|
Most people I know of built their hours by flight instructing before they went on to the regionals. In most airplanes used for flight instruction, you would be a bad pilot if you fly in known icing, no?
what a load of S. |
Originally Posted by ysslah
(Post 779649)
Most people I know of built their hours by flight instructing before they went on to the regionals. In most airplanes used for flight instruction, you would be a bad pilot if you fly in known icing, no?
what a load of S. Exactly....... If they are going to mandate specifics to the hours you need then you are going to have to find a way to get those specific hours. I'm sure there are many people here that can honestly say that they actually bridged the gap between flight instructing in a single engine basic aircraft and flying a high performance technologically advanced machine full of moms, dads, sisters, brothers, and children etc. I myself am one of them. Call me an idiot but from the day I got my commercial license and thought maybe one day I would like to fly for a living I was under the impression that I needed an ATP before I could get hired by an air carrier. (I'm not sure where I got it but I remember someone telling me that was the case) Instructing in an arrow or seminole all day wasn't really going to expose me to much of what I would expect one day flying lots of people around. So I ventured outside the box and decided to get a variation of hours to include in the journey to 1500. I was living each day as if I needed to have all of the qualifications that this new bill proposes a pilot to have. I believed in not only quantity but quality. It really wasn't that hard when I think about it. Did you honestly think this whole thing was going to be a cake walk? And everyone complains that the job isn't very rewarding anymore. Of course not. You only get as much out of something as you put in. I lived by my fathers saying "you gotta pay to play". Work hard and one day it will pay off. The problem is, not enough people want to pay their dues. The airlines know this and take full advantage of it. |
I (Function effectively) when I sit down on the toity:D so why can't our government when it comes down to their jobs:rolleyes: How sad, a perfect opportunity to actually make a difference and they screw it up like everything else. They should have just stuck to thier guns with an ATP. Instead RAA and their goon-squad will be in DC lobbying for what they want.
|
Originally Posted by Zapata
(Post 778911)
How do you know?
YouTube - Colgan Flight 3407 NTSB Animation of Buffalo Accident Q400 If you have, I cannot fathom how you think the CA was responding appropriately to a potential tail stall. |
Originally Posted by dudas3
(Post 779576)
So let me see if I'm reading this correctly. Congress is trying to pass a provision requiring the FAA to make a rule change for FO's by 12/31/2011 (End of next year). If the FAA does not do this within that time frame then the minimum requirement for FO's automatically goes to an ATP? What about the specifically-prescribed conditions stated in this article for an ATP? Are they referring to the already written requirements for obtaining an ATP or are they planning on coming up with something different?Next we come to the part of, "Demonstrate the ability to." What in the world does that mean? Does that mean that we are now going to have PTS's for these new requirements, more written tests, or will the fact that you have flown for a regional, even though you may be furloughed at this time, going to be enough to meet these requirements?Finally we come to the flight training in, "Difficult flying conditions." Once again, what are we talking about? Are we talking about icing, very busy Class B (i.e. JFK, EWR, LGA, ORD, LAX, etc.), IMC, emergency type training?
I agree with NoBeta that these statements are way too vague. There is no where to go to and get any information on these changes, and as far as I know there have been only two articles that I have found which even discuss the changes. Granted this bill sounds like it is a proposal of rulemaking to the FAA so specifics are probably not available yet, but some of these changes could affect quite a few pilots. My concern is for those of us who are furloughed, through no fault of our own in many cases, who meet the 800 hours, but who may now not technically be qualified to do the jobs we have already done because of these additional requirements. Will there be any type of Grandfather clause for those of us with 121 experience? This bill is just filled with way to many questions. It would actually be easier on the airlines (and noob pilots) if they just go with the ATP...it will be cheaper and easier to get an ATP as a CFI/MEI than jump through some of the hoops implied in the 800 hour proposal. The FAA will have to devise the details of the 800-hour rule. Congress did not attempt to get that far into the weeds... It might just be logged time in specific conditions. It might require dual-received and endorsement(s). It might end up a whole new rating with it's own PTS, checkride, and maybe written (I suspect they will just require the ATP written)...TAA Commercial, 121 Commercial, or something like that. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 780548)
If the FAA fails to devise a new rule by 12/2011, FO's will need an ATP. The "specific conditions" just refer to the existing ATP requirements.
