Pure BS. I used to have buddies who were constantly bumping up against the 1400hr/ year limitation flying sleds out of Bethel, Nome, wherever. You can do it in 2 years without breaking a sweat. Building time from whatever you took to get your ratings to ATP minimums simply isn't the time consuming task you're making it out to be.

Again, it is the perception. A youngster sees 1000 hours of more time needed to meet the requirements for a job in the Regionals (minimum legal was 500). When s/he is looking at a career this is a big hurdle.

Based on what is actually happening with flight training and with the shortage of pilots as shown by the efforts that the Regionals are presently making to attract qualified pilots to fill the many vacancies, too many young people are turning away from aviation as a career.

Many pilots are simply not qualified or willing to move out of the Sleds anyway. They are quite happy to be home every night and they are not ambitious for moving into airline work. Many pilots do not even want that much and fly for the love of flight or convenience. We need thousands of private pilots to support hundreds of commercial pilots and hundreds of commercial pilots to support a few ATPs. If the base is weak so too will be the peak of the pyramid.

If there were plenty of qualified pilots looking for work, as was the case for a long time and is a sign of a healthy industry, the Regionals (and Part 135) would not be hurting.

I am sure you are right that it was perfectly doable 5 years ago, before the new FAA rule, but you have to admit that if the old rule was still in effect, all the Regionals would have to do is take pilots with 800 hours or 500 hours. Then there would be no shortage.

It is simple mathematics, simple logic but for some reason you and your buddies already in the system do not accept it.

Boofhead there are plenty of GA flying jobs that pay as well or better than some airline gigs, e.g. Firefighting pilots on 802's etc on $750/day plus $500/flight hour just as one example. No real shortage of guys to fill these contracts.

Sounds like you're business model hasn't kept up with the times rather than the 1500 hour ATP rule.

To be fair, SEAT jobs aren't an entry level position.

True but my point is GA isn't dead as boofhead suggests.

In reality the 1500 hour rule is keeping junior pilots in entry level jobs longer than previous.

Plenty of guys that were in my Indoc class at a regional under the new ATP rules flew survey, charter, freight etc as well as instructing. Obviously the news rules kept them in the seat maybe 12 months or so longer than prior to the new ATP rules.

True, and in the 1980's, when you needed 2000-3000 hours to get on with a commuter, pilots were in entry level jobs even longer, yet there were plenty of people getting their ratings. The flow of brand new pilots has slowed up, but it isn't because of the 1500 rule, that slow down started before the 1500 rule.

I suspect that if we were able to identify the reason for that, we'd find that the reason is that being a pilot has become a less desirable career. There's various factors why it's become a less desirable career, but that's the general perception. Sometime in the last few years, Barry Schiff said he would no longer recommend a career in aviation to young people. Coming from a guy who spent his life completely infatuated with aviation, including a long career at TWA (retired before it folded) that's a powerful commentary.

Anyway, my point is that there has been in my lifetime, much stronger barriers to an airline job, yet lots of people were stepping up to the challenge. If that's changed, it's not because of a requirement for 1500 hours. That's just not that big a barrier, compared to other decades.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

I just think that there's more interesting jobs out there these days so younger folks have more of a choice of what they want to do with their life. I don't think the 1500 hour rule makes one iota of difference.

I also think this is pretty much spot-on. The 1500 hour had/has an effect on the pipeline, but it is not the 'imminent death of US aviation'. It's a part of the puzzle, but not the key part.

What I do agree with the OP on(I think anyway) is that they type of flying has not prepared some candidates for the challenges of flying in the wilderness. I've ridden with a few younger pilots recently who were great at following a magenta line, and never deviated 100' from assigned altitude, but their stick skills in making the plane do as they command were pretty lacking. As I'm not a CFI, I can only explain to someone that excess kinetic energy on a 8000' paved runway isn't the same at all as excess energy on 1800' gravel, with a 16kt xwind and near gross weight. Moving the controls, and managing a flight are fine for people with 800-1200 hours, but I want to know if those hours were spent droning along with the A/P in capture while they monitor the progress and weather. I would rather have someone with 400 hours of TW/rotorcraft in back country or pipeline than 1500 hours pushing a King air from DAL > ABQ > LAS > PHX 8 times a month. Qualitatively quite different, but the feds only see the quantity. Mistake.

In the May issue of Air Line Pilot magazine (page 18), there's a chart of FAA ATP-ME licenses issued from July, 2013, through 2016: 25977 including 4180 r-ATPs (16%).

[My computer skills are apparently not up to grabbing the chart and posting it here.]

