FAA Mininum hours Sullenberger

[Fruet Mich]

It sounds like this is law as of Aug 2013 in the United States.

BB take heed!

FAA proposes new rules for co-pilots - CBS News Video (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7400279n&tag=mncol%3Blst%3B1)

Sully has raises some valid points about experience.

Let's hope that CASA looks into this issue a little closer, after all the USA seems to be the industry leader in many respects.

[Wally Mk2]

This is a very sensitive subject these days, pilot experience & it's associated costs in the face of cost effective operations. As we all know safety has taken a back seat as far as the bean counters are concerned this has been proven time & time again especially here in Oz of late.
Aviation has developed & learned pretty much from it's accidents/incidents along the way, that's the way we have paved the flying game from rag covered flimsy planes to high performance composite A/C of today.
We can't always predict the outcome of a new design/type & defend ourselves until it's been in service for some time, the A380 is the perfect example of that right now (cracks in wings) but we seem to be removing some of those defenses by allowing lower standards of pilots into the cockpits, all because of the mighty dollar!
This dilemma will occupy the minds of us all well after the next major aviation accident attributable to low experienced pilot/s.
There is no fix to this problem whilst the CEO's of the world run the Airlines & the Gov bodies jump when they are asked too.

As a side note I loved the CBS interview with Sully, notice how they cut him off at the end of the interview, due to one thing,commercial pressure which means MONEY!:)Safety is an unprofitable & dirty word, it has no place in aviation to some!.

Wmk2

[Artificial Horizon]

It is a bit of a strange rule change, can you name me ONE single accident in the states where the co-pilot has LESS than 1500 hours total experience. I know the Coglan crash sparked all of this, to me though that accident was far more about FATIGUE and the airline cutting corners when it came to training and pay so that they could offer a cut price tender for the franchise routes.

The blanket 1500 hour require is just an easy way out so that the rule makers feel they are doing something about safety. A FAR better package of measures would be a total re-jig of the Flight Time Limitation provisions (currently underway) and a MINIMUM set of terms and conditions for all RPT operators, and a requirement for ALL training costs to be met by the operators (bonds acceptable but not a requirement to pay upfront). The reason they won't do this is because the commercial interests of airlines do have greater emphasis put on them than SAFETY.

Can you imagine the difference it would make overnight if Jetstar was required to pay for all the training themselves, might make them far better employers as they would have to think about the quality of the candidate before they started and it may make them more inclined to sort out the training issues.

To be honest if an airline like COGLAN can't stay in business if they have to pay their FO's more than $18,000 usd per year then they shouldn't be in business!!

[The Kelpie]

It is a bit of a strange rule change, can you name me ONE single accident in the states where the co-pilot has LESS than 1500 hours total experience

Air France 447 person flying had 3000 TT and 800 on type. Perhaps even that is not enough given the outcome and the findings of the investigation to date.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[Roller Merlin]

There could be many knock-on effects of this change....reinvigoration of GA as the prime entry point for airlines being one, and better terms and conditions for airline entry being another. The argument that the Coglan Crash pilots were moderately experienced is a valid one. But the fact that they were heavily fatigued and poorly supported was a result of the commuting lifestyles and poor pay and conditions that in previous years were common only in GA.

When airlines were able to employ fresh pilots from a low experience pool they could then compete with GA on the similar crap terms and conditions, with shiny jets and flash uniforms. Then airline managers have further orchestrated to make businesses of recruiting where those who can pay extraordinary amounts get to play for the same crap conditions....so more bonuses to the managers. Only airline-sponsored schools get to join in and share the spoils whilst other parts of the industry wither. You could argue that is is just finding out what the pilot market will bear, but where will it end?

Whilst the 1500 hours is a blunt instrument, I reckon it has potential to repair some of this damage.