It would actually be easier on the airlines (and noob pilots) if they just go with the ATP...it will be cheaper and easier to get an ATP as a CFI/MEI than jump through some of the hoops implied in the 800 hour proposal. The FAA will have to devise the details of the 800-hour rule. Congress did not attempt to get that far into the weeds... It might just be logged time in specific conditions. It might require dual-received and endorsement(s). It might end up a whole new rating with it's own PTS, checkride, and maybe written (I suspect they will just require the ATP written)...TAA Commercial, 121 Commercial, or something like that. |
Originally Posted by TPROP4ever
(Post 780582)
Rick I agree with this. Sad, but I tried to caution people that trusting any government entity to regulate entry into a field they know little about could bite us all in the butt. Well I guess it has happened. It looks like the FAA will be required to make a new certification, call it a 121 commercial. What does this mean? The way I see it we could all (regardless if you are an 801 hr. FO, or a 20,000 hr, 18 year seatlocked major FO) have to go take a checkride for our nice shiney new certificate. We can hope we will be able to do it during PC in the sim, but if not then I wonder, will we have to pay for the DPE and plane for that new certificate?:rolleyes: I know that based on the comments I've seen over the last year, that the majority of posters seemed a bit more concerned about whether you could use this movment to artificially raise your pay in the industry, rather than safety. Well it looks like YOU WON, so let me pat you on the back....sarcasm
If current 121 pilots are not grandfathered, then the airlines will have to provide the new rating during a PC. They may just opt to give everybody an ATP, same cost and they were going to have to do that when you upgraded anyway. The tradition in 121 is that they pay for required training, especially after you are already employed. Any airline which refuses to provide the new rating would probably end up liquidated on the day the new rule took effect...I doubt many FO's would rush to go buy another rating out in town. Most of us have been in the right seat for 3-10 years...not much SJS left. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 780676)
I think it will raise the bar, perhaps indirectly, by requiring higher levels of experience and more up-front effort. People with experience have more options in aviation, and may not be attracted by regional food stamp wages.
If current 121 pilots are not grandfathered, then the airlines will have to provide the new rating during a PC. They may just opt to give everybody an ATP, same cost and they were going to have to do that when you upgraded anyway. The tradition in 121 is that they pay for required training, especially after you are already employed. Any airline which refuses to provide the new rating would probably end up liquidated on the day the new rule took effect...I doubt many FO's would rush to go buy another rating out in town. Most of us have been in the right seat for 3-10 years...not much SJS left. It is an ugly approach and you should have gone missed! |
It sounds like they are raising the commercial pilot requirements to 800 hours. I hope I am reading this right?
AINalerts | March 18, 2010 |
How about making the sim portion of the interview not so freakin easy!! I interviewed at 2 airlines (got an offer at both) and both had the easiest sim evals ever. I mean what does having a instrument rated commercial pilot fly an ILS to minimums then describe what type of hold entry should be done during the missed tell you about that pilot? Absolutely nothing other than they can read a gouge and practice the standard sequence a few times before the interview. Switch it up so you can't just read the gouge and know exactly what you are going to do for the interview. You should have to do a few approaches, maybe via procedure turn on one, throw some single engine and partial panel in there as well. I know that's not what you will be doing 99.99% of the time at the airlines but at least you know for that .01% you'll have the right pilot for the job, and that's when it really counts. And if you think that is unfair or too hard for an interview then I certainly don't want to ride in the back of any plane your flying.
"Excellence is not a skill. It is an attitude." |
Originally Posted by Hot Rod Wannabe
(Post 780912)
Rick, Again you miss the mark! it isn't about the hours. Is 800 going to make a pilot safe? How about 5000 hours? It isn't the hours, if that were the case explain Cali Colombia? so many case studies that show hours aren't the key factor. Sleep, better rest cycles, and giving the PIC actual athority to tell a dispatcher no way jose! The union didn't win and when this goes in to full bloom it will cripple an already crippled industry.
