1500hrs of experience to get a cosmetology license, and that if you need that much to cut someone's hair they didn't see why you shouldn't have that to fly an airliner. One could argue that's out of their butts but just for some context on how we got there.
05-25-2022, 10:32 AM
#33
On Reserve
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 19
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Yeah especially since 1500 hours of barbering is 1500 hours of actually cutting hair. 1500 hours of flying can be 300 hours of actual flying and 1200 hours of listening to music and looking out the window, if one has an autopilot.
05-25-2022, 10:45 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 149
Another problem is that the entry level jobs with a fresh ticket commercial or cfi jobs are for the most part terrible. So rather than focusing on gaining experience to become a well rounded pilot. It becomes what’s the quickest and easiest way to get out of this level of job, and the answer to that is flying banners, doing touch and goes at the same small uncontrolled airport with students, flying skydivers in a 182. All which have very little carry over into flying a 121 jet.
05-25-2022, 10:57 AM
#35
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,512
John Stossel on the pilot shortage.
Being a CFI beating up the pattern builds three important PIC skills that directly transfer to turbine aircraft
Thinking ahead of the plane
Anticipation of outcomes
Decisionmaking
“1 hour 1500 times” only holds true if you are a crappy instructor.
Thinking ahead of the plane
Anticipation of outcomes
Decisionmaking
“1 hour 1500 times” only holds true if you are a crappy instructor.
05-25-2022, 11:16 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,465
Originally Posted by 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.
05-25-2022, 11:51 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 3,595
Originally Posted by jakeinthesky
I'm not saying it makes sense, but if you read the transcript from the senate hearing committee on Colgan it's mentioned several times by folks on that committee that barbers need 1500hrs of experience to get a cosmetology license, and that if you need that much to cut someone's hair they didn't see why you shouldn't have that to fly an airliner. One could argue that's out of their butts but just for some context on how we got there.
05-25-2022, 12:50 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,427
Originally Posted by jakeinthesky
Which I think is a point we agree, we need reform on HOW we are qualifying pilots for an ATP. Anyone lobbying for a blanket reduction of hours with no other requirements of experience to qualify is way off base. We already have R-ATPs, but how did we establish that? If the FAA agrees one way of training is worthy of reducing aeronautical experience necessary and we all seem to agree that there are types of time building that build a better foundation, I feel like we should incentivize pilots to become more well rounded? Let's say 100hrs off for adding CFI/CFII, 50hrs off for additional ratings, 15 for tailwheel endorsements, 100hrs of actual gives you a 25hr reduction. Something like that. To me that makes way more sense than a flight school saying "well we're kinda like the military".
05-25-2022, 01:17 PM
#39
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,293
Originally Posted by jakeinthesky
Which I think is a point we agree, we need reform on HOW we are qualifying pilots for an ATP. Anyone lobbying for a blanket reduction of hours with no other requirements of experience to qualify is way off base. We already have R-ATPs, but how did we establish that? If the FAA agrees one way of training is worthy of reducing aeronautical experience necessary and we all seem to agree that there are types of time building that build a better foundation, I feel like we should incentivize pilots to become more well rounded? Let's say 100hrs off for adding CFI/CFII, 50hrs off for additional ratings, 15 for tailwheel endorsements, 100hrs of actual gives you a 25hr reduction. Something like that. To me that makes way more sense than a flight school saying "well we're kinda like the military".
You could grant 2-for-1 credit for say instructor time. That's pretty easy to document and verify, and risky to fabricate.
Hard IMC, turbine, ME, even night flying is also reasonably valuable but it's a lot easier to game that sort of experience, or just fabricate it. You could pay some guy to ride along in his kerosene burner and log it without knowing a thing about the plane or touching a single control. You can pencil whip all the IMC you want, as long as it wasn't all in Arizona in the spring time.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
