1500 hours / ATP for Part 121 rule?
06-21-2011, 05:06 PM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: Airplanes
Posts: 1,380
Originally Posted by airline NooB
But may also be an indication of pilot snobbery with higher-time pilots being unwilling to work for PSA due to any of a number of reasons.
06-21-2011, 05:10 PM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: Airplanes
Posts: 1,380
Originally Posted by Bellanca
I'm a pretty low-time pilot, but have gotten the chance to sit right seat in some turbo-props and gained some invaluable experience there. Its a whole different type of experience than I've gained through instructing in the 152 that I've been instructing in. Different weather like storms, icing, and approaches down to minimums; experience dealing with busier airports and airspace; more advanced aircraft and basic CRM.
IMO (and this is probably an unpopular opinion), just having 1500 hours in mostly 152/172/PA-28's in almost or all VFR is not going to necessarily a better airline pilot. There's got to be a point where instructing experience gained in trainer aircraft somewhat plateaus and doesn't not really transfer over to making a better airline pilot. There are going to be pilots that just don't get opportunities to fly in much other than basic training aircraft, and there's got to be a point where reaching a magical number of hours in the logbook does not suddenly make them ready to haul 50 pax around in a jet. That is where better training at the airline level comes in - training in the type that the pilot will be flying.
On one hand, it is ridiculous that there have been pilots hired with 300 to 500 hours or even less- I do believe pilots in that stage of their career are still in a learning phase. On the other hand, I personally think a 800-1000 hour minimum is more reasonable than 1500 hours and an ATP.
IMO (and this is probably an unpopular opinion), just having 1500 hours in mostly 152/172/PA-28's in almost or all VFR is not going to necessarily a better airline pilot. There's got to be a point where instructing experience gained in trainer aircraft somewhat plateaus and doesn't not really transfer over to making a better airline pilot. There are going to be pilots that just don't get opportunities to fly in much other than basic training aircraft, and there's got to be a point where reaching a magical number of hours in the logbook does not suddenly make them ready to haul 50 pax around in a jet. That is where better training at the airline level comes in - training in the type that the pilot will be flying.
On one hand, it is ridiculous that there have been pilots hired with 300 to 500 hours or even less- I do believe pilots in that stage of their career are still in a learning phase. On the other hand, I personally think a 800-1000 hour minimum is more reasonable than 1500 hours and an ATP.
06-21-2011, 05:37 PM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 691
Originally Posted by SenecaII
FYI, both pilots had more than that when they were hired, and the FO did instruct for many hours doing stall after stall as you put it, yet she still raised flaps at the wrong time. It would probably do you some good to research what you are talking about before you say it. Like others have said in here, training and fatigue were the issue here, not hours when they were hired at Colgan. Now back to the issue at hand
Also, if you are going to preach to others about doing research then take the time to do your own research. At issue, according to the NTSB, were the flight crew’s failure to monitor airspeed in relation to the rising position of the lowspeed cue, the flight crew’s failure to adhere to sterile cockpit procedures, the captain’s failure to effectively manage the flight, and Colgan’s inadequate procedures for airspeed selection and management during approaches in icing conditions. The aforementioned causes were attributed to flight crew monitoring failures, pilot professionalism, fatigue, remedial training, pilot training records, airspeed selection procedures, stall training, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) oversight, flight operational quality assurance programs, use of personal portable electronic devices on the flight deck, the FAA’s use of safety alerts for operators to transmit safety-critical information, and weather information provided to pilots. I think you are over simplifying by just saying it was fatigue and training
06-21-2011, 05:39 PM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 781
Originally Posted by Luv2Rotate
I went to Riddle and didn't spend the extra cash for the CRJ course. Maybe be worth it in your book but not worth the extra payment in loans out of my checkbook each month. Am I a lesser pilot? 
06-21-2011, 06:45 PM
#55
What’s it doing now?
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: 190CA
Posts: 726
I keep seeing people say that hours don't necessarily equal experience. They keep saying that 1000 hours is better than 1 hour 1000 times. So therefore the time requirement is meaningless.
It's not a time requirement. It's a requirement to have an ATP. The very fact that someone has an ATP means that they dont just have 1500 hours beating up the pattern in a 152.
1500TT
500 Cross Country
100 Night
75 Instrument
250 PIC including:
100 XC PIC
25 hours night PIC
Not to mention a written test and a demanding practical test which is the highest level of certification available from the FAA. It's no guarantee that someone with an ATP wouldn't make mistakes but I would say it's a pretty good bet that having two people with that certification in the cockpit would improve safety.
Full Disclosure: I exceeded those requirements before getting hired but don't have an ATP. If I were looking for a job now I would get it myself.
It's not a time requirement. It's a requirement to have an ATP. The very fact that someone has an ATP means that they dont just have 1500 hours beating up the pattern in a 152.
1500TT
500 Cross Country
100 Night
75 Instrument
250 PIC including:
100 XC PIC
25 hours night PIC
Not to mention a written test and a demanding practical test which is the highest level of certification available from the FAA. It's no guarantee that someone with an ATP wouldn't make mistakes but I would say it's a pretty good bet that having two people with that certification in the cockpit would improve safety.
Full Disclosure: I exceeded those requirements before getting hired but don't have an ATP. If I were looking for a job now I would get it myself.
06-21-2011, 10:22 PM
#56
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2011
Posts: 30
Just wondering what the military folks out there think of the 1500 rule? Many of them are far below 1500 hours when they get thrown into a cockpit of an aircraft much more complex than what 121 operations use. Quality of training over quantity, just a thought though.
06-22-2011, 03:04 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by AvPilot
Just wondering what the military folks out there think of the 1500 rule? Many of them are far below 1500 hours when they get thrown into a cockpit of an aircraft much more complex than what 121 operations use. Quality of training over quantity, just a thought though.
USMCFLYR
06-22-2011, 04:36 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Airline Captain
Posts: 540
Originally Posted by skyxbomb
That's precisely why there will be exceptions to the 1500 hour rule. I graduated at riddle with 300/45 but passed the crj course at riddle. It's not the 1 week ATP Crj course; at riddle it's the same training as regionals. Very small percentages of riddle guys actually go through airline concentration, worth it in my book.
At schools like ERAU, it seems they want robots. Here is your training... do this if this happens... If X then Y mentality. As an instructor, the worst students I had for figuring out what to do when there wasnt a procedure in writing were Riddle guys. I am sure the alumni association hates me now for saying that.
In the end what makes for a safer airline is a program which identifies a pilots ability to think outside the box with a solid knowledge of aerodynamics, stick and rudder skills, and aircraft systems. I call it the Apollo 13 skill. This isnt something that is "hour" dependent. I have flown with 100 hour Pilots who already had the skill, and I have flown in the right seat with guys who spent years in a regional to be captain of a small plane who cant go pee without written instructions.
06-22-2011, 04:42 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: A320
Posts: 1,308
Originally Posted by Tom a Hawk
I keep seeing people say that hours don't necessarily equal experience. They keep saying that 1000 hours is better than 1 hour 1000 times. So therefore the time requirement is meaningless.
It's not a time requirement. It's a requirement to have an ATP. The very fact that someone has an ATP means that they dont just have 1500 hours beating up the pattern in a 152.
1500TT
500 Cross Country
100 Night
75 Instrument
250 PIC including:
100 XC PIC
25 hours night PIC
Not to mention a written test and a demanding practical test which is the highest level of certification available from the FAA. It's no guarantee that someone with an ATP wouldn't make mistakes but I would say it's a pretty good bet that having two people with that certification in the cockpit would improve safety.
Full Disclosure: I exceeded those requirements before getting hired but don't have an ATP. If I were looking for a job now I would get it myself.
It's not a time requirement. It's a requirement to have an ATP. The very fact that someone has an ATP means that they dont just have 1500 hours beating up the pattern in a 152.
1500TT
500 Cross Country
100 Night
75 Instrument
250 PIC including:
100 XC PIC
25 hours night PIC
Not to mention a written test and a demanding practical test which is the highest level of certification available from the FAA. It's no guarantee that someone with an ATP wouldn't make mistakes but I would say it's a pretty good bet that having two people with that certification in the cockpit would improve safety.
Full Disclosure: I exceeded those requirements before getting hired but don't have an ATP. If I were looking for a job now I would get it myself.
It's not just tooling around getting 1500hrs to obtain an ATP. It's the level of maturity you get to while doing so. It's not a perfect system or idea, but the best one yet. Since we as humans aren't responsible enough to admit when we aren't fit for the job, unfortunately the gov. has to. Never pretty but we as pilots have lowered the bar to a new low and now need someone to hold our hand. Pretty sad, but it may help until people start doing the right thing one day again.
The pilots in the colgan crash may have benefited from this rule. Sure, the F.O. flight instructed for a bit. But it was the Captain that really screwed the pooch. And he was HIRED with low time. Had he had to obtain an ATP BEFORE getting hired, he probably would have washed out. We all know the type. Should have never become a pilot. Just my opinion.
06-22-2011, 04:43 AM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Airline Captain
Posts: 540
My opinion continues with the ATP. Just because someone can pass a few maneuvers to perfection and take a written exam for the FAA doesnt make them a better pilot. It simply shows they can read a book and jump through some hoops. The ATP test should be a test in Problem Resoultion with a crew at your disposal. At risk of sounding like a real geek, it should be a "kobayashi maru" kind of exam.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bqmassey
Flight Schools and Training
4
02-02-2007 05:03 AM
