That's very true but the thing is that a lot of those questions (JAA) at least some examples I've heard is they go unnecessarily in depth, ie. I heard there's like 30 questions just on the compass. Plus there is the supply and demand factor that is different around the world than in the states.

Absolutely you will be a much better captain because if you are flying that Baron full of boxes you are most likely doing it by yourself. Single pilot IFR in a small plane like that is some of the hardest flying you can do. 3000 hours will give you plenty of solo night and IMC into tiny little airports with out the facilities of larger ones. By the time you get to the highly structured environment of the regionals you will have plenty of experience of calling the shots yourself. Once at the regionals you can learn all about CRM and the 2 person crew. The regional flying will be a breeze compared to what you just survived.

You won't need to worry about having a safety net when you become a captain at the regionals because you would have spent plenty of time being your own safety net. You will be much better prepared than if you had just left ATP flight school with 250 hours and then fly 3000 hours as an FO. If you do that you have very little experience making decisions.

Learning from watching someone is not the same as learning by doing it yourself. That first hand experience of calling the shots with out a safety can't be obtained by sitting right seat at a regional.

Did I say I was ready to be a Captain? NO! I said I am learning and unfortunately yes I have made a Captain's decision for him. That's what the original post was asking me wasn't it?

I personally think I need another 2 to 3 thousand hours before I would feel comfortable as captain, and fortunately my airline thinks the same way. Some airlines like MESA will upgrade way before that. I know of some guys over there that upgraded from a FO in the Dash to a Capt in the RJ200/700/900 with no time in type and 1500-2000 hours 121 experience. NOW THAT IS INSANE! They should be changing upgrade mins not entry FO mins.

So what about the guys with lets say 700 hrs, lots of xc, twin, ice conditions, and dual given?
It should be done on a person to person basis-not everyone has the same experience, isn't that what interviews are for?
A guy with 1500 hours could have turbine experience, hundreds of actual instrument, and 700 PIC while the guy sitting next to him has 1500 hours with only 100 in something other than a 172

It won't when you have a family and you miss your kids ____________

insert anything and everything

First Word
First Steps
Birthdays
Christmass or other Holiday
Graduation
First Date
First Sporting Event
First or Second anything
Wedding
First Grandchild


Life at FL390 sounds cool until you realize you've missed your life.
Ask the older guys, they will tell you that for what the job offers today,
it isn't worth it anymore.

Not necessarily true...

I've read every comment in this thread and here's what I think many are missing. The majority of pilots commenting here are arguing for the 1500 hour rule because of safety concerns. That's fine and I understand it completely. I don't think 300 hour pilots should be flying RJ's either.

What I think many are missing and what I have tried to point out is that there is a dollars and cents component to this proposal as well. The 1500 hour rule COULD, and I stress could, artificially hamstring airlines who are looking to expand. I know that's not the environment in which we find ourselves today, but there is going to come a time when airlines begin to expand again.

If the demand for extra flights is there, airlines are not going to want to remain artificially smaller. They are going to want to add flights to meet the demand of travelers. A hard and fast rule COULD prevent and airlines from meeting the demands of their customers. That doesn't mean they should be allowed to hire student pilots who've just soloed, but they should be allowed to hire pilots they determine can pass a checkride and operate the aircraft safely.

As for Mason32's cheap shot at me, let me say this. I graduated with a BA in both finance and economics and I minored in both Spanish and International Business. I learned to fly and instruct in a 141 school at the local airport in my free time, not from some pilot factory.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

By having no PIC experience, your foundations and fundamentals as a pilot are weaker. It may not be evident to you now as an FO, but you will see it later on down the road.

As someone said, there's only so much to learn by observing. At some point, you gotta 'do' and having an airliner full of people when you first start learning about being a PIC ain't it.

But you aren't saying that this is the ONLY way to get "PIC" time though right? I mean the key part of the PIC is the signing for and being responsible for the aircraft and the decisions required to operate it successfully right?

USMCFLYR

Do you enjoy working at a regional airline?

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

By far
 

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

During the time of most of these accidents, pilots with less than ATP minimums wouldn't be allowed anywhere near a 121 flight deck. Since low time pilots have started flying the same type equipment as the experienced pilots, what does the record show? I haven't looked it up, but I don't think I have to, as the answer is obvious.

The data set you reference is totally inaccurate. It neglects many commercial aviation accidents (just for an example, Comair's accident history: flight 444 in 1979 and flight 3272 in 1997 are missing). It also isn't all 'accidents', and includes some of the greatest feats of airmanship around. See 1982, where BA flight 9 lost all 4 engines in an encounter with volcanic ash or KLM 867, same thing, all engines lost due to volcanic ash. I know of 4 other instances of all engines lost in flight in recent history, AirTransat (A330 over the Atlantic), Pinnacle ('the 410 club'), British Airways (777 in LHR) and US Airways (miracle on the Hudson). No deaths in any of the flights flown by pilots with high time, no survivors in the RJ flight (can anyone name a single 'regional' flight where the crew successfully landed after all engines lost, or any other time this occurred other than Pinnacle?). There was also a TACA crew that dead-sticked a 737 onto a levee!:eek: Plenty of other instances of high time pilots making incredible feats of airmanship, the most glaring example being United 232 in Sioux City. Plenty of examples of great composure under stress too. Would a pilot with low experience but high 'quality of hours' (who determines THAT metric?) make a PA after the loss of all engines by saying "Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get it under control. I trust you are not in too much distress."? Honestly, I doubt it, and perhaps that's the difference experience makes.

Don't underestimate all the preventative measures now put into place b/c of these accidents, measures that now require such things as automated T/O configuration checks, more positive control by ATC of aircraft on runways, automated windshear detection, more reliable engine technology, and volcanic activity forecasting and avoidance. Despite all of this, airplanes continue to crash. In the US, measuring 'apples to apples' (a time period where both experienced and inexperienced US jet pilots are operating in US airspace), the vast majority of aviation deaths are attributed to airlines with low-time pilot forces, even though they are often flying more advanced and redundant equipment than their more experienced counterparts, not to mention the experienced crews are operating the majority of flights, yet still accounting for a far lower % of accidents and fatalities.

There's no substitute for experience, and the record supports this.

You asked, how can one get hours, and I answered how I got hours. Your reply, "I did it this way so you should too". I never said you must do it the way I did it, but I did offer one way. If it isnt good enough, fast enough, or easy enough, so be it: go find your own way. If my method was not good enough for you, feel free to find your own path.

I will agree that poor mx is a reason for avoiding a job (or violation of FARs), but other than that a crappy job beats no job at all.

True, if one has 100 hours or 10,000 hours, he is still learning. The question is WHAT is he learing. Is he learning the subtleties of flying a transport catagory aircraft, or is he learning basic instrument skills?


Imagine this: Tomarrow your chief pilot comes to you and says, "We need another CA and you are next in line." Would you take it? Sure you would (you admitted that you took the opportunity to fly a regional airline vs a CFI job, you took the regional). So there you are, a fresh CA in a new base (maybe on a new aircraft) with a FO fresh off of IOE. The wx is crap. Would you rather have someone who has a few hundred hours flying a 310 single pilot or a 300 hour "just got my commercial AMEL"?


No, hours alone doesn't describe the quality of a pilot, but higher hours does typically mean a broader background. There is no one way to measure a pilot's ability, but if all I had to look at a resume, seeing some CFI time and some 135 time would put that applicant on my list of interviews.

I have the JAA certificates as well as FAA. Got the JAA ones first, in Switzerland. Yeah, the written tests are harder and could be considered very in depth. But having made it through I have to also say that those who didn't maybe shouldn't have the jobs. It's another filter and if you study hard and are diligent you will pass.

The steps to becoming an airline pilot shouldn't be easy. And the US/FAA written exams are considered a joke in the rest of the world.

That said, the flying part is not a joke. I converted my JAA to FAA certificates in 2003 and had to take a Comm/ME and the IFR/ME checkrides and they were not easy.

So I am not just bashing US aviation at all. But I wouldn't mind seeing the written exams more thorough than they are.

Just for the record, the BA flight into LHR was handled by the first officer who was probably hired like most BA first officers are hired - with 200 hrs straight onto a 737 or A320 or maybe even a 757. Dangerous? No

Make the Commerical licence more difficult in line with the rest of the world, not just Europe (Try Australia!) intead of giving it away and hoping they learn something with a CFI ticket.

Maybe the FAA ATP should contain 12000 questions with 5% new questions each month to stop rote memory passing exams. Then the flight test could be close to 3 hrs too. That might weed a few out.

:confused:

And while a good idea, the FAA will never spend the money that will take, the Taxpayers wont allow it...we are our own worst enemies. The public doesnt want higher fares, and they also gripe if taxes are raised to fund critical institutions.

An example for you :they need to update the whole data base of questions, has anyone under 60 ever used a prognostic chart :D. We have much better information available to us with computers these days but all weather questions are based off of 1960's technology...ought to give you some idea about how antiquated the FAA data base is, no wonder there are books out there with every question in them.

for the record if I was offered an upgrade or a pic position in the airplane I fly now or any other 121 airplane for that matter, I would decline it. That's one of the many reasons I declined my interview at MESa a couple years back. I was hearing that they were upgrading guys at 1500 hrs and throwing em to the wolves. I'd rather sit over in the right seat and get a little more experience under my belt( go through a few more icy winters and stormy summers) before all the responsibilty was on my shoulders, and my ceftificates, my career, and most importantly people's lives are on the line.

So clearly, you see what we're trying to tell you... I mean, you seem to be.

I do think that if you had some PIC background, if you had flown boxes in that Baron for a year or two, if you did the Part 135 thing, you wouldn't be running from upgrade, but rather you'd be looking forward to it.

Flyer,

The crux of PIC is not only making decisions but, also being responsible for them. The more hours, or more missions, you have - the greater the opportunity to make those decisions.

There are many ways to do this...

Agreed....that is what I was hinting at. Valid PIC time is NOT only acquired in a P121 cockpit.
I don't fit this definition but I promise that I have PIC time :)

I agree with you about being responsible for those decisions as evidenced by my statement:
USMCFLYR

Alright yougin, it wasn't a dim light for me when I started and mins for the likes of Comair was 2000 hours and competitive mins were 3000.....and that was on the low end of the scale.

Yes, this is still a great idea....hell. raise the mins to 2000 for 121/135.

HA! This was posted on another thread! Looks like a loophole will allow ERAU students and the like to still reach the flight deck with 300 hours...

The Subcommittee on Aviation under the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will be hearing testimony tomorrow at 10:00 am. They will be streaming it live. Just click on the Yellow Box with Blue writing that says "View Web Cast" located on the left side of the screen. The web site is Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (hxxp://transportation.house.gov/).

The committee will be hearing testimony about the FAAs "Call to Action on Airline Safety and Pilot Training." H.R. 3371 (the "ATP required" to fly 121 bill) will come up as representatives from the University Aviation Association (UAA) and Aviation Accreditation Board International (AABI) will be giving testimony. The theme "Quality over Quantity" is what they are pushing.

The UAA and AABI are in favor of H.R. 3371 except for the part requiring an ATP to fly 121. They would like the bill to be amended which would allow pilots that graduate from an accredited AABI flight program be eligible for hire into a 121 operator.

Listed below is what they would like to see put into the legislation:

Insert on page 33, line 11:

(3) ACCREDITED UNIVERSITY GRADUATES.—

(A) FLIGHT CREW MEMBERS FROM ACCREDITED UNIVERSITIES.—Not withstanding paragraph (2), flight crew members from accredited universities shall be permitted to—

(i) complete the flight time requirements of the airline transport pilot certificate required in subparagraph (B) during air carrier employment; and

(ii) achieve the 23 years-old age limit during air carrier employment.

(B) AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT CERTIFICATE PRACTICAL EXAMINATION REQUIREMENT.--After having fulfilled the flight time requirements of the airline transport pilot license, flight crew members from accredited universities shall undergo and pass the airline transport pilot certificate practical examination administered by appropriately designated FAA personnel.

(C) FLIGHT CREW MEMBERS FROM ACCREDITED UNIVERSITIES DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term “flight crew members from accredited universities” means flight crew members who have--

(i) completed the commercial pilot certificate and multi-engine pilot ratings, the instrument rating, and the certified flight instructor certificate;

(ii) completed the airline transport pilot certificate knowledge requirements including the airline transport pilot certificate written examination; and

(iii) graduated from a university or college flight education program accredited by the Aviation Accreditation Board International or graduated from a university or college flight education program that meets the Aviation Accreditation Board International flight education criteria. The Aviation Accreditation Board International and University Aviation Association shall jointly determine the means by which compliance with Aviation Accreditation Board International flight education criteria is demonstrated.


This web site is a PDF version of the Bill H.R. 3371 as it stands now hxxp://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3371ih.t xt.pdf. This website is the Government Printing Office (GPO).

So I ask, what the #### is the point of this bill if it still allows 300 hour pilots fly around in the 121/135 enviornment?? :confused: Well played lobyists!

Basic stuff
 

I agree with FreightPuppy, this whole thing is just sickening.

BSO... First, thank you for recognizing that you don't know what you don't know. You have proven that you are self aware, and this is a valuable quality in an aviator. Personally, I wish you the best. But, I submit that you, and many like you, have absolutely no business sitting over there in the right seat of a Part 121 flight operation. By that I mean, getting that experience, as you described. This is not the place for it. If you are not legally, physically, mentally ready to be the PIC of a flight, then you shouldn't be in any seat, period. The sim and then the right seat of and airframe is the place to get accustomed with a particular airframe, and only after the requisite basic experience is well established.

I have long contended that a required crewmember on a Part 121 flight should hold a valid ATP, and a PIC type rating for the aircraft being flown. It's like the scope clause in a contract, it is the most basic of building blocks. Without it you have nothing else. For those that get it, no explanation is necessary, for those that don't, no explanation is possible.

Sabre