It is an ugly approach and you should have gone missed! Case studies are just that..........studies of mishaps. You learn that mishaps can creep up and bite anyone in the butt; but they show nothing about whether hours are good or otherwise. IT IS THE UNKNOWN. Maybe a better gauge would be a study of the ALMOST mishaps ;) USMCFLYR |
Originally Posted by imbroke
(Post 780928)
How about making the sim portion of the interview not so freakin easy!! I interviewed at 2 airlines (got an offer at both) and both had the easiest sim evals ever. I mean what does having a instrument rated commercial pilot fly an ILS to minimums then describe what type of hold entry should be done during the missed tell you about that pilot? Absolutely nothing other than they can read a gouge and practice the standard sequence a few times before the interview. Switch it up so you can't just read the gouge and know exactly what you are going to do for the interview. You should have to do a few approaches, maybe via procedure turn on one, throw some single engine and partial panel in there as well. I know that's not what you will be doing 99.99% of the time at the airlines but at least you know for that .01% you'll have the right pilot for the job, and that's when it really counts. And if you think that is unfair or too hard for an interview then I certainly don't want to ride in the back of any plane your flying.
"Excellence is not a skill. It is an attitude." How about a sim or a flight in an airplane that I've never been in before? Will that be a fair assesment of my piloting skills? How about if I told you that I would give you your DREAM job if you could pass a basic instrument qualification in MY simulator? I'm sure that I could make it more than you can handle 99% of the time. No....training is actually a much better gauge of a pilot's skill than a one shot simulator session. USMCFLYR |
The grounds on which this bill is made are asinine, its was fatigue issue.
But in the end I hope by taking out 250 hour wonder pilots from right seat jobs we will see some pay changes and a little more respect. A strike or two here or there after pilots take any more concessions would be nice too, cause now theres not someone chomping at the bit with a wet CMEL for this job. Last year, this time, I was at 275 hours. Since then, Ive run around the country, live in four states, had a company fold up on me, and now make just enough to pay rent and bills. Just passed 900 last month. Not at a 121 or 135 operation yet, but still working at it. Ladies and gentlemen, you either want it or you dont. So suck it up and GSD :cool: |
Originally Posted by Outlaw2097
(Post 780946)
The grounds on which this bill is made are asinine, its was fatigue issue.
But in the end I hope by taking out 250 hour wonder pilots from right seat jobs we will see some pay changes and a little more respect. A strike or two here or there after pilots take any more concessions would be nice too, cause now theres not someone chomping at the bit with a wet CMEL for this job. Last year, this time, I was at 275 hours. Since then, Ive run around the country, live in four states, had a company fold up on me, and now make just enough to pay rent and bills. Just passed 900 last month. Not at a 121 or 135 operation yet, but still working at it. Ladies and gentlemen, you either want it or you dont. So suck it up and GSD :cool: |
Originally Posted by DeadHead
(Post 778493)
Agreed, some of these proposals are some of the dumbest ideas and concepts I have ever heard, but then again I wouldn't expect anything else from Washington these days. The rationale for these rules, with regard to icing, is ridiculous.
