We had this discussion back in July, but those who think higher minimums will cause higher pay are kidding themselves. There is no relation between the two.[/quote]

When was the last time you looked at the Nall Report? Go read it, then talk to us about numbers being only arbirary.

Really? Supply and demand has nothing to do with cost? Whatever College program you are in doing your CFI time, get your money back.

Ok, so you understand supply and demand when it comes to offering flights to meet supply.... but not when demand for labor is greater than the supply? You can't have your cake and eat it too...

Read the Nall Report. Case Proven, we accept your apology.

I believe he was talking about 121 accidents. Your arrogance weakens your arguments.

Yea the Nall report involves GA accident. I think we can all agree we are talking about 121 here. Nice try though. Still not joining the angry mob. :D

Apparetly you folks have not read the report. It clearly discusses ratio's of flight hours to accidents... it is not GA specific, nor is it Corporate Specific, nor is it 121 specific... However, that being said, since the last seven of eight accidents have ALL been regionals, it makes my case for me.

Apology still accepted.

How can 7 of 8 be ALL?

What about FedEx in Narita and CAL in Denver? That's two right there...

I wouldnt put ALL ATP and Gulfstream academy in the same category. AT Gulfstream you pay them to fly in the right seat. ATP is actually a flight school where you learn to fly there is no airline job after it.

I'm on the NTSB website now, looking at the most recent fatal and non-fatal 121 accidents, and I'm sorry, I don't see where you're getting that information. For 2009, from earliest to most recent:

A320
ATR-42
Q400 (Buffalo)
B747
CRJ
MD11
MD88
B737
DHC-8
DC-10
B767
EMB135
A320
EMB170
B737
CRJ
DHC-8
B717

Fatals only (last 5 years):

CV-340(580)
Jetstream 32
EMB170
B737
Grumman G73T
B737
CRJ100
B737
DC9
B747
Q400
MD11

[/QUOTE=BSOuthisplace;681337]Couple questions for the group.

What 135 op flying boxes, pax, lab work, checks etc is actively hiring pilots right now?

What 121 accident has involved a pilot with less than 1500 hours? And if there is one, was his/her lack of hours directly attributed to the cause of the accident?

Prove to me that a pure lack of experience (less than 1500, 2000, 3000 however many hours) causes aircraft accidents and I'll support the angry mob. Until then my personal opinion is we need to be looking at quality of training. After all this is something that can be backed with examples (Pinnacle, Comair, and Colgan accidents).[/QUOTE]

It amazes me when I hear someone say there is no difference between someone with 500 hours in a Cessna and 1500 hours in the same plane. IF we assume that is true, then a pilot right off IOE is no different than one who has been on line for a year. I sure hope that isn't true. I would like to think each of us is still learning... I know I am.

So what is the difference between 500 and 1500 hours? The 1500 hour pilot has flown in at least four more seasons, has made a several hundred more go/no-go decisions, and probably had to deal with a few inflight abnormalities.


At 1500 hours minimum, the 121 carriers would be competing with the 135 carriers (and the lower minimums) for pilots. Since 135 starting salaries are a good bit higher than current first year FO pay, 121 companies would need to do something to entice pilots away from a 135 job. During the hiring frenzy, at at least one regional offered signing bonuses to new hires. Eventually, wages would rise.

But would the public pay the extra cost? Well, how much extra are we talking? One dollar per seat per hour would increase salaries for both CA and FO by $18,000 for a 50 pax (assumes 80% load factor and 900 hours of credit). So even a trans-continental round trip ticket would only increase by about $8. These are numbers that are comparable to the TSA fees, and those fees did not impact ticket sales.



There is no way to insure zero crashes, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying. Greater experience would give a pilot a few more tools during an emergency: maybe the tool needed for a safe outcome.

It amazes me when I hear someone say there is no difference between someone with 500 hours in a Cessna and 1500 hours in the same plane. IF we assume that is true, then a pilot right off IOE is no different than one who has been on line for a year. I sure hope that isn't true. I would like to think each of us is still learning... I know I am.

So what is the difference between 500 and 1500 hours? The 1500 hour pilot has flown in at least four more seasons, has made a several hundred more go/no-go decisions, and probably had to deal with a few inflight abnormalities.


At 1500 hours minimum, the 121 carriers would be competing with the 135 carriers (and the lower minimums) for pilots. Since 135 starting salaries are a good bit higher than current first year FO pay, 121 companies would need to do something to entice pilots away from a 135 job. During the hiring frenzy, at at least one regional offered signing bonuses to new hires. Eventually, wages would rise.

But would the public pay the extra cost? Well, how much extra are we talking? One dollar per seat per hour would increase salaries for both CA and FO by $18,000 for a 50 pax (assumes 80% load factor and 900 hours of credit). So even a trans-continental round trip ticket would only increase by about $8. These are numbers that are comparable to the TSA fees, and those fees did not impact ticket sales.



[/quote]

I assume you are smart enough to realize that in your scenario, the likely outcome is not higher regional wages, but rather lower 135 pay because everyone will be after those seats to get the hours to move on. Pay for pilots will not increase until ticket prices go back to where they were, and the industry stops outbidding the prices on expedia travelosity and such.

You really have absolutly NO CLUE do you.....flame on:rolleyes:

Really? I went here ---> NTSB - Aviation
and then here ---->NTSB - Accidents Involving Passenger Fatalities - U.S. Airlines (Part 121)

and I found this:

Fatals

09/11/01 SHANKSVILLE, PA UNITED AIRLINES BOEING 737 11/12/01 BELLE HARBOR, NY AMERICAN AIRLINES AIRBUS A300
01/08/03 CHARLOTTE, NC US AIRWAYS EXPRESS Beech 1900
10/19/04 KIRKSVILLE, MO CORPORATE AIRLINES BA Jetstream 32
12/19/05 MIAMI, FL CHALKS OCEAN AIRWAYS Grumman G-37
08/27/06 LEXINGTON, KY MAIR Bombardier CRJ-100
02/12/09 CLARENCE, NY COLGAN AIR Bombardier DHC-8

It doesn't include the non-fatals, and if you do that, you get 7 of the last 8 were regionals. Slip in the USAir on the Hudson and one other one that slips my noodle right now and poof 7 of 8. Period, end of story.

Remember NTSB is going to list any major damage regardless of if it involved an incident or acident. A fuel truck smahing into the plane at the gate will get reported... we're talking about accidents, not expensive mishaps that require reporting under NTSB 830.

yes. I looked into going there a few years ago when I was at CFI school in Ft Laudersale. I went to visit the school. They told me it would cost me like $22K and I would fly in the right seat and build time . It was too expensvie for me so i forgot about it.

Well things are much different now, they do have a PFT program, but it is definatly not what everyone says it is based on what they heard from so and so....

Shanksville was a 737? Thats new to me :rolleyes:

How/why is the FedEx MD-11 not listed?

Also, along your line of reasoning that regional cockpits are "unsafe", so much that you refuse to fly on them. Were the B1900 and Grumman cockpit crew human factor related?

I cut and pasted.... ooops, yep, your right 757.... 37 was the fatalities...
poor job of cutting and pasting... I backed the 37 fatalities up too far and wiped out the 57.
But the link is right above in the original post... it is what it is.

Looks like a bad cut and paste - check the website.

No, but reading comprehension of regional pilots might be in slight question... ;)

Fedex MD11 is a cargo plane, and the statistics used are for accidents involving passenger fatalities.

Just bustin' your balls... :D

This would be a more accurate survey of the accidents (all fatalities, not just passenger):

Aviation Accident Database Query

Dates: 1/1/2004 - 9/20/2009
Investigation Type: Accident
Injury Severity: Fatal (or All, whichever you'd like)
Operation: Part 121:Air Carrier

Submit. Very different results.

09/11/01 NEW YORK CITY, NY UNITED AIRLINES BOEING 767-200
09/11/01 ARLINGTON, VA AMERICAN AIRLINES BOEING 757-200
09/11/01 SHANKSVILLE, PA UNITED AIRLINES BOEING 757
11/12/01 BELLE HARBOR, NY AMERICAN AIRLINES AIRBUS INDUSTRIE A300-600
01/08/03 CHARLOTTE, NC US AIRWAYS EXPRESS Beech 1900

Took you up on the offer, above is the cut and paste I got from here;

NTSB - Accidents Involving Passenger Fatalities - U.S. Airlines (Part 121)

Fair enough :o, but read most of the guys other threads. Obviously regional cockpits are dangerous and flying on a regional aircraft should be avoided at all costs.

