The 60 thing developed from Elwood Quesada being tired of answering to airline graybeards telling him how to run the FAA.(CAA?)

 

And pilots of airliners with 15,000 hours have crashed, too. The point is initial and continuing training, air discipline in following the regulations and good sense and basic altitude matter more. Numerous busts, run-ins with the law, and failure to abide the regs and an airplane will even the score. Not only Colman, but Pinnacle 3407 and the recent TEB Lear 35 accident show an airplane will weed the incompetent or lax.

GF

 

It's amazing how many pilots don't recognize this.

 

You hit the nail on the head. Many pilots don't or can't remember many US Airline accidents in the 70's, 80's and 90's involving pilots and crews with far more than 15,000 hours. Since checkrides are very subjective, no one has ever explained to me how do you pass a checkride and then crash a plane?

 

"...Twin peaks, seven-five, blue-one, East"?

 

Really? Have you been asleep at every CRM, error management, CCC, whatever 'it's been called the last thirty some years for training?

Chain of events, fatigue, ..... that help any?

 

Si esta del lingo de canyon!

 

Yep. That's true. But when you dig into those accidents you see that as a profession we didn't know what we didn't know. These were all before NASA, FSAP, ASAP, FOQA, data sharing, safety cultures, CRM, and a 30 year period of sunshine hearings and black box read outs whereby we have learned from things like wind-shear. While we as a profession have learned allot about the threats that are out there, and have improved both mechanical reliability and pilot responses to those threats we continue explore other ways to identify and mitigate threats.

The 1500 hour rule is a definite step up from a safety perspective. It doesn't matter if a 20,000 hour Captain was in the seat when the Pan Am jet plowed into a Kenner neighborhood in New Orleans on takeoff during a TS off runway 10, what matters is we have learned from that and other accidents, have a reasonable standard and it makes sense for the following reasons:

1. It is safer. More time equals more opportunity to make mistakes and learn from them. That translates to better judgment and decision-making.

2. It aids organized labor in translating a predictable career path and career progression into a coherent labor contract. Constantly moving the goal-posts isn't fair to the profession as a whole and makes it extremely difficult for both sides to negotiate a fair agreement.

3. It aids in supply and demand (on the pilot side) of the equation. We still have not recovered from the lost decade of aviation in America. Management had a decided advantage for about 15 years in the supply side of the equation. They had pay for training, stagnant wages, and sh!tty benefits for their pilots for the entire 90's and well into 2005.

As a side note, we need to keep reminding both our association and law makers no changes will be acceptable on the 1500 hour rule, or the age 65 rule. Can't play the game with moving goal posts. Additionally, it's not just a 1500 hour rule. There are exceptions that lower it to 900 hours. A prospective new hire pilot can graduate HS, get his/her ratings and a college degree and become marketable and hirable in just 5 years from date of graduation. I have seen some do it in 3 years by getting their private pilot done their senior year of HS and staying in school over the summers. Go to a school with the quarter system and you can get in the airlines pretty quick.

 

Exactly. We need labor-pilot stability and a more predictable career path and a good bead on career progression. Want to get to the left seat? Then you don't want age 70, or age 67.

Question: How many "inactive" ATP's are out there in the USA by pilots younger than age 60? How many Commercial pilots with Instrument ratings are out there that are also "inactive" or not engaged in commercial/professional aviation?

Why ask these two questions above??? Because, when you figure that out you'll also discover that so many pilots were "run out" of the profession in the 90's and early 2000's because of a stagnant profession and no career path.

Those pilots who bailed on aviation did so because they saw no path, no carrot and stick to keep them going. They couldn't feed their families, etc. I know 6 pilots who graduated with me from college in 1991, and who are not flying. They found jobs making more money and never looked back.

We simply can't afford any more lost decades in this profession. The risks of losing money in the profession out weigh any perceived gains by moving the goal posts to 70 or 67.

In reality you can start this profession on your 23rd birthday. We need to stop worrying about flying longer. How about just get into the profession earlier? I don't care if you get hired at 23 or 33. Figure it out and get r done. If you get to a major by 27 or 28 you are doing great and will likely enjoy a great career.

 

Before CRM ... The regional aircraft of the day ... Training as it was back in the day ... Probably have to go to the basement of the library to find that one on microfiche.