If all you're going to do is 1000 hrs. of T & G's then it won't help you that much. If, however, there was a guidline of what was acceptable hours before an ATP could be earned, it would be much better. I would love to see a plan of options for the hours. It could have instructing, working 135 or taking 121 clases / simulator training.

I agree that the extra hours should be meaningul but simply requiring more hours will help eliminate a portion of those that aren't all that interested but would love to wear a uniform and spend only 6 months in training.

 

I think the minimum for regional FO should be 900 hours tt.

1500=ATP
1200=135 Single Pilot IFR
900=Regional FO

300 hours difference between the 3.

 

I think the Hudson FO's opinion sounds OK on paper, but I don't see how it would work. Requiring an ATP is one way to get more experienced pilots, but I don't think you can tell if someone is "safe" or a "good pilot" just by them having a piece of plastic. My commercial license is the same that everyone else has... including the pilots that shouldn't be flying... If I had an ATP, it would be just the same as everyone elses ATP... including all the captains out there who need babysitters.

I was hired with 900/50 back in '07 when it was easy to get hired, and could have gotten hired earlier except I didn't want to go to Mesa, or Colgan, or any of the other low paying regionals with lower minimums. Does that mean the regional that I took a job with got a more experienced pilot because they pay more? Sure. Did all the pilots in my class have 900 hours? No, some had 400/50 and a really good connection. Did my 900 hours in piston airplanes make me better at flying jets and turbo-props? I have no idea.

I don't think the Colgan crash was caused by lack of experience (talking above my pay grade). Sure, one of the pilots was uncomfortable in icing, but if they had just focused on flying the airplane like they were supposed to, it wouldn't have gotten ahead of them. Just because the topic of their conversation was experience doesn't mean that's what caused the crash. They were distracted... just like so many other accident crews... and forgot to move the thrust levers forward after adding drag.

So... you can hire a pilot with an ATP, but that doesn't make them safe.

My 2 cents,
Hotelmode

 

Your right, touch and goes wont make you a better RJ FO, however as a CFI you do more than just touch and goes. I don't know about you, but I learned A LOT from my CFI experience. Also, that is just one way to get your time required for an ATP.

By your defination of a First Officer, they should not be flying. If they are just an apprentice, they should be there to learn and not really fly. Granted I don't fly 121, but it's my understanding that the CA and FO trade off legs (PF, PNF). Yes the CA has all the responsiblity, but the FO flys just as much, so why shouldn't he/she have the same pilot cert?

Also, just to thow this out there, I do not think anyone should upgrade into a different aircraft. If you are an Saab FO go to a Saab CA not Saab FO to Q400 CA. I think the CA should have SOME time in type before he/she upgrades. How much? Who knows, more than 0.

 

That is true, just like you can hire a 250 hour wonder, doesn't make them safe. You have to set the bar somewhere.

 

The issue isn't the ATP rating. That only say's you can fly as PIC over 12,500 pounds. The issue is experience. And it only comes from hours in the seat.

Flight instructing teaches you as much as it teaches the student. Single pilot check hauling or cargo teaches you as well. So do a lot of things.

Yes, back in the "day," commuter flying was twin Cessna's, B-99's, Shorts3-30, Merlins and Twatters. Big guys got the Dash 7. FD/O's didn't have a chance of a job unless they had close to 1500 hours. They (we) flew in unpressurized and in many cases, non autopilot equipped planes. You LEARNED how to fly hard IFR and how to deal with things.

That's not said to make it sound like we walked to and from school everyday uphill each way in blizzards...and loved it. It's said because getting into an RJ with very low time, programming the boxes and hitting the "A/P engage" at 500' and disconnecting it on rollout does not give you any experience other than how to manage systems.

Skiles is right. More experience is required before getting the job. The airlines must consider the type of flying done and the FAA should require more time before getting into a 121 cockpit.

In reality, the move will likely come from insurance underwriters who will jack up premiums on carriers who insist on hiring low time pilots on the cheap.

ALPA, if it had any balls, would get off it's butt and have it's legacy members demand that any carrier who flys code share must have better hiring standards and better pay. In the end though, pay is not the issue either. It's inexperience.

Getting experience and an SIC rating in an RJ with a couple of hundred of hours is hogwash. It may look nice, but it's nothing more than a license to learn.

 

Maybe to open the debate to what's done elsewhere:
in Europe (JAA) regulations, we get CPL/ IRs, the ATP wrtitten test (pretty big actually - used to be basically 6 months of ground courses) and then a mandatory MCC (Multi crew coordination) training (approx 2 days ground course and 2-3 days in a sim to teach you basics of multi crew op).
Then you can apply for a job. At that point guys can be at minimum 250 hrs approximately.

So at that point you have only a "frozen" ATP (i.e. written test). When you have 1500 hrs, then you can go for the full ATP (usually done in the sim during one of those 6 months refresher).

The main difference with the US is that on these 1,500 hrs to get your ATP, 500 hrs MUST BE on multicrew aircraft. So you need a minimum of what some people in Europe call "quality time" before you're delivered a full ATPL.

Just though some of you might be interested.

 

I learned a lot about being a teacher and salesmen however I don't think it helped me at all to fly a transport category plane.

Skyhigh

 

We've all flown with excellent 250 hour wonders
We've all flown with crappy 250 hour wonders
We've all flown with excellent ex-military pilots
We've all flown with crappy ex-military pilots
We've all flown with excellent high timers
We've all flown with crappy high timers

If a pilot truly reached the correlation level during his training, he is a good pilot. If not, he knows what category he fits in.

 

This so called "pilot" is the reason why we cannot agree completely in our resolve to fight lower and lower wages and quality of life issues with our employers. This so called "pilot" was probably raised in a conservative household (which I have absolutely no problem with). This so called "pilot" probably was in the military which is a government concern; and was probably taken care of in every way(healthcare, retirement, and social security), until he met the real reality which most of us face, here at the regional pilot level in our national airline transportations system. This "pilot" probably has a retirement; already in place and is not concerned with that particular issue. This "pilot" is probably very confident that he has enough old squadron friends, that he will surely be the next one hired at SW which means he should "probably have" even more retirement benefits. This "pilot" probably has a spouse who , probably has a decent job, which contributes considerably to his overall wellbeing. This "Pilot" probably has not a clue as to what sort of industry he has entered into and probably has not a care as to how he will be compensated in it. He has his own beliefs about how the business world operates and they are reenforced by his experience in the "protectected" military realm. I believe this belief system is not comprehensive in its scope and is biased. I also believe that this "pilot's" statements are invalid because of that experience and I hereby refuse to listen to his Ilk. In the event that I am mistaken in any of my assumptions about this "pilot", I still maintain that he is only taking himself and the rest of us with him in his resolve to maintain his current position. There IS a DIFFERENCE between being a "sharp" management and simply being willing to be absolutely, unemotional, tyrants towards your employees! That IS my bottom line; I will rigourously defend it and I appreciate anyone who will argue it with me! Bring it on!