![]() |
Originally Posted by DirectTo
(Post 1015236)
So 500-1000 hours in a 150 or the masterful 172 would have been better for his airline flying than 500-1000 hours in a 1900 in a 121 environment?
Riiiiiiight... |
Originally Posted by Molon Labe
(Post 1015308)
If you have to say that then you really don't understand the progression of skills, and the "Darwin curve", what puppy mill did you come from?
There is no way that in 500-1000 hours of CFI'ing versus flying 1900s, even at Gulfstream, is going to build more skills that apply to the airlines. If he had done 500 hours of instructing them 500 of the 1900 gig, sure, he would no doubt have received some good experience. But to suggest that between one or another that pure CFI'ing is the better preparation for airline flying is ridiculous. |
So if what I'm hearing is that hours do not matter, then why don't we just abandon all of the ATP hour requirements for the PIC as well?
And we wonder why, as a collective group, we cannot seem to find equal footing with other professions that we often try to equate to (doctors for example). Instead we just keep lowering (or in this case refusing to raise) our professional standards. Maybe the public is right, anybody can fly an airliner, it flies itself and we are just a bunch of (still) overpaid pre-madanas with egos to boot. You can't ask for a raise and lower your job requirements! KC |
Originally Posted by kc135driver
(Post 1015312)
So if what I'm hearing is that hours do not matter, then why don't we just abandon all of the ATP hour requirements for the PIC as well?
And we wonder why, as a collective group, we cannot seem to find equal footing with other professions that we often try to equate to (doctors for example). Instead we just keep lowering (or in this case refusing to raise) our professional standards. Maybe the public is right, anybody can fly an airliner, it flies itself and we are just a bunch of (still) overpaid pre-madanas with egos to boot. You can't ask for a raise and lower your job requirements! KC |
Originally Posted by kc135driver
(Post 1015312)
And we wonder why, as a collective group, we cannot seem to find equal footing with other professions that we often try to equate to (doctors for example). Instead we just keep lowering (or in this case refusing to raise) our professional standards.
Maybe the public is right, anybody can fly an airliner, it flies itself and we are just a bunch of (still) overpaid pre-madanas with egos to boot. You can't ask for a raise and lower your job requirements! KC
Originally Posted by Anderson
(Post 1015316)
Great points!
|
none of this quibiling matters. Congress passed a law requiring all -121 pilots to have an ATP as of 1 Aug 2013.
What matters is how the airlines, and especially the regionals will respond to this challenge to find enough pilots to fill the seats required. I hope that it will drive the Regionals costs up high enough, so a majority of the flying is passed on to the majors, and most of the regional flying goes away. cliff SYD |
Originally Posted by atpcliff
(Post 1015320)
none of this quibiling matters.Congress passed a law requiring all -121 pilots to have an ATP as of 1 Aug 2013.
cliff SYD |
Originally Posted by atpcliff
(Post 1015320)
none of this quibiling matters. Congress passed a law requiring all -121 pilots to have an ATP as of 1 Aug 2013.
What matters is how the airlines, and especially the regionals will respond to this challenge to find enough pilots to fill the seats required. I hope that it will drive the Regionals costs up high enough, so a majority of the flying is passed on to the majors, and most of the regional flying goes away. cliff SYD |
After reading all this I'm still in favor of the 1,500 hour requirement. My job is to be a mentor but not to teach. I am not a check airman and do not want to be. The low time pilots I have flown with require instruction long after ioe. Yea, they fly the airplane to standard but they are still learning basic airmanship. As both a pilot and passenger, I'm firmly convinced line flying is for professionals not students. I have no problem sharing my experience with a fellow professional but instructing dissracts from our job and does not belong in our nations airlines. I agree that 1500 hours does not guarantee basic airmanship but from experience with an airline that burns through first time fo's, its a place to start.
|
Originally Posted by seahawker01
(Post 1015328)
After reading all this I'm still in favor of the 1,500 hour requirement. My job is to be a mentor but not to teach. I am not a check airman and do not want to be. The low time pilots I have flown with require instruction long after ioe. Yea, they fly the airplane to standard but they are still learning basic airmanship. As both a pilot and passenger, I'm firmly convinced line flying is for professionals not students. I have no problem sharing my experience with a fellow professional but instructing dissracts from our job and does not belong in our nations airlines. I agree that 1500 hours does not guarantee basic airmanship but from experience with an airline that burns through first time fo's, its a place to start.
Mookie |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:47 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands