|
Originally Posted by Waitingformins
(Post 1690995)
Also, if they do grow it would have to be new aircraft users. They might grow as pilots are harder to find, but it would be at the expense of a traditional 91 flight department. IE a CJ2 owner sells his jet lays-off pilots and buys a share of a Hawker 800. Total pilots required would not increase.
|
I'm sick of seeing articles that portray the airlines as victims of the 1500 hour rule. We need to change the talking points. Regional airline pilot is not an entry level job. Raising the barrier to get into this profession is one of the best steps foreword in safety that could have occurred. Compensation improvements are long overdue. If airline management can't adjust, then regional airlines deserve their fate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by Packrat
(Post 1690963)
Easily said when you're 30. Let's see how you feel when someone orders you to give up something you love on an arbitrary date. Your perspective may change.
And no one orders anyone to give up something they love. Mandatory retirement has been here for the ages. We all knew it was there the first day we flew. If I want to get my rocks of flying, I can do it on my own time in a J-3 or 8KAB. That's a heck of lot more fun than flying 180+ angry passengers around. |
Originally Posted by Packrat
(Post 1690963)
Easily said when you're 30. Let's see how you feel when someone orders you to give up something you love on an arbitrary date. Your perspective may change.
As other posters suggested, maybe you should try some other GA flying if you haven't had the opportunity. Try sailplanes, ultralights, gyrocopters, floats, helicopters. There's so much more to aviation than 121. IMO, 121 flying is just a way to pay the bills while still getting to fly, the 'fun' stuff in aviation is done at a local airport. If you need a jet fix, hopefully your retirement plan is good enough to afford an L-39! :) |
Originally Posted by Packrat
(Post 1690902)
How do they do it now? AS sent a query out to all its older Captains asking when they planned on retirement. Then the bond rate changed and guys realized they were going to take a HUGE hit on the lump sum payout. What happened? 60 pilots AS hadn't planned on losing pulled the plug in November and December.
Did they plan for that? No. However, this summer/fall's hiring will cover for the loss. Hasn't slowed AS down one bit, especially when they have enough pilots willing to pick up extra time and sell vacations. That's how they do it. Anyone flying for an airline today knew of the mandatory retirement age when they started. If you want to go fly more, get a job at a fractional or a corporate gig. |
Originally Posted by ClearRight
(Post 1690703)
FAA looks at revising tougher pilot training rules implemented in wake of Flight 3407 - City & Region - The Buffalo News
WASHINGTON – The Federal Aviation Administration is thinking of revising the tougher pilot training rules that it implemented just last year, and the Families of Continental Flight 3407 – who won passage of a law calling for the new standards – aren’t very happy about it. The agency set up a committee earlier this year that will “develop and recommend to the FAA new or updated guidance material, notices, handbooks and other related materials for air-carrier training and qualification,” according to the committee’s charter, which the Flight 3407 families obtained and released Tuesday. The formation of the committee in April came amid loud complaints from the airline industry about the new FAA rule that requires new commercial pilots to have 1,500 hours of cockpit experience. The regional airlines – which generally employ younger, lower-paid pilots and which fly an increasing share of flights on behalf of the big-name airlines – say that new requirement is creating a pilot shortage. But the families, who fought long and hard for that experience requirement, said the FAA’s move to set up that new pilot training committee could undercut their fight for aviation safety. Leaders of the families group said they were particularly concerned that Donald R. Dillman, managing director of flight operations for Airlines for America, an industry group, is co-chairman of the committee along with an FAA official. “This whole process just reeks of the old days of the FAA taking its marching orders from the airlines, which is exactly how the major safety gap between the regional and mainline carriers was allowed to develop in the first place,” said Scott Maurer of Moore, S.C., whose daughter, Lorin, was among the 50 people killed in the Feb. 12, 2009, crash in Clarence Center. The 15-member committee does not include representatives of either the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations or the National Air Disaster Alliance/Foundation, groups that fought for tougher pilot standards the last time the FAA addressed the issue. “It is extremely disappointing to see the two parties who didn’t toe the company line on the previous pilot qualification rule-making committee, who stood up for the flying public and for putting safety first, not be included on this new, hush-hush panel,” Maurer said. FAA spokeswoman Laura J. Brown did not respond to a detailed set of questions about the new committee. In the committee’s charter, the FAA said that it set up the new panel because the aviation industry is constantly evolving. “The FAA must continue to review existing air-carrier training and qualification regulations, policies, and guidance to ensure they are current and relevant,” the agency said. “In addition, there continues to be new challenges with changing technology and new research that may necessitate the development of new regulations, policies, and guidance.” But the Flight 3407 families have insisted that the 2009 crash in Clarence, which federal investigators blamed on pilot error, proved that the tougher pilot training and experience rules implemented last year are necessary. “These new qualification requirements provide an opportunity to elevate the profession of regional airline pilots by enhancing their entry-level preparation and credentials, and hopefully the FAA will recognize this and stand up for the safety of the flying public,” said Susan Bourque, of East Aurora, whose sister Beverly Eckert, a 9/11 activist, was killed in the crash. Actually, let's simplify this rule: 1500h for everyone, 700 h for military pilots. And, they should also add a 4 year degree requirement for everyone to raise the education level a little. Oh, there are no pilots? Raise entry level pay to 50k minimum and we shall see... |
Hell, let's just go back to Regulation. Bring back Pan Am and Braniff. $300,000 salaries for everyone.
|
Originally Posted by deltajuliet
(Post 1691096)
Hell, let's just go back to Regulation. Bring back Pan Am and Braniff. $300,000 salaries for everyone.
|
A little of both combined with wishful thinking.
|
|
New York's Senator Schumer responds to threat of reversing safety rules.
News for July 25th, 2014 | Airline Pilot Info |
Does it really matter if they repeal or keep the 1500hr rule? Not one bit in my opinion. Everybody from the government to the airline lobby just talks about 1500hrs this or that. No where do you hear them asking to do what the pilots want and need most. Pay a fair wage! So until they remedy that(which they never will until the whipsaw and SJS stops) then all this debate is for nothing. If anything the 1500hr rule keeps some poor CFI in the seat of a GA aircraft longer. While we increase our standards and make training tougher some guy/gal from another country comes over here, gets their wet comm and runs off back to their country and flies a heavy and flying public is indifferent...
|
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by Rnav
(Post 1691242)
While we increase our standards and make training tougher some guy/gal from another country comes over here, gets their wet comm and runs off back to their country and flies a heavy and flying public is indifferent...
|
Originally Posted by Packrat
(Post 1690713)
The alternative would be to completely remove the Age-65 restriction and allow pilots to continue Part 121 flying until they could not pass a flight physical. After all, fractional/corporate pilots don't face that restriction. What's the difference between operating a 737 to Hawaii and a Gulfstream? Answer: The Gulfstream is a higher performance airplane.
Im fine with raising the age if we have real physicals with cognitive testing. That would eliminate half the pilots right now. Total bs. |
Originally Posted by vilcas
(Post 1690787)
Remove the hourly requirements and make the ATP provisional on certain circumstances based in experience. Example: With 300 hours you can get provisional ATP but you need to be run through a more intense training program double the sims and double the OE. This will make airlines more careful as to who they hire and the increased vetting will improve the quality if the pilot candidates who are given the opportunity to enter the Airlines training program.
|
1500 hour rule is simple, it's a survival test, if you are gonna do stupid stuff in a plane, it will most likely be solo. If it kills you you are not a suitable airline pilot candidate. In years past it took a long and tortured road to the airliner, I personally know of at least 10 G/A deaths, due to stupidity. The military filter is tougher, getting through flight training is selective enough, add operational flying and the filter is finely tuned. 3500 hours of 135 freight gives one plenty of opportunities to get dead, the military offers as many if not more. It's about survival, nothing more,,,,
|
Originally Posted by ClickClickBoom
(Post 1691340)
1500 hour rule is simple, it's a survival test, if you are gonna do stupid stuff in a plane, it will most likely be solo. If it kills you you are not a suitable airline pilot candidate. In years past it took a long and tortured road to the airliner, I personally know of at least 10 G/A deaths, due to stupidity. The military filter is tougher, getting through flight training is selective enough, add operational flying and the filter is finely tuned. 3500 hours of 135 freight gives one plenty of opportunities to get dead, the military offers as many if not more. It's about survival, nothing more,,,,
Unfortunately the 300 hour wonders don't get this. I have 7 dead friends and another 5 coworkers. I miss them and hope they found peace. But they were not up to flying people. The reality is a good private pilot with an instrument rating can pass the ATP checkride. But that doesn't mean they have the experience to fly an airliner. |
Originally Posted by aviatorhi
(Post 1690740)
Age and physical condition are not directly related.
But your physical condition does degrade after about age 20...slowly at first, but the pace picks up later in life. After age 60-ish the risk of sudden incapacitation rises noticeably. Also alertness, stamina, etc falls off too. Eventually there is a very real likelyhood of rapid degradation occurring between exams and sim sessions Look at the current FAA medical exam standards...the frequency and scope increases at age 40 (EKG, more frequent exams). While there are probably genetic outliers who could fly airliners safely until age 99, there are several problems with eliminating (or even significantly increasing) the age limit... - You would have to increase the both the frequency and scope of exams and sim/cognitive testing . Who's gonna pay for that? The hypothetical 99 year old pilot would probably need a full astronaut physical and a PC at the start of every trip. - Older folks simply will not have the same stamina regardless of health, so rest rules would have to be amended again. Bottom line the system needs to manage the health of pilots without going to ridiculous and costly extremes. Providing the occasional "genetic outlier" with the opportunity to keep flying way beyond the bell curve is probably not worth the cost and hassle to everybody else. |
Originally Posted by ClickClickBoom
(Post 1691340)
3500 hours of 135 freight gives one plenty of opportunities to get dead
|
I truly hope this rule does not get reversed or reduced at all. I was not a fan of at when I was a low time (250 hour pilot). But now that I am close to 850 and 500 dual given I really respect it and glad I am building the experience as truly PIC. The amount of situational awareness and overall decision making I have gained is priceless and I will be glad to have it for future jobs.
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 1691457)
Yes, they are. Up until a certain point it's a fairly weak relationship, and there are absolutely other factors, some controllable, which affect your health.
But your physical condition does degrade after about age 20...slowly at first, but the pace picks up later in life. After age 60-ish the risk of sudden incapacitation rises noticeably. Also alertness, stamina, etc falls off too. Eventually there is a very real likelyhood of rapid degradation occurring between exams and sim sessions Look at the current FAA medical exam standards...the frequency and scope increases at age 40 (EKG, more frequent exams). While there are probably genetic outliers who could fly airliners safely until age 99, there are several problems with eliminating (or even significantly increasing) the age limit... - You would have to increase the both the frequency and scope of exams and sim/cognitive testing . Who's gonna pay for that? The hypothetical 99 year old pilot would probably need a full astronaut physical and a PC at the start of every trip. - Older folks simply will not have the same stamina regardless of health, so rest rules would have to be amended again. Bottom line the system needs to manage the health of pilots without going to ridiculous and costly extremes. Providing the occasional "genetic outlier" with the opportunity to keep flying way beyond the bell curve is probably not worth the cost and hassle to everybody else. |
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 1691252)
Im fine with raising the age if we have real physicals with cognitive testing. That would eliminate half the pilots right now.
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 1691457)
But your physical condition does degrade after about age 20...slowly at first, but the pace picks up later in life. After age 60-ish the risk of sudden incapacitation rises noticeably.
|
Plan A and Plan B
We all know that the regional airline management want to abolish the ATP requirement for the SIC, (note I wrote "ATP" not "1500 hour rule", because a 121 SIC doesn't need 1500 hours, he/she needs an ATP), because they simply want to be able to continue to hire cheap pilots. No brainer.
