1500 hour FO mins
 

Lately there has been a lot of disscussion about this, Id like to get a feel for the general consenus. I think it would be the best thing that could happen to aviation, maybe even bring up 1st year pay because far fewer pilots will be qualified. Anyway im sure we have all thought about this what are your thought? Also can anyone confirm this is an actual bill right now or is it just speculation?

-Slipped

I say 3,000. For those few who make it, life will be pretty good.

I agree, but that probably won't fly (pun intended). More likely to see the requirement for an Airline Pilot, even a new one, to hold an Airline Transport Pilot's license....

1500 works for right seat mins.

I still feel pilots can be in the driver seat for pay raises because fewer will be qualified, let alone still being in this profession.

Easy for us to say it's a great idea now that most of us have in excess of 1500 hours. How would you feel about it if you had just earned your CMEL or CFI. It would seem like a very dim light at the end of the tunnel.

More time to change careers before you get hit by the freight train at the end of that tunnel :)

This can still be said for current CFIs in this economy; in fact by the time more hiring begins a lot of those folks will probably have ATP mins. And it's how it was a mere decade ago anyway. Sure I took the bate at 800ish hours, but I'm paying for it now (though glad to be done with the regional BS) and wish I'd stayed instructing a while longer, but that's another story.

That is a really scary statement, and reminds me again why I don't let my family members fly on regionals... an AIRLINE is not the place to be building your 1500 hours. While I'm happy you newbies got a job and are building your time, it certainly isn't what the public expects or deserves; and many of us are concerned that what we once considered a profession has become a training ground.... the training grounds are in the right seat teaching, flying VFR 135 to build time to fly 135 charter/air taxi... the time building in flying pipeline, forestry, traffic reporting, scenic stuff...
All you folks have done is lowered the profession of airline pilot to the equivelant of bus driver, and traffic watch pilot. Good job.

By the way, the light at the end of the tunnel isn't daylight.... it's the train
coming at you full tilt. What will you do when the new law requires all new hires to have an ATP, and you current newbies to have an ATP ticket within 3 years?

It's not about the CMEL guy or the new CFI. It's about safety, the industry and having real experience up front when the crap hits the fan. ATP license for anyone sitting in the front seat of an airliner sounds good to me.

Why not make it the same as FAR 135 Mins. Not quite an ATP but not "inexperienced" either. When I was a CFI, that was the best time I had earned; gained the most experience in that time than any other throughout my entire tranning. Maybe People with CFI's should have FAR 135 mins, and people who "payed for time" should have ATP mins.

steak

To be perfectly honest you kind come off a little stuck up. I totally understand what you are saying and completely agree up until the point where you put ALL the blame on these "newbies". We all know the standards of the industry and the current level in which they stand is a direct result of the WHOLE pilot group. You can't just blame one side of the pilot group. If that's the case, where were you when these guys were applying and going through training? Why weren't you there to give them a heads up on the situation? Why didn't you try to teach them the values of not selling one's self short? The major influence in the new pilots these days are the schools, and the student loan companies. They will tell you anything and go to all ends just to make a couple hundred thousand off a student. So there are a lot of factors that got these "newbies" into the industry which played a significant role in the demise of industry standards.

To sum it up, no one knows what they are doing to the industry when they take a low paying job that treats them like crap in trade for flying a jet without having to pay your dues. So ultimately it is on the more senior guys and ones that know better to have an influence on this group. Good job to you sir.

IMO, ATP as a minimum to fly 121 is a great idea. (And I only have 1000TT). Not only does it bolster the entry experience level of airline pilots across the board, it also help to re-luster the reputation of this profession.

The problem will be getting those wet ATPers to accept more than 25K a year for the illustrious regional FO job, ATP or not. Especially with a bear economy and thousands of furloughed guys on the street.

And even if the demand for pilots gets so great that the airlines raise pay to attract qualified guys, the kicker will be convincing the American public to pay for it in their tickets.

I love the idea of an ATP as the minimum for the airlines. But if congress and the american people want experience and added safety, they have to pay for it.

shoot, why not 5,000 hours and 1,000 PIC

How about 2500 hr's. That would be somewhere around 1000 hr's instructing plus maybe another 1.5 - 2 yr's real world experience flying boxes, pax, lab work,etc. I know not all people would would get out of instructing at 135 min's to build time, but I believe enough would to advance their careers. I am not bashing CFI's, just pointing out how very controled the environment is in which they work. Just a thought.


Living the dream, one nightmare at a time

Exactly. The 1500 idea came because of the captain from 3407. The fact that he had 3500 at the time of the crash, and the fact that he only had 100 hours in the plane doesn't come up much. I wouldn't throw low timers under the bus now that we got ours.

Anyways the real interest for everyone is not the experience level, because a 3000 hour cessna driver will not know much from a 800 hour cessna driver when you put him in an RJ. Yes they will be able to pull out of a stall at 800 hours, even at 500 hours. But they both start from 0 at an airline. This is where airline training comes in. Well actually the FO had more than atp mins as a CFI when she was hired and she still raised the flaps at 20 degre pitch up. 1500 is just a band aid.

The interest is money.:rolleyes: Better QOL because someone spent an extra weekend around the pattern with a DE in a Seminole. And hopefully there will be people that won't take low paying jobs because they have 1500.:rolleyes: That has worked really well the last 50 years hasn't it? What they should be doing is going after management and the numerous problems with training. I think airline training is lacking.

SO... what you are saying is, those who were hired at less than xxxx hours SHOULD HAVE not even applied. And had a job opportunity came along that person(s) should have declined. Speaking to the recruiter "I appreciate the job offer, and I realize my declining of this position will only result in someone else of my = filling it. However, I am going to stick to my guns and wait it out for the sake of improving industry standards." That works great if all "newbies" have the same attitude. That would be like if I were offered a position right now in a Legacy Carrier 767. Granted I have fairly low time and only CL-65 sic.. don't think for a fraction of a second that I'm gonna decline that position. You can if you want.... but I'm going to align myself to be in a better position (experience) when things do turn around.

Some of you may say I have a bad attitude. That "why should I recycle when the rest of the folks on the block don't". Is my mere 3 plastic bottles going to make a difference?" NO. So until each and every pilot gets on board with making a change.... things ain't gonna change.


Don't blame the pilots. See above conversation with airline recruiter. Had you said "all the regionals have done is lowered... then I might not be so red in the face right now. Again I ask, what should the low timers have done? Decline job offers? We all know damn good and well that those positions will be filled, and if I decline it, someone else will take it and ... where does that leave me? "Great, all my peers are building jet time and I am here instructing in a 72 because I'm gonna stand strong and make a change" BS

What will I do? I don't really care. I meet ATP minimums and if need be I can go get one. So lets say I had not yet been hired by a regional. Lets say I met ATP mins and went down with all my 172, 152 and Seminole time and took the checkride at a flight school. How does an ATP ticket in a Piper really make me a more experienced passenger jet pilot? I think not.

ATP = Airline transport Pilot = license requiered to work as a pilot in an airline = Minimums. Kinda makes sense doesn't it? :eek:

This is well stated, Willie.

Another poster alluded to the fact that 800hrs vs 1500hrs in a 172 really makes no difference. I both agree and disagree with this point. True, raw hours in the logbook is not always an accurate reflection on a pilot's skill. It's quality of training and flight time that makes the difference, not quantity. I'd like to add by saying that the guy who spends 2 years instructing full time will have a higher capacity to think at a correlative level and have a deeper understanding of instrument procedures. However, the jump to CRJ systems will still be considerable for both the 800hr guy and the 1500hr guy who both flew 172s.

Second, the pilot who instructs for 2 years because his/her goal is to fly for an airline will probably be a better training product than the guy who has 200 hrs having no real appreciation for the hard work and responsibility involved in the path to become and being an airline pilot. I'm NOT saying that a 200hr FO doesn't appreciate his work. I'm just saying that there is something to be said for true devotion and the resulting attitude.

If I wanted the government's hand this tight around my throat I would move back to Europe.


-The Stig

Makes sense to me. The FAA forgot what the difference was... until now.

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).

When I started my stint at a regional airline, I had 1600 hours and had provided 1100 hours dual given. There were a few folks in my class that had 400 hours total time and still had a long way to go PROCEDURALLY. I remember flying with some Captains who were quite relieved when I knew how to pick up a clearance at an uncontrolled field w/out their supervision! :eek:

I didn't and still don't have my ATP, but I know that I was able to operate safely. I agree with a previous poster, until the flying public is willing to pay the price for "safer" pilots, there won't be too many changes coming down the pike.

It won't matter anyways. The next time airlines hire people will have well over 1500 hours.

That's actually a good point. I've seen that first hand and It always amazed me that those people even brought it up in public that they couldn't do a certain task as if it was normal. At least google the procedures the night before or something.... I was a low timer and fortunately I had good primary training so I had no problem at all. It also depends on the individual. Of course the airline can't guess that, so they have to set some kind of bench mark. But 1500 should not be a sliver bullet.

HEY STOP TRYING TO INJECT FACTS INTO THIS ARGUEMENT!

First off I HAD over 1500 hours before my first regional job. Should there be an increase in the beginning wages? Yes. Is it the low time pilot's fault that we are in the mess that we are? No! It is the employers, they choose were to set there standards. Last time I checked every pilot in a 121 environment is held to ATP standards during every checkride. So if we are held to the same training standards what does it matter what the resume says. What this thread should be discussing is the total failure in the training department, that lead to the crash that started all this fuss.

The whole argument was the the CA at Colgan only had like 600 when he was hired as an FO. The politicians then started to question things forgetting that the crew had a combined experience of more than 5000 hours that night... including the FO that had more than ATP mins when she was hired. I am very sure that the CA knew how to get out of a stall but he didn't, including th eFO that raised the flaps at 20 degree pitch up. Why did the CA that took off on the wrong runway in Kentucky do it? Who knows? Should they have raised the mins then? Should they take out the FOs and CAs that were low timers that are flying now? Aren't they as dangerous as the CA of Colgan???

that's safe, pick-up a clearance with only one set of ears listening so when you deviate and possibly kill the pax in the back your family can come forward and say "but he was experienced enough to pick up a clearance w/o captain supervision":mad:

From my experience the most dangerous 121 pilots are (not all just a few):

-pilots new to a type or variation of a type but with a considerable amount of previous experience
They have enough experience that they are somewhat complacent but aren't quite settled into the nuances of the aircraft yet.

- Pilots who have experience but are incompetent and have no business being airline pilots and through one way or the other have yet to be weeded out by the training department.

These pilots are far more dangerous than a 300, 400 hour wonder who, has demonstrated competency during training. If training standards are raised and a 300 hour pilot can make it though, I say all the more power to em'.

Accidents will happen very rarely (thank God) regardless of the experience in the cockpit. Setting the bar high is merely to weed people out. It is not entirely based on the relationship between experience and hours.

Lets face it, flying an airplane isn't that difficult. I believe it has more to do with innate personality and coolness under pressure than much anything else.

That being said, still set the entry requirements high. Those who want it will figure out a way and those who don't/can't won't. The less pilots trying to live the dream, the better for all.

Heck, why not make it 5000 hours PIC turbine. Then there would never be another accident.

Numbers are just that, numbers. Arbitrary lines in the sand only ease the worries of those who create them and they often do no easing.

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.

The job market will dictate what the hiring minimums will be. Airlines, although poorly run, are businesses out to make money. They are not going to artificially remain contracted and ignore demand. They're going to offer flights to meet the supply. Unless restricted by law, they're going to hire the pilots necessary to do that.

Higher minimums are fine with me, but this utopian belief they will lead to safer flight and higher pay is not realistic.

How come the majors still have crashes?Dont they have more than 1500 hours?Stop blaming the "nembies" for getting a job when the time was right.

We are talking about FO's here and not Capt's right? Why does the FO need to have 2500 or 5000 hours? He isnt the PIC.

You guys talk about hours. But ithink it has more to do with competency. The military takes a young 22 year old second Lieutenanat with about 200 hours of flight time and trains him to fly F-15's and C-130's. So how does flight time equate to a better pilot? I think the military puts out some the best pilots in the world and they start off with a little over 200 hours of total time.

However I do agree that 1500 hours is a good starting place if thats what they want to do.

I'm not sure how to take the tone of your post, but is it really necessary to have two sets of years picking up a clearance? That was my whole point - that as an FO you should know how to pick it up and be able to set-up for that clearance without having to have your hand held! By the time you make it to an airline, there are certain porcedures that should be able to be accomplished without consulting the AIM, methinks!

I was hired with 320 hours total and 50 multi back in 2007 to fly a DHC8. Systems training and FMS lab were easy if you studied and they were interesting. If you studied you were fine no matter what your experience level was. If you didn’t study, you shouldn’t have accepted the job.

The sim training and 121 checkride were very challenging for me. I passed first time but spent all of my free time practicing with my assigned CA who had zero time in the DHC8. He was moving from a 1900. He had never seen the flows or touched an a/c that he was to be PIC of just 10 days later.

The cockpit posters were pretty torn up by the end of my sim training.

My sim CA had over 2000 total and 1200 in the 1900. Over a year of experience flying 121 and is a smart guy. He had trouble as well as I and by the third sim session we decided to devote all of our efforts to becoming successful.

We did it, but I was left feeling that the airlines have a lot to improve in how they train pilots for aircraft that are new to them. I also think it’s a bad idea to have a CA with zero hours become PIC (IOE and line checks should not be a CA’s first hours in an a/c).

121 needs to train ABOVE the minimum standards set forth by the FAA, more time to practice emergencies, landing in strong winds, etc. Total time in your a/c (your office) is what will make a safer pilot. Pilot pay should be a combination of time in type and seniority in the system.

As far as pilot mins, quality is much more important than total time to me. Number of approaches, landings and a grading system by CFIs or your safety pilots should be logged to build a proper history of a pilot’s abilities.

121 crew pairing also needs to be addressed. Pair the CA’s with more hours with the lower hour FO and vise-versa. Safe crew pairing should come before seniority when the schedule is created.

The public wants to be safe but raising the hiring hours won’t create safety. The airlines attitude towards training needs to change.

I just wanted to say that hull insurance is what drives most of the hiring requirements, not necessarily the airlines.

I'm paying more for insurance than I am on the leases of our twin turbines, and its a scary amount!

(and yes, our minimums are at 1500 for the right seat in a twin turbine, left seat has to have ATP + 4 year degree now)

Training is great, but no substitute for experience. Instead of looking at total hrs to fill the experience box. Greater attention should be paid to their work history. Especially those who have experience in the PIC/IFR world.

Good point! I'm wondering how one cannot get insurance flying a Citation without 3000hrs and 100 in type but Regionals were upgrading guys at 2500 in RJ's, or in Renslow's case 3000+ but no time in type. I'm guessing that they pay up the rear for insurance.

Just a guess, but I believe the "hand holding" that goes into 121 (flight planning, constant contact with dispatch, etc) goes a long way into comforting insurance companies when it comes to lower time guys in the cockpit.

You are a little bit more isolated in the corporate world.

Make the schools have more stringent requirements. Places like All ATP's, Gulfstream Academy, etc. These places are "pilot factories" and will give you a rating if you are willing to pay for it. Any place that can take you from zero hours to the right seat of an airliner in less than 12 months is not teaching you what you need to know to be safe and competent. The Colgan crash happened because the pilots lacked the basic skills required to fly an aircraft. The captain pulled back without adding power to recover from a stall for crying-out-loud.