1500 hour FO mins
#61
Prime Minister/Moderator

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,127
Likes: 796
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
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.
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.
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,168
Likes: 0
From: Reclined
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)
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)
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,168
Likes: 0
From: Reclined
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.
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.
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,732
Likes: 0
From: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,168
Likes: 0
From: Reclined
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.
#66
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.
Here it is again.
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,732
Likes: 0
From: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV
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.
Here it is again.
#68
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.
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,168
Likes: 0
From: Reclined
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.
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.
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,168
Likes: 0
From: Reclined
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 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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



