But the fact is Bealzebub that they DID raise the min hours requirement, and by doing so they killed off any prospect of 250 hour guys sitting in the RHS of jets in America, no exceptions, regardless of how good the operator is, or how well they're trained or preselected or whatever.
What's your opinion as to why they did that, if you don't consider pilot experience levels to be a major factor in safety?
Presumably, because it was the politics of safety. That accident had absolutely no bearing on either pilot having less than an arbitrary 1500 hours, The Captain held an ATP and 3263 hours. The F/O had 2244 hours of which a third were on type. This legislation was a direct response to that accident, yet this aspect of the legislation on which you focus would not have precluded either of those two crewmembers from being present. However, the causes of the accident did consistently cite poor training, poor regulatory oversight. Likely fatigue from extensive (Transcontinental) commuting to and from duty. Poor background training and checking history of the captain.
I am not sure my opinion is really relevant to the domestically focused legislation of the United States. If you want a relevant opinion try
This one! If that doesn't suit you, scour the internet for any number of opinions that do. Without wishing to be drawn into the cultural or political
modus operandi of another nation, what happens in the USA is no doubt (good or bad) suitable to the domestic focus of that nation. As anyone who has ever flown in the USA knows, it is a very different beast to much of the rest of the planet. It is a huge domestic geographic, demographic, and economic entity. It has evolved its own laws, regulations and operational norms to suit its own evolution. What works there...works there! It doesn't follow that necessarily always holds true outside of that country.
The USA has a particularly large aviation culture, and that extends from general aviation right through to airline transport. It has a large military source of obviously well trained pilots. Opportunities have historically been plentiful for the progression of pilots climbing through the traditional ranks. There has rarely been a shortage of good quality candidates vying for the airlines in that country. This is also a country that invariably sets a college degree as a baseline benchmark for airline employment. You don't hear much of a clamour for this to be adopted by other countries? In summary you have a large "stepping stone" culture within US (and North American) career aviation. Over the last two decades there has been a rapid expansion of the "regional sector" of that stepping stone culture. That expansion has drawn in a lot of "experience" that wouldn't (by definition) have ordinarily qualified for the first tier airline jobs. The cut throat economics in part a consequence of deregulation has brought with it some serious problems into this section of the marketplace. This accident isn't about
Colgan air, it is about citizens buying tickets on an airplane branded as CONTINENTAL AIRLINES. It isn't about 1500 hours experience, it is about holding an AIRLINE Transport Pilots certificate which by default requires 1500 hours.
If you go back to the actual causes of this accident they boil down to fatigue and poor training. Within domains closer to home this is what airlines do address with their cadet programmes. They are not attracted by disjointed, inconsistent, patchy, unverifiable basic training, or indeed even the merest hint of it. They are looking for a seamless integrated verifiable product. It is significantly less risky. It is significantly less disruptive. It has a tried and tested history. It is relatively easy and quick to introduce tailored training requirements into the
ab-intio syllabus. It is cost effective in a highly competitive trading environment. In other words.....It works!