[ZFT]

The FAA may well find themselves isolated over this issue. None of the other major regulatory authorities have shown any interest in adopting a minimum hours requirement and in fact over the past 30 years or so, the major European regulators have an abundance of evidence that proves the correct level and quality of training is the essence with the likes of BA and Lufthansa producing F/Os of the highest quality through their traditional training and without igniting the MPL debate, there is evidence that this programme is now beginning to mature, certainly here within Asia and in Europe.
Current airline training methods are governed by antiquated regulations that do not reflect the advances in either aircraft design or aircraft reliability and this is what needs to be addressed.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Here is the guy we need to lobby now that there is a precedence.

[email protected]

[Dragun]

Let's face it, the whole situation stems from Joe Public's expectation to be able to fly nearly anywhere these days for cheaper than the cost of an average meal.

The public want safe airlines but THEY don't want to pay for it. Bring back realistic airfares and the whole problem will solve itself.

[Sarcs]

Here is the guy we need to lobby now that there is a precedence.

[email protected] (A.Albanese.MP%40aph.gov.au)


Like he did with the 22 recommendations from the Senate Inquiry, Minister Fumblenese will just hold up the Aviation White Paper and say.."the answers are all in here"!:ugh::ugh:

Good blog from Ben Sandilands on this subject:US FAA proposes 1500 hours flight experience for jet pilots | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/02/29/us-takes-lead-on-pilot-safety-australia-refused-to-follow/)

[DJ737]

The public want safe airlines but THEY don't want to pay for it. Bring back realistic airfares and the whole problem will solve itself.

Are you assuming that higher airfares mean bigger paychecks for the staff. :rolleyes:

[gordonfvckingramsay]

I believe the white paper was a load of political fluff and nonsense. A precedence is a powerful thing. It would not hurt to let him know that we are still interested in our futures. I wonder what Senator Xenophon thinks of the U.S. decision.

DJ737:The problems began when airlines sold air tickets for below cost so that all of "boganity" could fly for cheap. If they were forced to employ experience rather that charge cadets for their inexperience, and charge real fares, maybe we would all be paid a reasonable amount.

[trashie]

I must admit, I have never been convinced about minimum hours being the benchmark for pilot competence. I have seen pilots with 10,000 hours who I would not consider good pilots. Perhaps the initial flying training standards, and competencies need to be examined to assess a pilot's situational awareness, decision making and aircraft knowledge.

We entrust our latest combat aircraft with pilot's who probably have less than 500 hours total and we have RAAF C130 captains who have less than 2000 hours. Since the introduction of the C130s in 1958 they have flown 100s of thousands of hours without a major accident. I mention this not to raise the hackles of GA pilots as I know of some highly professional GA training environments, but to show that high training standards can provide extremely competent pilots with less than 1500 hours.

[TheWholeEnchilada]

high training standards

Two completely different sphere's. Governments can simply tax citizens directly & indirectly (taxation via inflation), in addition to actually spend more than they earn (deficits - the bill handed to citizens not yet born) to pay for this extremely high quality training. Not only that they can force the trainee's to continue to work for them by force (return of service).

Airlines on the other hand cannot use these mechanism to absorb the cost - retention is through large debts to the organisation or regulation (MPL). This is why you are unlikely to see training of anywhere near the military standard in a commercial sphere. Therefore, the only mechanism available to regulators is some arbitrary hour minimum.

[Aimpoint]

If you review the Colgan crash you'll find it wasn't just fatigue. The captain had a history of being very average, yet nothing was done to sort him out by his organisation. In fact, he was upgraded very quickly to captain despite minimal experience on the Q400 (only around 150 hours from memory). Combine poor CRM during the approach and onset of the stall, and there you have it folks - a perfectly good plane bites the dust.

The pilot shortage pre-GFC, combined with growth within the organisation, may have contributed to him being kept online and being upgraded very quickly. The FO's hours were above 1500, but mostly involved bashing a Cessna around the circuit.

The push to increase total flying hours would have done very little to prevent this accident. Improved supervision and training from the organisation would have.

[Roger Greendeck]

Whilst I agree that there is room for improvement in standards I don't believe that a blanket increase in minimum hours will have the desired effect. Hours are a convenient because they are easy to measure but its far from the whole story.

It is time that governments through ICAO take another look at experience, capability, and ultimately licence requirements. The current system has not kept up. You need a rating for constant speed props but not for an EFIS cockpit. So at the moment a pilot can be qualified on a B200 with a steam driven cockpit and get straight into one with a Proline 21 cockpit with dual FMS with no further training. In the same vane pilots in GA learn on piston driven aircraft with a range of avionics. Is this really the best basis for airline flying. Don't get me wrong, captaincy can be developed in a multitude of ways but there are more consistent ways of developing pilots.

And finally, why is it that we seem quite happy for a paying passenger to get into a charter aircraft with a low time VFR pilot but we are unhappy with them getting into a more advanced aircraft even if they have had quality training?

[Artificial Horizon]

Aimpoint,

That was my point, the Coglan incident was a prime example of cutting corners on training and recruitment mixed with poor pay, commuting and fatigue combined to disastrous affect. I can't see how a blanket 1500 hour requirement addresses these issues.

[rmcdonal]

I can't see how a blanket 1500 hour requirement addresses these issues.
A blanket 1500hr forces the regionals to pay more for their pilots, because they are paying more they will want a better standards (return on investment) and as such will be more inclined to take better pilots. The extra pay would make it more affordable for pilots to live near work and therefore cut down on commuting.

[Dog One]

Its amazing how the wheel revolves. In the sixties, Ansett advertised for flight crew, the minimum requirements were

hold a valid Commercial Pilots Licence
minimum 200 hrs experience
10 wpm morse endorsement

No instrument rating or multi-engine hours. The initial endorsement covered that. Intakes went to New Guinea, South Australia or NSW on the mighty DC-3, before progressing onto F27, Viscount, DC4 and then onto the jets.

[Dragun]

Are you assuming that higher airfares mean bigger paychecks for the staff.

That is not even worthy of a reply. Yet, here I am. :ugh:

[teresa green]

Same as TAA Dog One. I was nineteen for chris sake, 600 hrs and useless as tits on a bull. Straight on to the DC3, which I thought was enormous, (well it was considering I was getting around in a Chipmunk) doing a mail run from ISA to Camooweal, Daley River, etc. The skippers were tough bastards, recently back from the war, mainly survivors from bomber command, and you either performed or you were out. The aircraft were also different, more forgiving and took longer to become a accident. And that is how you learnt the trade, not the aids you have now, it was fairly basic flying, but probably the best way to learn, no sims, just a daily grind, sitting beside a bloke who if he felt so inclined would hurl a manual at you if you annoyed him enough. Must have worked because all my time in PNG we only lost two pilots, one WX related, the other a mystery as to why he did what he did. It certainly affected us all, but me especially because I had checked him out only the day before. You never quite forget something like that. You cannot beat experience, and you cannot beat good training. By the time you get into the RH seat of a Airliner you should have met all standards, if you haven't then the system has failed. As someone pointed out earlier, you can get a bloke with 3,000 hrs you would not feed, then again you could get a young fella with 1000 or less and he really impresses.

[Josh Cox]

I can't see how a blanket 1500 hour requirement addresses these issues. Raising the minimum hours is no silver bullet to the problem that is trying to be addressed.

It is a very important step forward.

To those that believe that experience means nothing, perhaps you need to open your eyes.

Would you prefer:

An experienced Doctor or an intern to help your ill loved one ?,
an experienced Mechanic fixing your car or an apprentice ?,
an open licenced driver or a "P" plater driving your children to school ?.

Sure, there are bad experienced Doctors, that would probably be less capable than a smart intern, but this Doctor would have also been a very poor intern in his/her day.

Take two pilots that are equal in all other ways, the more experienced one will more often make the right choice and will definately have a wider field of vision.

To those of you that can not see any truth in the belief that experience counts, " you don't know what you don't know" may just apply.

[Lookleft]

As TG mentioned, what happened on the sixites was young blokes with little experience were put next to Captains with significant experience on piston engined aircraft. They were not put straight into the RHS of a jet with a Captain who may only have 5 years on type.

What I want to know is where is Dick Smith? He is always banging on about how Australia should follow the FAA rules and regs e.g. airspace and TAWS equipment on turbine aircraft of 6 seats or more. As was mentioned in the Senate Enquiry, if an ATPL is required to be PIC then it should be required for the 2IC and not the current situation where the F/O hasn't even completed the subjects for an ATPL.

As for the "superior" training that the cadets get, they still don't seem to be able to anticipate what the aircraft will/should be doing in the next 5 miles. Yes they can set up the FMS, yes they know the procedures as written yes they can land the aircraft in a headwind but when the wx turns nasty they have no experience on which to base a decision on.

[Wally Mk2]

We all know that 2day's modern jet transport could easily be flown single pilot under normal routine Ops sheeez most times we go along just for the ride ourselves but one of the major reasons for having the second crew there in the first place is safety due pilot incapacitation.
If that should happen & thank God it rarely does then I think experience is VERY important.
Can you imagine this nasty scenario.A/C diverting around rough wx with sever turb due multiple TS's at night, holding due TS's at the field with the Capt feeling the stress of it all & he suddenly passes out due age,overweight & hardened arteries. Your it, your the only one remotely capable of getting this plane down in one piece & you have 300 hrs total !!!!! Sh1t I can see a 2nd heart attack coming up & the kids only 25!!

I recall many years ago you could get anywhere near even a light twin without many 100's of hrs under yr belt & in some cases 1000's of hrs for a basic turbine, I wonder why one might ask???

Personally I believe that 500 hrs be the Min for SE commercial Ops, 1000 hrs for Twin Commercial Ops (with 1500 hr for turbine machines) & 2500 hrs for high capacity RPT Ops, but then again I believe that fairy's do live at the bottom of my garden:)
Let the debate over Commercialization V Safety continue, I know which one will forever stay in the forefront here!!!

Wmk2

[Normasars]

Wally,

Don't kid yourself about the turbine crap mate, it's a lot easier than a turbo charged piston engine. We only had these ridiculous limitations imposed on us(20000hrs on type and 5 lunar landings to fly a Gonad,Twotter or Bandit etc) so that the privileged few who flew them could protect their own turf, and a healthy amount of hero worship or adulation from the rank and file.

[The Green Goblin]

Current airline training methods are governed by antiquated regulations that do not reflect the advances in either aircraft design or aircraft reliability and this is what needs to be addressed.

They still fly the same way, they still fly the same speeds, they still have the same systems and they still buy the farm when you completely cock it all up.

This aircraft design, reliability mantra is poisonous group think from airline managements trying to deskill the job, reduce the terms and conditions for doing it and trying to cut down the tall poppy.

Remember many of these airline managers wanted to be pilots themselves (Alan Joyce) but didn't quite make it.

The only thing different about modern airliners is they present the same information in a more 'intuitive' way. However, there are more gotchas, more subtle flaws and more ways to bury information than ever before. Personally I felt more comfortable and had a better overview of the operation in a metro, than I do in a glass cockpit equipped airliner.

I'd say a competent, well trained, experienced pilot was safer flying a steam driven traditional cockpit than a modern automation reliant pilot in a glass cockpit.

That is why we are seeing handling accidents increase. The airline managers dream came true and their Pilots have become compliant and deskilled.

[Wally Mk2]

To some extent 'norm' you would be right (I don't accept the hero bit though) with ref to ease of operation between piston & turbine but to over torque a turbine donk & ruin it was far more expensive than any piston engine damage so hence the greater experience req'd was the level of the bar of the day for that alone & to some degree insurances req's also. Now whether that's all right or wrong is a personal belief.
My 'ideal' hrs as I mentioned for types was what was generally also the norm years ago,remember I didn't make those rules I just happen to see the merits in them now more than way back then when I bowed to a pilot who had a 1500 hrs & flying a beat up old Aztruck, they where my hero's!!:)


Wmk2

[The Green Goblin]

Don't forget norm a turbine equipped machine is generally faster, carries more punters and is more complex in its systems.

Whilst never having flown a bandit, twotter or gonad they all are slow and docile machines.

However, they carry more than 10 punters, weigh more than 3500 kg, are all weather aircraft and they generally operate in remote areas with arduous conditions (regional Australia, tropics, png highlands etc etc).

I'd want someone with more than 2000 hours at the controls who had a few tricks in his nav bag too.

[4dogs]

The Green Goblin succinctly states the crux of today's and tomorrow's problem:

They still fly the same way, they still fly the same speeds, they still have the same systems and they still buy the farm when you completely cock it all up.

This aircraft design, reliability mantra is poisonous group think from airline managements trying to deskill the job, reduce the terms and conditions for doing it and trying to cut down the tall poppy. (my emphasis added)
Hear, bluddy hear!!!!! :D :D :D

Stay Alive,

[ZFT]

The Green Goblin

..and you still perform your V1 Engine cuts in the sim every 6 months and all the other recurrent checks that you’ve repeatedly been tested on since God knows when and yet engine reliabilities are unbelievable high today. Yet for example LOC whilst fortunately still a rare event is nevertheless more deadly than your V1 Engine failures.

I would suggest that the above is due to aircraft design and reliability whether directly by improvements in technology as with engine design or as a possible unfortunate result of the over reliance on automation/lack of manual flying as with LOC.

Irrespective, current regulations and airline training methods do not address these issues adequately to ensure the pilot is competent and well trained for all eventualities, not just those currently regulated. This will/should mean a different emphasis of recurrent training and probably more of it.

[Centaurus]

but probably the best way to learn, no sims, just a daily grind, sitting beside a bloke who if he felt so inclined would hurl a manual at you if you annoyed him enough

and you cannot beat good training.

Yeah right. Good training for what? Ducking for cover to avoid manuals? And you yearn for the good old days.:confused:

[scrubba]

..and you still perform your V1 Engine cuts in the sim every 6 months and all the other recurrent checks that you’ve repeatedly been tested on since God knows when and yet engine reliabilities are unbelievable high today. Yet for example LOC whilst fortunately still a rare event is nevertheless more deadly than your V1 Engine failures.

If you break down the elements of knowledge, skills and behaviours inherent in your "V1 cuts" (better performed IMC just off the ground!) and forget about what is causing the roll, yaw, deceleration etc, you are practising one form of LOC training, Those KSBs are easily extended to higher altitude cases where the initiating event can be a variety of things.

It is about knowing attitudes, thrust settings, trim positions, escape routes, limitations and consequences, while understanding control harmony and the benefits of smoothness, accuracy, confidence, self-control, discipline, coordination, leadership, etc. You may well do a lot for yourself if you stop thinking of these things as box-ticking and instead consider them as foundations to become a pilot rather than than an automation puppet.

[The Green Goblin]

Hear hear scrubba, I was just about to say a similar thing myself, but deleted it as you can never win arguing with an idiot. You lower yourself to their level and they beat you with experience :D

[4dogs]

GG,

Absolutely loved it :D :D :D

I guess the alternative view is that such a post is not designed to solve the "don't know what they don't know" problem, but rather is a prompt for the "know what they don't know" folks to think about something a little differently. :cool: :cool:

I believe that there is immense value in the debate as well as in the preferred answer.

Stay Alive,

[teresa green]

Centurus, grow up. These blokes were SURVIVERS of Bomber Command, many suffered war Neurosis, they had problems returning to normal life, they were often only in their late twenties, but has simply seen to much. They were resentful, angry, and had short fuses. You were a pimple faced idiot who had never seen combat, and they were expected to train you. Different era Centurus, different training methods, different attitude. A flying manual went with the time, now it would get you a interview with Slater and Gordon, and as you have trouble with good training, I will break it down for you. Training on type, ok? Not real hard is it. Let me guess, Y generation, Right?

[Roaring Forties]

Once again I read a thread where comments are posted indicating a lack of knowledge and commonsense of modern civl aviation practice.

A few Questions/comments -
- where will the spotty faced kids get these 1000-1500hrs ?
- there are not enough T Props or piston twins for all to gain their individual
1000-1500hrs.
- will the 1000-1500hrs be acceptable if gained in in a Level 5/D SIM ?
- MILITARY pilots do not require 1000-1500hrs before they are 'operational'
- My experience is that operational military flying is far more demanding
than anything I have ever experienced in civil flying
- MANY F/Os today are better prepared for the job than the crusty old Capts
when they were F/Os
- I think its called CRM?

Ciao:bored:

[mcgrath50]

Forties,

It depends where you are. In Australia, it's relatively easy to build time in GA, in fact even today it's still the norm to get your first airline gig with 1500+ hours. From what I have heard that may not be so easy in the US but I can't really comment as I haven't worked there.

The old military chestnut is raised again. Yes, military pilots (generally) can be asked to fly much more demanding missions than civilian pilots. Yes, they can be sent to war with 500 hours in a Super Hornet. Quite simply, their training is different. There is very little room for taking longer than the what the syllabus says, you progress at their pace, which is quite fast, or you don't progress. The guys who make it through are a small percentage of the pilot population. A section of the group who are a very specific type of person, with a very specific skill set. Civilian training is different, it produces a different type of pilot, who needs different restrictions on their flying.

[TheWholeEnchilada]

Roaring Forties, I covered that in post #13 (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/478561-faa-mininum-hours-sullenberger.html#post7055136) in this thread.

Two completely different sphere's. Governments can simply tax citizens directly & indirectly (taxation via inflation), in addition to actually spend more than they earn (deficits - the bill handed to citizens not yet born) to pay for this extremely high quality training. Not only that they can force the trainee's to continue to work for them by force (return of service).

Airlines on the other hand cannot use these mechanism to absorb the cost - retention is through large debts to the organisation or regulation (MPL). This is why you are unlikely to see training of anywhere near the military standard in a commercial sphere. Therefore, the only mechanism available to regulators is some arbitrary hour minimum.

[Keg]

Of course lets also not forget that the military has a far more stringent oversight, feedback and development structure than do the airlines. Quite simply, the military put more into their 500 hours so it's no surprise that hour for hour, they get more out of it. :ugh:

[porch monkey]

Teresa, your couldn't be further from the truth with your "y" gen jibe mate.

[j3pipercub]

IIRC, Centaurus wrote on here about his adventures in a Sea Fury and Mustang whilst being co-pilot on a Lincoln? They were awesome stories too!

j3

[teresa green]

Well Porch, if Piper is right, he should know better.

[HF3000]

Military pilots do not have the same safety record as jet airline pilots in this country. They also do not tend to be regarded as "the best" by their peers in jet airlines in this country. Just because they are allowed to captain a hornet at 500 hours doesn't mean a kid out of GA should be allowed to even copilot a jet airliner at 500 hours. The relevance is zero.

[Kharon]

Have not the academic horsepower to argue about the more esoteric aspects of training pilots for the modern age, additionally I've flown with some bloody good lads with only a handful (less than a normal years work) of hours and like most, some clunkers with thousands and thousands.

I just wish there was a way to 'season' junior pilots, before they get involved with anything 'heavy'; not hours in the saddle, but miles on the horse (so to speak). A short season in the 'wet', a short season in the icy southern skies, perhaps a lash at a turbine or two. Couple of the more 'weird' failures, a nasty night in heavy old slug, few big crosswinds etc. etc. Just enough to help loose their immortality but not kill or maim em.

Idyllic I know, but for mine – invaluable experience versus hours in a book is trumps.

AUD $00,20.

Grabs tin hat, stubby and departs; fast type. :D