None, and we don't know. I sure as hell might freeze up- but generally speaking, I find it hard to believe that professional pilots can dispute the fact that 1500 hour pilots are more experienced than 300 hour ones.

I am exposed to a lot of arrogant 200 hour-ish guys (not in 121) at my school who are p***ed about the 1500 hour rule, and honestly feel that they are just as experienced as an ATP. That's simply not true.

No one is arguing that a 300 hour guy can do the job- hell I would have taken the job if offered to me when I had 300TT. But, when the crap hits the fan, and your family is in the back- which FO would you want the captain to be discussing his possible alternatives with? Which FO would be more likely to stand up to a captain doing something wrong?

It's not just about the number of hours- it's about experience, confidence (standing up to another pilot for what you know is right), and think-outside-the-box ability. And you don't have to be a 121 pilot to understand that, hell even congress gets it.

I was a checkairman at my previous 121 carrier. Most of my OE's were 1300-1500 hour flight instructors and I can count on one hand the guys that had trouble getting through OE. I talk to friends who were/are LCA's at a couple of regionals who hire the "300 hour wonders" and they had some really scary stories to tell me. From what they told me, they had a much more difficult time bringing those guys up to speed than I experienced. What detpilot said is right on the money. A CFI who's tooting around the pattern VFR is not who we're comparing. It's about quality CFI time. I was lucky and worked at a college where each semester I had a combination of private, instrument, commerical, and multi students flying in challenging weather and airspace. That flight time and experience was worth its weight in gold and gave me a great fundamental flying foundation to build my 121 career on.

As for statistics, I think we're going to see more accidents over the next couple years from regionals who have low hiring standards. I really hope I'm wrong. I think it's going to be a combo of lack of fundamental skills, command ability, and professionalism. Couple that with the stagnation in the industry right now, and we're going to see the statistics change. Again, I hope I'm wrong.

You know, it's funny... from a "building skills" standpoint, flying a jet airliner (especially from the right seat) sucks. When was the last time you flew into an airport without an ILS? How many missed approaches do you do in a year? How many ILS's down to mins do you do in a year? Do you have any kind of scan left if you're flying a plane with glass? Somebody is in the left seat to make all the hard decisions for you. The point I'm trying to make is that you don't build very good fundamental flying skills on a jet airliner.

Now, I flew the Brasilia in the Mountains and out West for six years... that's a different story!!

I agree MAPD was technically sound at one point. Some mature adults could take that training and combine it with their judgement and experience from their previous life and do OK.

But as time passed and mesa right seats got harder to fill, the standards plummeted like everything else over there.

You can't take the average kid and put him in that position and expect everything to work out great. Those kind of programs require above-average raw-material...and I'm not referring to daddy's credit rating.

I completely agree. There was a time when the program was ran like the military (almost). You had to dress, act, look a certain way. The chief pilot at that school didn't take any ****. Of course then he left and it went down hill from there.

You should try flying a DC-9 sometime at NWA/Delta. It's night and day compared to regional jet flying.

Maybe you can point out the difference between military 300 hour pilots and civilian 300 hour pilots. Again, hours don't make the pilot it is the program obviously. So your bitter whole 300 hour statement is for the birds. OE also depends on the check pilot, and of the 3 or 4 check airmen that I had, two were so bitter that I didn't have over 1000 hours "fixed wing" time that they would barely talk to me. They didn't care about the airline or who was in the right seat. They only cared about their agenda and were bitter against anyone who didn't suffer the way they did in getting to Captain Caveman status. IP's like this are a festuring wound on aviation and should not be allowed to teach anyone!

Washout ratio, maybe.

1. Initial screening standards.
2. Merciless training standards. If you show up for a hop and don't have your knowledge items down cold, the hop is cancelled. If you can't perform in flight, you generally get very minimal remedial training. Generally speaking, three failures and you're out...you can't just pay more money and train to proficiency.

Out of those carefully selected applicants, the failure rate is still high, although variable depending on demand.

Oh, don't worry. I'm sure I'll get my chance after this A/E!