Calling all Captains to support 1500 hours
 

I just read 15 pages of pontificating about the 1500 hour/ATP FAR and whether or not it matters. As Captains, would anyone care to cite examples of exactly how inexperience reveals itself on the line? Myself, an unabashed proponent of higher minimums and an ATP, if, for no other reason than consistency: FAR 135.243 requires 1200 hrs to fly a piston twin full of mail bags as a PIC. Doesn't it stand to reason that to occupy an airliner cockpit would require at least that?
So, please share with us your anecdotal evidence of why inexperienced crew members compromise safety.

Let's see...Poor instrument skills, poor communication skills (within cockpit and with ATC), poor airmanship (smooth seems to be unobtainable), low situational awareness, no weather experience...All of these issues turn the flight into pure instruction. For true CRM and safety at it's highest level both members need to be truly contributing to the flight. In order to contribute you need to bring something to the table. That something is called experience. Everybody is always learning on every flight, but the foundation needs to be there. An airliner is not an entry level cockpit. Some do O.K. with lower experience but any captain would rather have an experienced FO. The low time pilots will not realize how much a lack of experience in the right seat is a detriment to the flight. They will never know it until they are in the left seat babysitting a low time pilot. People may not like to hear it but experience does matter. An ATP is a good place to START as a MINIMUM qualification to be employed as an airline pilot.

Don't we already have a thread on this?

Really? What good is an airline training then? How many accidents do you hear among countries that actually take pilots with 250 TT i.e. South America, Europe, South East Asia?

Just a reminder, Marvin Renslow had 3,379 hours & Rebecca Shaw had 2,200. Those numbers do not speak inexperience, do they?

I agree with CriticalMach, Lufthansa pilots start in the 320 or 737 with less then 200 hours.

I couldn't agree more. You name me any airline accident that was related to a low time pilot. The above mentioned had BOTH pilots above ATP minimums. Boring topic, NEXT!

True experience does not come from 1500 hrs punching aimless holes in the sky teaching someone how to do shorts and softs. While this can be good to the overall quality it should be in the hands of the airlines to not release these guys to the line while they are still holding onto the tail of the airplane. 8 sim sessions to teach someone the 121 world and a complex fast aircraft is where the problem really lies. Confidence in ones own ability is something that I rarely see in guys right out of the schoolhouse regardless of total time.

Until a US carrier sponsors only the best and brightest prospective pilots, trains these pilots to military standards while following strict standards and procedures from day one, comparing an American 250 hour pilot and a Lufthansa 250 hour pilot is futile.

PS, I am a huge fan of airline sponsored flight training, it preserves pilot supply, demand, and wages. These pilots fly a Lufthansa Cheyenne 4, with A300 avionics, to introduce multi crew, turbine, and weather flying before beginning type specific training. IMHO - this is the only condition to put a 250 hour pilot in an airline flight deck. Until this happens - ATP for all crew members.

Cheers!

There's a few things that need to be considered though, with that statement.

Firstly, they'll have more than 200 hours. Not a lot more, but around 250-280 as that's what's required for an LBA(German) CPL.

Secondly, the LH cadets are the cream of the crop. Certainly some of the smartest and most able students I ever had the privilege to teach.

Thirdly, when they get back to Germany, their Type training is about 80 hours in the sim, before they get near an aircraft. Then line training takes a couple of months with a Training Captain, before they're let loose on the line.

In the US, because time is money, we cram them through as fast as possible and you either make it or you don't. Which means you have to have more experience and maturity, to survive.

US military pilots do not have much more experience when they become operational, but in both cases...

1) Demand is high for the jobs, so they can be very picky. A rich dad and a 2.8 HS GPA is a non-starter.

2) The training is challenging and unforgiving. You cannot buy remedial training.

3) Neither US military nor foreign airline pilots mix it up with general aviation much. The mil guys usually have their own airspace where the other aircraft are predictable (to them). Military pilots also die on a regular basis too. Foreign pilots flying in their own country have almost no GA, and if they get on a widebody and come here they will do a straight-in ILS in B airspace. A US regional or narrowbody pilot benefits from have part 91 survival skills and instincts.

1500 hours is by no means the best solution, but it is better than nothing. It doesn't address academics, but it does ensure that we don't have private pilots flying airliners. Cuz face it a 250 hour CPL is just a PPL who can do chandelles. 1500 hours is more experience and (hopefully) judgement. I would like to see more stringent academic testing at the entry level. Select people who actually understand some aerodynamics as opposed to just memorizing the question bank. But the RAA will NEVER, EVER allow that...if they have to compete for people who could go to med or engineering school, they would be hosed.

Didn't Renslow buy a job with Gulfstream when he hit 250TT? Perhaps if he had spent another 500-1000 hours teaching someone how to do stalls, stall avoidance, etc, then maybe he would have been able to avoid one himself.

3379tt really isn't a lot of hours. SkyWest put out last year that our average captain has over 12,000tt.

Beating a dead horse aren't we?

