|
Originally Posted by prex8390
(Post 1820549)
The man isn't very much of a aviation supporter, he's isn't much on getting young blood into the industry. Not just with the 1500 rule. He said he wouldn't even allow his own children to fly
So there's a 1500 hour rule. What would you have done in the mid 90s when you actually needed that kind of time to be competitive to fly a turboprop? |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 1820570)
Congress didn't trust the FAA, so while the law left the deets up to the FAA it also mandated a specific minimum of 1500 hours (also allowed for R-ATP minimums). So the law would have to be changed by congress, not just an FAA pencil-whip. Congress may not really care if a few bottom-feeder regional airlines have staffing troubles.
Congress will care after the larger airlines discontinue service to their neck of the woods and give them the middle finger! |
Originally Posted by FaceBiter
(Post 1820527)
Hopefully they double it. Toss in some legislation about high amounts of checkride failures or other background issues.
|
Originally Posted by Std Deviation
(Post 1820747)
This was proposed in the past - check ride failures- and shot down by the FAA. The question was, "what's the magic number?" Also, they were concerned about examiner bias: no one wants to be the "career ender."
I worked for a regional that had a 50% bust rate in the CRJ. It was obviously far from objective. |
It would be political suicide for any congress man to publicly try and roll back the new requirements. As long as they keep trotting out grieving widows and parents for the TV cameras, the law will remain as is. Now in another five years or so, the bigger campaign contributions will eventually win.
|
Originally Posted by Rahlifer
(Post 1820816)
It would be political suicide for any congress man to publicly try and roll back the new requirements. As long as they keep trotting out grieving widows and parents for the TV cameras, the law will remain as is. Now in another five years or so, the bigger campaign contributions will eventually win.
|
Given the number of current pilots who hold an ATP, there is no reason to roll back the requirement.
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/av...Air12-2013.xls Raise the pay and maybe more of those 153,000 ATP's will be attracted to the profession. Anybody know how many pilots are currently employed by the airlines? I am sure it is less than 100,000. That leaves a pilot surplus of over 53,000 pilots. There is no pilot shortage. |
Originally Posted by DryMotorBoatin
(Post 1820537)
You're all delusional if you think this wont be rolled back. Give it a while and it will be. It'll be 500 hours but they're going to give additional Sims during initial and maybe make it a minimum of 100 hours of ioe. They'll significantly reduce the mins in favor of some additional training.
|
Originally Posted by Swedish Blender
(Post 1820623)
Why? Because today's youth would actually have to work toward something? You can tell me the reward is no longer there as in years past, but the legacies are making gains in their contracts.
So there's a 1500 hour rule. What would you have done in the mid 90s when you actually needed that kind of time to be competitive to fly a turboprop? |
Air Asia had a low time and inexperienced co pilot
Air France had a low time and inexperienced co pilot Trans Asia had a low time and inexperienced co pilot I think experience might be an issue right now, at least at foreign carriers. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:45 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands