FAA Mininum hours Sullenberger
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't see how a blanket 1500 hour requirement addresses these issues.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Beech or the Office.
Age: 14
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Green Goblin has nailed it
The Green Goblin succinctly states the crux of today's and tomorrow's problem:
Hear, bluddy hear!!!!! 
Stay Alive,
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)
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)
Stay Alive,
N4790P
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.
..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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZFT - I think you have the disease
..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.
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.
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
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
beat you with experience
GG,
Absolutely loved it
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.
I believe that there is immense value in the debate as well as in the preferred answer.
Stay Alive,
Absolutely loved it
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.
I believe that there is immense value in the debate as well as in the preferred answer.
Stay Alive,
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Antartica
Age: 44
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
REALITY
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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sector 7G
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roaring Forties, I covered that in post #13 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.
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.
Nunc est bibendum
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. 