Basically, this rule will entice newly-minted, freshly-certified commercial pilots to fly into icing conditions prior to applying at a regional airline. I'm not sure what metric the FAA will use to determine an individual's particular background and experience level with icing conditions, but it'll be interesting to see what they come out with. I guess we need to start adding an column for icing in our logbooks as well now. End of the day, icing had very little/nothing to do with this crash, so it seems amiss to try and tap in new regulation for a "unrelated factor" contributing to the crash. It comes down to substandard treatment, compensation, and work rules which need to be addressed at the federal level. The fact that pilots, regional ones especially, operate hundreds of thousands of flights every year safely while giving and committing so much only to get back so little in return. Washington expects and regulates towards nothing less than perfection from the pilots in this country, yet the politicians will not even attempt to understand or commiserate with the hardships many pilots are dealt with. If only, we as American Citizens, held our Elected Public Servants to the same Professional Standards that we act upon day in and day out, if only. A huge problem with this country is the unnecessary need for short term gain. |
Originally Posted by Whacker77
(Post 778552)
It's true that 135 offers aircraft capable of flying in icing, but how realistic is it that these jobs will be available? There aren't that many right now and I doubt many will spring up because of this. When you consider the shadiness of some 135 operators and the requirements insurance providers place on some, I just don't see how it will work effectively and not cause a major pilot shortage. That's just my view and I know other will disagree with me. That's like me selling a car, and saying "But oh no! There's a shortage of cars, which means I'll get more money for mine!" |
Why are they not focusing on the most important stuff? I mean yes it is great to see the hours increased. IMO they have always been too low, but what about better fatigue, work rest, and pay rules? This seems to be a larger contributor to crashes like 3407 than that. Why focus on checkride busts so much, especially primary busts, when there does not seem to be as much forward movement on the more important things?
|
Originally Posted by atpcliff
(Post 778488)
Hi!
They'll get the foreign pilots from Africa...oh wait, there is a shortage, so no. They'll get the foreign pilots from the Middle East...oh wait, there is a shortage, so no. They'll get the foreign pilots from Asia...oh wait, there is a shortage, so no. They'll get the foreign pilots from S./Central America...oh wait, there is shortage, so no. They'll get the foreign pilots from Antarctica??? Europe is even importing experienced pilots, and the T&Cs there are way better than the US, so I don't see that happening. Alien pilot training on Mars will provide the pilots??? cliff NBO Some of those airlines in the countries you listed pay better than many US airlines! |
My guess is that the end result of this will be a lot of logbook pencil whipping in which the FAA will look the other way.
|
Originally Posted by bozobigtop
(Post 781239)
Some of those airlines in the countries you listed pay better than many US airlines!
|
Originally Posted by Lighteningspeed
(Post 781254)
Sadly, that is so true.
|
Originally Posted by Whacker77
(Post 781256)
Have you seen the unrest taking place in those countries where high union wages dominate? The Western European countries have highly paid pilots and their economies are failing or stalled at best. Just look at England. BA is set for a three day strike and Greece is falling apart. Higher wages in the foreign countries may not be all they're cracked up to be.
|
Originally Posted by NoStep
(Post 778887)
Couldn't disagree more!
The Colgan crash families are operating under the false premise that politicians can fix this. (Whenever I've had a Mx problem, I always ask a gate agent to fix it) Let's see if I got this right? Renslow and Shaw both met every single requirement that's been proposed thusfar, (ATP's, 800-1,500 hours, multi-crew training, airline approved training for icing conditions, etc.) Neither one was a zero-to-hero at Colgan. What would prevent this from happening again? Shut down places like Gulfstream and go up the rectum of Colgan's training department with a microscope, and put shady operators and the RAA on notice. The families mentioned laud this STUPID proposal, and in turn enable the very pay-to-play places like Gulfstream that produced a pilot like Renslow. I'm I the only one who thinks the ATP and 800hour/icing compromise have nothing to do with this accident? I'm insulted that obviously not a single pilot is being consulted on this p.o.s. legislation? |
Hi!
TPROP4ever: What are you advocating for here???... I tried to caution people that trusting any government entity to regulate entry into a field they know little about could bite us all in the butt. Without a government entity to regulate air safety, you think that each airline's management (in conjunction with their unions, if they have any) should regulate their own operation??? cliff NBO |
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 780937)
And many times what will a single sim tell you about a pilot?
How about a sim or a flight in an airplane that I've never been in before? Will that be a fair assesment of my piloting skills? How about if I told you that I would give you your DREAM job if you could pass a basic instrument qualification in MY simulator? I'm sure that I could make it more than you can handle 99% of the time. No....training is actually a much better gauge of a pilot's skill than a one shot simulator session. USMCFLYR |
Originally Posted by imbroke
(Post 781324)
Agreed, good training is the best case scenario! And I also agree that one sim session can't tell you much about how good of a pilot someone is, although it could certainly tell you how bad they are. I'm definitely not saying that the sim ride should be "more than you can handle", that would be worthless. I don't think a few approaches and some partial panel is "more than you can handle". At least it shouldn't be if you are trying to be an airline pilot. All I'm saying is it seems that the sim ride is so easy the way it is for some interviews that it is nearly pointless.
I don't know what these airline interview sim sessions are like - so it is very hard (impossible really) to say that they are an appropriate test (evaluation) of one's skill level. You pros will have to judge that. I'll focus on my feelings for any future sim eval that I might have to endure. I'm pretty confident in my instrument skills - in my airplane. I'm not looking forward to having to fly an airplane that I am unfamiliar with, shooting approaches that I am either unfamiliar with, or at least haven't shot in many, many years, and have a job that I would really like to have hanging in the balance. The good side of the equation is that I am pretty sure that through my career I have proved that I am trainable. I'm sure I have my work cut for me - but I keep telling myself that if those 300 hr wonders can do it - THEN SO CAN I! :o:D (and I mean make it through any training program - not just a 121 airline training program) USMCFLYR |
Originally Posted by Whacker77
(Post 781256)
Have you seen the unrest taking place in those countries where high union wages dominate? The Western European countries have highly paid pilots and their economies are failing or stalled at best. Just look at England. BA is set for a three day strike and Greece is falling apart. Higher wages in the foreign countries may not be all they're cracked up to be.
|
Originally Posted by ThrustMonkey
(Post 781264)
So they trust that since the FAA signed off on 250 hour wonders flying right seat, its just fine (or in most cases ignorance is bliss). But when fully informed of what having said 250 hour wonder entails after a catastrophic accident, then they and the equally ignorant politicians look at it as "well the experts obviously didn't do things right and so now we will step in to rectify the situation". .
|
Originally Posted by slough
(Post 781403)
What catastrophic accident happened with a 250hr person at the controls?
|
Originally Posted by SrfNFly227
(Post 781433)
That would be Colgan 3407 just outside of Buffalo. I am sure this is where you will point out the Captain had over 3000 hours total, but that doesn't change one simple fact about his experience. He was hired at his first airline job as a 250 hour pilot.
|
Originally Posted by NoStep
(Post 781454)
Exactly right! And if you ever have an accident/incident, your total hours acquired at your first job (instructor/cargo/banner towing/ ferry pilot, etc) should be the determining causing factor!!
|
Originally Posted by Whacker77
(Post 781256)
Have you seen the unrest taking place in those countries where high union wages dominate? The Western European countries have highly paid pilots and their economies are failing or stalled at best. Just look at England. BA is set for a three day strike and Greece is falling apart. Higher wages in the foreign countries may not be all they're cracked up to be.
When I was working my way up, I made a concious decision to walk away from a flight instructing job that put 100 hours a month in my logbook at a well respected 141 school. I chucked the hours and pay for a 60% pay cut to go fly a Navajo hauling passengers, because I knew CFI time was not going to cut it if I wanted to get anywhere. Six months later, it led to a job with a large regional as an F/O in turboprops in the Northeast. One year as an F/O and one year as a Captain with no autopilot or flight director in snow, ice, boomers and ATC put the time in my logbook to get to a major. It was the EXPERIENCE...not hours...that mattered. It should be ATP minimums to get to the right seat. Sorry, but when the crap hits the fan, the Captain keels over, or the magic goes "poof," I don't need a 250 or 500 hour button pushing wonder in the right seat. I need someone who can think, act and has some experience. The people in back and the people on the ground under us deserve no less. |
Originally Posted by jayray2
(Post 781361)
These Western European countries have governments that are borderline socialistic also. The high government wages were the downfall of Greece, not high paid pilots. We in America are heading down the same path of Greece and our pilots are paid peanuts.
|
Hi!
The correct question to ask, as far as the hourly/experience/safety factor is this: Were you (or Capt X), better at 1500 hours, or better at 250 (or 190, with a Commercial License) hours??? Obviously, you were (or will be) better at 1500 hours and your ATP. cliff NBO |
I think experience is the determining factor.
