RAA responds to Dan Carey
 

Their claim that pilots with lower hours perform better is based in a large part on the performance of ANG and AFreserve pilots entering the pipeline with 750 hours. These pilots tend to be top performers and not require additional training because they have been through a fairly intense selection process followed by a attrition based flight training program. Basically the AF eliminated the problem children.
On the civilian side the regionals have to eliminate the problem children or provide additional training to try and get them up to speed. For this study to be valid you would need to look at civilian trained pilots only something the RAA did not choose to do.

The problem is they are looking at this purely from a "management" perspective. Sure, maybe you aren't as sharp in the books and with some of knowledge stuff like you would be if you came to a regional a few months after being a CFI, but you are also bringing a deeper pool of experience to draw on. They are only looking at it from what seems like a "cost to train" perspective. Penny wise and pound foolish as always.

I have the same perspective as the research indicates. Having spent several years as an airline simulator instructor, sim check airman and line check airman before and after the rule change, I noticed pilots coming from a structured program (but fewer hours) generally performed better through training than those who did not have a structured training program but did have lots of hours. The more relevant to flying from point A to point B in the IFR system the hours were, the better the student faired. Students with primarily a VFR background had a harder time.

That article is just self preservation posturing. The regionals would love nothing more than to lower hours requirement back 250-500 to support paying lower wages (readjusting supply and demand curve and paying wages commencerate with experience) to extend the supply of pilots 5 additional years (and keep the RAA afloat).

If they want to make the airlines great again, It's going to take $100k/year first year FO pay and $400-500k a year CA pay to entice the general population to start entering the system at rates to fix the supply problem.

XDash brings up an interesting observation that I think we often neglect here. A pilot that beats up the pattern for 1500 hours over 15 years is not gaining valuable airmanship experiences. A pilot that flies solid XC IFR for 1500 hours is going to be more prepared for a simulator and operating in Class A airspace. So here is the problem. It is impossible to put everyone into those two categories. There is a varying degree of experience and not many are going to have the same experience. I think we can all agree that a pilot with 200 hours of IFR XC will be far less prepared to fly an regional jet than a pilot with 1000 hours of the same.

I don't know that the current law fixed it. Since they raised the minimum to 1500/1200/1000/750, they have seen a sudden influx of hobbyist aviators. Joe FBO, who has been doing $100 Hamburgers on Sunday for 20 years has a midlife crisis and decides he wants to be an airline pilot. Instead of putting the onus on the regional airlines to ensure that they don't hire unqualified pilots, they see 1500 hours in a logbook and will bend over backwards to fill a seat. That is business being irresponsible. Now, they want to roll back the law because they didn't have any hiring discipline and don't want to wait 5-7 years from attracting a candidate until they can fill the seat.

Re:RAA
 

I have flown with low time civilian pilots and Miltary Pilots. I have also trained both of them. It really boils down to attitude. Give me a low time pilot with a good attitude and the basic skills and everything will work out alright. Give me a Pilot with a huge ego and single pilot mentality that "we have a mission" and it is going to be a long four day trip. Very rarely is flying skills a problem more than attitude and the ability to play nice. Invest in the person and you will have a good employee. If a company just looks at training cost then they are short sighted.

Which will never happen because the industry's economics cannot support it.

That's fair enough, I'm not the biggest fan of the 1500 rule either. But the ability to fly in the IFR system isn't why Colgan 3407 crashed.

I think what's pretty obviously missing in this whole thing is quality of hours. Additional relevant training or experience should give rise to credit that can be used to reduce the 1500 limitation, even if you train through part 61.

Strongly disagree. My sister is a TV news anchor who started in small markets for the first decade of her career. She literally made $16-19K a year for the first five, then was rolling in the dough from year 6 at a whopping $30,000. Why? Because she liked being able walk into a room and have everyone look at her saying she has the coolest job ever... Sound familiar?

Now, she's finally cracked into a top 25 market as a weekend anchor and nightside reporter making about $90,000. Took her 10+ years to make a decent wage and start making a serious dent in her debt.

She went to Syracuse, spent about $110,000 on her education, and does her job because a) she loves it, and b) she can't imagine doing anything else. Again... sound familiar?

We don't hear public outcry for the newsies out there making peanuts. I've struggled just as must as the next guy, but devils advocate - if you're gonna fix pilot pay, might as well fix journalism, education, first few years of medical, nursing, public transportation, social work, hospitality salaries, et al, as well.