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!

 

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!
Be sure to stick them on your flight case though!