Proposed ATP/1500 Minimums for 121 Carriers
07-29-2009, 08:00 AM
#71
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: none ya...
Posts: 1,154
Originally Posted by 250 or point 65
I like your idea of raising the bar on the training side, but training still has its limitations.
Real world decision making through pilot experience is 1000x more valuable than "practice" where you can't get hurt.
Real world decision making through pilot experience is 1000x more valuable than "practice" where you can't get hurt.
Hense (did I spell that right...lol), my assertion that when the Capt and FO expect the FO's job, to be "CAPT in training, and provide the ability to polish the skills needed to command someday, real world two man crew experiance is where it is at. I was trained from private through Comm by a CFI that is a Capt for a 135 outfit, and I guess I subscribe to his theories. He believes that even in a 747, with 10's of thousands of hours experiance, every pilot should treat every day as an OPPORTUNITY for learning and to polish himself, mabye thats Old school, but its how I think, because its how I was trained. I have always told every capt I flew with for the first time, To think of me as a "Capt in Training", and any little bit of knowledge you are willing to impart to me while we are working together, I am willing to absorb, and the feedback I get from them has always seemed positive, I dont think they thought they were having to play flight instructor....
07-29-2009, 08:01 AM
#72
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Hot tub for now
Posts: 1,203
Originally Posted by wanttofly
Do I have to be the first to again bring up the point that both pilots had well more than ATP minimums on the accident flight...? I fail to see how setting a higher barrier to entry will solve anything...
I guess you could CFI for a while...of course, flying checks doesn't really exist anymore...and no one really sight sees...ASA discouraged applicants from banner towing or doing traffic watch...
It's the job of an airline to better screen applicants, not the US House of Representatives to start playing expert. They're better off doing an inquiry into another major league sport. I'm thinking lacrosse. Maybe rugby.
I guess you could CFI for a while...of course, flying checks doesn't really exist anymore...and no one really sight sees...ASA discouraged applicants from banner towing or doing traffic watch...
It's the job of an airline to better screen applicants, not the US House of Representatives to start playing expert. They're better off doing an inquiry into another major league sport. I'm thinking lacrosse. Maybe rugby.
07-29-2009, 08:04 AM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 171
Once again congress and the rest of the gang has completely missed the point and went for the most obvious and media friendly solution. You can take a 4000hr FO and if hes had his scheduled changed five times, been on a reduced rest overnight with crew tracking calling his room at various intervals throught the night, with a 510am show all for $28 an hour.... Mistakes might happen especially when your cheap arse company put min fuel on your plane with marginal weather at destination and no alternate. But I totally agree the difference between 1200tt and 1500tt is immense. What a joke.
07-29-2009, 08:09 AM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: Middle Seat
Posts: 1,210
Originally Posted by 250 or point 65
I don't think this will cause a shortage of pilots, but what it will cause is the 121 candidates to be more experienced and more dedicated. 2 years ago any flight school could tell a student that they would be airline pilots in as little as X months. Any person with the money who likes airplanes could become an airline pilot.
I think 1500 hrs is a higher barrier than most might think. Those who graduated in '02-'04, remember how many of your classmates went into different fields instead of putting in the time grinding as a CFI? When you actually have to work to become an airline pilot, I believe the candidates will be more dedicated and experienced.
I think 1500 hrs is a higher barrier than most might think. Those who graduated in '02-'04, remember how many of your classmates went into different fields instead of putting in the time grinding as a CFI? When you actually have to work to become an airline pilot, I believe the candidates will be more dedicated and experienced.
When airlines will need pilots again, new wanna be's won't be able to go zero to hero in 90 days. If you up the minimums by 6 then it will be a fast track program to be an airline pilot in 480 days instead of 90! The lag time on this will be long enough during any need of some pilots to allow the union to actually have some pull.
07-29-2009, 08:11 AM
#75
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: PIC Challenger 605
Posts: 454
Originally Posted by wanttofly
Do I have to be the first to again bring up the point that both pilots had well more than ATP minimums on the accident flight...? I fail to see how setting a higher barrier to entry will solve anything...
Originally Posted by wanttofly
It's the job of an airline to better screen applicants, not the US House of Representatives to start playing expert. They're better off doing an inquiry into another major league sport. I'm thinking lacrosse. Maybe rugby.
07-29-2009, 08:13 AM
#77
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: none ya...
Posts: 1,154
Originally Posted by seafeye
But what about when the airlines put $$$ before safety? There are plenty of 10,000hr pilots available but the airlines don't want to pay for them. So they only people that will take the colgan jobs are the low time people desperate to get a kick start on their career. Congress has to react in the best interest of the taxpayer. If it takes more regulation to make the airlines safer than so be it. Airlines will just have to adapt to the new regulations to survive. Higher time minimums are going to ensure that each applicant is sincerely devoted to the flying career. The attitudes will be different as well. People will have to work to get the 1500hrs, no longer will people feel that an airline job is easy to get and a fast process. It will take dedication and perseverance. Change in attitude will make the airlines safer.
Mabye what we need is some kind of aptitude and decision testing as part of the selection process, what does everyone think of that idea?
07-29-2009, 08:19 AM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: none ya...
Posts: 1,154
Originally Posted by NoBeta
I for one am tired of people thinking that there is a magic number that will solve this problem. 1500 1800 3000 ......TRAINING!!!!! and better work rules is where I stand....
Ditto......agreed 100%. TT will always be an arbitrary number, the attitude towards being the best you can be as your gaining experiance, will always be a good indicator of what kind of person is at the controls
07-29-2009, 08:20 AM
#80
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: none ya...
Posts: 1,154
Originally Posted by Mesabah
I didn't mean to sound like that was your opinion, just a simple statement of my observation of the industry. I fear the only way to get this profession back is when there are enough dead bodies that congress finally pulls the plug and forces scope recapture by mainline under law. Really, that is the problem here, it doesn't matter if the mins were 10,000 hrs at the regionals. If these jets are not mainline jobs with a mainline union fighting for them, they will not attract the right people. I think raising the hours will only bring in less desirable people, who meet those requirements.
Hey, this wouldn't be the famous CM would it???
