Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Regional (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/)
-   -   1500 hour FO mins (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/44095-1500-hour-fo-mins.html)

rickair7777 09-20-2009 04:23 PM

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.

Mason32 09-20-2009 04:38 PM


Originally Posted by dojetdriver (Post 681529)
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)

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

Mason32 09-20-2009 04:42 PM


Originally Posted by dojetdriver (Post 681531)
Knowing the difference between you're and your is above the guy.

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.

dojetdriver 09-20-2009 04:42 PM


Originally Posted by Mason32 (Post 681547)
Scroll up; already answered, and it doesn't change the facts does it?

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

Mason32 09-20-2009 04:47 PM


Originally Posted by dojetdriver (Post 681552)
Nope, but you got the edit in [b]your[/B} 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.

NightIP 09-20-2009 04:49 PM


Originally Posted by Mason32 (Post 681554)
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; however for your edification: 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.

dojetdriver 09-20-2009 04:55 PM


Originally Posted by Mason32 (Post 681554)
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.

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


Originally Posted by Mason32 (Post 681554)
I cut and pasted.... the link is right above, be my guest.


Originally Posted by NightIP (Post 681557)
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.

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

NightIP 09-20-2009 05:02 PM


Originally Posted by dojetdriver (Post 681560)
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.

Mason32 09-20-2009 05:09 PM


Originally Posted by NightIP (Post 681557)
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.


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.

Mason32 09-20-2009 05:14 PM


Originally Posted by dojetdriver (Post 681560)
Not going to get into a peeing contest with you over it, but here is the original;


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.


Originally Posted by dojetdriver (Post 681560)
Didn't address fact that two of those accidents didn't have anything to do with the cockpit crew either.

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.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:17 PM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands