Not a good idea. However, there was a CA at my airline that kept sending the low-time guy back for more IOE, complaining about his landings. I was the check airman who had to retrain him. There was nothing wrong with his landings. I think the CA was just trying to "send a message."

 

Yeah its funny to see all the squealing against a mere "1500 hour rule" aka a mere ATP (as if that's just so extreme of a requirement) so everyone we better grant massive hourly exemptions for "the right kind of training". Well first of all, why not both requirements? An ATP at current mins and some level of turbine/121 style training without the unwarranted hourly reductions? That's what the AMA does and that one thing they do is very effective for them.

As for the monopoly potential, that might happen to some degree. The larger the exemptions granted for the illusion of "proper training" that only certain scools can offer will result in a defacto monopoly to some degree, thus raising their costs, and I bet it does so significantly.

So the main reason we need to "lower the mins" is because everyone says the 1500 hour hurdle is too extreme, so an alternative is proposed to allow a select chosen few schools to reduce it, probably by a lot, and you can bet they will charge more to do it. At the end of the day the prospective airline pilot won't save anything going this route and as an added bonus will be out the experience.

If the "pilot shortage" really does manifest, even to half the predictions, then we will see good to excellent hiring prospects through the entire industry with plenty of upwards mobility. The financial rewards will start to reappear from an entry level cost-benefit analysis, and more people will start and stay in flight training. Future new hires will easilly find ways to get 1500 hours and several hundred multi,just like the've always been able to do. Some who have gotten out will return. Loans will start to gradually become more available and various incentives will as well, like higher new hire pay, hotels for training, signing bonuses and referral perks, etc. Just like every other mini boom period we've had for decades. As the training pipeline spools back up, the need for instructors will as well, and many prospects currently in other avenues of time building will go that direction instead, opening up significant job demand for numerous other time building opportunities (banner towing, check hauling, bio sample hauling, forest fire patrols, traffic watch, plane deliveries, pipeline patrol and many others). But we have got to dump this red herring nonsense that if we raise the mins to a mere 1500 hours the entire profession will collapse.

The 500-700 or so additional hours we're debating here can be built in under a year in most cases, especially if there is an airline hiring boom even half as strong as predicted.

Just like in past boom periods where not only all that happened, but the flight training pipeline spooled up from periods of relative dormancy and many times coincided with tons of post downturn applicants with way more than just ATP mins. There is no reason to cut these mins for a few so called chosen programs. Doing so will only raise their relative cost proportinate to the time they've "saved" so nothing will be saved and it would guarantee a lower threshold of experience.

We can let the free market decide this portion of the issus anyway. If the Riddles of the world truly do offer a superior program, they can still be subject to the 1500 hour mins, but their grads will be viewed as superior in the job market, right? Prospective employers will see ERAU on the resume and think "holy crap, we have got to get this top gun because he has superior training!" right?

In any case, the 1500 hour min threshold is VERY reasonable and will not drive future pilots out of the profession. In fact it will help more to chose flying because it will take the low time wonder quickness factor out of the equation. No profession can sustainably command superior wages when anyone can go from zero time to doing that job with that little experience. We should require both the time and the experience. If anything that will help future pilots because those who stick it out will be more likely to have batter career and the flood to market will be somewhat limited. There is no justifiable reason to skimp on experience or training. Wooing a frosted haired ipod punk to the profession with a "fast track" because he won't do it otherwise is hardly reason enough to say an ATP is just too much to get.

 

Just want to see if I understand this correctly.... people are upset because they are changing the rule that will mandate that pilots flying my children, parents and other relatives around have some a minimum level of experience first before getting into a jet aircraft..... and this is a bad thing how? It would seem to ANYBODY that requiring more experience is a good thing. The only people who would not support this, are those who do not have it.... the passengers have always expected this, and the Colgan incident just highlighted that it wasn't required at all... so it's being fixed.
Actually, I consider it extremely arrogant that these low timers expect - read that as feel entitled - to enter the profession at the top of the food chain rather than learn their way through with hard work.

 

Did either of the pilots in the colgan crash have their atp?

 

I think the captain probably had one.

 

yep, but he didn't have that experince BEFORE taking a part 121 job....

 

I agree 100%. And can you believe it...our own union...ALPA....is in favour of reducing the minimum required hours to 500! They are on bed with regional airline industry management. Regional airline managements want lower minimums to keep the costs low and to ensure a never ending supply of wide-eyed newbies. If you don't believe me, check this out:

Here is the link: http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/1500_hr_requirement_challenge_pilot_FAA_203436-1.html

October 13, 2010

Committee Challenges New 1500 Hr Requirement For FO's
By Glenn Pew, Contributing Editor, Video Editor

The FAA's aviation safety bill passed earlier this year, but a new report suggests the included prerequisite 1,500 hours flight experience for commercial airline copilots may not be necessary. An FAA advisory committee led by a regional airline official has proposed that 500 actual flight hours may be enough. Language in the safety legislation says that the FAA Administrator "may allow specific academic training courses ... to be credited toward the total flight hours required." The committee suggests that through an elaborate structure of training courses, up to two-thirds of the safety law's required 1,500 flight hours could be satisfied with other credited training. The proposal is merely a recommendation and it is not clear that there is any wiggle room in other language that specifically imposes the flight hours requirement. Meanwhile, the proposal has reignited the total hours versus quality-of-training argument. And pilot groups, industry voices and safety advocates are weighing in.


Legislators who fought for the safety bill's language say the law explicitly requires 1,500 flight hours, and any modifications must be justified by a resultant increase in safety. The president of the Regional Airline Association, Roger Cohen, has a different opinion. Cohen said academic work is "far more useful in training pilots for modern airline operations" than hours spent "towing banners above the beach." As for the FAA, Administrator Randy Babbitt supports improved training over a general requirement for more flight hours. Babbitt has previously commented on the subject, saying "experience is not measured by flight time alone." The Regional Airline Association holds the view that a "proper mix of the experience and academic/training approaches" would best ensure safety. And two pilot groups represented on the committee have split on the issue. The Air Line Pilots Association backed the committee's recommendations, while the Coalition of Air Line Pilot Associations supported experience over even enhanced training.

 

I'm currently a CFI who has less than 1500 total..... and I'm in favor of requiring all 121 crews to be ATP qualified. Does that make me a walking contradiction?

 

I have posted this on here before but please, if you want your voice heard email ALPA on this issue and let them know how you feel.

[email protected]

Also, here is a press release from ALPA:

http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/fas...0409-ANPRM.pdf

I'm not sure what ALPAs current stance is but at the time they were in favor of dropping the minimums to 750 hours, I sure hope they haven't lowered it further to 500 hours. Sometimes it feels like ALPA is fighting for the wrong team.

 

Nope. Same here. I work part time pipeline as well.

We see it like this cause pilots with fewer hours than us can slide in to the same 121 spot we were vying for a couple years back.

Total time changes opinions. Best thing you can do is defend your side to your students.