Plan B, (assuming the ATP for SIC rule remains in effect) will be to increase (or remove) the age 65 rule. This will slow the progression/flow of pilots from regionals to major airlines, but will be MUCH more costly to both the regionals AND the majors. Regional airlines will retain more of their current, (but higher seniority/higher cost) pilots,......and the majors will also retain more of their current, (higher seniority/higher cost) pilots. But at least regionals, (and the majors who depend on that feed) will find it easier to staff their regional airplanes,.....in theory. Sadly, I think the pilot unions will fight the ATP SIC rule, tooth and nail,......but I don't see them putting up the same fight over increasing age 65, because ALPA, et al. makes a LOT of money from the dues of those higher seniority pilots. Start talking to your union reps about opposing Plan B before it's too late. |
Originally Posted by Packrat
(Post 1691489)
Be careful what you wish for. Those standards could eliminate you. There a lots of young guys out there who couldn't pass a tougher physical.
Every single inflight incapacitation of an airline pilot was someone well below age 60. |
Originally Posted by tom11011
(Post 1691227)
New York's Senator Schumer responds to threat of reversing safety rules.
News for July 25th, 2014 | Airline Pilot Info The likely outcome from this is some kind of report that the rule needs to be changed. The FAA will send them to congress because they will refuse to lower the standards for an ATP any more. It will pass the House, and Chucky will bottle it up in the Senate and tell them to pound sand, game over. This will never get changed until the Republicans have 61 votes in the Senate, then it still may not depending on whether they hold together. And the chances of Republicans getting 61 votes in the Senate is very unlikely, no matter wheat Obama does. |
I definitely feel there is a gulf between regional pilots and mainline pilots insofar as safety. But I don't think the problem is regulatory I think it's contractual.
The fact is that regional pilots regardless of the training standards of their carrier or their personal level of experience are paid substantially less and work substantially more hours. In many cases the average day in the regionals is a duty day that bumps right up against the max 117 limits. That certainly happens at mainline carriers but it would be a major stretch to say it comes anywhere near the level of frequency it does at the regional level. The average regional pilot is less rested and more stressed. When the substandard pay causes problems at home that the majority of legacy pilots don't face or face it with less severity less often, its easy to bring that stress to work. Stress, we all agree, lowers cognitive awareness. Those 20 day months, worries ove bills not paid with those awesome 30K salaries, frequent 117 extensions and 14 hour days that are the standard in the regionals most certainly effects the safety bottom line. The mainline pilot groups simply have better CBA protections that create standards much more restrictive insofar as duty day and days at work per month. Those same CBA rules at regional carriers are pretty much all less restrictive and in many cases the same as the 117 regs. That allows regional airlines mgt. to use the limits as the standard. And with that you get a pilot that is more stressed and more fatigued. But all that being said its probably not a huge difference because the job is hard on one's body despite livery. |
Originally Posted by Slick111
(Post 1691494)
We all know that the regional airline management want to abolish the ATP requirement for the SIC, (note I wrote "ATP" not "1500 hour rule", because a 121 SIC doesn't need 1500 hours, he/she needs an ATP), because they simply want to be able to continue to hire cheap pilots. No brainer.
Plan B, (assuming the ATP for SIC rule remains in effect) will be to increase (or remove) the age 65 rule. This will slow the progression/flow of pilots from regionals to major airlines, but will be MUCH more costly to both the regionals AND the majors. Regional airlines will retain more of their current, (but higher seniority/higher cost) pilots,......and the majors will also retain more of their current, (higher seniority/higher cost) pilots. But at least regionals, (and the majors who depend on that feed) will find it easier to staff their regional airplanes,.....in theory. Sadly, I think the pilot unions will fight the ATP SIC rule, tooth and nail,......but I don't see them putting up the same fight over increasing age 65, because ALPA, et al. makes a LOT of money from the dues of those higher seniority pilots. Start talking to your union reps about opposing Plan B before it's too late. None of this addresses the root of this staffing problem. Young people are looking at what they now have to invest to get into this career and are looking elsewhere because the return on their investment is so ridiculously low. Plus it is impossible to get student loans to cover all of your aviation training because Sallie mae and Key will not finance any loans that are not government backed which limits you to $80,0000. I got into this for around $30,000. Most of these students today are looking at least $150,000 to get into this profession. Until airline management teams wake up to this, and decide to make this a lucrative enough career to justify the investment OR pony up the money to pay for someone's training cost this problem will continue to get worse. Repealing the ATP rule might ease some of the pain, but it will not eliminate it. |
Originally Posted by FlyingKat
(Post 1691488)
On my last physical, my AME told me they are looking at getting rid of the retirement age for the right seat, and keeping the limit at 65 for the left seat.
|
Who wants to fly past 65 anyway? Retirement at 60 is good enough for me.
|
Originally Posted by Waitingformins
(Post 1691496)
It was reported that United flight 1603 the captain was 63 and died.
