This is true, which is why the CFI is an integral part of the equation and should develop a working relationship with the DPE, local FAA FSDO or company DPE (in a 141 school).

The same principal works in an airline environment. As an IP and check airman in an airline, I had a pretty good idea who was good and who wasn't before I got into the cockpit with them.

The CFI and company check airman is an integral part of the system and the FAA checks are just as much to weed out bad CFI or company instructors as they are to check the individual pilots.

When the FAA finds issues with pilots they go to the training department to find out why.

Good read, (relatively) straight from the horse's mouth (U.S. GAO)

"Data on the other two indicators, wage earnings and employment growth,
are not consistent with the existence of a shortage in the occupation.
First, our analysis of BLS data from 2000 through 2012 shows that the
median weekly earnings in the pilot occupation decreased by 9.5 percent
over the period (adjusted for inflation), or by an average of 0.8 percent
per year.33 According to economic literature, a positive growth in wages is
required for a shortage to be present. So, by absolute standards, the
findings for this indicator do not appear consistent with a shortage for
pilots during the time frame"

"... airlines may have to make considerable operational adjustments
to compensate for having an insufficient number of pilots.
To address such a situation, opportunities exist for the airline industry to
take action to attract more pilots. For example, airlines can continue to
take actions that will promote aviation as an occupation—such as through
employment pathway partnerships with pilot schools and additional career
and financial support for pilots as they build flight hours for an R-ATP or
ATP certificate. In addition, mainline and regional airlines could work
together to shift some of the burden of increasing training costs from
students as has been done by some European airlines and adjust
contractual agreements between mainline and regional airline partners to
help regional airlines increase revenue. Furthermore, with the mandate to
increase pilot qualifications for airline pilots having only recently gone into
effect, opportunities exist to develop new training methods and pathways
for students to gain experience relevant to an airline environment. It is
unclear at this point what adjustments could occur within the pilot training
system that would help to respond to these stakeholders’ concerns about
the current regulations, or if government action may be necessary to
enable certain changes."

And Sully is an amazing spokesperson for the profession.

Your argument on quantity of time doesn't hold water. If all you do is get 1500 hours in a 150 or 172 I would venture to say you know just as much at your 500th hour as you will know at your 1500th hour beating around the practice area. My guess is that even though they are going to complain about it, every training captain is going to do exactly what management tells them. Also isn't that the job of a good Captain, to train the FO to take his job? I imagine even a low time RJ captain has something to teach a high time fighter guy that is new to the 121 world. I want to meet the guy with the resolve to quit because he doesn't want to have a low time guy in the right seat being trained. I have always been an advocate of QUALITY of hours not quantity but for lack of a measuring stick quantity it is. I would rather have a 1000 hour night freight guy (if you could have that in 135) who is making decisions and flying in all weather without an autopilot over any 1500 CFI that has been riding in the right seat of a 172 telling some student to mind their heading.

I will bet my next paycheck that the rule will change in the next five years. Congress mandated the ATP not the hours. Look at how the FAA has already bastardized it. Use to everyone recommended getting your degree in anything but aviation. Now doing just the opposite gets you a 500 hour credit just because ERAU and UND have deep pockets. How is a guy with a Pro Aero degree from ERAU a better pilot than a guy with a Mechanical Engineering degree from UNC or something like that?

For the record I already have my ATP so I don't have a dog in the fight but I know the government always bows to a big checkbook.

I challenge you to show me some data to prove this. Not so long ago you could get hired with wet ink on your commercial ticket. I don't seem to recall a spike in aircraft mishaps. In contrast the accidents that I have seen are high time guys screwing the pooch. Now I am not saying that I want two 250 hour wonders flying my wife and daughter around but I am saying that it is case by case. Where I currently work we have a huge mix of backgrounds. I have flown with 15K hour military heavy guys that I wouldn't let take my 172 on a trip around the pattern and I have flown with some low time non-military guys who impressed me. Its the pilot not the logbook!

Maybe you should still be in the right seat. Being in the left seat is more than just being the king of the flight.

Sure about that?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-11...111publ216.pdf

Read 217.c.2

Actually there was a spike in accidents and the Colgan crash wouldn't have happened with the ATP minimums. The same pilot at 1500 hours is a better pilot than they were at 250 hours. Unless you honestly think pilots don't learn a thing when they get more flight time.

If a pilot at 1500 hours is not better than they were at 500 hours they shouldn't be in this industry. Most every pilot is a better pilot at 1500 hours than they were at 500 hours.


Nope

I wouldn't want a guy with all military heavy time flying me around the pattern in a C-172 either. I'd bet you wouldn't have a problem with that 15,000 hr C-5 pilot (if there was such a thing....I think the HIGHEST hour USAF patch I've ever seen was 5,000 hrs and that was a C-5 guy) flying your family around the globe in that Galaxy right?

I just went through recurrent with a former USAF -135 pilot, airline 727 guy and has most recently been flying large cabin corporate type aircraft worldwide. There was still some stuff that he could do better in a King Air. It has nothing to do with how good of a pilot he is overall.

Thank goodness he got me through that firehose PL21 avionics stuff though!:D

You better. Might be piloting your family around someday.

That's a ridiculous request. But if you want data all you have to do is ask an insurance company who they want to insure.

That's the point, instead of being the rare case it was becoming the norm. The airlines prefer to hire inexperienced pilots when there are experienced pilots out there because they can pay them less.

Congress recognized this as a result of an intensive study and decided to act. Their action is generally beneficial to pilots as well as passengers so I can't imaging why you would be against this regardless of any data although I've asked you to explain.

You're missing the point here. A high time airline pilot who didn't develop a solid base of experience before joining an airline is a higher risk than than a high time airline pilot who had a broader level of experience and stick and rudder skills prior to becoming an airline pilot. Flying a highly automated jet airliner requires a particular set of skills that depends on a basic set of airmanship skills that are obtained elsewhere.

Again, please explain why you are really against these rules. As far as I can tell the only people who would really benefit by the rollback of these rules are the RAA. For pilots it would be disastrous.

USMCFLYR

Haven't seen a Reserve C-5 crew, I guess. I had several Wing Cmdrs with 10,000 hour patches; my last OG/CC wore a 10,000 hour patch and the SQ/DO before me had 5,000 in the C-5 after gaining a 7,500 hour patch in the Herk. A number of my enlisted crew had 7,500 and 10,000 hour patches.

GF

This tiff about the details of the 1500 hour rule found in the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 could possibly be settled using Lexis Nexis research at a decent university library, looking at the transcripts of the 2010-111th Congress. It would be a great afternoon research subject for someone who wanted do it. I am betting the 1500 number was just pulled in from historical FAA admin. law anyway, and when you dig deeper there's not much behind it. My indirect reasoning is, an ATP would have been required all along for transport aircraft piloting if the FAA knew pilots with less than that are significantly more accident prone. I don't think they know that, because if they did and yet still allowed low-timers to fly airliners all these years before the 1500 rule, it's a rather large liability for the agency which of course they would tend to avoid.

There are always exceptions but the idea is to mitigate the risk. There is absolutely NO QUESTION that the more time you have doing something the better you become at it... to a point of course. But I guarantee you that that point isnt even at 1500 hours when talking about flying.

Sully was right. You have NO BUSINESS on the flight deck of an airliner with 250 hours. Not only is the pilot not ready, but he is causing distractions for the PIC.

The 1500 hour rule is completely acceptable imho. Should there be exceptions? Yes, and there are. There are pilots from all walks of life, backgrounds, and previous experiences. Same goes for any field you look at. The regulations are an attempt to create some sort of basis that would mitigate the risk to the flying public. Its a good start I think. Is it perfect, no.

If a person come from flying a 172 for 1500 hours into the right seat of a regional jet, then there is still HUGE room for improvement. But, that is a huge head start from a guy fresh out of school with a wet cert.

No doubt that it is buried in old history -- but the role of an FO used to be to shut up, do what the Captain says and load the mail. Times have changed.
Now we expect them to be active participants in decision making, and they cannot do that if all they have is a dripping wet commercial certificate from a pilot puppy mill and enthusiasm. They need some street smarts, among other things, and an ATP is a minimal way of showing that.

Can say that I have or haven't.
Fly with quite a few ex-C-5 guys now....I guess I could ask them.

Those are impressive numbers posted above - yet still 50% again less than the original remarked upon amount in the hypothetical scenario. There is a 5,000 hr Marine Hornet guy too - - -but he is certainly NOT the norm; know what I mean? :)

That one I mentioned was a 1-star. I was a freshly winged 1stLt and was impressed by both the 5,000 hr C-5 patch and the 3,000 (or was it 4,000 - I really cant remember) AC-130 patch the Colonel was wearing.

742dash -

An excellent point that haven't seen mentioned much in these debates on the forum - - - the ROLE of the FO has changed.
I agree with your statement 100%.

Uh oh, I think we've got a 5,000 hour jarhead Hornet pilot on our hands here, eh FLYR? :)

PS I think this is the most intelligent thread I've seen in a while!!

PPS When are we gonna have 10,000 hour RJ patches to sport? Or maybe patches for each bankruptcy or displacement to that base that nooobody wants to go to. Maybe the military guys will think we are cool THEN! :D

Roll back, HECK NO!, no way!!!

At a non-aviation job interview I was asked why I had changed jobs so often. My answer as I pointed to each company name, "shut down by the feds, went broke, company sold off, closed, dissolved the flight department, 'A' bought by 'B' who declared bankruptcy bought by 'C' who got rid of half the planes. Only one of the eight companies still exists in its original form."

Hardly - I did good to get what time I did with my non-flying tours and a couple of extended med downs :)

I love the idea of the bankruptcy patches though! :D
Be sure to stick them on your flight case though!

If regular line Captains have to train their First Officers, that First Officer should have not been released from OE.

Disagree, IOE makes the F/O qual'd to be just that--an F/O. It's the captains' job is to make them ready to be, wait for it, Captains.

USMCFLYR

I'm impressed with a 5,000 hour AD Hornet pilot, only 6 5,000 hour Viper guys, all in the ANG/AFRC.

GF

Yep after O4 more desk time than stick time.
generally speaking of course there are exceptions of course.

1000 hours is probably a good enough. Reducible by current reducible factors in legislation.

The guy never had a non-flying billet I think the story went and eventually was the CO of VMFA-134 'Smokes'. I only ran across one 5,000 USN Hornet pilot. A former VFA-106 OPSO of mine ('Smurf' Szarletta for any of you USN types out there) had just broken 4,000 last I saw him and was still going strong.

Marine pilot reaches 5,000 Hornet hours

I once met Jack Jackson (USMC, McDonnell Douglas, Boeing), who set a record of 5500 hours in the Harrier before he retired.

The crux of the argument is what should a line Captain be teaching. If the line captain has to teach basic aircraft control or IFR procedures, then that is an issue. If the FO needs to learn about ADM or specific stuff related to the operation of a complex aircraft, then that is normal.

In the last two weeks, I had to teach one FO which climb profile to use for the current conditions. I didn't mind teaching that because it was something that is specific to our operations and is not covered in training. One week later, I had to fly with an FO who did not understand how to enter a VFR pattern. I found myself explaining multiple times that we were entering a 45 to the downwind to an uncontrolled field. He was confused because a straight in to the other runway was easier. Now I am on the base leg explaining that we could not land on the other runway because it had a 12 knot tailwind (and yes, 20 minutes before this, I briefed what I was going to do). 24 hours later, the FO was still confused about my "unorthodox" pattern.

I've heard of him and saw a news story on him quite some time back. Even more respect for spending that much time in that aircraft :D

2StgTurbine - can you share the backgrounds of each FO if you know?
I'll take a shot in the dark that you're second FO without knowledge of the VFR pattern entries was possibly a Mil only pilot. I remember that civilian VFR pattern entry/exit was never taught during my military training.

I agree with your "crux" of the argument too. There is hopefully always something the more experienced pilot can be handing down to the new FO (at least new to the operation/company/etc...)

What about part d?

(d) CREDIT TOWARD FLIGHT HOURS.—The Administrator may
allow specific academic training courses, beyond those required
under subsection (b)(2), to be credited toward the total flight hours
required under subsection (c). The Administrator may allow such
credit based on a determination by the Administrator that allowing
a pilot to take specific academic training courses will enhance
safety more than requiring the pilot to fully comply with the flight
hours requirement.

Congress required the ATP, and the FAA says how many hours it'll take. That's the cutout for the Restricted ATP at 750, 1000, and 1250 hours.

I wish! The first FO was strictly a 1500 hour CFI, but he knew he had a lot to learn. Second was civilian but had 4 years of PIC experience flying cargo in a Shorts. Unfortunately, I could tell the second FO stopped learning as soon as they passed their commercial. If they were military (or had an equivalent knowledge base) then they would at least be able to understand the entry I was describing even if they never did it before.

Congress required the ATP and 1500 hours and allowed the FAA to provide credit toward the 1500 hours for "specific academic training." I would think the FAA could increase the flight hour credit they award for academic training (university or military) but I don't think they could allow any other kind of credit toward the 1500 hours required by subsection (c).

IMHO, rolling back will be very devastating, I think.....