FAA Mininum hours Sullenberger
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Za farzer land
Age: 53
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA Mininum hours Sullenberger
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
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.
BB take heed!
FAA proposes new rules for co-pilots - CBS News Video
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.
Last edited by Fruet Mich; 28th Feb 2012 at 19:00. Reason: Spelling edit
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
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
Last edited by Wally Mk2; 28th Feb 2012 at 21:38.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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!!
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
More to Follow
The Kelpie
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.
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.
Last edited by Roller Merlin; 29th Feb 2012 at 01:56.
N4790P
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good blog from Ben Sandilands on this subject:US FAA proposes 1500 hours flight experience for jet pilots | Plane Talking
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sector 7G
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
high training standards
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I can't see how a blanket 1500 hour requirement addresses these issues.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.