And I guess if we really wanna escalate the thread over reading comprehension, grammar, etc;

Knowing the difference between you're and your is above the guy.

Bottom Line Folks...all the debate here is worthless.

However...right now we have a very rare opportunity. 2000, 2500, or 3000 hours is not an option. But an ATP/1500 hour requirement is actually a possibility, and you can have a say in it.

Congress is considering doing exactly that right now...write your senators and representative, tell them you are an airline pilot, and that it is a safety issue. Enough public feedback can sway their opinion on things like this.

Scroll up; already answered, and it doesn't change the facts does it?

I read your post, reread my post, and then determined you're correct.
the speed typing occasionaly results in typos. I'll often end up with a "ign" instead of an "ing" ending on words too. Just doing to many other things at the same time I guess. Oh well, carry on.

Nope, but you got the edit in your post before the forum software tagged it as such.

Sorry, Wrong again. I did not edit the post, and it still shows the poor cut and paste job I did. I explained how it happened in a subsequent posting; but since you missed it... when I backed up the "37" fatalities I backed up too far and wiped out the "57" in 757 leaving it as 737. In any event, the link for the reference was provided and the typo does NOT change the fact that it supported my statement does it.

I find it overly convenient that you've failed to respond to my last post showing differing results (all 121 fatalities vs. simply passenger fatalities). Mine is a much better metric.

Here it is again.

Not going to get into a peeing contest with you over it, but here is the original;

Didn't address fact that two of those accidents didn't have anything to do with the cockpit crew either.

Or that CAL miraculously isn't on the list after that crew lost control of the jet on takeoff.

The point is this: Anyone can screw the pooch. It's not just regional guys. To call that fact is plain ignorant. Even more ignorant is the idea that regional pilots are a bunch of 300 hour wonders these days. Even the most junior guys have 3+ years on property at many regionals.

I did in the other thread. I'm not going to play the cross posting game. Didn't realize I was arguing with the same person. No reason to say the same things to the same person twice...

oh, and if you READ those accidents, and then search it ONLY by fatals and read those accidents, you will see a vastly different picture.

I cut and pasted the page I was copying and posting to APC... not my original post. GO back and look at them again. The original typo is still there, you can be as obtuse as you want, the facts are there for ANYBODY to see for themselves.

Oh, and only taking a partial sentence out of context to try and make your point just weakens your arguement to anybody taking the time to read the actual posts.

I wasn't talking about all accidents, there are hundreds every year where the crew did nothing wrong... most of the time it's injuries due to severe turbulence... that does not change the fact that the most recent fatal accidents have ALL been regionals. Argue all you want, facts are facts.
I am not talking about ground crews that walked into running jet engines either... so, when you look at the lists, take the time to read the summary.

We'll leave it on the other thread then. I did the legwork and made it easy for the readers to see how that's an incorrect statement.

I've been pretty harsh on regional pilots myself, but mainly due to their own ignorance and lack of humility as evident on these boards.

See, here's the thing - I see very few regional pilots on here actually sounding grateful of their break. Often quite contrary - full of themselves and definitely not humble at all.

I got my first regional job flying Dash 8's after having flown single pilot cargo for a year and a half spread over 3 companies (the first went under, the second shrunk and the third was Ameriflight) - both VFR and IFR.

While most arguments here address how it's perfectly acceptable for FO's to come onboard with really low time, at what point does a 300 hour pilot learn to act as a pilot-in-command, and by that I mean accept responsibility and start making command decisions. Is it really fair to our passengers for a pilot to just start learning how to be a pilot-in-command?

At 1500 hours, I had roughly 1300 or so hours of TRUE pilot-in-command time. Between flying skydivers, air tours and boxes, flying both IFR and VFR, having been exposed to and dealt with paperwork, signing for the airplane, being faced with challenges of line flying as a PIC, I felt ready to delve into the AIRLINE world AS AN FO! I learned the ropes in how the airline worked; I learned from captains and COMPOUNDED on my previous experiences to formulate myself as a captain. When upgrade came, I was ready.

