Congress wants ATP & 1,500 hours for Regional Pilots

[ATPMBA]

Congress now wants ALL regional pilots to have at least an ATP license, which requires a minimum of 1,500 flight hours. Many FO's have less than 1,500 hours. It's going to get interesting.

[varigflier]

Maybe now there will be another "shortage" of pilots.:}

[Tinstaafl]

Oh goody! I have several, including FAA. Did they express a preference for USA, UK or Oz branded? I can give them any one of those. Or more, if they count MEL/SEL/SES separately. Mind you, the market shortage that will be created will be great for my income. Yay!

Of course I'm being facetious. Chances are that there'll be grandfather provisions for currently employed and/or a grace period for implementation and/or an effective date some years into the future and/or it will be watered down to some specified-but-greater-than-now minimum experience with or without ATP theory. Have I missed any lesser option?

Or it will fade away as the lobyists get busy.

[340drvr]

Someone on another forum brought up the point that, right now, due to most regionals not hiring any new FO's for quite awhile, there may not be very many right-seaters currently flying with less than 1500 total time. Of course, that kind of minimum qualification will certainly affect the next hiring rush (whenever that may be).

[samusi01]

340drvr's right... probably won't end up being a big deal as most out there should, I imagine, have the hours necessary. Chances are that anything that comes out of Washington will have a grace period and the regionals can simply add an ATP check ride to the next sim session to sort things out.

However, having the crew all have 1500 and an ATP still won't sort crap pay/terrible schedules/long commutes/etc.

[galaxy flyer]

Hours/Schmours! I know lots of pilots with a 1000 hours who are far superior to 10,000 pilots. The 1000-hour guy learned something everyday, was taught under a disciplined program that had high standards, sought the best candidates and backed them up with good management. The 10,000-hour guy, flew the same hour over and over again, learned in a "close cover before striking aviation school" that had poor standards, trained anyone with the money and left the graduates to their own devices. Yes, the military or Embry-Riddle type program works better.

Which pilot do you want?

GF

[samusi01]

Which pilot do you want?

The problem is that it's not what we want, or what is best/safest... it'll end up being what we are mandated to have.

I quite agree that the training makes a significant difference. I used to work at an airplane factory in northern MN, and was able to meet and fly with a diverse group of pilots. Skill sets varied considerably but mil/141 (Embry/UND/etc) pilots were of a higher caliber than the "mom-and-pop" trained. That's not saying that ex-mil or 141 trained pilots are always better - exceptions to every rule, of course - but on average...

[Carrier]

Quote: "...but mil/141 (Embry/UND/etc) pilots were of a higher caliber..."

In what ways were they of a higher calibre?

[galaxy flyer]

OK, I'll bite......

More disciplined about following good procedures, regulations.

Better educated, esp about aerodynamics, theory of flight, fatigue, aircraft systems, flight physiology

Exposed to wider range of maneuvers--stalls, recovery from unusual attitudes, high performance aircraft. You won't make a stall recovery error if trained repeatedly in stalls, spins and departures from controlled flight.

Get continually debriefed and evaluated for upgrade and promotion.

The first flight into Mogadishu for C-5 was flown by a 1500 hour Captain doing 17.8 hours, non-stop with 4 air refuelings and a combat off-load at a hot airstrip. Do you think the average 1500 commuter pilot could do it.

BTW, I had 1800 hours and flew night checks before going into the service, so I know both sides pretty well. Fly civil now.

GF

[samusi01]

GF nailed it.

Knowledge was superior, they had been exposed to more procedures, and they were able to fly them to better standards. As I said, there were exceptions both ways, but that's what I experienced.

[SNS3Guppy]

The first flight into Mogadishu for C-5 was flown by a 1500 hour Captain doing 17.8 hours, non-stop with 4 air refuelings and a combat off-load at a hot airstrip. Do you think the average 1500 commuter pilot could do it.


It's really a nonsensical question. Yes, the 1500 hour commuter pilot could do it if he had been training in and performing aerial refueling, and had the equivilent amount of time in the C5.

I was doing formation flight beneath powerlines in ag aircraft as my first job out of high school...do you think the C5 pilot could do it? Again, a nonsensical comparison. We routinely did steep turns at 75' to the stall, and flew extremely tight tolerances with respect to altitude and ground track, very close to the surface, amid powerlines, and obstacles, in aircraft which were loaded to their performance limits on hot days, often in stiff winds...in tailwheel airplanes landing on short grass runways surrounded by powerlines. This isn't something the C5 pilot was trained to do...so no, without proper exposure to that environment, he shouldn't be expected to be able to do it, any more than one would expect to pull a 1500 hour pilot out of a Brasillia and expect him or her to perform an aerial refueling in a C5.

That the C5 pilot is performing transoceanic flights (let's face it, long legs on autopilot...not exactly demanding...and yes, I've done plenty of them, too) isn't really a ringing condemnation on the training, skill or ability of the average pilot trained at a "mom and pop" Part 61 school. Fact is, some very qualified, very skilled individuals come out of such training, where one takes from it an equivalent value to what one puts in.

More disciplined about following good procedures, regulations.

Better educated, esp about aerodynamics, theory of flight, fatigue, aircraft systems, flight physiology

Exposed to wider range of maneuvers--stalls, recovery from unusual attitudes, high performance aircraft. You won't make a stall recovery error if trained repeatedly in stalls, spins and departures from controlled flight.

Get continually debriefed and evaluated for upgrade and promotion.


The military aviators are very proud of themselves. We all get that. You're stretching it a mite (more than a mite) to suggest that this training isn't found in most operations. What flight school doesn't teach unusual attitudes? What school doesn't teach proficiency in stall recovery? Spin training is debatable and may be saved for another thread. I've never seen a flight training program that didn't cover aerodynamics, fatigue, aircraft systems, meteorology, etc. Standard stuff.

I understand the military position and mindset too, but disagree with the lofty assumption that's usually given that the product of training is more gifted, or superior in airmanship, skill, judgment, or ability. It's a poor assumption, and in this business, one should never assume. The same statement applies equally to the assumption that training provided in a part 141 environment produces a better product graduate. In my experience, this is certainly not so.

[galaxy flyer]

SNS3Guppy

I don't say it not possible that "mom and pop" schools can train good pilots, there are good pilots everywhere and from many sources, but if you want to play the odds--the military and well-run, disciplined programs like ERAU and UND do a more reliable job, are more consistent and less willing to let the poor learners pass. Any of these sources, do a far better job of providing the knowledge base needed, ON AVERAGE.

While I cannot recommend formations under wires, all that "hands on" flying would have probably resulted in better stall recovery that a firm tug on the column as shown in the NTSB animation.

WRT stall training, by the results, it looks like the Gulfstream Academy hasn't provided very good training to any of pilots.

GF

[con-pilot]

I think this is the key statement on this thread, in my humble opinion of course.

However, having the crew all have 1500 and an ATP still won't sort crap pay/terrible schedules/long commutes/etc.

I wonder if anyone in Washington happened to consider that the experienced pilots the powers to be seem to want, just may not want to go to work under the above described conditions?

Just a thought.

[galaxy flyer]

C-P

Not just a thought, a fact based on who is flying the commuter planes.

[Jay_solo]

Raisng hours is just playing with numbers to make things look good. Its as useful as the threat level indicators once used after 9-11. its all for visual peace of mind and to show the public, "we've done something about it"

The main problem with airline flying is the pressures placed on pilots in a very competitive industry, working with the most "un-glamourous" working conditions.

Point in fact for Colgan Air/Continental 3407: Rebecca Shaw - First officer - had approx 2200 hours TT
Capain Renslow - 3,379 hours

Thats an experience crew to be flying a prop! Infact Shaw had 772 hours on the Q400!

We in Europe routinely put 250 hour pilots into B737's, CRJ's, ERJ's, A320's as FO's. And in asia, low houred pilots fly on heavies likes B747, B777, A330 as relief pilots. 3 years ago, one guy I went to flight school with got a job with the now defunct Oasis airlines as a cruise pilot on the B744! His total time; 300 hours! Flew nothing bigger than a seneca!

So hours is not the major issue. The pilot's aptitude, attitude and dedication to improving ones self and knowing ones limits is key.

To me the issues really are about the pressures placed on maintenance men/women to get aircraft back in the air quickly to make money for the airlines.

Pilots pushing their duty time limits amidst stressful and tiresome situations to complete the job - example AA 1420

And the general degrading of working conditions in a very demanding job just to squeeze every last penny to keep the airline afloat.

Just my 2 cents :ok:

[Roadtrip]

Not so fast. My guess is all this bluster and cheap theatrics is a result of the bad press because of the Colgan Air disaster. Given that the FAA is owned by the airline companies, I predict virtually NOTHING will be done in the way of providing meaningful safety enhancements, including requiring First Officers to hold a real airline pilot rating. Time will tell, but I think the new administrator of the FAA is an compliant empty suit, just like the rest. He and the politicians are just waiting for the story to fade from the daily news, before the whole thing is "binned with contempt."

[galaxy flyer]

Jay solo

That was the point I was trying to make--quality, structured training; good management are the keys to safety, NOT hours or simple credentials.

GF

[SNS3Guppy]

I predict virtually NOTHING will be done in the way of providing meaningful safety enhancements, including requiring First Officers to hold a real airline pilot rating.


What is a "real airline pilot rating?"

[weasil]

The wording of the legislation right now has a 3 year waiver for F/Os who are not currently ATP rated. Of course it hasn't made it out of Congress yet.

[West Coast]

The first flight into Mogadishu for C-5 was flown by a 1500 hour Captain doing 17.8 hours, non-stop with 4 air refuelings and a combat off-load at a hot airstrip. Do you think the average 1500 commuter pilot could do it.

A dangerous game GF. A high time (note, I didn't say experienced) crew put a C-5 in the dirt in Dover not long ago during what should have been a well practiced 3 engine arrival. The only reason they didn't was the crew gooned it up. Culpability with all crew members, pilots and FE's, enlisted and officer, low and high ranking. Across the board.

I'm prior mil and not afraid to admit some of the best pilots/mentors I've flown with have come from civilian backgrounds.

BTW, I was in Mog, calling it a hot strip stretches the truth a bit.

[SNS3Guppy]

The wording of the legislation right now has a 3 year waiver for F/Os who are not currently ATP rated. Of course it hasn't made it out of Congress yet.


Does that mean three years before the requirement takes place, three years for existing first officer's to gain ATP certification, or protection for those hired within the previous three years who don't hold the ATP?

[angelorange]

Well it's good news for GA and Flight schools - at last some new instructors and hour builders to stay in business!

And good for the oldies who have lots of good hours but have been overlooked as they cost more than 250 hr, better looking, second officers.

[weasil]

3 years for existing F/Os to gain ATP certification.

[MungoP]

personally I don't agree with the 1500 hr requirement... it's what's done with the hours that counts not the quantity.. Like most of us I've flown with some extremely mature (in outlook) and capable low time pilots and some real hopeless high time pilots... Someone who's been flying single crew on nightfreight ops in the northern states for a couple of years would be very welcome to join me in the cockpit... What we do need to concentrate on is the combination of crew that makes up the team... A capt with limited experience either of the left hand seat OR the type he's flying should not be teamed with anyone other than a senior first officer with considerable experience.

[MaintainYourHeading]

The 1500 hour minimum requirement might not just be a question of internal US affair but an attempt to regulate the flow (or outflow) of pilots in and out of the US... and lessen the impact on other countries' aviation industry during crisis times.

When a 250 hour pilot gets a type rating on an EMB145 or CRJ200 and the crisis hits in the US, we observe a huge flood of pilots in other continents, especially Asia these days, complitely saturating the market overseas, creating major problems for pilots in these countries to find jobs.

A 250 hour pilot means he will upgrade sooner to a bigger airplane, and when the crisis hits in the US, now we get a rush of A320/B737 pilots with no jobs invading the rest of the world (except Europe). It's not normal for a pilot in another country that has all his licenses and time to be an FO an a machine can't find a job because there are no less than thousands of US FOs on narrow bodies with no less than 5000 hours asking for jobs !!!!

and for those pilots that do find jobs, when they have a contract and things go better in the US well, what do these pilots do ? what about the US carriers ? do they have to go all over again through pilot training cycles at their own costs?

The impact of having 250 hour pilots on the right seat of an air carreer is not just limited to the US and not just safety. Personnally I don't see much of a difference between a 1000 hour or 1500 hour CRJ FO. What is happening now is more global... I believe people in the aviation industry today need to think on a much wider/more global scale. Every country in the world is raising its standards, I am certain the congress is going that way as well.

If people have different opinions or think I am wrong, please give your opinions, it will help thinking it over with different perspectives !!

cheers

[PatagonianProud]

i think its a great idea...
i understand that there are many great 1000 hour pilots and many lousy 10,000 hour pilots but flight schools can keep their instructors longer and finding a job at a regional will be easier.
here in Argentina there is a senior commercial license (Canada had this license until 1980 i believe).
to obtain a senior commercial one must hold a commercial license with ifr and me rated and 900 hours total time and 25 multi hours and pass a written exam (same as ATP). this allows you to work as a co-pilot.
in Argentina to become a CFI requires 500 hours total and the ATP is 1500 hours total (typical ICAO standard) and pass a check ride.
maybe the FAA check take this approach. a sliding scale. i could never understand how one could get a commercial license in the USA today and technically get a CFI the next....

[Bus Junkie]

>WRT stall training, by the results, it looks like the Gulfstream Academy hasn't provided very good training to any of pilots.<

GF: Aren't Gulfstream a 141 structured school? So........

[NEDude]

One of those C5 guys was a check airman for United. The FAA revoked his check airman status as a result of this crash, even though it was a military crash.

[galaxy flyer]

NE

And American fired the captain of the C-130 crash in Honduras and ATA, I believe, fired the captain of the C-5 stall incident at Diego Garcia. Your point?

[MungoP]

i think its a great idea...
i understand that there are many great 1000 hour pilots and many lousy 10,000 hour pilots but flight schools can keep their instructors longer and finding a job at a regional will be easier.

For heavens sake... this has nothing to do with the job market... it's supposed to impact on safety.... and what use is a few hundred hours more or less of flying around a small airport on a sunny day watching ab-initio students getting to grips with the flare... counts for nothing in the real world of winter night ops/crm and tough decision making involving 'ops-money' versus safety margins...

There has to be at least one crew member up front with solid experience of the aircraft in all flight regimes and a logbook that testifies to a number of years of hard IFR and headbanging with flight ops. The passengers have a right to expect it and if necessary they should be made to realise they need to pay extra to ensure it...

We're talking about sophisticated aircraft that young crews approach like a FlightSim toy... there are real people down the back.

A 3 pilot system of second officer status riding jump-seats would greatly enhance experience prior to a full first officer status and give the captain a useful tool in the right seat.... and oh yes... it would also improve the job market :hmm:

[poina]

Sorry to go off like this but :mad: congress. I'd like one of those that had integrity, did not make reelection their 1st priority, did not hump the page in the chambers, did not put off issues for the next generation, did not take their girls/boys on trips at my expense,etc. Hypocrites all!

[SNS3Guppy]

Very well. What has that to do with the price of tea in China, or the impending change in regulatory requirements for pilots operating under 14 CFR 121?