I had over 1000hrs but that was mainly VFR flying. It was PIC but i'm a heck of a better pilot after flying 135 freight than i was before. It won't necessarily get me anywhere (should have gone to a regional) but its good at building an experience base. |
Someone brought up.. where are we going to get pilots when a shortage occurs if they can't find pilots... there is no shortage.. there never has been... There has only been a shortage of pilots willing to work for the poor wages being offered.. Only thee 400 hour wonders out there are th only ones willing to fly jet aircraft of that size for $24 an hour...
This hour min will hopefully bring up the wages... |
Hi!
The airline biz is pretty cyclical in hiring, and it continuously changes, also. Was UAL in 196x a crap job with ****ty wages? If not, then there definitely WAS a hiring shortage. UAL, and other carriers, were recruiting in High Schools and HIRING guys who had a PPL!!! cliff LFW |
Originally Posted by cruiseclimb
(Post 783613)
Someone brought up.. where are we going to get pilots when a shortage occurs if they can't find pilots... there is no shortage.. there never has been... There has only been a shortage of pilots willing to work for the poor wages being offered.. Only thee 400 hour wonders out there are th only ones willing to fly jet aircraft of that size for $24 an hour...
This hour min will hopefully bring up the wages... Unfortunately, like a lot of things in life, you have to hit ROCK BOTTOM to see some change, I think we are hitting an all time low with companies such as Colgan and these crap feeder companies who pay their pilots less than a manager at Wendys. The job needs to become so unattractive for pay to rise ... it's quiet sad. I found my peace by moving to Europe .. sad but true. |
Depends
Originally Posted by jayray2
(Post 781463)
I am sensing some sarcasm. I think the point was if you are hired as a part 121 two pilot operation with 250 hours you have actually not developed any piloting skills. How many hours do you think this guy had in an airplane by himself actually making decisions by himself? Very few. I am going out on a limb here, if this guy had instructed until he had 1000 hours this accident would have never happened. As an instructor he would have developed the skills required to pilot an aircraft properly and he would have not driven that plane into the ground. Lets be honest with ourselves, as part 121 pilots our actual piloting skills are probably not of the quality that they were when we were instructing/hauling cargo in planes without autopilots practicing real piloting, 121 flying is easy. My true piloting skills that form my base as a pilot were developed well before flying in the 121 world. Without that base, well you see what can happen. Just my opinion, right or wrong.
If it is easy or not depends on what you are flying and how you are flying. If you are hand flying a CRJ (has no auto throttle) every approach from way before intercepting final approach course and hand flying every climbout up to 18000 you will develop good skills or bether skills (just to clarify. You should already have good skills before even flying a CRJ) and much better than sitting as a CFI watching a student hour after hour. Handflying a CRJ or any other jet below FL200 in bad weather all the time can be a handful and developes for sure good skills. 121 is easy (after a while) if you put the autopilot at 600ft after t/o and let also the autopilot shoot the entire approach. Then you are just pushing buttons and not actually flying, you are managing. It is all up to you and what you make of it. The hard part of 121 can be the airports ground and ramp operations like LAX, ORD, ATL. You will never get training in that being a CFI. just my 2 cents |
Originally Posted by HermannGraf
(Post 784200)
You should already have good skills before even flying a CRJ) and much better than sitting as a CFI watching a student hour after hour.
... and its dead wrong. It seems to me that the only people that say building time as a CFI is worthless are those who have never been CFIs or have never been 121 Captains. The biggest thing about being a CFI is that it forces you to be ahead of the airplane. Every minute of every flight. You're in a situation where someone is sitting next to you trying to invent new creative ways to kill you with little notice. Secondary to that, the experience you gain as a CFI is invaluable as a 121 captain. Simply being used to having someone less experienced than you in the cockpit flying the aircraft. Knowing how far to let it go before its "too far." CFI time is not wasted time. Even if you do 1000 hours of nothing but pattern work. Yes, you going beyond CFI work (ie: 135 freight) will even moreso develop and round out your skills, but the CFI step is not a step that is worthless by far. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:48 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands