House wants 1500hrs, sends bill back
03-28-2010, 11:23 AM
#131
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Dismayed
Posts: 1,598
TOS violation? Okay Mr Moderator
If somebody expresses their opinion on the direction we (yes, I "served" by pounding sand in Iraq) are forced to take and it doesn't violate the TOS, then I can respond to the post that expressed that opinion without violating the TOS. Either both are or both aren't. You cannot have a double standard.
If somebody expresses their opinion on the direction we (yes, I "served" by pounding sand in Iraq) are forced to take and it doesn't violate the TOS, then I can respond to the post that expressed that opinion without violating the TOS. Either both are or both aren't. You cannot have a double standard. all you want, just realize you failed to make a coherent point in your original post and all I and BuzzPat were asking for is some more information.
03-28-2010, 11:46 AM
#132
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,609
03-28-2010, 12:41 PM
#133
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 747 FO
Posts: 937
Rush Limbaugh writes best selling books and McDonald's sell millions of burgers.....what's your point?
As for Iraq, I do know what I'm talking about.
03-28-2010, 12:52 PM
#134
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 747 FO
Posts: 937
Ok, I reread it. I may have been touchy but as writing is a form of communication and since a couple of folks are asking for clarification you obviously failed to get your point across. If the point is that not everyone on the country sees things the same way, then you're correct. If on the other hand, you were saying is that you and the liberal elite think anyone who serves especially in Iraq is an extrapolated baby killer, I would have to disagree.
If you question the direction we're forced to take, please take that discussion away from APC as it violates the TOS.
I made a simple enough statement. I'm sorry about your clumsy comprehension.
03-28-2010, 01:45 PM
#135
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,480
OK, guys I've read all 14 pages of this thread and I think you all may be missing an essential point. The 1500 hour rule could just be a smoke screen to cause a pilot shortage. We all seem to think that this will, because of basic supply and demand, cause our wages to rise.
What we seem to be missing (or ignoring) is that this shortage could be the justification to sign an Open Skies agreement and allow foreign airlines access to U.S. markets. Instead of paying us more, the airlines could actually cut our wages to compete with foreign pilots who generally work for MUCH less than we do.
The whole "1500 hours" qualification is a straw man anyway. The military takes guys with zero time, gives them 450 hours of standardized instruction and puts them in the right seat of C-17s, C-130s, etc. There are foreign airlines that run the same kind of ab initio program and plug low time guys in the right seat of 737s.
Neither of these operations suffer inordinate accident rates. Instead, perhaps the Congress should crack down on the regulators (FAA) who turn a blind eye to operators who cut corners in training in order to minimize costs and turn a buck.
What we seem to be missing (or ignoring) is that this shortage could be the justification to sign an Open Skies agreement and allow foreign airlines access to U.S. markets. Instead of paying us more, the airlines could actually cut our wages to compete with foreign pilots who generally work for MUCH less than we do.
The whole "1500 hours" qualification is a straw man anyway. The military takes guys with zero time, gives them 450 hours of standardized instruction and puts them in the right seat of C-17s, C-130s, etc. There are foreign airlines that run the same kind of ab initio program and plug low time guys in the right seat of 737s.
Neither of these operations suffer inordinate accident rates. Instead, perhaps the Congress should crack down on the regulators (FAA) who turn a blind eye to operators who cut corners in training in order to minimize costs and turn a buck.
03-28-2010, 01:57 PM
#136
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: B767
Posts: 1,901
03-28-2010, 02:25 PM
#137
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,105
OK, guys I've read all 14 pages of this thread and I think you all may be missing an essential point. The 1500 hour rule could just be a smoke screen to cause a pilot shortage. We all seem to think that this will, because of basic supply and demand, cause our wages to rise.
What we seem to be missing (or ignoring) is that this shortage could be the justification to sign an Open Skies agreement and allow foreign airlines access to U.S. markets. Instead of paying us more, the airlines could actually cut our wages to compete with foreign pilots who generally work for MUCH less than we do.
The whole "1500 hours" qualification is a straw man anyway. The military takes guys with zero time, gives them 450 hours of standardized instruction and puts them in the right seat of C-17s, C-130s, etc. There are foreign airlines that run the same kind of ab initio program and plug low time guys in the right seat of 737s.
Neither of these operations suffer inordinate accident rates. Instead, perhaps the Congress should crack down on the regulators (FAA) who turn a blind eye to operators who cut corners in training in order to minimize costs and turn a buck.
What we seem to be missing (or ignoring) is that this shortage could be the justification to sign an Open Skies agreement and allow foreign airlines access to U.S. markets. Instead of paying us more, the airlines could actually cut our wages to compete with foreign pilots who generally work for MUCH less than we do.
The whole "1500 hours" qualification is a straw man anyway. The military takes guys with zero time, gives them 450 hours of standardized instruction and puts them in the right seat of C-17s, C-130s, etc. There are foreign airlines that run the same kind of ab initio program and plug low time guys in the right seat of 737s.
Neither of these operations suffer inordinate accident rates. Instead, perhaps the Congress should crack down on the regulators (FAA) who turn a blind eye to operators who cut corners in training in order to minimize costs and turn a buck.
Our current way of doing things means that people could be flying airlines without any formal training. See my previous post. Long term, this is a recipe for disaster.
03-28-2010, 04:06 PM
#138
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 390
The whole "1500 hours" qualification is a straw man anyway. The military takes guys with zero time, gives them 450 hours of standardized instruction and puts them in the right seat of C-17s, C-130s, etc. There are foreign airlines that run the same kind of ab initio program and plug low time guys in the right seat of 737s.
Neither of these operations suffer inordinate accident rates. Instead, perhaps the Congress should crack down on the regulators (FAA) who turn a blind eye to operators who cut corners in training in order to minimize costs and turn a buck.
Neither of these operations suffer inordinate accident rates. Instead, perhaps the Congress should crack down on the regulators (FAA) who turn a blind eye to operators who cut corners in training in order to minimize costs and turn a buck.
03-28-2010, 04:11 PM
#139
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 390
Then why did 33% of my military pilot training class wash-out despite the careful selection process and practical pre-screening? In the military you were given a set number of rides to master the task and if you didn't cut it, you were gone. They used to say that it's not necessarily that person can't learn to fly, they just can't learn to in the brief number of hours and time allotted to the program.
03-28-2010, 04:15 PM
#140
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
I'm not an airline expert, but I do fly Part 121. With that being said, I have some big problems with the way our country trains and procures airline pilots.
1. Testing Shortcuts. The FAA's testing and certification exams can be easily circumvented and they're out dated. Applicants can go to any number of companies or online websites that will teach you how to take the test and get 100% instead of proving you've mastered the material.
2. Education. I've mentioned this before in other threads; feel like I'm beating a deadhorse. However, we need an accepted / accredited professional aviation degree or FAA certified program to be completed prior to ATPL application. This degree/program would cover areas such as human factors, physiology, weather, FARs, aerodynamics etc.. As part of the curriculum requirements, a certain level of proficiency in English, math, science, and physics must be demostrated.
As someone said earlier, you could fly your ass off in a Cessna and obtain 1500 hours, and then be qualified for an Airline Transport License??? I don't think so.
Not only is there an experience requirement, there should also be an educational requirement. We can only be "professional" airline pilots if we truly do the things that are expected of professionals.
My two cents.
1. Testing Shortcuts. The FAA's testing and certification exams can be easily circumvented and they're out dated. Applicants can go to any number of companies or online websites that will teach you how to take the test and get 100% instead of proving you've mastered the material.
2. Education. I've mentioned this before in other threads; feel like I'm beating a deadhorse. However, we need an accepted / accredited professional aviation degree or FAA certified program to be completed prior to ATPL application. This degree/program would cover areas such as human factors, physiology, weather, FARs, aerodynamics etc.. As part of the curriculum requirements, a certain level of proficiency in English, math, science, and physics must be demostrated.
As someone said earlier, you could fly your ass off in a Cessna and obtain 1500 hours, and then be qualified for an Airline Transport License??? I don't think so.
Not only is there an experience requirement, there should also be an educational requirement. We can only be "professional" airline pilots if we truly do the things that are expected of professionals.
My two cents.
I'm so impressed! BTW Mr. Writer, I hope your publisher does a better job of editing your writing so that the final result contains properly formatted and complete sentences.
Rush Limbaugh writes best selling books and McDonald's sell millions of burgers.....what's your point?
As for Iraq, I do know what I'm talking about.
Rush Limbaugh writes best selling books and McDonald's sell millions of burgers.....what's your point?
As for Iraq, I do know what I'm talking about.
You, if I were you I'd stop while you are behind and over matched.
Last edited by USMCFLYR; 03-28-2010 at 08:32 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
