SenecaII

While everything you say is dead on, be careful expressing it as it simply does not fit in with the pack mentality here on APC. Of course the fact that some of these guys were 300 hour wonders themselves, trying to pull the ladder up in a desperate bid to increase the pay that they agreed to when they went to their first airline is the thing most miss when reading these posts. This would frankly be sad if it weren't so predictable in the 121 world. Yeah that ^

USMCFLYR

That is the tough question now-days isn't it? There use to be a well defined hierarcy of increasingly challenging jobs with increasingly sophisticated equipment. Now it seems expected to go from CFI'ing right into a commerical airliner. For soe that might work out just fine, for some it won't. I'd hate to have to guess.

Your next sentence hit the nail on the head.
Selection and training. Maybe when the GA pilot is selected and trained to the same uniform standards and not just anyone with a loan application can make it through then maybe you'll have the same results.
After our last post, I took a look at my logbook. I had 283 hours military time when I was winged and another 139 hours in the Hornet when I graduated the RAG/FRS. One month later, though air-to-air refueling qualified, I wasn't allowed to fly down to Puerto Rico for the missile shoot because I didn't have enough experience (zero really) behind the KC-130 tankers.

This is an often used argument. You are right about some being fast leaners and they will be fine airline pilots in the future I bet - once they gain the required experience
I think the problem with it is that there are always the examples on the fringes aren't there, but when dealing with training and the airline world I would think that a solid play in the middle of averages would be a safer bet.
That is why people argue against the 1500 rule all the time but never offer any other sustainable figure that would pass all of the muster required of it. People don't seem to concerned with all of the other hourly requirements for the licenses.

Hey SenecaII - as said before - even if it is true that some fighting against it now were 300 hour wonders when they got hired as you say - two wrongs don't make a right. Or should we just wait util your foot is in the door and then raise them
Pack mentality? Really?
Sounds like you might not be open to others ideas just as much as you say others are not opn to yours.

USMCFLYR

BoilerUP

Since you work for the FAA in a flight check capacity, I'm sure you know "the GA pilot" IS trained and then checked to the 'same uniform standards' - the FAA Practical Test Standards - from PVT checkride right through 121 proficiency check.

If somebody wants to address the PTS to make them more stringent, then that's something tangible that can be explored.

As such, I don't think its realistic or necessary for "GA pilot" to be held to the same standards as guys who get taxpayer-funded training worth millions of dollars.

As I've said previously, despite starting my 121 career at 1100/100 I don't think its unreasonable to expect Airline Transport Pilots to have the minimum experience required to hold an Airline Transport Pilot certificate.

That said, I do think experience matters more than anything else in one's logbook, and the measure of experience doesn't begin and end in a Total Time column.

USMCFLYR

Then you must have missed the many posts on the forum about the differences people have encountered between the varying FSDOs and DPEs across the country. Actually - one of the things that I have found to be as true as taxes is the fact that the more *examiners* you have, the less standardization you are able to maintain throughout the system. Secondly - as I'm sure you know - Flight Check and the FSDO are opposite ends of the spectrum. Except for my brief stint with civilian flying prior to the military, I don't have any experience with the civilian testing standards; though I am becoming familiar with them in the recent past with my second type rating (one experimental so not sure that really counts) and an upcoming -297 ride

Didn't say that the GA should be held to the same standards. I was addressing the often used - look at the military and how those guys are allowed to fly in this or that aircraft after only so much experience - argument. If you want to compare duties then you must compare selection and training.

And I believe that it is a combination of the two. Experience is subjective. How do you measure it? The ATP was supposedly designed to take into account a certain level of experience (x/c time, PIC time, night time, etc...).

USMCFLYR

SenecaII

Nice assumption. I did a ton of time building in various experimental aircraft and flying piston twins under VFR only 135 to build my PIC twin time and then moved on to a very good charter company flying turbine equipment. Since I am not a 1500 hr CFI , your definition is I am not good enough for the airlines??? I have two types and NO DESIRE to work at the regionals when I am making 4x the pay for the same equipment. I stand by my observations of the former 3oo hour wonder guys that are spouting this stuff. Am I behind fixing industry issues, yes, but the ATP rule is not the answer in my book. Addressing training and rest is. But in true APC fashion you have made assumptions without information......Thumbs up

BoilerUP

Nope, I know that all too well.

That's an oversight issue the Administrator needs to address.

Yes, experience is quite subjective.

Somebody who got hired at 300hrs to do pipeline patrol until they hit 1500hrs has a different experience set than somebody who got a right seat job in a Citation at 300hrs until he hit 1500, who has a different experience set than the guy who started instructing foreign nationals at 300hrs in high-performance piston twins until he hit 1500hrs, who has a different experience set than the guy who was hired at 300hrs to fly a Cirrus Part 91 for a small business until he hit 1500hrs, who has a different experience set than the guy flying a COD doing traps on the USS Reagan at 300hrs until he hit 1500,hrs who has a different experience set than the guy who was a right seater at FSI at 300hrs and got a few hundred hours of sim time and a couple type ratings that lead to flying large-cabin business jets until he got to 1500hrs.

Which one of the above group, who all meet the minimum experience requirements for an ATP, is the candidate most likely to 1. pass a 121 initial training event, 2. transition well to real-world 121 operations and 3. make it through their probationary year?

Answer? There's absolutely no way to tell.

Now, let's reduce their total time to 1000hrs but keep their type of flight experience the same - who is the 'best' candidate for a 121 job then?

What about if you reduce their total time to just 500hrs...what about then?

I will ALWAYS believe quality trumps quantity. The military proves that day in and day out, and while its not a strict apples-to-apples comparison, there are more than a handful of low total time pilots whose training, background & experience makes them more than capable of passing 121 training and flying the line without being a detriment to themselves, their captains, their passengers, or safety of flight.

EDIT: that being said, I again don't believe it is unreasonable for Airline Transport Pilots to have the minimum flight experience required to hold an Airline Transport Pilot rating. But I don't think it'd do jack squat to "improve safety".

SenecaII

Well put.... hours total are not the issue with how safe or competent a pilot is.

USMCFLYR

My assumptions fit the general population - like yours I guess
No assumptions here about you personally at all.
From your previous posts I have assumed that you ar where you want to be or have a plan for where you want to go.
Sorry you took the sentence so literally...I can see why you did.

That was a lot of typing to make your point Boiler
You still haven't come up with an different answer though that better equates the experience -vs- hours question. I'm a believer in quality too, but there still has to be a line.

USMCFLYR

SenecaII

Im good, we all have opinions. Your right I shouldnt assume all people are behind this for the wrong reasons too. Some are but Im sure there are some that have good intentions. This ATP issue is one that I am very passionate about. I like the idea, I just wish it was being used for the right reasons......and tend to get vocal about it....lol

On a bit more serious note, Fatigue, what are you hearing from your side of the fence on the issue???? If I might inquire....

BoilerUP

I didn't, because I can't.

As you said, experience is subjective...