Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
Lowering Level Of Safety >

Lowering Level Of Safety

Search

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Lowering Level Of Safety

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-07-2016, 10:20 AM
  #41  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: non acceptus excretus
Posts: 561
Default

I am glad I don t have to fly with iahflyer..

He needs to see the puppy mill guys in action...a lot of those from that path missed skills and never got them later....I think that is the real point of the colgan discussion and the 1500 hour rule.
Molon Labe is offline  
Old 09-07-2016, 11:40 AM
  #42  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,534
Default

Originally Posted by Molon Labe
I am glad I don t have to fly with iahflyer..

He needs to see the puppy mill guys in action...a lot of those from that path missed skills and never got them later....I think that is the real point of the colgan discussion and the 1500 hour rule.
I think the "both the Colgan pilots had more hours than the rule required at the time of the crash" is a ridiculous argument. The captain of that flight finished his commercial they went to a pay to play to sling gear before getting hired at a regional. How may full stalls do you think he encountered? Based on his reaction to the shaker and pusher in the Q, I'd say not many outside of a supervised environment. How many do you think a CFI sees? How many of those do you think turn into incipient spins? I know I let a few students push the airplane too far but I LEARNED from those experiences. That's something that pilots who go from commercial check ride to the right seat aren't getting.
CBreezy is offline  
Old 09-07-2016, 12:01 PM
  #43  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2015
Posts: 857
Default

Originally Posted by iahflyr
As someone who got on with a regional airline with far fewer than 1500 hours, I support the lowering the minimums to become a 121 first officer to a more reasonable level.
{shortened}
As someone who mentors a lot of young pilots, I cannot look them in the eye and say "Sorry, I want you to spend an extra year or two making true poverty wages and gaining practically zero relevant experience (single engine, VFR, slow, not even flying the airplane) because I'm selfish and I want a slight benefit at your expense." That sounds a lot like the major airline pilots who sold out on scope because it didn't effect them! I refuse to be in that same category.
Apples and oranges. Mainline pilots selling pilots short by bargaining scope away was inexcusable, yes. But the only motive for that was selfish financial benefit. Coupled with their lack of foresight, it has severely damaged this profession.

That's different than requiring more experience before allowing people to fly large jets for the flying public... The motive for increasing experience requirements is safety, not greed. The byproduct however is a (potential) decrease in supply of pilots, meaning more demand and pay for pilots for retention and recruiting purposes. But that was not the motive.. So to say it is generally selfish to want to keep the higher hour requirements just because a few pilots like the byproduct is a bit... incomplete, IMHO.

And if you profess that those extra ~1250 hours of experience flying/teaching/learning are useless and does not provide the flying public with a safer pilot, I would expect you to be able to provide a study/proof showing how that is the case. You are simply working against the math. If a pilot flies 6x as many airplanes, 6x as many missions, 6x more exposure to weather, ATC etc., the flying public might assume he/she would be the more well-rounded and, well, experienced pilot.. But if you can show me/them that's not the case more-often-than-so, I'm all ears.

I can tell you personally I was not the same pilot at 250 hours that I grew into at 1000+. If you were wrong about my case, how many more could you be wrong about? Do you want to be wrong when your loved ones are in the back and the dummies up front don't know how to prevent a stall?
sweetholyjesus is offline  
Old 09-07-2016, 12:08 PM
  #44  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: non acceptus excretus
Posts: 561
Default

Originally Posted by CBreezy
I think the "both the Colgan pilots had more hours than the rule required at the time of the crash" is a ridiculous argument. The captain of that flight finished his commercial they went to a pay to play to sling gear before getting hired at a regional. How may full stalls do you think he encountered? Based on his reaction to the shaker and pusher in the Q, I'd say not many outside of a supervised environment. How many do you think a CFI sees? How many of those do you think turn into incipient spins? I know I let a few students push the airplane too far but I LEARNED from those experiences. That's something that pilots who go from commercial check ride to the right seat aren't getting.
You wrote exactly what I meant to say.
Molon Labe is offline  
Old 09-07-2016, 12:19 PM
  #45  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,534
Default

Originally Posted by Molon Labe
You wrote exactly what I meant to say.
I was piling on, not trying to steal thunder.
CBreezy is offline  
Old 09-07-2016, 12:55 PM
  #46  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 201
Default

Also don't forget, it wasn't just the Cologan passengers that suffered the consequences of a pilot who's narrow professional background prevented an appropriate control response to a "not in the sim profile" event. Air France...the most exposure to flying an aircraft w/o an autopilot happens in the first 1500 hours. After that the opportunitys to kick it off go down drastically.

Flying an aircraft is worlds different then managing a mostly automated system.
runinonfumes is offline  
Old 09-07-2016, 01:26 PM
  #47  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 584
Default

I realized that I didn't even feel comfortable with the idea of flying big jets with passengers until I was about the 1000 or 1100 hour mark. It was an arduous drag pounding out 1500 hours, but by the time I got to an airline I felt more comfortable as a pilot. I got to experience a lot. Flying a plane became almost as natural as driving a car, and it made learning the jet easier.
MikeB525 is offline  
Old 09-07-2016, 05:07 PM
  #48  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: non acceptus excretus
Posts: 561
Default

Originally Posted by CBreezy
I was piling on, not trying to steal thunder.
But credit where it is due! You said it better! I am glad you did.
Molon Labe is offline  
Old 09-08-2016, 01:24 PM
  #49  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Left seat of a Jet
Posts: 514
Default

I say press on since the powers that be could care less about the opinion you're not suppose to have. I leave that to mr and ms money bags in which many of us are far below their income levels, and their pet income levels for that matter.
bozobigtop is offline  
Old 09-09-2016, 06:06 AM
  #50  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Narrow/Left Wide/Right
Posts: 3,655
Default

Originally Posted by Scoop
This proposal would effectively accomplish almost nothing in the short run but I suspect that is not the real goal here.

The amount of military Pilots no longer under an active duty obligation with less than 750 hours is ridiculously small and would not even put a dent in this issue.

The real reason, in my opinion for such a modification is in setting precedence for a relaxation of the minimums. If this goes through it will shortly be followed by other relaxations.

Scoop
Actually this is benefit to all the rotor heads in the military (over half of naval aviation) who didn't find a productive fixed wing orders option. Suspect more than most realize. They used to be able to Rj it for a bit and move along. Now that option is closed to them until they can get an Atp.
full of luv is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Cubdriver
Hiring News
0
05-23-2012 07:37 AM
Jesse
Foreign
2
12-07-2011 02:54 PM
MD80
Major
1
12-04-2009 08:04 AM
normajean21
Flight Schools and Training
30
10-25-2008 09:06 PM
AUS_ATC
Hangar Talk
0
03-08-2006 06:56 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