Is it time for EASA to adopt the american 1500hr rule
The follow on questions include:
1. Where would the pilots in a hiring pool operate in order to fly that many hours to establish basic eligibility requirements as suggested?
2. How does one rate or weight the experience value of a given flight hour?
3. If you pick a number, what's behind the number chosen?
4. What's the basic training standard that those hours are built upon? (Consider the training standard as the foundation of the building, and the minimum required hours as the rest of the house: walls, windows, roof, sinks, etcetera)
As a point of reference to the 1500 hour mark established in the US recently (a number which has received some criticism, and some support, on these very pages):
I had between 500 and 600 total hours when I first qualified as aircraft commander in Navy Helicopters. That qualification included the requirement to do a variety of missions, to include carrying passengers, medevacs, VIP's, etcetera.
(Most of my colleagues who left the military and headed to the airlines had 1500-2000 hours going into t heir interviews, but this was in the 80's and 90's for the most part).
That initial aircraft commander responsibility isn't the same in depth as taking hundreds of folks on an airliner, multiple times per day, from point A to point B that so many short haul and commuter crews accomplish safely in their line of work. It did fold in a myriad of those airmanship and decision making challenges that any captain / aircraft commander is faced with on a given day.
(Aside: As to the sanity threshold, they used to say one had to be a little bit nuts to fly off of ships in the first place
)
1. Where would the pilots in a hiring pool operate in order to fly that many hours to establish basic eligibility requirements as suggested?
2. How does one rate or weight the experience value of a given flight hour?
3. If you pick a number, what's behind the number chosen?
4. What's the basic training standard that those hours are built upon? (Consider the training standard as the foundation of the building, and the minimum required hours as the rest of the house: walls, windows, roof, sinks, etcetera)
As a point of reference to the 1500 hour mark established in the US recently (a number which has received some criticism, and some support, on these very pages):
I had between 500 and 600 total hours when I first qualified as aircraft commander in Navy Helicopters. That qualification included the requirement to do a variety of missions, to include carrying passengers, medevacs, VIP's, etcetera.
(Most of my colleagues who left the military and headed to the airlines had 1500-2000 hours going into t heir interviews, but this was in the 80's and 90's for the most part).
That initial aircraft commander responsibility isn't the same in depth as taking hundreds of folks on an airliner, multiple times per day, from point A to point B that so many short haul and commuter crews accomplish safely in their line of work. It did fold in a myriad of those airmanship and decision making challenges that any captain / aircraft commander is faced with on a given day.
(Aside: As to the sanity threshold, they used to say one had to be a little bit nuts to fly off of ships in the first place
)
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For an industry that has set the standard in science , math , engineering , technology , crew resource management , safety , and safety management systems for decades , it doesn't seem right that an individual can get a seat on the flight deck of an airliner after as little as 1 year of study and 300 hours of flight experience.
This is usually achieved by the individual purchasing his or her way into an airline operation via pay to fly schemes , buying type ratings or even working for free. The only people it benefits are the operators , who should be named and shamed. What ever happened to " earning " your experience ? The travelling public deserves better. 1500 hours ? Absolutely.
The travelling public need to be aware of the shady dealings going on with some airlines' business plans.
This is usually achieved by the individual purchasing his or her way into an airline operation via pay to fly schemes , buying type ratings or even working for free. The only people it benefits are the operators , who should be named and shamed. What ever happened to " earning " your experience ? The travelling public deserves better. 1500 hours ? Absolutely.
The travelling public need to be aware of the shady dealings going on with some airlines' business plans.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, some airlines are shady. The majority that use cadets are not. They carefully select their applicants, put them through their own or partnered flight school and then offer them a place on their flightdecks if there are any openings. The likes of Lufthansa, British Airways, Air France, KLM and so on have done that since WWII. There is considerable experience in training pedestrians to airline pilots in pretty short time, focusing from the beginning on those skills needed in multipilot operation. Not really surprising, european airlines were at the forefront in developing and introducing the MPL as an ICAO license.
And apparently many people are not aware just how different the aviation landscape is in europe compared to the US. There is nearly no GA in which a pilot can earn experience, only a very limited regional airline scene since most airports are capacity limited anyway and only the likes of A320/737 do have a chance to earn some money. The only possibility for most new pilots to get those 1500 hours would be to pay for them, which in all probability would cost more than a typerating.
Now, i'm all for exposing pay to fly schemes to the public and naming and shaming them. They are a bane on our profession. But in all honesty, not only those buying experience there are at fault, it is those pilots flying and training there as well.
All in all there is no public call for more experience in europe and i do not see the MPL or CPL/IFR with ATPL credit ("frozen ATPL") going away anytime soon. It is much more likely that ICAO will push forward its agenda for a yearly psych eval instead, that is what the public currently wants and what ICAO already has suggested.
And apparently many people are not aware just how different the aviation landscape is in europe compared to the US. There is nearly no GA in which a pilot can earn experience, only a very limited regional airline scene since most airports are capacity limited anyway and only the likes of A320/737 do have a chance to earn some money. The only possibility for most new pilots to get those 1500 hours would be to pay for them, which in all probability would cost more than a typerating.
Now, i'm all for exposing pay to fly schemes to the public and naming and shaming them. They are a bane on our profession. But in all honesty, not only those buying experience there are at fault, it is those pilots flying and training there as well.
All in all there is no public call for more experience in europe and i do not see the MPL or CPL/IFR with ATPL credit ("frozen ATPL") going away anytime soon. It is much more likely that ICAO will push forward its agenda for a yearly psych eval instead, that is what the public currently wants and what ICAO already has suggested.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the reputable cadet programmes train an ab-initio student through a programme leading to the role of first officer for the partnered airlines. The training is monitored, and specific. The selection process starts at onset and the ongoing standards are monitored throughout the basic training, intermediate training and on to the advanced training at the airline itself. The airlines requirements are easily and quickly fed into the relevant programmes as and when required.
One of those requirements (that even in the last week) is being fed in, is either the introduction or improvement of Psychometric testing and evaluation at introduction and throughout those courses.
The problem with the FAA requirements are that they are specific to that country. There are many things that may work fine in the US domestic arena that simply do not outside of it. R/T standards, Land & Hold short procedures, etc. The USA has a vast resource of general aviation and within that resource the ability to set benchmark levels for "minimum experience." It also has a large resource of military career changers.
The system (in the US and elsewhere) was never designed to push 250/350/450 etc. hour G/A pilots into the right hand seat of an airliner. Nether was it in the UK and many other countries. In the UK the minimum level of quantitive hour experience for obtaining a commercial pilots licence used to be 700. Few pilots at this level would have been recruited into the right seat of jet airliners the typical minimum tariffs being in the order of 2000-3000 hours. Even then, the wash out rate or retesting rate was significantly high.
Throughout this same period there were a limited number of "approved" training programmes (utilised by some of the larger airlines) whereby an ab-initio pilot could be trained from scratch over a period of two years towards specific airlines cadets programmes. These programmes have been in existence for at least the last half century, providing excellent pilots who have completed full careers in many cases.
During the last decade changes to the licensing system in the UK and Europe (as a result of "harmonisation" between member states) brought the licensing system more in line to that in the USA and elsewhere. In other words the CPL was a G/A "aerial work" licence in many respects. The old "approved courses" didn't change very much other than in one very crucial respect. That being the number of them expanded as did the number of airlines who chose to utilise them for their own new cadet programmes. As a result of this combination you ended up with thousands of new "self improver" CPL holders who all believed their 250 hour "lo-cost" licence would provide them the same opportunities as the old 700 hour licence. It didn't! Not only that, but the expansion of the cadet programmes simply squeezed out the more experienced pilots who might once have seen their "stepping stone" careers rewarded by reaching the 2000 hour plus plateaus.
No matter how many times you point out these inconvenient truths some people still stick their fingers in their ears and continue to chant their own mantras, in the hope that it might all change tomorrow!
The FAA "1500 hour rule" was itself something of a non-sequitur following the Colgan air crash. Neither of the two pilots involved had anything like that level of experience and it was never proffered as causal or contributory to that accident. However, poor training and fatigue were proffered as causal and contributory, neither of which a "1500 hour" tariff would address.
In the US it is very unusual for an airline to employ somebody without a college degree by virtue of that countries education system. In the UK you would likely lose more than half of the current airline pilot workforce if there was a similar requirement to hold a college or university degree. Strangely there is no vociferous call for an emulation of the US standard in this regard!
The common mistake on these forums is for people to confuse the structured and specific airline cadet training programmes, with the general requirements for a basic Commercial pilots licence and think they amount to the same thing. They never did, and they don't now. To that end raising the "non-approved" requirements for airline employment to the holding of a full ATPL (Airline transport Pilots licence) would be fine. In reality it would make little difference to what happens now and what has always happened. It would however focus the basic airline requirements on those seeking to achieve their ambitions outside of the full time intensive cadet programmes.
One of those requirements (that even in the last week) is being fed in, is either the introduction or improvement of Psychometric testing and evaluation at introduction and throughout those courses.
The problem with the FAA requirements are that they are specific to that country. There are many things that may work fine in the US domestic arena that simply do not outside of it. R/T standards, Land & Hold short procedures, etc. The USA has a vast resource of general aviation and within that resource the ability to set benchmark levels for "minimum experience." It also has a large resource of military career changers.
The system (in the US and elsewhere) was never designed to push 250/350/450 etc. hour G/A pilots into the right hand seat of an airliner. Nether was it in the UK and many other countries. In the UK the minimum level of quantitive hour experience for obtaining a commercial pilots licence used to be 700. Few pilots at this level would have been recruited into the right seat of jet airliners the typical minimum tariffs being in the order of 2000-3000 hours. Even then, the wash out rate or retesting rate was significantly high.
Throughout this same period there were a limited number of "approved" training programmes (utilised by some of the larger airlines) whereby an ab-initio pilot could be trained from scratch over a period of two years towards specific airlines cadets programmes. These programmes have been in existence for at least the last half century, providing excellent pilots who have completed full careers in many cases.
During the last decade changes to the licensing system in the UK and Europe (as a result of "harmonisation" between member states) brought the licensing system more in line to that in the USA and elsewhere. In other words the CPL was a G/A "aerial work" licence in many respects. The old "approved courses" didn't change very much other than in one very crucial respect. That being the number of them expanded as did the number of airlines who chose to utilise them for their own new cadet programmes. As a result of this combination you ended up with thousands of new "self improver" CPL holders who all believed their 250 hour "lo-cost" licence would provide them the same opportunities as the old 700 hour licence. It didn't! Not only that, but the expansion of the cadet programmes simply squeezed out the more experienced pilots who might once have seen their "stepping stone" careers rewarded by reaching the 2000 hour plus plateaus.
No matter how many times you point out these inconvenient truths some people still stick their fingers in their ears and continue to chant their own mantras, in the hope that it might all change tomorrow!
The FAA "1500 hour rule" was itself something of a non-sequitur following the Colgan air crash. Neither of the two pilots involved had anything like that level of experience and it was never proffered as causal or contributory to that accident. However, poor training and fatigue were proffered as causal and contributory, neither of which a "1500 hour" tariff would address.
In the US it is very unusual for an airline to employ somebody without a college degree by virtue of that countries education system. In the UK you would likely lose more than half of the current airline pilot workforce if there was a similar requirement to hold a college or university degree. Strangely there is no vociferous call for an emulation of the US standard in this regard!
The common mistake on these forums is for people to confuse the structured and specific airline cadet training programmes, with the general requirements for a basic Commercial pilots licence and think they amount to the same thing. They never did, and they don't now. To that end raising the "non-approved" requirements for airline employment to the holding of a full ATPL (Airline transport Pilots licence) would be fine. In reality it would make little difference to what happens now and what has always happened. It would however focus the basic airline requirements on those seeking to achieve their ambitions outside of the full time intensive cadet programmes.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The system (in the US and elsewhere) was never designed to push 250/350/450 etc. hour G/A pilots into the right hand seat of an airliner. Nether was it in the UK and many other countries. In the UK the minimum level of quantitive hour experience for obtaining a commercial pilots licence used to be 700. Few pilots at this level would have been recruited into the right seat of jet airliners the typical minimum tariffs being in the order of 2000-3000 hours. Even then, the wash out rate or retesting rate was significantly high.
Probably the main reason was that there never was the variety of flying like it existed in the UK. Apart from the differences between an isle nation and a continental nation (everything easily reachable by cars and trains), we had a complete breakdown of aviation after WWII for nine years which left the country without any real aviation industry, when it started up again it was mainly a state owned carrier and not much else. Of course they had to train their pilots from scratch and have done so ever since, and they are still the major pilot employer with more than 50% of all commercial pilots employed by them.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a few F/O's who I won't leave alone. But they have thousands of hours. It's the fresh faced F/O's with only a few hundred hours are a pleasure to work with. But remember where the problem is. It's in the heart of EASA. These are the guys who are paid to think ahead, not look in the toilet to see what they ate yesterday.
Quality over quantity anytime...
The FAA reliance on flight hours as a qualification for certificates or ratings has it's shortcomings. I think they recognize that fact though. As evidenced by the specific experience and training accomplishment requirements inherent in every rating qualification. It's not just the hours. Specific procedures, maneuvers and types of experience must be accomplished AND the specific hours requirements must be met. Grinding the pattern, (circuits and bumps) towing banners or gliders or just burning Avgas will not qualify one for the ATP certificate no matter how many hours are logged. Check out FAR part 61.159 for specifics.
Sure one can apply for the ATP at 1,500 hours provided that they meet all other training and experience requirements. Is it still not quite as demanding and exclusionary as it perhaps should be? Some people think so. There is always room for improvement in any qualification protocol.
By requiring part 121 airlines to employ only those qualified to hold an ATP, more than one positive thing was accomplished with respect to knowledge and skills based qualification standards.
To qualify for the ATP a pilot must have at least the following specific types of experience:
500 hours of cross-country flight time (all must be 50 NM or more from point of origin)
75 hours of instrument flight time (actual or simulated)
100 hours of night time
250 hours of pilot in command time, of which 100 hours must be cross-country time as defined above and 25 hours of this PIC time must be at night. (note: logging of pilot in command time is addressed in FAR 61.51 and includes time manipulating the flight controls or performing the duties of PIC under the supervision of a qualified PIC)
Interestingly, second-in-command time gained in part 91 ops may not be counted towards the total time requirement. The SIC time must have been attained in either part 91K (fractional), part 135 or part 121 ops. So those pilots sitting right seat in a Global or G-whatever in private ops can't count their time toward the 1,500 hour minimum. Perhaps because the regs don't require the same specific qualification training for private part 91 ops as they do for air carriers.
So while not perfect by any stretch, the requirement that an airline SIC qualify for an ATP certificate DOES up the ante with respect to overall level of training, of experience and of accomplishment. How does this stack up with MPLs? No clue as I've never met or flown with one! I WILL say this though: In my experience, those pilots I HAVE flown with or trained in part 135 ops with more experience in different types of aircraft and types of flying environments are generally more well rounded, are more skilled and have more developed aeronautical judgement and decision-making skills than graduates of the ubiquitous box-checking American pilot puppy mills. (won't name any here!) I have little knowledge regarding European cadet schemes other than what I've read here, so have no definite opinions regarding the quality of their output. Opinions of members here seem mixed.
But my opinions regarding American "pilot academies" are gained from experience with their output. I'll say this: Box checking may comply with the letter of the law, but often doesn't come close to meeting the intent of the rule. BTW, the pilot who triggered the congressional ATP mandate was one of these and a previous P2Fer as well. (with a well-known but not well regarded operator before joining his last airline) As always, Caveat Emptor!
Interesting discussion
Last edited by westhawk; 3rd Apr 2015 at 05:05. Reason: more...
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Location
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1500 hrs for big Jets?
Is there enough turbo props or light jets in Europe to feed the mainlines with pilots? I've been told there is a lot of turbo props in UK, what about other countries?
Why not set a minimum of 1500 hours and ATP as a minimum like in the STATES but for jets? (Like 737-320...)
It will make a smooth transition, more safety, more experience, no more sandbags wannabes on a right seat and no more pay to fly. It will allow leverage for pilots and negociate fair WAWCONs.
Sound like a good deal.
Why not set a minimum of 1500 hours and ATP as a minimum like in the STATES but for jets? (Like 737-320...)
It will make a smooth transition, more safety, more experience, no more sandbags wannabes on a right seat and no more pay to fly. It will allow leverage for pilots and negociate fair WAWCONs.
Sound like a good deal.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But apart from that i don't see it coming in europe at all. Nor are the unions pushing for it.
WAWCON? Does that mean T&Cs? That is usually taken care of by an extremely selective entry selection process. If only around 1 to 5% of those willing to work as pilot are able to pass it there is quite a bit of leverage for those select few.
It will allow leverage for pilots and negociate fair WAWCONs.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: On SBY next to my phone
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem in Europe is that general aviation pretty much is extinct after the last decade of tax implementations on fuel, closure of fields and bureaucracy when it comes to maintaing airplanes, licenses among other things. The trend is moving towards ultralights and such.
The most probable ways of acquiring those 1500hrs will be either by buying them, fakelogging or instructing for free. Two of them requires a rich dad and the problem of spoiled kids buying their way in to the cockpit returns. While smart and sound people who would like to have a backup career available (thus not having to put up with all the cr*p) would be kept out of the market.
Getting a job on a regional turboprop in Europe is not about what you know, it's rather about who you know, in combination with a willingness to fork out €20k for a rating and then work for free.
The most probable ways of acquiring those 1500hrs will be either by buying them, fakelogging or instructing for free. Two of them requires a rich dad and the problem of spoiled kids buying their way in to the cockpit returns. While smart and sound people who would like to have a backup career available (thus not having to put up with all the cr*p) would be kept out of the market.
Getting a job on a regional turboprop in Europe is not about what you know, it's rather about who you know, in combination with a willingness to fork out €20k for a rating and then work for free.
It's the fresh faced F/O's with only a few hundred hours are a pleasure to work with.
Their general standard of flying ability is so bad (read too many damaged aircraft) even airline management has balked and these "first officers" are now not allowed to conduct a take off or landing in the real aircraft until they have completed five years on line. When that time arrives, they transfer to flying the Boeing 737 and given take off and landings under close supervision. Then they are promoted to captain B737. That was one major airline but others have similar policies of not permitting first officers take off or land until a prescribed number of years of service. The sole reason is because of a spate of inexperienced first officer handling accidents across the industry.
Some years ago I was employed as a simulator instructor conducting Boeing 737 type rating training on Chinese cadets straight from flying schools in New Zealand. All were well mannered and spoke good English. I remember asking my students how they got into flying.
The reply was that they were studying at University for a variety of civilian courses when a government official arrived to address their class. All students were required to undergo aircrew standard medical examinations. Those that passed were further split into students for military aircrew training and the rest slated to be airline pilots with 20 years of service ahead on graduation as pilots. There were no exceptions. Perhaps that has changed by now?
We have a few F/O's who I won't leave alone. But they have thousands of hours. It's the fresh faced F/O's with only a few hundred hours are a pleasure to work with. But remember where the problem is. It's in the heart of EASA. These are the guys who are paid to think ahead, not look in the toilet to see what they ate yesterday.
Getting away from true low timers though, I tend to find that the high hour FOs, while solid, are generally not the sharpest tools and need to be watched carefully. It's not surprising as these are typically guys who've been overlooked for a command several times.
I think having set requirements such as 1500 hours is useless. Some pilots are great with 500 hours and some are hopeless with 5000 hours. The Colgan crash should have focussed the airlines on weeding out pilots with a history of marginal performance, the hours are of no importance.
North America has a robust GA sector. This has allowed pilots to build experience in increasingly more complex aircraft and also in general weed out the 
before they see a mainline jet right seat.
The race to the bottom in the regional airlines started what had never happened before, 250 hr wannabe's going straight to a scheduled t-prop or jet airline aminl because pilots who had paid their dues did not want to work at the povery wages the fresh CPL's would accept. The Colgan crash highlighted what everybody knew. The rush to the shiny jet by the know nothing fresh from the airline puppy mill was decreasing safety.
The bottom line is simple. NOBODY starts at a mainline jet airline in North America without thousands of hours of experience. As a direct result North American Airlines have the best safety record of any jurisdiction in the world one that is certainly better than European airlines.
before they see a mainline jet right seat. The race to the bottom in the regional airlines started what had never happened before, 250 hr wannabe's going straight to a scheduled t-prop or jet airline aminl because pilots who had paid their dues did not want to work at the povery wages the fresh CPL's would accept. The Colgan crash highlighted what everybody knew. The rush to the shiny jet by the know nothing fresh from the airline puppy mill was decreasing safety.
The bottom line is simple. NOBODY starts at a mainline jet airline in North America without thousands of hours of experience. As a direct result North American Airlines have the best safety record of any jurisdiction in the world one that is certainly better than European airlines.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Local pilots 80 hours Cessna 172 time F/O's on B737 in Indonesia
The largest LLC in Indonesia is Lion Air with Boeing 737 series and A320. Currently they are recruiting cadets from Indonesian local flying schools. Very reliable anecdotal evidence reveals such is the critical shortage of flight crew on the 737 that the company is taking cadets from local flying schools with 80 hours on Cessna 172 and no twin engine time and after simulator training are employed as first officer 737. Scary stuff indeed...
centaurus,
How do the Chinese operators expect their "F/Os" to take over in the event of captain incapacity, if they've never landed the plane?
How do the Chinese operators expect their "F/Os" to take over in the event of captain incapacity, if they've never landed the plane?