Seriously? That is sad.

 

As much as I hate to say it, I agree.

 

This is the biggest ship in the world: http://masterroad7.files.wordpress.c...sk_sailing.jpg

Let's go surfing in her wake turbulence. What do you know about surfing? Jetski tow-in will help, but dolphins will always do it better.

O_o

 

no kidding, but I was referring to flight schools, who sell that dream. It would be pretty naive to think for flight schools using in house instructors that they would not be a little partial to some of their guys... with airlines, there's no revenue except not wasting their money on the training.

 

Why not look at all the total experience combined for each applicant? Why make a blanket statement in hours? Maybe 1500 is a good starting point but that many hours plus an ATP maybe isn't enough. I was hired at a regional with 1200 hours but had 700 turbine, and a type rating in a jet. I also worked in the training department at a 121 carrier working on coursware, written tests for the A320, and FAA paperwork among other things. Plus I have a bachelor's degree. We need to not be drones of numbers. Pilots should be real people and real applicants who are looked at as well rounded pilots.

 

Dodgerk has made the best, hands down, statement in this entire thread. Thank you for being realistic, and making an experienced, and educated remark.



-The Stig

 

I am sorry how many hours did the Tennerife pilots have, or how about the NWA flight that forgot to set the flaps. Or here is a whole list of crashes and I would say 90+ % of them are from very senior and experienced pilots. So take a look and lets stop focusing on quantity of hours and start looking at the quality.

List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Highly experienced pilots have crash more planes by far. Complacency is dangerous too.

Skyhigh

 

This is the EXACT reason things need to change!

We can all make arguments about whether one specific pilot is more desirable or experienced than another. The FAA does not have this luxury. There must be uniform, objective criteria, not a subjective evaluation of each pilot as "real people and real applicants", examining "the total package".

If the FAA were to require all applicants to have ATP minimums to operate a 121 aircraft, an implicit requirement is imposed that all but the most well-funded of new 121 FO's will have experience making command decisions with either a student in the seat or flying something other than a 172 around the patch. In this day and age, it is simply hard to acquire ATP mins without having some experience flying aircraft in a commercial capacity, so that the pilot isn't financing the hours out of their pocket.

The hope is with ATP minimums required for FO's, an FO who sees their CA taxiing while texting or refusing to use checklists will use the experience and judgement gained during the accumulation of the minimums to step on the brakes and stop the aircraft, insisting that the practice must be stopped immediately, rather than post about it anonymously on the internet. Not only are these CA's a disgrace to the profession, but their FO's are too, just along for the ride, a $25/hr rubber stamp.

 

Safety practices have evolved tremendously over the years, partly because of the accidents you cite. I think your post would be much more relevant if those types of accidents were still happening today, which for the most part, thankfully, they are not.

Just as those accidents brought about major changes in the industry so will the Colgan crash. Looking at quality is indeed wise, but experience will also always be important.

Scoop