Why do we not require 1500 hours for a RHS job ?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: usa
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it was mentioned earlier in the thread but I'll repeat it...
Having a minimum of 1500hrs is a benefit to the industry due to the simple fact that 1500hr pilots will be a lot less willing to work for crap wages, vs 200hr noobs that just want a foot on the door and will whore themselves out.
As a result, when you hear the words "pilot shortage" here in the US, management will tearfully tell you it's due to the "ridiculous" 1500hr minimum. But the truth is that the shortage is due to less and less pilots willing to work for the crap wages those airlines start them at: A quick search will reveal that the US has thousands of ATP-qualified 1500hr pilots that are not working for airlines, so there is no shortage of them. They simply do not want to put up with the low starting wages.
As far as experience? I agree with the statement that hours do not necessarily equate to better performance... If those 1500hrs are all done flying C152s vs someone else flying night freight in a beat up twin, there's a huge difference. But overall, my opinion is that the 1500hr minimum serves as a decent experience "net" that gives us a good percentage of experience in the right seat...while not all 1500hr pilots will have 1500 quality hours, most will. (at least here in the US due to lots of different time building options.)
I have always had reservations about the MPL and low time cadets in the right seat...that's just me, maybe I'm old fashioned and believe 200hr cadets have no business piloting an airliner, but I'm a firm believer that airliner duty comes only after one pays their dues with experience and getting the crap scared out of them more than a few times while building time on their own... Transporting passengers in airliners is the pinnacle of the profession and should only come after a thorough seasoning. IMHO
Having a minimum of 1500hrs is a benefit to the industry due to the simple fact that 1500hr pilots will be a lot less willing to work for crap wages, vs 200hr noobs that just want a foot on the door and will whore themselves out.
As a result, when you hear the words "pilot shortage" here in the US, management will tearfully tell you it's due to the "ridiculous" 1500hr minimum. But the truth is that the shortage is due to less and less pilots willing to work for the crap wages those airlines start them at: A quick search will reveal that the US has thousands of ATP-qualified 1500hr pilots that are not working for airlines, so there is no shortage of them. They simply do not want to put up with the low starting wages.
As far as experience? I agree with the statement that hours do not necessarily equate to better performance... If those 1500hrs are all done flying C152s vs someone else flying night freight in a beat up twin, there's a huge difference. But overall, my opinion is that the 1500hr minimum serves as a decent experience "net" that gives us a good percentage of experience in the right seat...while not all 1500hr pilots will have 1500 quality hours, most will. (at least here in the US due to lots of different time building options.)
I have always had reservations about the MPL and low time cadets in the right seat...that's just me, maybe I'm old fashioned and believe 200hr cadets have no business piloting an airliner, but I'm a firm believer that airliner duty comes only after one pays their dues with experience and getting the crap scared out of them more than a few times while building time on their own... Transporting passengers in airliners is the pinnacle of the profession and should only come after a thorough seasoning. IMHO
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nail on the head aa73.
There is no shortage of pilots in the US, there is only a shortage of ATP's willing to sit RHS in an rotten Brasilia earning $18K a year. Interestingly, since the new ATP training rules in August got implemented, not a single US ATP program has started, not a single ATP has been certified having gone through the new programs. So, sooner or later these bottom feeding commuter airlines are either going to have to pay up, or shut down.
Any business that relies on slave wages and over supply as a business model, doesn't deserve to survive. Good riddance.
There is no shortage of pilots in the US, there is only a shortage of ATP's willing to sit RHS in an rotten Brasilia earning $18K a year. Interestingly, since the new ATP training rules in August got implemented, not a single US ATP program has started, not a single ATP has been certified having gone through the new programs. So, sooner or later these bottom feeding commuter airlines are either going to have to pay up, or shut down.
Any business that relies on slave wages and over supply as a business model, doesn't deserve to survive. Good riddance.
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 11th Nov 2014 at 14:09.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curious that one answer to what ever problems happen to be flavour of the month is to insist on more hours in RHS of large a/c. Then why has the EU CPL syllabus been reduced from, in my day 250hrs, to the current 148? That's 40% less aviating, less scaring yourself getting lost of nav ex's, less cross wind landings, less single pilot IFR training, less handling, less decision making less..less..
Why, if the answer now seems to be more, have the authorities allowed less at the very foundation phase? Is that too simplistic? I think not.
I still think there has been a risk assessment process whereby the authorities, in cahoots with the airlines, have decided that the rise in reliability of ATC, airfield systems = more ILS & radar, a/c technology, robust SOP's etc. will allow 150hr cadets in RHS. Those airlines that choose this 'cheap route' to training its pilots, generally have such an intense flying roster that after 1 year the cadets have been blooded enough, and survived, and hopefully learnt enough. (yet still there is a 30% CU failure rate). The other airlines, with more extensive in-house training, can tailor their crews to fit their own model and feed them in gently.
Part of this risk assessment process did not allow for total cockpit experience levels. Yes there are restrictions on F/O's <500hrs being teamed with low hour captains. However, with captains at 3000hrs I would consider them low houred until, perhaps 1000hrs LHS. That would be 18 months, commonly.
What restriction does your airline employ? If the raw cadet is going to embark on a steep learning curve it should be only with sufficient experience in LHS that they can be mentored and learn as an apprentice. Just think about apprenticeship schemes in other industries; they sure don't put them with some newbie. Blind leading the blind is not ideal in this world.
Why, if the answer now seems to be more, have the authorities allowed less at the very foundation phase? Is that too simplistic? I think not.
I still think there has been a risk assessment process whereby the authorities, in cahoots with the airlines, have decided that the rise in reliability of ATC, airfield systems = more ILS & radar, a/c technology, robust SOP's etc. will allow 150hr cadets in RHS. Those airlines that choose this 'cheap route' to training its pilots, generally have such an intense flying roster that after 1 year the cadets have been blooded enough, and survived, and hopefully learnt enough. (yet still there is a 30% CU failure rate). The other airlines, with more extensive in-house training, can tailor their crews to fit their own model and feed them in gently.
Part of this risk assessment process did not allow for total cockpit experience levels. Yes there are restrictions on F/O's <500hrs being teamed with low hour captains. However, with captains at 3000hrs I would consider them low houred until, perhaps 1000hrs LHS. That would be 18 months, commonly.
What restriction does your airline employ? If the raw cadet is going to embark on a steep learning curve it should be only with sufficient experience in LHS that they can be mentored and learn as an apprentice. Just think about apprenticeship schemes in other industries; they sure don't put them with some newbie. Blind leading the blind is not ideal in this world.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: my cockpit
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Why do we not require ?" ????
Simply because you and all european pilots and unions have not deemed interesting to fight for such a clause or others. And even if european unions were appealed to unleash a battle in favor of it, most pilots, wimps as they are, would twist and turn their mental posture in order to justify their refusal to follow up on the unions' action.
The pilots' population has turned into some sort of helpless squid ready to be globbled down by the last little shark who, they feel, will let them get their poor little hands on a jet. That's why you all need to prepare to pay a high price for your coardice. Get ready to get poorer and poorer. Just for the sake of avoiding the fight. Good thing we're not talking about actual war, you'd be laying down your weapons prior to any declaration of war.
Sorry for being so abrupt but that's all this population is about. And that's what has made me quit this profession. I'm so much happier now and sorry for all those little bums fighting for a banana peel.
Good luck. That's about all you can rely on from now. And a strong health, I forgot...
Simply because you and all european pilots and unions have not deemed interesting to fight for such a clause or others. And even if european unions were appealed to unleash a battle in favor of it, most pilots, wimps as they are, would twist and turn their mental posture in order to justify their refusal to follow up on the unions' action.
The pilots' population has turned into some sort of helpless squid ready to be globbled down by the last little shark who, they feel, will let them get their poor little hands on a jet. That's why you all need to prepare to pay a high price for your coardice. Get ready to get poorer and poorer. Just for the sake of avoiding the fight. Good thing we're not talking about actual war, you'd be laying down your weapons prior to any declaration of war.
Sorry for being so abrupt but that's all this population is about. And that's what has made me quit this profession. I'm so much happier now and sorry for all those little bums fighting for a banana peel.
Good luck. That's about all you can rely on from now. And a strong health, I forgot...
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As i said above, the strength of a pilot group has nothing to do with the employ of cadets or only so called experienced pilots. It has a lot more to do with the ability to stand their ground and do that together.
In my outfit, where we do hire only our homegrown MPL cadets for the last few years, it was mainly the FOs who carried the unionization and had the strength to force the company to accept much better T&Cs, including a strong scope clause. Despite the extremely bad economical situation of the company in question we managed to raise salaries by yearly double digit percentages, simply because our pilots had the strength to stand their ground against our management. Not to mention the likes of Lufthansa of course, who hire mainly cadets (MPL since it was approved in germany) for the last 60+ years and enjoy a pretty good package.
It is not about entry experience, it is much more about state of mind. And running away usually doesn't help in the fight.
In my outfit, where we do hire only our homegrown MPL cadets for the last few years, it was mainly the FOs who carried the unionization and had the strength to force the company to accept much better T&Cs, including a strong scope clause. Despite the extremely bad economical situation of the company in question we managed to raise salaries by yearly double digit percentages, simply because our pilots had the strength to stand their ground against our management. Not to mention the likes of Lufthansa of course, who hire mainly cadets (MPL since it was approved in germany) for the last 60+ years and enjoy a pretty good package.
It is not about entry experience, it is much more about state of mind. And running away usually doesn't help in the fight.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always had reservations about the MPL and low time cadets in the right seat...that's just me, maybe I'm old fashioned and believe 200hr cadets have no business piloting an airliner, but I'm a firm believer that airliner duty comes only after one pays their dues with experience and getting the crap scared out of them more than a few times while building time on their own... Transporting passengers in airliners is the pinnacle of the profession and should only come after a thorough seasoning. IMHO
Yes & no. I agree that a 2nd officer is an apprentice. I still consider the 1st year salaries for raw cadets are too high. It leads to some unhealthy attitudes and also unhealthy motivations for being there in the 1st place. Ignoring the cost of reaching the RHS, because it is not a level playing file for everyone, I argue that the rewards in 1st year are not yet merited by the experience available. The big bucks will arrive sooner than most other professions. Patience and some humility, hm.
However, to the point above. It can be argued that the safety level of a modern MPA jet, both technically, SOP=wise and the environment of their operations, does allow cadets of suitable quality to be there. If you force them to go via the regional T.P's to hour build then I argue this can be is less safe for the pax. The environment at lower level is much more hazardous; the SOP's might be less in-depth and evolved; the captains can be less experienced and thus less able to teach the new apprentice; perhaps even less capable and rejected by the majors; the a/c have less performance to help you out of the poo; the company less financially secure with all the associated consequences; etc. etc. There are places, both with the equipment and environment, where I consider the experience level up front to be woefully too low and the risk factor way too high. This is a factor of the lower salaries. i.e. low experience = low salaries caused by less pax on small a/c. I once asked an operator of F27 flying London area to Europe why their fares were so much higher than the major from LHR. Reply was 50 pax versus 180. You paid for the journey; simple. The salaries of the pilots was 1/2 of the big jet jockeys. After a few years their experience was very relevant to their environment, but the 1st couple of years had a high learning curve with hopefully no hurtful problems and they all survived. There are places in our world where they are not so lucky on the regionals. I'm amazed at the blind faith of pax who climb aboard these things; even including to the cadet hour builders in the Safari parks of Africa. A 206 full of CEO's piloted by some one they wouldn't hire as their chauffeur. Hm?
Yes & no. I agree that a 2nd officer is an apprentice. I still consider the 1st year salaries for raw cadets are too high. It leads to some unhealthy attitudes and also unhealthy motivations for being there in the 1st place. Ignoring the cost of reaching the RHS, because it is not a level playing file for everyone, I argue that the rewards in 1st year are not yet merited by the experience available. The big bucks will arrive sooner than most other professions. Patience and some humility, hm.
However, to the point above. It can be argued that the safety level of a modern MPA jet, both technically, SOP=wise and the environment of their operations, does allow cadets of suitable quality to be there. If you force them to go via the regional T.P's to hour build then I argue this can be is less safe for the pax. The environment at lower level is much more hazardous; the SOP's might be less in-depth and evolved; the captains can be less experienced and thus less able to teach the new apprentice; perhaps even less capable and rejected by the majors; the a/c have less performance to help you out of the poo; the company less financially secure with all the associated consequences; etc. etc. There are places, both with the equipment and environment, where I consider the experience level up front to be woefully too low and the risk factor way too high. This is a factor of the lower salaries. i.e. low experience = low salaries caused by less pax on small a/c. I once asked an operator of F27 flying London area to Europe why their fares were so much higher than the major from LHR. Reply was 50 pax versus 180. You paid for the journey; simple. The salaries of the pilots was 1/2 of the big jet jockeys. After a few years their experience was very relevant to their environment, but the 1st couple of years had a high learning curve with hopefully no hurtful problems and they all survived. There are places in our world where they are not so lucky on the regionals. I'm amazed at the blind faith of pax who climb aboard these things; even including to the cadet hour builders in the Safari parks of Africa. A 206 full of CEO's piloted by some one they wouldn't hire as their chauffeur. Hm?
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Belgium
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So let me take the bait: Colgan Air crashed because the captain ( with 3379 hours) and the first officer (with 2244 hours) completely mishandled the flight. Reason in the NTSB report
Unfortunately the families and congress are not good at reading and think more is better so instead of pushing improvements in training through they want more hours
Let me ask you the following: when you want a heart surgeon operating on you do you want
A) a doctor who has trained to be specifically a heart surgeon at a great medical university who has done 25 operations
B) a doctor who has just made it through his training at a local medical school that is ok but just that and has done 100s of operations making stitches on people who fell down etc
That is the problem with 1500 hours: IT IS ALL ABOUT THE QUALITY OF TRAINING not the number of hours!! I have flown with 20.000 hour guys who where crap
- Fatigue: Long commute, short sleep, long days work
- Captain (repeatedly!!) difficulty passing check rides
- a failure to follow rules barring nonwork conversations in the cockpit
- inadequate training for emergencies specially stalls
- Oh and the FO felt sick on the day of the flight but felt since she had travelled so far already
Unfortunately the families and congress are not good at reading and think more is better so instead of pushing improvements in training through they want more hours
Let me ask you the following: when you want a heart surgeon operating on you do you want
A) a doctor who has trained to be specifically a heart surgeon at a great medical university who has done 25 operations
B) a doctor who has just made it through his training at a local medical school that is ok but just that and has done 100s of operations making stitches on people who fell down etc
That is the problem with 1500 hours: IT IS ALL ABOUT THE QUALITY OF TRAINING not the number of hours!! I have flown with 20.000 hour guys who where crap
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SV Marie Celeste
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And yet the 20000 hour guys where even worse when they had 200 hours and the brilliant 200 hour guys will be even better when they have 10000.
The choice here is not between brilliant low hour guys and terrible high hour guys. The choice is between a cross section of abilities with 200 hours or 1500 hours. At all abilities pilots will be much better when they have gained some experience. Full stop. I have over 10000 hours and yet every day I still learn something and therefore every day I am a little better. To deny that is just arrogance, understandable on the young but unforgivable on a regulator.
The choice here is not between brilliant low hour guys and terrible high hour guys. The choice is between a cross section of abilities with 200 hours or 1500 hours. At all abilities pilots will be much better when they have gained some experience. Full stop. I have over 10000 hours and yet every day I still learn something and therefore every day I am a little better. To deny that is just arrogance, understandable on the young but unforgivable on a regulator.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read the KOS report and one line in blew me away. When on the line flying his IOE flights the Co -Pilot had to be cautioned to look up and not continue to fly the Flight Director bars below 200 feet AGL. 
I don't think you will ever see a similar observation for someone with 1500 hrs who is starting his IOE.
This is what you get with straight out of the Sim Children of the Magenta
I don't think you will ever see a similar observation for someone with 1500 hrs who is starting his IOE.
This is what you get with straight out of the Sim Children of the Magenta
And yet, apparently an american pilot with probably far more than 1500hrs did this yesterday in his Line Training... hundreds of low hour pilots have been trained on exactly this type without these consequences.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Up there
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing is: European aviation is different to American aviation. I wouldn't have minded (in fact: would have liked) to start my career on small Bizjet like a Citation, or doing Medevac, FI etc - BUT these hours are logged for nothing over here, as nearly every airline wants time on at least MTOW >10t. So going the bizjet/medevac route, you're basically stuck in this sector (happened to a friend of mine). FI? Well, nice to have, but is nearly useless for getting an airline job for the same reasons.
Therefor basically the only chance you have, is joining an airline right out of flightschool, which is, imho, not a good way to do it.
One reason why I love NPAs - "Disconnecting, recycle FDs please..." 
Therefor basically the only chance you have, is joining an airline right out of flightschool, which is, imho, not a good way to do it.
Last edited by flyfan; 16th Jun 2019 at 15:55.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Amantido
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate the F/D. Unless I strictly need them (low ceiling, strong crosswind or gusts) or at night with some approach lights inop I fly raw data. And when I leave it on, I still tend to fly through them...
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: australia
Age: 81
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that having people do extended time in GA etc has one main effect....it allows the pilot to know what scared is and hopeful he becomes a more aware pilot because of this.
Studies seem to show that low hour cadets when tested fit within the range of acceptible standard though probably at the lower end. A bad pilot is still an unsafe pilot whether he has 20000 hours. A supervised SO with low hours is probably still safer.\ than him.
Studies seem to show that low hour cadets when tested fit within the range of acceptible standard though probably at the lower end. A bad pilot is still an unsafe pilot whether he has 20000 hours. A supervised SO with low hours is probably still safer.\ than him.
European aviation is different to American aviation. I wouldn't have minded to start my career on small Bizjet like a Citation, or doing Medevac, BUT these hours are logged for nothing over here, as nearly every airline wants time on at least MTOW >10t. So going the bizjet/medevac route, you're basically stuck in this sector.
I am not particularly interested in "debating" which system produces better pilots (it's one of those subjects not worth debating since people are inclined to defend what they already think) but do try to understand them without too much judgement. How does one explain a system of pilot supply/demand that devalues experience like "bizjet/medevac route" ? Many biz jets are very sophisticated machines providing quite relevant, valuable experience to an airline environment.
Last edited by bafanguy; 16th Jun 2019 at 20:40.