Why do we not require 1500 hours for a RHS job ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Age: 47
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do we not require 1500 hours for a RHS job ?
Why have we in EASA land not followed the FAA in requiring RHS entry jobs to have a minimum of 1500 hours (or other relevant number) ?
Is it a good route for us to go down ?
Is it a good route for us to go down ?
Clone of Victor Meldrew
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: england
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheap!
Avoiding any hour requirement enables Airlines to reduce crewing costs.P2F....!
So why don't we require 1500 hours because the 'name of the game' is cheap cheap cheap.
Is it a good road to go down?
No no no
So why don't we require 1500 hours because the 'name of the game' is cheap cheap cheap.
Is it a good road to go down?
No no no
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mars
Posts: 527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA only increased the hours due to the politicians capitulation over the Colgan accident. Pretty much all, both inside and outside the FAA, wanted to go for increased demonstrated competence rather than increased hours! Sadly raising it to 1500 hours satisfied the politicians and gave the public the sound bite they needed.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Judging by the recent Norwegian Air Shuttle recruitment drive it seems 1,000 hours is the minimum for them.
In the good old days it was 700 hours for a CPL and a first job required 1,000 hours after slogging through hours building by instructing or the like.
In the early 2000s easyJet required 1,500 hours on turboprops or jets - so yes 1,500 'good' hours were required.
Things have changed so much and, as we all know, pilot training has improved to the point where it is now adjudged that super Cadets with 250 hours are just as safe as those pilots who ten years ago required ten times the experience to do the same job.
In the good old days it was 700 hours for a CPL and a first job required 1,000 hours after slogging through hours building by instructing or the like.
In the early 2000s easyJet required 1,500 hours on turboprops or jets - so yes 1,500 'good' hours were required.
Things have changed so much and, as we all know, pilot training has improved to the point where it is now adjudged that super Cadets with 250 hours are just as safe as those pilots who ten years ago required ten times the experience to do the same job.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Bristol.
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking as a passenger or pax as you call us 250 hours before becoming a co pilot on a commercial jet wow ! what if something serious goes wrong ?
Seriously wtf is going on ?
Seriously wtf is going on ?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The same as happened in the 1960's...70's...80's...90's...the naughties and the current decade!
There is nothing new about "approved" cadet pilots flying for airlines, it is simply now more evolved and much more common. Fifty years ago, pilots with this experience were flying for BEA/BOAC and other airlines.
Fifteen years ago... Twenty years ago... Thirty years ago... "non approved" candidates required at least 700 hours for a CPL/IR and were very unlikely to find an opportunity of airline employment with the jet operators until they had at least Three to Four times this level of experience.
In many cases, not a great deal has changed in that respect. JAA (later EASA) reduced the CPL hour requirements (in the UK) by two thirds to bring the levels of experience down to those required for what amounted to a basic "aerial work" licence. In so doing, it aligned those requirements to much the same as existed in the USA and other ICAO member states. The result was a flood of such low hour pilots who in many cases believed that possessing a CPL/IR by any means was their passport to the stars.
Those airlines that historically (and it is a long history,) took on low hour cadets did so through selective and managed routes. There successors in title and a whole raft of newcomers, utilized the updated version of exactly the same thing. This not only squeezed out a large portion of the "self improver" aspirants, but the new lower "non approved" CPL requirements meant there were exponentially hoards more licence holders fighting for a toe-hold on the narrowed cliff.
There is nothing new about "approved" cadet pilots flying for airlines, it is simply now more evolved and much more common. Fifty years ago, pilots with this experience were flying for BEA/BOAC and other airlines.
Fifteen years ago... Twenty years ago... Thirty years ago... "non approved" candidates required at least 700 hours for a CPL/IR and were very unlikely to find an opportunity of airline employment with the jet operators until they had at least Three to Four times this level of experience.
In many cases, not a great deal has changed in that respect. JAA (later EASA) reduced the CPL hour requirements (in the UK) by two thirds to bring the levels of experience down to those required for what amounted to a basic "aerial work" licence. In so doing, it aligned those requirements to much the same as existed in the USA and other ICAO member states. The result was a flood of such low hour pilots who in many cases believed that possessing a CPL/IR by any means was their passport to the stars.
Those airlines that historically (and it is a long history,) took on low hour cadets did so through selective and managed routes. There successors in title and a whole raft of newcomers, utilized the updated version of exactly the same thing. This not only squeezed out a large portion of the "self improver" aspirants, but the new lower "non approved" CPL requirements meant there were exponentially hoards more licence holders fighting for a toe-hold on the narrowed cliff.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How when 700 hours was required for the initial issue of a CPL?
I appreciate that ab initio cadets trained at Hamble, but how did they bridge the gap between training and the requirements of a CPL at the time?
It's a good point and one (at this time of night) I seem to be missing!
I appreciate that ab initio cadets trained at Hamble, but how did they bridge the gap between training and the requirements of a CPL at the time?
It's a good point and one (at this time of night) I seem to be missing!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is easy. Because 700 hours was the minimum requirement for any non-approved course of training. Think of it as the modern day modular. The approval granted to the few schools licensed to run such "approved" courses of training for those abridged courses, required that they were restricted, selective and full time integrated. Successful completion of such an approved course allowed the licence to be issued to a graduate with around 200+ hours of flight time.
Hamble was the in-house training school for BEA/BOAC etc. until it was closed and the requirement contracted out. However there were others. Oxford, AST Perth, their successors in title, and later other new market entrants. Airlines such as Britannia (the forerunner of Thomsons) and a few others, also ran cadet programmes that utilised low hour "approved" cadets. It was always a very small section of the overall recruitment market (outside of BEA/BOAC). The majority of wider recruitment was split between military career changers and what were then termed "self improvers" the later being applicants that had worked their way up through the 700 hour requirements and often through a host of "stepping stone" jobs in order to get to the first tier airline market. It was never an easy passage, but the restricted numbers, natural attrition, and more plentiful supply (by ratio) of aerial work type jobs, meant that it was a far more realistic proposition than is often the case today.
A thread from over 11 years ago!
Hamble was the in-house training school for BEA/BOAC etc. until it was closed and the requirement contracted out. However there were others. Oxford, AST Perth, their successors in title, and later other new market entrants. Airlines such as Britannia (the forerunner of Thomsons) and a few others, also ran cadet programmes that utilised low hour "approved" cadets. It was always a very small section of the overall recruitment market (outside of BEA/BOAC). The majority of wider recruitment was split between military career changers and what were then termed "self improvers" the later being applicants that had worked their way up through the 700 hour requirements and often through a host of "stepping stone" jobs in order to get to the first tier airline market. It was never an easy passage, but the restricted numbers, natural attrition, and more plentiful supply (by ratio) of aerial work type jobs, meant that it was a far more realistic proposition than is often the case today.
A thread from over 11 years ago!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Alba sor
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spannerinthewerks, Hamble was what was called a 'CAP509' school, so cadets there attained a CPL on an approved course. The 700 hour CPL was often referred to as the Self improver' route, if an individual had not undertaken an approved course (509), they could apply for a CPL after gaining 700hrs on their PPL. All in the dim and distant past now.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did cadets from Hamble go straight to the RHS or was there any kind of restriction placed on them? I have a vague memory of talking to the SFI at the Glasgow flying club, he was a SFO on Vicounts and I got the impression that a straight from Hamble cadet wouldn't go to, for example, the BAC1-11 fleet? Could easily be wrong! I thought they started life as SOs and wouldn't be in the RHS for certain airports/weather conditions etc. A choice often not available to day with P2F.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why don't we require 1500 hours because the 'name of the game' is cheap cheap cheap.
In my company we have more than doubled our salaries since we hire MPL students with about 80 hours real world experience. Both issues are not (directly) connected, however hiring low hour cadets isn't necessarily an indication of bad conditions.
Not to mention that the 1500 hour limit wouldn't work in europe as there are simply not enough low level flying jobs for those starting out in need of those first hours, they simply would have to pay for most if not all of those hours.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Europe
Age: 37
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest, I don't see what extra beneficial experience you get by flying around cessna for 1500 hours in a VFR environment. Flying a jet is totally different. But I would like to know which specific skills are gained by doing this kind of flying before flying a jet.
I work for Ryanair, which is an airline that recruits lots of cadets. There is a wind and vis limit when you are a inexperienced FO.
I work for Ryanair, which is an airline that recruits lots of cadets. There is a wind and vis limit when you are a inexperienced FO.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My house
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have said this before, 1500 hours does not a good pilot make. It's the quality of training, self discipline and type of experience that makes a world of difference.
I have trained cadets with 140hrs that perform better than a FO with 3000hrs. Equally I have had the pleasure of training a ex biz jet chap (1100hrs) who's skills and SA were better than that of 10,000 hr captains!
I have trained cadets with 140hrs that perform better than a FO with 3000hrs. Equally I have had the pleasure of training a ex biz jet chap (1100hrs) who's skills and SA were better than that of 10,000 hr captains!
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: FL410
Posts: 860
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to mention that the 1500 hour limit wouldn't work in europe as there are simply not enough low level flying jobs for those starting out in need of those first hours, they simply would have to pay for most if not all of those hours.
There simply would not be enough pilots available for the amount of positions on offer in airlines in EASA land if all new entrants would be required to have completed 1500 hours as (unlike FAA land) we do not have a (thriving) accessible market for building the required hours.
Imagine a new pilot with MPL having to fly ~1400 hours SE (predominantly SE as for most this is cheaper) on top of his/her training costs for the possibility to apply to his/her first job, it may take many years, requiring him/her to attend different jobs to sustain his/her hour building experience whilst losing his/her piloting skills so dearly acquired, plus in many parts of EU the weather would only allow him/her to fly such craft in less than 50% of the time...
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recently conducted a study on this particular issue concerning the 1500 hour requirement introduced by the FAA and whether other states should follow.
Schnowzer is correct in saying it was certainly a political issue following the colgan air crash. Despite many studies have pointed to the fact that the accumulation of further flight hours in this way has limited value on competence, congress still pushed the ruling.
The US still prefers to adopt a rather old fashioned system of flight training and geared towards gaining flight hours. Other states appear to be more proactive towards more innovative ways to gain competence, such as the MPL. Introducing the 1500 hour rule to other states could also prove to be a problem due to the lack of GA in comparison to the US.
It has been found that flight hours alone can be of limited value, it depends what you do in those hours. For airline operations in particular, more emphasis needs to be placed on training in multi crew scenarios developing both technical & non-technical (CRM) skills in a relevant environment. This also applies to "experienced" pilots with many hours on type, they need to continually train and develop these skills otherwise further hours mean nothing. Studies have shown that pilots from airline cadet schemes with no previous experience have been just as competent as pilots with previous GA or other airline experience.
Despite the larger GA scene in US, the 1500 hour rule is still managing to create a pilot shortage for itself, mainly in the regional carriers. Therefore, it would be prudent for other states not to follow suit.
It is interesting to note, certainly in Europe and many other parts of the world, the traditional route of gaining experience flight instructing, then regional carrier, then major carrier has changed considerably. In fact, the LCC`s have become the first step, then personal choice dictates whether they want to progress to a career airline, i.e either a long haul operator or even some regional carriers that have better terms, conditions, lifestyle, seniority pay scales etc.
Schnowzer is correct in saying it was certainly a political issue following the colgan air crash. Despite many studies have pointed to the fact that the accumulation of further flight hours in this way has limited value on competence, congress still pushed the ruling.
The US still prefers to adopt a rather old fashioned system of flight training and geared towards gaining flight hours. Other states appear to be more proactive towards more innovative ways to gain competence, such as the MPL. Introducing the 1500 hour rule to other states could also prove to be a problem due to the lack of GA in comparison to the US.
It has been found that flight hours alone can be of limited value, it depends what you do in those hours. For airline operations in particular, more emphasis needs to be placed on training in multi crew scenarios developing both technical & non-technical (CRM) skills in a relevant environment. This also applies to "experienced" pilots with many hours on type, they need to continually train and develop these skills otherwise further hours mean nothing. Studies have shown that pilots from airline cadet schemes with no previous experience have been just as competent as pilots with previous GA or other airline experience.
Despite the larger GA scene in US, the 1500 hour rule is still managing to create a pilot shortage for itself, mainly in the regional carriers. Therefore, it would be prudent for other states not to follow suit.
It is interesting to note, certainly in Europe and many other parts of the world, the traditional route of gaining experience flight instructing, then regional carrier, then major carrier has changed considerably. In fact, the LCC`s have become the first step, then personal choice dictates whether they want to progress to a career airline, i.e either a long haul operator or even some regional carriers that have better terms, conditions, lifestyle, seniority pay scales etc.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest, I don't see what extra beneficial experience you get by flying around cessna for 1500 hours in a VFR environment.
That scenario will sound very familiar to some and totally alien to others.