While everything you say is dead on, be careful expressing it as it simply does not fit in with the pack mentality here on APC. Of course the fact that some of these guys were 300 hour wonders themselves, trying to pull the ladder up in a desperate bid to increase the pay that they agreed to when they went to their first airline is the thing most miss when reading these posts. This would frankly be sad if it weren't so predictable in the 121 world. Yeah that ^

That is the tough question now-days isn't it? There use to be a well defined hierarcy of increasingly challenging jobs with increasingly sophisticated equipment. Now it seems expected to go from CFI'ing right into a commerical airliner. For soe that might work out just fine, for some it won't. I'd hate to have to guess.

Your next sentence hit the nail on the head.
Selection and training. Maybe when the GA pilot is selected and trained to the same uniform standards and not just anyone with a loan application can make it through then maybe you'll have the same results.
After our last post, I took a look at my logbook. I had 283 hours military time when I was winged and another 139 hours in the Hornet when I graduated the RAG/FRS. One month later, though air-to-air refueling qualified, I wasn't allowed to fly down to Puerto Rico for the missile shoot because I didn't have enough experience (zero really) behind the KC-130 tankers.

This is an often used argument. You are right about some being fast leaners and they will be fine airline pilots in the future I bet - once they gain the required experience :)
I think the problem with it is that there are always the examples on the fringes aren't there, but when dealing with training and the airline world I would think that a solid play in the middle of averages would be a safer bet.
That is why people argue against the 1500 rule all the time but never offer any other sustainable figure that would pass all of the muster required of it. People don't seem to concerned with all of the other hourly requirements for the licenses.

Hey SenecaII - as said before - even if it is true that some fighting against it now were 300 hour wonders when they got hired as you say - two wrongs don't make a right. Or should we just wait util your foot is in the door and then raise them :rolleyes:
Pack mentality? Really?
Sounds like you might not be open to others ideas just as much as you say others are not opn to yours.

USMCFLYR

Since you work for the FAA in a flight check capacity, I'm sure you know "the GA pilot" IS trained and then checked to the 'same uniform standards' - the FAA Practical Test Standards - from PVT checkride right through 121 proficiency check.

If somebody wants to address the PTS to make them more stringent, then that's something tangible that can be explored.

As such, I don't think its realistic or necessary for "GA pilot" to be held to the same standards as guys who get taxpayer-funded training worth millions of dollars.

As I've said previously, despite starting my 121 career at 1100/100 I don't think its unreasonable to expect Airline Transport Pilots to have the minimum experience required to hold an Airline Transport Pilot certificate.

That said, I do think experience matters more than anything else in one's logbook, and the measure of experience doesn't begin and end in a Total Time column.

Then you must have missed the many posts on the forum about the differences people have encountered between the varying FSDOs and DPEs across the country. Actually - one of the things that I have found to be as true as taxes is the fact that the more *examiners* you have, the less standardization you are able to maintain throughout the system. Secondly - as I'm sure you know - Flight Check and the FSDO are opposite ends of the spectrum. Except for my brief stint with civilian flying prior to the military, I don't have any experience with the civilian testing standards; though I am becoming familiar with them in the recent past with my second type rating (one experimental so not sure that really counts) and an upcoming -297 ride

Didn't say that the GA should be held to the same standards. I was addressing the often used - look at the military and how those guys are allowed to fly in this or that aircraft after only so much experience - argument. If you want to compare duties then you must compare selection and training.

And I believe that it is a combination of the two. Experience is subjective. How do you measure it? The ATP was supposedly designed to take into account a certain level of experience (x/c time, PIC time, night time, etc...).

USMCFLYR

Nice assumption. I did a ton of time building in various experimental aircraft and flying piston twins under VFR only 135 to build my PIC twin time and then moved on to a very good charter company flying turbine equipment. Since I am not a 1500 hr CFI , your definition is I am not good enough for the airlines??? I have two types and NO DESIRE to work at the regionals when I am making 4x the pay for the same equipment. I stand by my observations of the former 3oo hour wonder guys that are spouting this stuff. Am I behind fixing industry issues, yes, but the ATP rule is not the answer in my book. Addressing training and rest is. But in true APC fashion you have made assumptions without information......Thumbs up

Nope, I know that all too well.

That's an oversight issue the Administrator needs to address.

Yes, experience is quite subjective.

Somebody who got hired at 300hrs to do pipeline patrol until they hit 1500hrs has a different experience set than somebody who got a right seat job in a Citation at 300hrs until he hit 1500, who has a different experience set than the guy who started instructing foreign nationals at 300hrs in high-performance piston twins until he hit 1500hrs, who has a different experience set than the guy who was hired at 300hrs to fly a Cirrus Part 91 for a small business until he hit 1500hrs, who has a different experience set than the guy flying a COD doing traps on the USS Reagan at 300hrs until he hit 1500,hrs who has a different experience set than the guy who was a right seater at FSI at 300hrs and got a few hundred hours of sim time and a couple type ratings that lead to flying large-cabin business jets until he got to 1500hrs.

Which one of the above group, who all meet the minimum experience requirements for an ATP, is the candidate most likely to 1. pass a 121 initial training event, 2. transition well to real-world 121 operations and 3. make it through their probationary year?

Answer? There's absolutely no way to tell.

Now, let's reduce their total time to 1000hrs but keep their type of flight experience the same - who is the 'best' candidate for a 121 job then?

What about if you reduce their total time to just 500hrs...what about then?

I will ALWAYS believe quality trumps quantity. The military proves that day in and day out, and while its not a strict apples-to-apples comparison, there are more than a handful of low total time pilots whose training, background & experience makes them more than capable of passing 121 training and flying the line without being a detriment to themselves, their captains, their passengers, or safety of flight.

EDIT: that being said, I again don't believe it is unreasonable for Airline Transport Pilots to have the minimum flight experience required to hold an Airline Transport Pilot rating. But I don't think it'd do jack squat to "improve safety".

Well put.... hours total are not the issue with how safe or competent a pilot is.

My assumptions fit the general population - like yours I guess :p
No assumptions here about you personally at all.
From your previous posts I have assumed that you ar where you want to be or have a plan for where you want to go.
Sorry you took the sentence so literally...I can see why you did.

That was a lot of typing to make your point Boiler :)
You still haven't come up with an different answer though that better equates the experience -vs- hours question. I'm a believer in quality too, but there still has to be a line.

USMCFLYR

Im good, we all have opinions. Your right I shouldnt assume all people are behind this for the wrong reasons too. Some are but Im sure there are some that have good intentions. This ATP issue is one that I am very passionate about. I like the idea, I just wish it was being used for the right reasons......and tend to get vocal about it....lol

On a bit more serious note, Fatigue, what are you hearing from your side of the fence on the issue???? If I might inquire....:D

I didn't, because I can't.

As you said, experience is subjective...

By 1500 hrs, you most likely will have lost the kneeboard......

When I was in SEA for sims, someone from another company (no idea who it was, they were in the Q400s) came out of the sim, not only with a kneeboard...but with it still attached to his leg. :eek:

Military trained pilots are a 10000000 times better than the BEST civilian trained pilots coming right out.

Also, you cant replace experience. A 1500 hour guy has just "seen it more...and seen more" than a 200 hour CFI.

When you are hauling customers around, getting them there safely is really all anyone cares about....especially the customer.

Would you, as a passenger, prefer to have a 1500+ hour guy up front or an ERAU special up front?????

Its not that easy. There are even military pilots that are idiots. A previous poster said it best. There are 250 hour wonders that can fly the wings off a plane better than anyone, and there are 10,000+ hour pilots who couldn't perform the same. The hours and type of training don't matter, to an extent. Its the individual. I don't entirely believe that you can "train" someone to be a good pilot. I think good decision making and sound judgement is a God given ability, you either can multi task and stay calm or you cant. Although we do teach to make good decisions, at the end of the day.... its a subjective ability IMHO.

I disagree with this part.

One of THE worst pilots I have ever flown with in fact, was an instructor in various fighter jets.

Overall, former military pilots are good airline pilots, just like civilian background pilots can.

But there are no guarantees.

Attitude and aptitude play a big part, which your assertion completely ignores.

That is just a plain false statement. After 23 years in Naval Aviation I have flown with super pilots and I have flown with pilots that shouldn't even be driving a car. Just like everywhere else you have good and bad. I have seen more than one pilot transfered to a different platform rather than having their wings clipped which would have probably been the safest thing for everyone. Then there are the ones that have a Rabbi with some rank that makes a less than stellar pilot more accepted.

Wow. You lost ALL credibility with your 1st sentence. I guarantee there are plenty of military guys who disagree with you.

Actually, if what he is saying is that SUPT produces far superior pilots than any part 141 school (including Riddle, SIU, etc.), I would agree. Before this turns into a test of ego's, I orginally got all my ratings via Riddle and years later went to AF SUPT. There is a reason the military has been able to produce fighter pilots with 200-300 hours and civilian pilots with hundreds of hours often struggle in UPT. It is much harder.

Now what I am not saying is that each and every military pilot is better than each and every civilian pilot. I'm talking coming right out of the pipeline, after that mileage will vary and anybody can become a mediocre pilot at anytime any career if they choose to let their skills deplete. Also, there are some things civilian pilots do better than military pilots, and vice-versa. But overall, unless you have more any more anecdotal evidence then "I flew with this military/civilian pilot and they sucked", you really should keep your opinion to yourself.

KC

I don't think its unreasonable to think a SUPT graduate is sharper than any Part 61/141 trainee...as a citizen you should kind of expect (and demand) that after a million-dollar investment in a warfighter's training.

I disagree with him too. Training of military pilots is generally more standardized than civilian training, plus they do some unique things that civilian counterparts don't do...low level, formation, aerobatics, basic fighter maneuvers, bomb-dropping, etc... But in terms of getting passengers safely from A to B it's the same.

CAPT Al Haynes of UA 232, the Sioux City DC-10 mishap, had 8 years in the Marine Corps; CAPT Sully Sullenberger of USAir 1549 in the Hudson had 7 years military experience in the Air Force...both of these had some military experience, but the vast majority of their flying careers were as civilians before these major mishaps occurred that they successfully faced.

The more time I spend with Delta (and former NWA) Captains, the more I benefit from their advice & experience, whether they come civilian or military backgrounds.

Agreed!

FWIW, personally, when I came back to UAL from furlough #1 and SUPT I found my airline skillset much sharper. I felt more comfortable clicking everything off and hand-flying difficult approaches/landings into ORD/LGA for example and noticed, for the first time, how many 100% civilian captains who liked to hide behind the automation and just be managers. Now I'm not saying they were horrible pilots, in fact I've learned much from them throughout my career. Military training tends to make one more confident because you have done things with airplanes civilians have not done. I consider it a realy blessing to have gotten to go to SUPT in my ripe age because it really challenged and expanded upon my already established skillset.

No new simulator or highly marketd "airline pilot" class (while perhaps beneficial in some ways) at Riddle can come close. Absent of this, IMHO, you only become a better pilot with experience and continuing to challenge yourself and stay in the books. So the comparison of low-time military pilots to civilian pilots in context with the 1500 hour requirement is really a moot point.

My 2 cents-

KC

. I have removed this reply.

You would trust a C150 CFI, over a 1900 driver when it comes to icing and t-storms?

Re-read his post, & then think about what you wrote.

Also, a brand new SUPT trainee has no flying skills at all. It's like teaching a new born, as in they know no different. A civilian with hundreds of hours has their own techniques, limitations, and methods of doing things. Are you left handed? Try writing with your right hand. It's hard to break patterns and techniques and do things the way the military wants it. A clean slate makes it easier to learn.

How much time does the C150 driver have? How much time did the B1900 driver have when he started the B1900?

Each pilot 1000TT 1900 driver started at 350hrs the CFI started at 350hrs.

I'll take the CFI.

Eventhough the 1900 guy has been iced up, in weather getting the **** kicked out of him and actually knows how to use a wx radar?

That is the problem with the written word, easy to create the wrong impression or for the reader to overlay their own biases. I don't know him personally nor has he really elaborated his post original post. Just thought it a bit knee-jerk to have instantly discredited his point of view. Just trying to contribute to the discussion instead of it becoming a mil vs civilian ego contest like it so often unfortunately becomes. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm just reading words on a screen, however, I still stand behind my words.

KC

Well...then again if he's getting the **** kicked out of him maybe he doesn't actually know how to use the radar properly. From my experience very few do.

We need experienced guys in the flight deck......Experience is gained when you say "Oh Sh**...I won't do that again"...in the real flying world......when I hop into my Airbus I can tell right away from the Captain...if he or she is an ex cargo pilot or not.....just the way they fly...1500 Hours...won't solve that problem.....just my 2 cents

The 1900 pilot at 1000hrs was most likely not PIC and thus relied on someone else to make the tough calls and correct any errors.

The CFI was there assessing decisions of another pilot and making his decision and their was no one there to fix it if he made a poor one except himself.

Me too! Anyday and twice on Sundays. Some of the weakest FO's I ever flew with at my past regional were from a non CFI background. It's noticed in ability but more importantly, in attitude.

Yes, because if he's getting 'iced up' & in WX getting the snot beat out of him he has just proved to me that he doesnt make good decisions. If he's in TS's then he obviously doesn't know how to use a radar, or he makes poor decisions. Most likely because all of his time in the B1900 was SIC and he was just along for the ride. I don't want someone who only knows how to be along for the ride. I want someone who is PRO-active, & can make decisions.

Good points too guys. I agree with both of you.

I am going to throw in a couple of unconnected comments to points raised by others. But please let me start by pointing out that once upon a time I was also a 250 hour pilot. And then latter a 500 hour pilot. And so on. Been there. Have fond memories.

First there is the issue of the worth of a CFI. Every bit of experience is helpful, but we can not all do it all. Smart pilots understand this and try to learn from others with different sets of experiences (idiots stroke their ego by looking down on other backgrounds). In the case of the CFI in a C-150, he has learned to think for himself, to be wary of all things and most importantly to get inside the mind of the other pilot. The latter is no small skill, and as I work in a heavy jet with a lot of other old farts it is pretty easy to tell who has some instructing in their background and who does not.

Next I offer a set of thought experiments. Take a group of 10 pilots. We will give them certain scenarios to manage at different points in their career, using 500 hours, 1500 hours and 5,000 hours. Let’s put them in the right seat of a 121 operation in the United States.

The basic divert. ORD is heading down the tubes, there is only so much fuel to hold and the alternate is not that great. At what point are they going to better manage the situation and support the Captain? 500? 1500? 5000?

Approaching an outlying airport in winter weather. The runway is plowed full length and 50’ either side of centerline. The temperature is in the low 20s and the wind is across the runway at 15 knots. How many of the pilots are going to sense the trap at different points in their career? One thing is certain, the odds get better as the experience bucket gets filled.

And of course there is basic radar interpretation. Hint here -- if you just “avoid the red” you should seek some training. But moving on, who is going to be better able to pick the “kill me” from the rain showers? The 500 hour guy, the 1500 hour guy or the 5,000 hour guy? This is actually a very complicated subject, since the same radar return can mean very different things depending on geographical location, altitude and overall weather conditions.

Finally, anyone who does not think that some experience towing would have kept Renslow from doing the wrong thing in BUF has never towed. That is just a little vent that I needed to get off my chest.

For a while we were getting 300Hr F/O's where i work i have seen them progress a lot that past year or so, where they are up around 1000+ hrs and recently we have gotten a few 1000-1700 hr CFI's in and form my experience with that i would take one of our 300 hr guys. Yes they dont have much PIC but they have experience that i think works better in the situation.


"getting 'iced up' & in WX getting the snot beat out of him he has just proved to me that he doesnt make good decisions."


I said that cause we operate in a non radar environment. Not everyone can top the weather or in your CFI's case turn back/cancel the flight

(looking for my bow down, Im not worthy emoticon...)

maybe the captain can help me since us lowly FO's dont know how to make decisions on our own, much less fly a plane

I'm betting you teach CRM classes in your spare time....:rolleyes:

Nah I don't get enough days off from my regional FO gig to do that.

http://regs.dot.gov/rulemakings/201107/report.htm#10

13.
Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements (formerly First Officer Qualification Requirements) (HR 5900) Red
Popular Title: Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements
RIN 2120-AJ67

Stage: NPRM [mod edit: not the Final Rule Making]

Previous Stage: ANPRM: Publication Date 02/08/2010; End of Comment Period 04/09/2010
Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the eligibility and qualification requirements for pilots engaged in part 121 air carrier operations. Additionally, it would modify the requirements for an airline transport pilot certificate. These actions are necessary because recent airline accidents and incidents have brought considerable attention to the experience level and training of air carrier flight crews.
Effects:
None
Prompting action: Statute
Legal Deadline: NPRM : 01/28/2011
Rulemaking Project Initiated: 10/20/2009

Docket Number: FAA-2010-0100
Dates for NPRM:

Milestone.................OriginallyScheduled..New ProjectedDate..ActualDate
To OST...........................12/08/2010..........01/26/2011.......01/26/2011
To OMB..........................12/21/2010..........05/20/2011.......06/23/2011
OMB Clearance ...............01/21/2011..........08/22/2011
Publication Date..............01/28/2011..........09/06/2011
End of Comment Period....04/28/2011..........12/06/2011

Explanation for any delay: Additional coordination necessary
Federal Register Citation for NPRM: None


Federal Aviation Administration