|
Originally Posted by Intrance
(Post 10647436)
The problem here would be that in most of Europe, there isn't a GA scene or market for pilots to build up to those 1500hrs. And besides that, you always have to remember that experience does not equal safety. I've flown with enough experienced idiots and inexperienced good pilots to say that that holds up. In my opinion, that 1500hr limit is mostly just an arbitrary hoop to jump through, and the focus should be more on filtering out the idiots during training by regulating flight schools in better ways and simply banning pay to fly programs in any form. That would benefit everyone; less pilots get dumped into the job market, average quality of pilots goes up.
I've flown with FO's fresh out of flight school on their first job who have been absolutely awesome and would be a welcome addition in any airline, but who would run into an arbitrary wall if there were to be a 1500hr rule over here as well. Good aptitude, attitude and training make for good pilots. Flown with former pay to fly guys who couldn't, spoiled ab initios who's daddys were senior captains and think they have it sorted from day 1 as there are slowing to 180kts and calling for flaps at 25nm or idiots who won't get off their phones to do some work. Also flew with some excellent newbies, some of which had had to struggle up from non traditional backgrounds and who got there through hard work, determination and a love of flying. Takes all sorts but I know who I respect. |
Just a quick question, if there would be a rule change requiring 1500 hrs before flying the "big jets", what would be a big jet what would they fly before that? Good luck finding a job where you fly something other than a jet in Europe (or Asia/Middle East for that matter) and would that not just move the problem by obliterating the T&C at the rather rare job opportunities where they fly something other than a "big jet"?
Good selection and training is where good pilots are found and formed, not on GA fields with a banner on their ass. (which does not say they can't be good pilots, just that it does not solely determine it). |
I have flown out of the EU with European cadets and their skills and attitude sucks big time (go ahead and bash me, it is the honest truth). The worst of this is that they are not even aware of it. They think it is the usual in a cockpit not to follow the chain of command, argue for the sake of it, bend the SOP's, follow "what this Captain told me" instead of reading the manual, etc. It is not really their fault since they have been led to believe that it is how things are done. For them, I am the dinosaur. I mean, I have also flown with American and Australian pilots who had lots of hours but were pretty useless. Nationality has very little to do with it. When the market went upwards again, the good ones went to decent companies in the EU or US and the bad ones stayed or went to the second tier companies. |
I can't wait to reach 1500 hours, I will become an ace overnight.
|
There is shortage of flight instructor. Many schools are hiring. That is the normal path. Being a flight instructor builds an excellent background. You learn a lot about yourself and how to deal with others.
The very few good pilots I had the chance to fly with had a background in flight instructing or banner towing. I regularly fly with dudes that cannot coordinate feet hands and brain and with 1000+ hours on type are unable to tame a 10 kts crosswind. Not everybody can be a pilot.. Daddy's mmeu cannot buy everything. |
Originally Posted by Banana Joe
(Post 10647599)
I can't wait to reach 1500 hours, I will become an ace overnight.
|
Historically, I believe the way to what was a BCPL plus ATPL Theory was either 700 hours of flying time, or 200 hours on an "approved course". The approved courses were generally of the integrated variety and funded largely by airlines, which only funded trainees when they anticipated that they would need pilots. When there was a downturn and airlines went out of business or pilots on the approved courses were not hired by the airline that had sponsored them due to the economic situation, there were some surpluses but there wasn't the permanent surplus situation of today. Banks, to the best of my knowledge, were much more cautious about lending, so gambling a house on flight training wasn't the option it is today.
Personally, I think if pilots were only allowed to sit the ATPL exams after passing an aptitude test (with only a limited numbers of attempts allowed, or at least a few years between attempts), that would thin out the numbers considerably. However, it would have to be a Europe-wide thing, otherwise airlines would use regulatory/labour arbitrage to get around it. I'm surprised BALPA didn't kick up a large fuss when the 700 hour rule was removed and anyone could enter the market after 200 hours, surely it was obvious that there would be a massive supply of low-houred pilots who would undermine the T&Cs right across the profession? It is, after all, basic supply and demand. |
Originally Posted by Check Airman
(Post 10647486)
Shortly after the ATP rule kicked in here, regional jet salaries increased significantly, as well as the introduction of significant signing bonuses. Part was the increased hiring from major airlines (sucking up the CA’s and senior FO’s), part was the shortage of 250hr guys willing to do anything to fly a jet. Some of them have just become 1500hr guys willing to do anything, but that’s something else. To give you an idea of the size of the increase, at my first airline, the starting salary for a first officer has gone up 127% (that’s not a typo, it’s more than doubled) in 3-4 years. T&C have improved as well. Back when I was there, the management laughed at the idea of paying a FO that much. “We’d love to, but can’t possibly afford it” they said. As of today, they’re still doing business, and say they’re profitable, so I guess they found the money somehow.
|
Originally Posted by porkflyer
(Post 10647668)
1500 on autopilot will never make you a pilot my friend .
.. This is what the difference is between 250-1500hr guys.. Handflying skills, visual approaches and landings in conditions other than good, as an example.. ..The 250hr pilots usually know the procedures and the autopilot quite well, but just cannot handle the above..(Nothing against the low time guys, we have all been there)..This is a fact, things I have seen during my 30yrs in Aviation..There is a difference.. Fly safe, B-757 |
Originally Posted by B-757
(Post 10647694)
..Thank you for this comment..
.. This is what the difference is between 250-1500hr guys.. Handflying skills, visual approaches and landings in conditions other than good, as an example.. ..The 250hr pilots usually know the procedures and the autopilot quite well, but just cannot handle the above..(Nothing against the low time guys, we have all been there)..This is a fact, things I have seen during my 30yrs in Aviation..There is a difference.. Fly safe, B-757 |
Originally Posted by marchino61
(Post 10647471)
Isn't disclosure mandatory under the Pilot Records Improvement Act?
|
Wow, i did not expect so many comments. Actually i have nothing against fresh out of school pilots , we've all been there so don't get me wrong. I wrote something about safety but it was purely assumption which is clearly proven to be wrong. My concern is mainly with T&C and European aviation that is definitely going god knows where. Lets assume regulations won't change and low-cost airlines will expand, multiply and mutate(like Lauda) and eventually bigger legacy carries will struggle hard to compete and either go belly up or transform to another low cost airline with a proud name and huge debt. As i pilot i prefer not moving to Asia and rather have a decent life in Europe and get an average salary. People in Europe are relatively rich and can spare us some change on top of the ticket price. Otherwise we all end up senior captains sharing dorm bunks and frozen pizza.
|
Originally Posted by cessnapete
(Post 10647512)
I think you will find lack of airmanship and training did play a part in the Max accidents.
Especially the ET incident. Well before MCAS was active the pilots distracted by the faulty A/A probe causing the Stick Shaker, left full takeoff power set throughout the flight until ground contact. Not good Airmanship. No, I don't work for Boeing. |
Originally Posted by porkflyer
(Post 10647699)
Thank you. I agree 100%. Imagine a scenario of a captain incapacitation in rough weather at night with a 250 hours " pilot" having to bring the plane safely on ground. Few will manage ,from my experience. The risk is unacceptable...and it will happen one day or another.
sort of approach. We are not asking people to lead formations of aircraft at low level into enemy territory! |
Originally Posted by Luray
(Post 10647732)
Wow, i did not expect so many comments. Actually i have nothing against fresh out of school pilots , we've all been there so don't get me wrong. I wrote something about safety but it was purely assumption which is clearly proven to be wrong. My concern is mainly with T&C and European aviation that is definitely going god knows where. Lets assume regulations won't change and low-cost airlines will expand, multiply and mutate(like Lauda) and eventually bigger legacy carries will struggle hard to compete and either go belly up or transform to another low cost airline with a proud name and huge debt. As i pilot i prefer not moving to Asia and rather have a decent life in Europe and get an average salary. People in Europe are relatively rich and can spare us some change on top of the ticket price. Otherwise we all end up senior captains sharing dorm bunks and frozen pizza.
|
Wont be too long before you can get the 1500 hrs on MSFT Flight Sim!
|
Doing 4 sector days flying for a loco will soon get you the experience! I was doing visuals NDBs VORs, winter ops during my time. |
Originally Posted by AIMINGHIGH123
(Post 10647825)
Disagree with the flight instructor route being a good route to airline flying. Had a guy, 8 years as an instructor recently wash out in line training having had 3 chances at final line check. He could handle the aircraft fine but he was shocking (down right dangerous from what I heard) in airline world. I have flown with some good guys who were ex instructors but they have all said they feel they didn’t learn much from it. I went the CFI route, but I know that’s not necessarily the absolute best route. The folks who did the 135 stuff flying in the weather every night in light pistons and turboprops have slightly different competencies and comfort zones than I would have had as a CFI. Others still, got “lucky” and landed a job in a small corporate jet pretty early on. I’d imagine they have the easiest transition to airline flying, but I don’t know how their transition from props to corporate jet went. At some point, you’ll have to make the big jump. I guess the quality of your flight experience (not flight time) before that point will dictate how well you do. |
Right for everyone who missed it. US Govt bought in the 1500 hour rule to lift wages and conditions. This in turn would improve safety. One of the big factors in the Colgan crash was fatigue. The FO had jumpseated from Seattle (4.5 hour flight) the night before and slept in the crew room because she couldn't afford to live in base. The pay was so bad she lived at home.
To everyone who says 250 hour cadets are gods thats great but there are also not so great 250 hour cadets too. Same good/not so good FO, CAPT, Check airman also The result of 1500 min in the USA was a dramatic increase in wages and conditions which will have a huge effect on fatige levels and moral in general. Didnt a UK CPL require 600 hours once? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:30. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.