Congress wants ATP & 1,500 hours for Regional Pilots
 

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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

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...

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

In what ways were they of a higher calibre?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

C-P

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

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:

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."

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

What is a "real airline pilot rating?"

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.

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.