While not addressing the issue of new license starts, it's still part of the puzzle. I'd like to know how many foreign nationals who left for home post-licensing are part of that 25977. My guess is not as many who got a CL/IR/ME and then left.

Why do the FAA persist with this arbitrary and meaningless 1500 hr figure?
Here in UK for many years we have, and still take, properly selected and professionally trained pilots with 250 approx hours, straight from major flying colleges and place them in the RHS of a jet or turbo prop airliner B737/A320, DHC -400 for example, and in past years B757 and Trident. (British Airways as an example)
After the Type Rating they carry out approx 50 sectors under supervision with a Training captain. When released to the Line they are then rostered for the first six months or so with experienced line Capts.
We don't operate the Second Officer/Cruise pilot scenario , all are trained as P2 on two crew aircraft. Virgin Atlantic have a training scheme now, direct onto the A330 with appropriate route training.
Many of these pilots have now retired as Captains with many major airlines with no safety issues.
Its not the hours that count but strict initial aptitude selection and proper training.

Sigh..... couldn't be bothered to actually read the thread where this question has been answered repeatedly, could you ?

OK, One more time;

In the wake of the crash of a Dash-8 in 2009, the US congress passed a law which requires all airline pilots to hold an ATP certificate. More precisely, the Law required the FAA to enact a regulation requiring it, but same end result. It wasn't the FAA's idea, and whether you or I or the FAA thinks it's a good idea or a bad idea is irrelevant; Congress has decreed that it shall be so.

As far as arbitrary and meaningless, perhaps, and as has been pointed out it wouldn't have prevented the Colgan accident, because both pilots had more than ATP minimums. Congressmen are politicians and sometimes politicians operating outside their area of expertise pass laws which don't make a lot of sense ... but that's where we are.

Well, in theory, the FAA can reduce the 1,500 requirement if they want to, e.g., by substituting "equivalent" training. Say, take this new FAA-blessed course (let's call it MCC) from an accredited provider and you're welcome to join right seat at 750 hrs. Etc. However, right now they have zero incentive to do so.

pk4,

They must be kicking it around though:

http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjourna...ing-lower.html

A year ago, my previous employer admitted in a company flt ops website post that they, along with ALPA, co-chair the ATP working group of the FAA Aviation Rule Making Committee exploring the r-ATP criteria. My personal feeling is that if they're actually going to change anything re r-ATP criteria, it'll apply only to military pilots...not civilians.

I think young people have changed. They have a sense of entitlement, mom and dad buy them a $700 iphone. Do you think they would work waiting tables at a diner to earn the money for that phone or flight lessons? However, there are hard-working young people but I think the majority take the easy way out.

Only snag with that argument is that outside the US, a US degree is simply viewed as the medal for just turning up for class/lectures.
I worked for a national European airline. Having a degree (which I had, in a totally unrelated field) was not a prerequisite. There were a couple of US pilots there who qualified usually by marriage or such like due residency rules.
However most could hardly write coherently despite the 'degree'. They could fly well as anyone else though.

This degree debate is a bit off thread but for my part I've always considered that the requirement to have a degree is simply a way for the US majors to filter applicants. In the US the degree needn't have any relevance whatever to aviation but does indicate that the applicant has demonstrated a certain level of intellect and is therefore less likely to fail academically.
The UK airlines adopt a less stringent approach knowing that the UK CAA implements a very much tougher ground exam regime for the ATPL than the FAA.

Nah, supply and demand, nothing more. The number of pilots in the US dwarfs anywhere else (both in absolute and relative measures) so US legacy airlines can be more selective.

45989,

That's a bit of a broad statement; the US actually has a rather good post-secondary education system. Getting a degree is a step toward qualifying for better employment and the qualifications demanded aren't defined by the serfs and peasants.

Some degrees are of more value than others in that context. Folks "...outside the US..." can think what they want, I suppose.

This subject has been (and will continue to be) roundly debated with cases to be made on both sides.

But reality here dictates: want to fly for a US legacy carrier that requires a degree ? Better have one cuz the competition will.

More like he can't afford to keep up with the times, and he blames the times for it.

In my opinion the "problem" is very simple.

Young people in the US already learnt (in the huge discussion the Colgan Air Accident brought up), that life as a pilot sucks.
Sleeping in offices before the flight because you can not afford a room at your base.
Earning nearly nothing.
Being tired all the time.
etc.
Before that they already read that even the pilots at the majors lost most of their benefits:
- Cutback in wages
- Pensions gone
- etc.

So, the one who is now at the point to think about a career as a pilot, has not heard for the last 16 years a positive thing about being a pilot.

The idiots in europe, who still P2F just take longer to learn:ugh: