Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Regional
RAA responds to Dan Carey >

RAA responds to Dan Carey

Search
Notices
Regional Regional Airlines

RAA responds to Dan Carey

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-16-2016, 06:04 PM
  #31  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,483
Default

Originally Posted by TimetoClimb View Post
Therefore when it passes, all the cargo operators will be able to take green 250hr wonders and put them in the right seat of a beech 99, navajo, metro etc and they can legally log to gain those vital IFR hours and move towards 500, then 1200 and then 1500.
Having been one of those 250 hour wonders in the right seat of a normally single pilot aircraft many moons ago, what you take out of that experience is highly dependent on the willingness of the person in the left seat to impart knowledge in a useful way, so much so as to make that whole concept pretty worthless in my opinion.

I learned far more on my own in a 172 doing survey than I did in the right seat with a guy in the left who felt imposed upon by my presence.
TallFlyer is offline  
Old 12-17-2016, 07:17 AM
  #32  
Gets Weekends Off
 
chrisreedrules's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: CRJ FO
Posts: 4,599
Default

Originally Posted by TallFlyer View Post
Having been one of those 250 hour wonders in the right seat of a normally single pilot aircraft many moons ago, what you take out of that experience is highly dependent on the willingness of the person in the left seat to impart knowledge in a useful way, so much so as to make that whole concept pretty worthless in my opinion.

I learned far more on my own in a 172 doing survey than I did in the right seat with a guy in the left who felt imposed upon by my presence.
This... I flew 91 stuff in the right seat of a BE200 for a little while. I learned stuff, but mostly it was a sit there, talk on the radios, pull the gear, and fly a little here and there. I learned much MUCH more flying survey all across N America, Canada, Mexico, and the Carribean.
chrisreedrules is offline  
Old 01-11-2017, 08:07 AM
  #33  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 208
Default

Originally Posted by CBreezy View Post
You're drawing an incorrect conclusion. The experience requirement came about because both pilots lacked basic airmanship skills. The Captain swung gear at a pay to play operator until he met basic hiring minimums for the airline. He also had a long list of checkride failures. Both pilots inappropriately reacted to a stall. The Captain didn't add full power while fighting the pusher and the first officer, for whatever reason, retracted the flaps without being prompted and didn't correct the inadequate power application.

The theory behind the hour minimum is it required a pilot to either flight instruct or fly around for a cargo operation long enough to gain valuable experience in both the VFR and IFR systems flying a variety of aircraft in all weather conditions. Is a set minimum of hours adequate? No. There shouldn't be cutouts for specific schools where you learned. Credit should be given, however, for type of experience outside of school, as that is where most of the learning is done.
Absolutely spot on. You don't learn basic airmanship once you start at an airline, YOU MUST LEARN IT BEFORE. The Air France crash down in south america had a 600 hr wonder kid at the controls. When the ******** hit the fan, the inexperienced pilot cause the airplane to stall and kept it stalled for minutes until it hit the ocean, even after all instrumentation came back online. Perhaps 1000 more hrs of flight time would have given him the basic experience required to, first, not pitch up to a 7000fpm climb and stall the airplane, and second, been able to fly the airplane on pitch and power alone.

500 hr pilots normally don't save the day under extreme circumstances but under normal operations, they do a good job.
Chupacabras is offline  
Old 01-11-2017, 08:43 AM
  #34  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: Left
Posts: 1,809
Default

Originally Posted by Nantonaku View Post
Incorrect, it was a total lack of experience, every time Colgan comes up someone has to say they had over 1500 hours when they crashed. Great but how many hours did they have when they were hired? Have you ever been instructing and had a student pull back at an inopportune time? If you instructed to 1500 hours you will have had this experience. Do you think the Colgan pilots hired with 300 hours ever had this experience? The 1500 hour rule would of prevented the Colgan crash, pure and simple. All hour requirements set by the FAA are arbitrary, the bar has to be set somewhere.

The law wasn't meant to increase performance, it was meant to prevent crashes. It doesn't matter what a small subset of sim instructors are observing, are 1500 hour pilots safer than 250 hour pilots? Of course they are - this is the intent of the 1500 hour requirement. I don't see how you could argue otherwise.
I agree with this. While 1500 isn't perfect there needs to be a way to weed out people that shouldn't be there. 250 weeds out NO ONE. Most pilots can luck their way to 250 because a vast majority of those hours are spent with a CFI sitting next to them. While 1500 certainly does not weed out EVERYONE that shouldn't be there it does a much better job than 250 ever did.
pagey is offline  
Old 01-11-2017, 11:01 AM
  #35  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Position: Professional Eugoogoolizer at the Derek Zoolander Center For Kids Who Can’t Read Good
Posts: 1,191
Default

Originally Posted by pagey View Post
I agree with this. While 1500 isn't perfect there needs to be a way to weed out people that shouldn't be there. 250 weeds out NO ONE. Most pilots can luck their way to 250 because a vast majority of those hours are spent with a CFI sitting next to them. While 1500 certainly does not weed out EVERYONE that shouldn't be there it does a much better job than 250 ever did.
I feel like the more time I spend in the 121 world.. the less safe I feel single pilot in the 91 world.. especially vfr... I am a mess.... but than again... I suck.. 121 makes me lazy... and less of a pilot.. my stick and rudder is fading.. my flight planning skills are gone..

I got my stick and rudder, banner, skydiving driving, and CFI... 121 would does not compare to how proficient I used to be.....

That being said, I can operate an airliner as a crew now, safely and efficiently... two completely different things.
MKUltra is offline  
Old 01-12-2017, 05:59 AM
  #36  
Chief A'Hole
 
Dhood84's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Barely Flying!
Posts: 402
Default

Originally Posted by MKUltra View Post
I feel like the more time I spend in the 121 world.. the less safe I feel single pilot in the 91 world.. especially vfr... I am a mess.... but than again... I suck.. 121 makes me lazy... and less of a pilot.. my stick and rudder is fading.. my flight planning skills are gone..

I got my stick and rudder, banner, skydiving driving, and CFI... 121 would does not compare to how proficient I used to be.....

That being said, I can operate an airliner as a crew now, safely and efficiently... two completely different things.
I was just thinking about this yesterday. In the 121/135 world, 121 even more so, you lose a lot of the vast knowledge you once had. When you are a CFI or flying 91 you have to stay up on a lot, whether it be weather, regs, airspace etc. When it's all done for you it sort of limits your "area" of expertise.

DH
Dhood84 is offline  
Old 01-12-2017, 06:54 AM
  #37  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: Left
Posts: 1,809
Default

Originally Posted by MKUltra View Post
I feel like the more time I spend in the 121 world.. the less safe I feel single pilot in the 91 world.. especially vfr... I am a mess.... but than again... I suck.. 121 makes me lazy... and less of a pilot.. my stick and rudder is fading.. my flight planning skills are gone..

I got my stick and rudder, banner, skydiving driving, and CFI... 121 would does not compare to how proficient I used to be.....

That being said, I can operate an airliner as a crew now, safely and efficiently... two completely different things.
I can see this happening. I wouldn't know as I haven't touched a GA acft in 10 years. Again, as the other guy/gal said. This isn't about making better pilots it's about preventing dangerous pilots in the flight deck of airliners. Having to get to 1500 hours weeds out many that never would've been weeded out in the past.

Is it perfect? No, of course not. I don't see how you can argue that it isn't safer. If you would like to argue that it isn't safer it certainly isn't WORSE than it was before and the economic impact for pilots has been great.
pagey is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
USMC3197
Regional
66
11-12-2009 06:54 PM
Flyby1206
Regional
138
06-29-2009 09:59 AM
Flyby1206
Major
9
06-17-2009 10:23 AM
Danzig
Flight Schools and Training
8
08-08-2007 04:02 PM
DutchmanAZ
Flight Schools and Training
17
06-09-2006 12:34 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices