ATPs required for FOs... Senate next week.
03-05-2010, 05:30 PM
#42
Day puke
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Out.
Posts: 3,865
Originally Posted by afterburn81
When I first started flying, my instructors would say they were getting burned out after giving about 2000hrs of instruction (2200tt). Now you hear instructors saying they are already burned out after 500hrs of instruction given (700tt). ..... Lets face it. If you are burned out after 1000tt, well you shouldn't do the 121 thing. It's just not for you.
Originally Posted by lifter123
I have way under the 1500 hours needed and am still for this requirement due to the long term results. However, the problem I see is how are we, and future pilots, going to get these 1500 hours. I've had my CFI(I)/MEI for about 8 months and still don't have a job.
In short, How Bad Do You Want It? If it is too hard now, imagine how hard it will be when you have a family and get furloughed. Consider the previous post.
Originally Posted by dh05z28
One more thing that needs to change is the Commercial curriculum!??? Chandelles. Lazy 8's???? really? I understand that it helps you "master" control of the aircraft ....
When I was instructing I would try to keep my commercial students in the clouds and on approaches whenever I could. I dont know how many people I had to RE-teach holds too or answer questions like "Do I go missed AT the MDA or the MAP????" .
When I was instructing I would try to keep my commercial students in the clouds and on approaches whenever I could. I dont know how many people I had to RE-teach holds too or answer questions like "Do I go missed AT the MDA or the MAP????" .
Good for you for keeping your students sharp. However, if the student is asking too many of those questions, it tells me he never really LEARNED how to fly IFR.
Originally Posted by schone
...thunderstorms, radar usage, icing hazards etc need to be taught and ingrained with real world experience.
.... it would be nice if they cross trained just a tad but enough to give you the other side view of what controllers are trying to do,
.... it would be nice if they cross trained just a tad but enough to give you the other side view of what controllers are trying to do,
Originally Posted by Whistlin' Dan
The problem is, it won't. It won't do much for pay and benefits, either.
Requiring an applicant for an ATP to be a graduate of an approved, college-level training program would be a start. You wanna fly 50-500 people in turbine-powered aircraft for money, you have to go to school. REAL school, not "Bubba's Academy of Airline Flying and Taxidermy" school.
The other problem is documenting the required flight experience. Periodic reviews of rental receipts, fuel and/or maintenance bills for aircraft flown, etc. might be another way to ensure that guys aren't padding their logbooks.
Requiring an applicant for an ATP to be a graduate of an approved, college-level training program would be a start. You wanna fly 50-500 people in turbine-powered aircraft for money, you have to go to school. REAL school, not "Bubba's Academy of Airline Flying and Taxidermy" school.
The other problem is documenting the required flight experience. Periodic reviews of rental receipts, fuel and/or maintenance bills for aircraft flown, etc. might be another way to ensure that guys aren't padding their logbooks.
I attended one of those fancy 141 schools and instructed CFIs at another. The students get their tickets through CFI/CFII/MEI, then THEY start teaching students. Then those students end up teaching the next class of students. After a few of these generations, the schools become "inbred". Everybody teaches exactly the same things in exactly the same ways. So rather than different people bringing new experience and knowledge to enrich the curriculum, they end up dreaming up ridicules, obscure questions like "what is the volume of fluid in the nose gear actuator?" I can't measure it, so don't know and don't care.
Originally Posted by Contrail06
If I had to pick between two 1500 hr FO's....
a) 250 to get their ratings, 250 dual given, 1000 part 135 (assuming he/she started doing vfr until the 1200 hr mark)
or
b) worthless aviation 4 yr degree, 250 to get their ratings, 250 dual given, 1000 part 121 in the jet that we are currently sitting in.
I pick option B
a) 250 to get their ratings, 250 dual given, 1000 part 135 (assuming he/she started doing vfr until the 1200 hr mark)
or
b) worthless aviation 4 yr degree, 250 to get their ratings, 250 dual given, 1000 part 121 in the jet that we are currently sitting in.
I pick option B
Sure, he has 1000 in type NOW, but "B" was hired with only 250 hours of "signing for the aircraft" experience. Also, that time was probably earned at a school that prevented flight on a 200 and 1/2 day. Depending on how fast he got his tickets and how busy the school is, he may not have even flown during all four seasons.
"A's" CFI time was the same as "B". And his time from 500-1200 was VFR as well, but those 700 hours were spent "flying a line": HE supervised the loading, insured the paper work was correct, checked the wx, and made the go/no go decisions. After that, he spent another 300 hours doing the same stuff under IFR. And all that time in 135, he was flying an underpowered, marginally equipped plane that was far less capable of penetrating wx than your jet.
So as a new hire, I'll take "A".
Originally Posted by sweptwing
My two cents worth, Just because you have a commercial certificate and some multi engine time does not make you a professional pilot. Experience does count and is a necessary part of becoming a pro pilot. IMO you must go out get that experience on your own and learn what your own limitations are and how to make sound decisions.