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1691522)
Historically most incapacitation's have been in the 45 to 55 age range.
|
Originally Posted by FlyingKat
(Post 1691488)
On my last physical, my AME told me they are looking at getting rid of the retirement age for the right seat, and keeping the limit at 65 for the left seat.
|
Originally Posted by bedrock
(Post 1690948)
There definitely is a gap. Bottom feeder regionals run their applicants through training several times to get them through. I know some majors have done that when the govt. was pressuring them under EEOC rules, but that is not the norm. Everything done at regionals is to meet the min. stds possible. Look at Pinnacle 3701 crash, have you ver heard of something so lame-brained happening at a a major airline?
Why is that? Because those guys built up hours in forgiving airplanes long enough to scare themselves out of doing foolish things. |
Originally Posted by FlyJSH
(Post 1691361)
You got it. Haul checks or boxes for a while, don't kill yourself, and then you can haul a bunch of people.
Unfortunately the 300 hour wonders don't get this. I have 7 dead friends and another 5 coworkers. I miss them and hope they found peace. But they were not up to flying people. The reality is a good private pilot with an instrument rating can pass the ATP checkride. But that doesn't mean they have the experience to fly an airliner. Check 21 took care of alot of the 135 outfits, just saying |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1691522)
Historically most incapacitation's have been in the 45 to 55 age range.
|
Originally Posted by Packrat
(Post 1691489)
Every single inflight incapacitation of an airline pilot was someone well below age 60.
But actually there have been at least a couple 60+ incapacitations since the law changed. |
Originally Posted by ClickClickBoom
(Post 1691340)
1500 hour rule is simple, it's a survival test, if you are gonna do stupid stuff in a plane, it will most likely be solo. If it kills you you are not a suitable airline pilot candidate. In years past it took a long and tortured road to the airliner, I personally know of at least 10 G/A deaths, due to stupidity. The military filter is tougher, getting through flight training is selective enough, add operational flying and the filter is finely tuned. 3500 hours of 135 freight gives one plenty of opportunities to get dead, the military offers as many if not more. It's about survival, nothing more,,,,
Originally Posted by FlyJSH
(Post 1691361)
You got it. Haul checks or boxes for a while, don't kill yourself, and then you can haul a bunch of people.
Unfortunately the 300 hour wonders don't get this. I have 7 dead friends and another 5 coworkers. I miss them and hope they found peace. But they were not up to flying people. The reality is a good private pilot with an instrument rating can pass the ATP checkride. But that doesn't mean they have the experience to fly an airliner. I agree...that 1500 hour window is an opportunity for folks to de-select from aviation, hopefully because they realize they're not up to it. But failing that, FAA violations and incidents/accidents at least provide some indication for future employers to consider. |
Originally Posted by DD214
(Post 1691604)
Give me name of the Company who was pressured by the Govt. and EEOC rules and could you define Several. or are you one of those folks who see a Female or other Minority and ASSUMEs...
Talk to crew at UAL who have been around awhile. UAL hired someone of a preferential group way back when. The person became a celebrity of sorts and was promoted as a first by magazines. Trouble was, that person could not fly. UAL was stuck with a PR problem, since that person was giving them a lot of good press. Said person was transferred to training dept, I believe. BTW, by the accusatory shrill tone of your post, you are assuming a lot as well. |
Originally Posted by FlyJSH
(Post 1691361)
You got it.
The reality is a good private pilot with an instrument rating can pass the ATP checkride. But that doesn't mean they have the experience to fly an airliner. |
1. Eliminate the Sim requirements.
2. Keep 1500 3. Require a minimum combined experience in the cockpit (say, 5000 hours) 4. Require maximum total combined age at the controls (say, 120 years). The pilots of 3407 didn't even have a combined 1000 hours experience in the Q400. The above, combined with the new 1000 PIC requirements, should be enough. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:42 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands