But if the hiring threshold was 1500 hours, and she had 1700, she'd have still been in the same position. She would have still commuted from SEA, she'd have still been sick/fatigued, she'd have still raised the flaps (uncommanded to) in a stall situation. YES the problem is cut rate bottom feeding, and they type of pilots they attract, not a arbitrary number of hours. That's the solution... better culling the herd, and hiring QUALITY not hiring somebody who drilled holes in the sky for 1500 hours.

I know I am in a very distinct minority, but I don't think the 1500 hour is a magic bullet. Quality is far more important than quantity. People will always be able to game the system if the only requirement becomes a static time issue. Watch out for lots of safety pilot time in the near future.

I understand why so many here see it as necessary, but to view this only from the pilot side of the ledger neglects the side who actually pays the bills, managemment. I'm not arguing for low time hires, but restricting the pool of applicants at a time of growth (sometime in the future) unfairly restricts a business's ability to expand.

Gentlmen, what, in your opinion, is quality time for a pilot? Would you care to elaborate on what kind of experience one should have before entering a cockpit with passengers in the back of the airplane? I am very interested in your insights as I don't know what a good answer is to this question. What would you be comfortable with? What would the public be comfortable with. Thanks in advance for a well thought answer.

I'll take a stab at it.

"Back In The Day" (before the year 2000) in the civilian route, one had to go to college (wow... actually get a degree!), then flight instruct, then fly freight or pt 135 charter in a small airplane for several hundred hours to learn their craft. After a while, they'd move up to a turboprop and get some turbine time. A couple thousand hours total, and they'd get hired by a "commuter" flying something like a Beech 99, a Metro, a J-31, or maybe an EMB 110. After a couple of years they'd upgrade, get a couple thousand hours of PIC time, then go off to the majors.

Now (post Y2K) pilots go to ALL ATPs, Riddle CAPT, Comair Academy, Mesa Pilot Development, etc, and get their minimum FAA requirements. Then they instruct for 6 months, then get picked up by a hard up bottom feeder "regional" at 300 hours and given a jet to fly. They're told in training to turn the autopilot on immediately after departure, leave it on to approach minimums, and they'll be fine.

I think going to a puppy mill then instructing for 6-12 months then going to the right seat of a jet is NOT quality. I'd like to see the industry move back into hiring for experience. Of course, the only way that will happen is to increase starting pay, which will increase ticket prices. All of the problems we have in the industry stem from the Public demanding airfares cheaper than the cost of driving. IMO, that's a product of deregulation. As Ryanair's Micharl O'Leary says "flying is a commodity". Nothing will change until we change the public mindset toward flying.

How can you make this statement when the Captain of 3407 was hired with less than 1500 hours. People love to point to his total time and then say that he was high time. What you are missing is that a 1500 hour requirement would have kept him from being hired at the time that he was. I can't find the exact number, but if I remember right, he started flying for Gulfstream with under 500 hours and then was hired at Colgan with under 1000.

Other notable crashes with flight crew who were under 1500 hours when hired:

Pinnacle 4712: Captain total time 5600 (1400 when hired)
Pinnacle 3701: FO total time 761 (549 when hired)
Air Midwest 5481: Captain total time 2790 (925 when hired, 1690 at upgrade)
Air Midwest 5481: FO total time 1096 (390 when hired)

I agree. You would think that the latest "high profile" crash would change the public mindset or any of the other one's that occurred because of possible pilot inexperience. I wonder what the reaction would be if you informed the passengers ( before a flight ), of the flight experience of the cockpit crew. Would the company endorse this or do you think they would discourage it? Give the passengers the option to stay or bail based on the answer. Alot of fellows out there say 300hr pilots have enough experience to be in the cockpit. I say they don't. If they are so convinced that the flying public doesn't care, let em know before lift off into the WILD blue yonder.

I fail to see your point.

He didn't crash the airplane when he was below 1500 hours, and got thousands of hours in Colgan airplanes in the Colgan system between hire and when the plane went down.

Delaying his hire until he had more than 1500 hours, using your example, is no guarantee that he wouldn't have still screwed the pooch on a simple stall recovery (to say nothing of not letting it happen in the first place).

So no, he being hired under 1500tt didn't have ANYTHING to do with this accident and would not have prevented it.

Also, while the raw facts support your hypothesis, using AMW 5481 is a long stretch...

The more I think about that magic pay increase that everyone of a certain generation ("ME") seems to await the more I see that there are other reasons besides entitlement that cause this expectational delusion. The majority of pilots employed by a regional airline that have been at that airline for 6 or more years are either on captains pay or didn't fall victim of the "attack of the student loan companies". During this attack you weren't cool unless you financed all of your tuition at a really overly expensive university with less than one percent girls. You were required to take out at least 200K because all the cool kids were doing it.

The industry went through a time where most of those kids were given the opportunity to become a real life pilot just like they always wanted. But now that the honeymoon is over and those vicious loan companies need to pay bonuses to their big execs it's apparent that making those payments is a little tough. Yeah yeah...............we all know hind sight is 20/20.

So some of that hoping for a little more cash to keep the lenders off everyone's back has a lot to do with a generation that is pretty much screwed. I just saw that they are slapping more limits on executive pay again. So if they can set limits to their pay, why can't they limit a pilots pay? That's a lower limit that I speak of.

This isn't necessarily geared towards you, but:

I'm rather amused that Generation Y has been dubbed "Generation Me" by the same baby boomers who have constantly rewritten the rules to suit their own situations and whose greed was the cause of the B-scale, small jet outsourcing, and pretty much every messed-up situation both in and outside the aviation industry.

Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black...

Agreed boiler, the same generation changing the rules to suit them, ala age 65 when it would most benefit them. The changing of the rules to benefit certain people in the profession argument is moot coming from Generation X.