Originally Posted by B757CA
What's the difference between a 121 type ride and a 121 F/O ride? Precious little...........The difference between someone having 500 hours and 100 multi-engine and someone having 1500 and 100 is also very little.
Originally Posted by Hot Rod Wannabe
The Flt3407 was doomed when it took off. What was the forecast, why was it even allowed to take off? Why did the Captain take it?
The PIC needs real authority to tell management to reschedule the flight. PIC's need a minimum amount of education over and beyound the current 121 requirements.
The PIC needs real authority to tell management to reschedule the flight. PIC's need a minimum amount of education over and beyound the current 121 requirements.
The real question is do you or I have the fortitude to say, "This flight, while legal, is not safe or prudent. Unless xyz changes, I cannot accept the flight." And then are you or I willing to accept the poop-storm? I work hard to move the goods, but a long time ago I decided NO job is worth me exceeding MY limits.
Originally Posted by Superpilot92
bottom line is having a little more time wont hurt and can only help.
03-05-2010, 06:44 PM
#43
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Banker....UGH!
Posts: 75
Maybe for the right reason
Originally Posted by chuckyt1
So which metric would you use to choose the "safe" pilot? If 1500 hours does not make you safer, then why is it required to be in the left seat?
Every rating has a min number of hours required. Why not a 121 first officer?
Every rating has a min number of hours required. Why not a 121 first officer?
03-05-2010, 06:53 PM
#44
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Banker....UGH!
Posts: 75
Originally Posted by crazyjaydawg
You're kidding right? The weather was typical soup in the NE in winter...The captain took it because he had SJS and would do anything to be able to fly for an airline!
Bad weather wasn't one of and being tired was definately not an option.
Look at the changes made immediately at Colgan, i.e. fatigue calls were now acceptable. Immediately....hmmmm I wonder what the policy was before the accident? Weather isn't just soup, soup is good, SLD is deadly not matter what you fly. And yes the Captain did make a mistake, but so did the managment, dispatch and ATC. When you have experience in this line of work it isn't one thing that caused the accident it is a whole chain of events. Work from the accident backwards and look for clues, then make educated deductions based on facts and events!
03-05-2010, 06:54 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 147
With all the arguing about this, I think you all should take your anger to the CVR fight. I would rather have ATP mins for all 121 pilots over management going through CVRs and FDRs anyday. Pick your battles. I personally think everyone needs to let this one go and go after the bigger fish.
03-05-2010, 06:54 PM
#46
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Banker....UGH!
Posts: 75
Think with your Dip Stick!
Originally Posted by ReadyToGo
if they are ready to raise minimums, they should be ready to raise pay...if not........walk.
03-05-2010, 08:27 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Fero's
Posts: 472
Originally Posted by Hot Rod Wannabe
Why should the ATP mins discriminate against FO's? The ATP is for the captain PIC min's, FO's aren't paid the same so why should the they have the hour requirement to just get hired when PIC just have to have the min hours to qualify for the ATP? Of course type time does go into the equation along with education. But tell me how we don't discriminate while stopping growth and limiting commerce?
I'm not disagreeing with you. Just asking what you think would be a substitute for hours in deciding who should be hired. If a metric where to be instituted, what should it be? The hours you have? The look in your eye? Your haircut?
03-05-2010, 08:35 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: none ya...
Posts: 1,154
Originally Posted by chuckyt1
It's not discriminating against FO's, It is simply a requirement.
I'm not disagreeing with you. Just asking what you think would be a substitute for hours in deciding who should be hired. If a metric where to be instituted, what should it be? The hours you have? The look in your eye? Your haircut?
I'm not disagreeing with you. Just asking what you think would be a substitute for hours in deciding who should be hired. If a metric where to be instituted, what should it be? The hours you have? The look in your eye? Your haircut?
03-05-2010, 08:52 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Fero's
Posts: 472
Originally Posted by TPROP4ever
How about a LOFT flight in a basic simulator ( like a king air or something) during the interview.. That will definatly test how your thought processes and ADM run...I am a firm believer in scenario based training and checking...
If we are going to use a metric...
I, also, don't believe that hours alone make the pilot. However, if a minimum number of hours is required for certain things, then why not for an F/O at a 121 carrier?
03-05-2010, 09:03 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 154
Originally Posted by yamahas3
For other countries, have you seen what it takes to get an JAA ATPL?
1) Shiny Jet Syndrome
2) About 100,000 euros paid for by mom and dad
3) A cocky attitude
Some of these students who just received their frozen ATPL I wouldn't trust to fly me to the next town over for lunch, thats saying they could even find the airport. I think its horrifying that they have maybe 200 hours and sit left seat in a Boeing or Airbus. Their only saving grace is that they get to sit next to a captain who has about 10 years under his belt, and can fix something if they screw up. I've seen students who probably have no more than three brain cells pass the 12 or so written exams they have to take.