The problem with hiring 300 hour pilots is that they haven't formed any sort of PIC experience. Their PIC experience consists of flight school telling them it's OK to do their cross country flights, or a joyride with friends. I remember what I was like at 300 hours, and while there's no doubt I would be all over trying to get into a right seat of an airliner at that time, I feel that I would have been shorted some basic fundamentals and a lot of experience early on in my career that I find extremely beneficial to me today. In other words, my foundation as a pilot would have been that much weaker had I not had "an opportunity" to season before getting into a 121 cockpit.

That's the ultimate problem with hiring low time pilots, and that's why I think that requiring an ATP or at least ATP minimums of all regional new hires is an absolute great idea. On top of that, I would do away with SIC type ratings as well and make sure everyone gets a full PIC type rating under ATP standards even as a brand new FO new-hire.

Remember, it's not about us... it's about our passengers and clients. They deserve the best, and I think we should provide them with our best.

Salary and pay... that's another post.

I honestly don't think most people in this thread are advocating that guys with really low time should be in a 121 cockpit. I know I'm not. My responses were simply in reply to the idea that regional aircraft should be avoided at all costs, which is what Mason32 is advocating.

Well, you can PM me an email, and I can forward you the EXACT copy that was sent to my inbox if you wish.

AGAIN, you dismiss my points. I am talking about accidents, not those involving ground crew, etc. YOUR argument is that the regional airlines are unsafe due to the crews. So in your whole "7 out of the last 8" thing, two of those accidents stand out as it relates to regional crews. Or rather, how the crews had NOTHING to do with it. You aren't accepting that fact, and you dismiss it.

Here, with IP's help we can clue you in;

And if you do some research, you might find that to be the case of the other one.

Considering the fact that no regional has crashed with a pilot under 2200 hours, that indicates that the 2200-5000 hour pilots are the problem.

So...I think if we make the law 2500 hours, it should be retroactive.

Fire every regional pilot who didn't CFI for 1000 hours and then fly 1.5-2 years of boxes/labwork/135. They need to go hit the pattern, master steep turns, and interpret weather for their 50nm cross countries.

It's the only way to make the regionals safer. Once they've gone back and learned the basics, they can reapply for the jobs they are so dangerously performing at now.

According to this thread, you weren't even close to ready. 1500 hours is just getting started. You need to take a COLA and go pick up a CFI job to experience all the things real pilots learned before their first 121 job. I need to know what major you work for so I remember not to let my family fly on it.

you should take it as I think your safety culture at your airline is unsafe and unacceptable if you all practice having only one set of ears listening and writing down a clearance over radio. PDC is one thing, but when you are picking up a clearance out of airports with RNAV departures to certain runways and initial fixes based on those runways, you are setting yourself up for a deviation or worse. With one person picking up clearance, i don't care if the captain picks it up and the FO is doing the walk around, you are just rolling the dice. We are all susceptible to mishearing or writing down the wrong thing. Thanks for the intro to the airlines, luckily I work for one that doesn't allow only one crew member to be present to pick up clearance.

There is so much anger, and clearly obvious jealousy in your post it is amusing.

If someone is not willing to flight instruct for 1200 hours or so (assuming you have 300 hours when you get your CFI) to get on with a regional, you don't deserve to be an airline pilot anyway.

It sucks to have to babysit a spiky haired, Iphone texting (during taxi nonetheless!), nonchecklist reading, cocky for no reason airline "pilot". I say 1500 hours should be the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM!

lol, clearly misinterpreted.

I think 1500 hours would be a good thing. This thread just kills me though.

The 1600 hour pilot says "1500 hours should be the minimum!"

The 2600 hour pilot says "no 1500 isn't enough! it should be 2500!"

And you have your sprinkling of more experienced pilots who "wont put their families on regionals because of the 300 hour pilots", when in fact its the 2200-5000 hour+ folks (who could easily be sitting next to them at CAL or SWA) who are balling up perfectly good airplanes.

How about acting like you're in charge and telling him how things are going to happen on your trip together?