Lufthansa was mentioned earlier as a carrier that takes low time pilots and sets them free in a B 737 after training. Maybe if we analyze and review the training that the initial Lufthansa pilot receives we may be able to see why they are successful and others not. My .02

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...

Comparing the US GA pilot training, and the average number of hours achieved at the end of that period, to either the European airline backed model OR the US military is just highlighting that the poster doesn't know much about either of the paths mentioned.

Discussion concerning the crew of the Buffalo crash so far does not address the times/experience that each was hired with and the probable lack of strong basics that each exhibited. One would hope that enough time flying the line (read as experience) would eventually give those of such caliber a stronger basis; but this doesn't seem to have happened (coupled with a less than stellar background throughout flight training and the acknowledged lack of certain types of experience)

Btw - after spending over 7 years teaching military aviators in their FLEET aircraft (after wings), there are VERY few that I would want anywhere near an airliner cockpit. Even once out of the fleet training pipeline, they are closely watched, continously monitored and graded, and tightly controlled until they gained a considerable amount of experience; and this is all after an extremely thorough initial screening process and training program!

USMCFLYR

This is beyond pathetic and borders on ignorantly offensive.
Educate yourself-
NOT ONE part 121 operator has had afatality under a crew with less than 1500 hours.
The statistical "Danger zone" for part 121 come at 7,000 hours when the PIC gets complacent and thinks he's gods gift to the skies.
Low time crews are still scared s---less of making a mistake that'll cost them their lives or their jobs.
If you want safer pilots, stop looking at the logbooks and start looking at the training departments. MOST do a (darn) good job. Some dont.
If you want safer pilots, stop protecting those who make dumba$$ mistakes that somehow dont get anybody killed but dont have any consequences to the pilot because his seniority makes him untouchable.
If you want safer pilots, STOP trying to close the gates on the reinforcements. The statistics (not the schools) are showing a virtually disasterous shortage of pilots in the pipeline. If you advocate increasing the arbitrary numbers to determin who gets to run the radios in your cockpit, then you reduce that increadibly shallow pool considerably.
Yeah,low times pilots can be morons and/or arseholes....thats is what the interview, the training, and the probation period are supposed to weed out.
The ONLY thing the log book shows you....is that someone can write.
The ONLY thing possession of an ATP rating shows you is that the named person can pass a test. News flash...every single 121 fatality....HAD AN ATP in the cockpit! They didnt strip off their shirt, unfirrel their cape, and rescue everyone. Cuz the letters on the card dont make you a superhero.

My 2c,

The reason behind the push for 1500 hour pilots to occupy an airline cockpit = is the FAA and Federal Government's knee-jerk reaction to the Colgan Buffalo Q-400 crash. This is the way the Federal Government can satisfy the general public's concern over low time airline pilots.

The reason that most pilots are behind the push is every pilot that has over 1500 hours, this = job security, and perhaps the potential for a higher paying private or corporate job in the future.

I've flown with 250 hour wonders that can fly the wings off any plane they fly, as well as 10,000+ hour pilots I would not trust to fly me or my family around. However, when it comes to the statistics concerning Total Time and accidents, the numbers speak for themselves. That being said, the number of 250 hour wonders that can fly the wings off any airplane, that I have seen, are few, and the amount of 10,000+ hour pilots that I would not trust to fly me or my family, are far between.

The 1500 hour mark for ATP minimums, is not an arbitrary number. Like everything else involved with the FAA or government, there was a committee, a sub-committee, contractors, etc.. that statistically came up with this number. 1500 hour pilots are indeed safer than lower time pilots.

Hopefully you will acquire some experience and wisdom before you end up in charge of an airliner. Anyone who really believes that experience causes accidents should have their medical revoked on mental health grounds.

So you've been out practicing slow flight/stalls in an airliner recently?

Experience doesn't cause accidents...the complacency many often get after obtaining experience is what causes accidents.

That said, your rebuke should have been stronger for the dude proclaiming "the looming pilot shortage" that is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

While I do not doubt newbie FOs cause added stress on captains, it is very important to note (if one is pulling the 'safety card') that no 121 accidents in at least the last decade have been directly or indirectly attributed to a sub-1500 FO.

That would lead one to believe that a low-time FO, while perhaps not the ideal, ain't as big a compromise to safety of flight as some with an agenda would have others believe.

While captains shouldn't have to do basic IFR instruction, captains should take the initiative to mentor their FOs, given them helpful advice during a stressful transition to a new aircraft while treating them not not as lowly copilots but rather captains-in-training.

You're exactly right, having an ATP doesn't make you a superhero...but it does show more than you can just "pass a test" (the same thing successfully completing a 121 proficiency check shows) - it shows that you have the minimum level of experience the Administrator requires to hold an AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT rating.

/full disclaimer, started my 121 career with 1100tt and don't think its unreasonable for airline pilots to be required to have an AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT license

Actually he does have a valid point as far as complacency is concerned.

That's a separate issue, it should not be addressed by firing all pilots who have over 2000 hours.

Actually that first 1500 hours in GA usually affords one the opportunity get scared poop-less a few times. That sort of early experience helps you to avoid complacency for the rest of your life. But you're unlikely to learn those lessons (or acquire command skills) in the right seat of an airliner.

My .02 cents...

The type of flying you do has a big impact on how you will behave and react when put into a 121 environment.

Take a 500 hour kid who's been flying well maintained aircraft on cloudless days during training and flight instructing at a puppy mill vs. a kid who's been flying 50 year old cessna's building time flying skydivers or traffic watch in questionable weather and ever-changing conditions (please forgive my run-on sentence.) The puppy mill kid will do great in the perfect sim world and have a lot more problems when unexpected things start to happen in the "real" world. A lot of it comes down to the confidence in your own abilities that your flying experience has fostered in you.

It absolutely would. As would teaching approaches in IMC, getting into ice & already knowing how to get out, and talking to FSS en route in order to make it around thunderstorms.

It's called gaining situational awareness. Unfortunately, Mr. Renslow lacked SA on that fateful evening. So did the pilots if AF 447. Both of those PIC's came from a non CFI environment. Our hands get held in the US 121 environment, but not in the Part 91 environment. Flight Instruction taught me an incredible amount of situational awareness.

.... rant deleted .... the commentary below is still valid...

This thread is teetering on the edge of stupidity.

There is a massive difference between teaching stalls and flying into ice and picking through storms (not something your average instructor will be doing in light singles I'll bet).

It taught me some as well, but not nearly as much as 135 flying did.

Add to that, statistically, 34 year old pilots have the lowest accident rate. So, if we combine age with your observations, the only pilots that should be allowed in an airliner are 30 to 38 year old NON ATP rated folks with 250 to 7000 hours. Makes perfect sense to me. :rolleyes:

Gentlemen: I guess what I was asking is for examples of situations Captains have witnessed during which the inexperience of a First Officer somehow made the situation less safe. I know everyone has an opinion. Another example would be of a pilot who was hired with extraordinarily low time and even after he/she upgraded was demonstrably less safe. I'll be the first to admit that despite my strong-held opinion about experience levels required, in almost 15000 hours as a Captain, I can't point squarely at ten situations, during which I shared the cockpit with a really low timer and felt really compromised.
One situation I remember (not so much safety related) happened when I commanded a night, CRJ flight from DFW-XNA. Because of a small line of t-storms coming in from the NW, we were filed to Little Rock and then, after a 90 degree left turn, straight to XNA. I hadn't flown with the FO, in part, because he was a new-hire and had just completed IOE. Told me he had 480 hrs. or something like that. Didn't seem to slow him down much: I mean the lad had all the confidence of a Christian with 4 aces. Well, I was the PF, and once we leveled of at 270, up around Hot Springs, I started watching the weather off toward XNA. Even took a turn and a couple sweeps of the radar - didn't look too threatening, so "Ask center for direct XNA". Well 15 minutes later, the whole airplane was glowing blue with st. elmos and we're in honest-to-god moderate turbulence, not to mention the odd lightening flashes out the window. I was thinking 'Gee, I must have impressed the heck out'a this kid with my decision making acumen. Sheepishly, I look over at him. He looks back at me with a great big grin and says "Cool!" Clearly, we were not on the same sheet of music.

Get off your high horses and be a good CAPT. Your new low time FO made it thru training and HR interviewing process and very much want to tune his skills with people who can add to his experience level. Be a professional and mentor when the opportunites arises. Otherwise you will be the first to have a accident with a low time FO and your leadership skills needs improvement if you survive. It is what it is.

A couple days ago I flew with a 16k hour capt....I had to babysit him/her about his/her airspeed the whole flight! If I wasnt watching we could of easily hit the shaker or redline....Mabey he/she was just too old or lacked basic airmanship...A capt with that kind of experience just needs a plane with autothrottles not a low time FO... The Colgan crash would of been avoided if that experienced crew had a autothrottle to lean on...Many people in the 121 world lack basic airmanship...The problem with the airlines is that these Capts will never be let go until the day they crash a plane....Certain people should not be in the cockpit and thats includes all flight hours.

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?

Well please, by all means explain it then, I clearly didn't learn it at my "puppy mill".

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

Great points!

Whether we admit it or not, this is ultimately what this argument has always been about. It never was about safety to the pilots, it was about cutting supply to try to raise pay. That alone speaks volumes about the so called priorities of todays pilot. Sad really. I have sat back and read thread after thread on this subject with the same drival, and there is nothing new to see here thats for sure.....

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

Listen up guys this is what the law is, its not a 1500 hour rule so quit calling it that. You dingbats that think since you are at 1500 hours your safe. Get ready for that ATP ride.....time will tell who pays for it (likely you) as the airline doesnt really care, their interest in handing out ATP's is when people upgrade.

The challenge for the regionals will be to find qualified and experienced pilots who want to work for 20$/hour .. I bet they have trouble finding those guys ... this law is win/win.

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.

Aaaamen! Can a brotha get a halleleuja!!

Mookie