The regulations put in place to ensure that pilots flying for airlines have at least 1500 hours experience have become a target for rollback. The rule was put in place after crash of Continental/Colgan flight 3407 which pointed to lack of proper training and experience of pilots to be cause.

http://thehill.com/policy/transportatio ... fety-rules

The industry argument against this rule is that this rule creates a shortage of pilots and makes it difficult to hire them.

What do a.nutters think?

1. Was increased training requirement a proper response to the crash? Does it address the problem?
2. Is there a pilot shortage in regional airlines? If there is such shortage , is it due to this extra experience mandated by this rule or due to abysmal salaries and harsh lifestyle of regional pilots?

I have my opinions as a passenger and aviation hobbyist , but would love to know what the aviation professionals thing about it.

As someone who is in college, and into aviation I thought about becoming a pilot as a career path. The thing that turned me away was all the money I would have to spend to go make an abysmal salary and harsh working conditions for the first few years.

More training is never an issue, you are putting at the absolute bare minimum three other people's (first officer, FAs) lives when you are a commercial pilot. In almost all cases it's many more than 3. While I don't have any statistics to back up my claim, US carriers have been very safe since 2009.

I don't believe reducing the required hours is a proper way to encourage more pilots. Regionals need to be willing to pay more if they want to attract more talent.

Even the worst jobs in the world can be filled for the right amount. NYC garbage people are paid close to $100,000 a year. I never hear them saying they don't have enough staff.

The increase in hours was way to high a jump, has affected all US operations to some extent & still did not do anything for the improper training of the crew. It was a feel good reaction to look like the government was doing something.

boeing773er wrote:

As someone who is in college, and into aviation I thought about becoming a pilot as a career path. The thing that turned me away was all the money I would have to spend to go make an abysmal salary and harsh working conditions for the first few years.

Although I've graduated from college myself, I can definitely relate to your thought process. When I was in high school, I thought about going to an aviation school and working to potentially become an ATP, but I have a relative who was laid off and made menial income for years (he now flies TATL, but that was far from a given). Moreover, the cost of getting an ATP license for those who don't want to go to military route (like me) is insane. I am not suggesting that it could be cheaper, but I was not interested in paying $100,000 to (maybe) eventually get a decent-paying job. As such, I've decided to enjoy flying for work and leisure during this time of my life without a wife and kids and also working towards my private license.

WingsFan wrote:

The industry argument against this rule is that this rule creates a shortage of pilots and makes it difficult to hire them.

What do a.nutters think?

Funny how treating pilots like absolute crap has made it unattractive for people to invest the years and money involved in becoming a pilot. The regional airlines gleefully did that a decade ago when they could, and only in the past several years have things improved (driven, in part, by being forced to be more selective with hiring). Today, things are pretty decent at the regionals, and it's not a bad time to start training. But if you do, you won't be ready for another two years at least, and the airlines say they need people now. I can't have much sympathy for their self-inflicted wounds.

The airline environment is complex, and things can go from very easy to very busy amazingly quickly and without warning (and that's before we start talking about inflight emergencies). Passengers deserve more than a first officer who is a passenger themselves in those situations (which is what most people with wet commercial certificates would be - nothing against them personally, they just don't have the base of experience to draw from). So if airlines want to hire people with lower experience, they should invest something themselves rather than expect government to simply relax safety standards. Perhaps partner with flight schools to help provide the sort of training they're looking for earlier on. Maybe they could hire more training captains so that new hires with less experience spend a couple of months under supervision instead of a week and a half before being sent to fly with captains who are new themselves. These things cost money, of course, but they actually do let the airlines safely achieve their goal of hiring lower-time pilots if that's what they really want to do.

Unless that's not really what they want to do, and they just want to be able to hire cheaper. In which case they should be politely but firmly told "no".

boeing773er wrote:

As someone who is in college, and into aviation I thought about becoming a pilot as a career path. The thing that turned me away was all the money I would have to spend to go make an abysmal salary and harsh working conditions for the first few years.

More training is never an issue, you are putting at the absolute bare minimum three other people's (first officer, FAs) lives when you are a commercial pilot. In almost all cases it's many more than 3. While I don't have any statistics to back up my claim, US carriers have been very safe since 2009.

I don't believe reducing the required hours is a proper way to encourage more pilots. Regionals need to be willing to pay more if they want to attract more talent.

Even the worst jobs in the world can be filled for the right amount. NYC garbage people are paid close to $100,000 a year. I never hear them saying they don't have enough staff.

Pay has came up significantly at good places to work. The places that hire problem children are the ones that still have horrid pay, and it's beyond my comprehension as to why people still show up to work there.

Changing the rule is nothing but a short term somewhat solution to a long term staffing problem that's only going to get worse in the next decade.

The regional air 'system' of outsourced flying doesn't exist anywhere in the world near the scope it does in the USA. The 1500 hour rule does a good job forcing it out and should continue to exist.

Varsity 1

Lots of foreign carriers have alter ego airlines that are analogous to our RJ program. German Wings, KLM City Hopper, Ryan Air is sort of like it in the sense they take low time pilots and train them at near poverty wages and an indentured contract.

GF

Fact backed up by studies done in the UK CAA, France DGAC etc. There is no significant difference in aircraft mishap rates when crewed by low or high hour pilots. This is indisputable and is further borne out by the ab initio cadet path being used successfully for over 30 years by the likes of BA, Swissair, LH, AF, SIA etc. Think quality of hours (training) versus quantity.

Let’s all say this together. THERE IS NO PILOT SHORTAGE. THERE IS A PILOT PAY SHORTAGE.

[twoid][/twoid]

Chaostheory wrote:

Fact backed up by studies done in the UK CAA, France DGAC etc. There is no significant difference in aircraft mishap rates when crewed by low or high hour pilots. This is indisputable and is further borne out by the ab initio cadet path being used successfully for over 30 years by the likes of BA, Swissair, LH, AF, SIA etc. Think quality of hours (training) versus quantity.

The problem with going "zero to hero" is yes on the vast majority of days the pilots will be safe.

However, doing so doesn't give a fresh commercial pilot the chance to cut his/her teeth building strong fundamentals.

Military flying is the exception to this rule of course. The level of resources and the level of training is orders of magnitude more expensive and all together different.

rbavfan wrote:

The increase in hours was way to high a jump, has affected all US operations to some extent & still did not do anything for the improper training of the crew. It was a feel good reaction to look like the government was doing something.

Agreed. But what should be the in between? The cost to go from commercial to ATP has no good path. The Captain should have an ATP. The copilot? They need some turbine time, but with the collapse of smaller regional flying thanks to airport delays... How?

I've pointed out for years that when small cities start losing air service, there would be political will to change the rule.

I think it is too early. But last I looked, there are more regional pilots to mainline. So the large US airlines will have no issues.

Lightsaber

ual777 wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

Chaostheory wrote:

Fact backed up by studies done in the UK CAA, France DGAC etc. There is no significant difference in aircraft mishap rates when crewed by low or high hour pilots. This is indisputable and is further borne out by the ab initio cadet path being used successfully for over 30 years by the likes of BA, Swissair, LH, AF, SIA etc. Think quality of hours (training) versus quantity.

However, doing so doesn't give a fresh commercial pilot the chance to cut his/her teeth building strong fundamentals.

Decades of safe industry practice say otherwise.

As I said, as long as the training hours are of a certain standard or 'quality', then low hour, high hour or military hour are equally as safe. In most half decent airlines, once the minimum standard is met, it is reinforced by SOPs that encourage personal development. Some airlines develop their pilots by adopting a graduated approach in which cadets are assigned second officer roles for a period of time. Others place an emphasis on manual handling skills, extended LOFT as well as line flying under supervision. Both approaches work. What doesn't work is the standardised bare minimum training approach adopted by the likes of AirAsia and some other LCCs who want cadets in the cockpit in the shortest amount of time possible.

lightsaber wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

The increase in hours was way to high a jump, has affected all US operations to some extent & still did not do anything for the improper training of the crew. It was a feel good reaction to look like the government was doing something.

Agreed. But what should be the in between? The cost to go from commercial to ATP has no good path. The Captain should have an ATP. The copilot? They need some turbine time, but with the collapse of smaller regional flying thanks to airport delays... How?

I've pointed out for years that when small cities start losing air service, there would be political will to change the rule.

I think it is too early. But last I looked, there are more regional pilots to mainline. So the large US airlines will have no issues.

Lightsaber

No, there are more pilots at DL, UA, AA, WN and FX/5X than all the regionals combined. There might be around 18000 regional pilots. DL, AA and UA combined are north of 35000. Now throw in places like WN, the cargo carriers like FX/5X (not to mention the DHL/Amazon contract carriers) and all the other LCCs.

DL, UA and AA may not have issues yet, but the quality of their new hires is simply going to have to drop. You can only take the best of the best so long, before you need bodies in the seat.

I think the entire flight hours situation resulting from Colgan Air 3407 was a knee jerk response. Both pilots in the cockpit that night each had significantly more than 1500 flight hours. In my opinion Colgan Air 3407 had a lot to do with the extreme fatigue, poor working conditions, and toxic culture of Colgan Air. I do think experience was part of the problem but I just do not understand where the 1500 hours came from since both the Captain and First Officer were well over that on that fateful night. The problems lied more with Colgan Air itself and I don't really think I agree with penalizing the rest of the industry for it.

KentB27 wrote:

I think the entire flight hours situation resulting from Colgan Air 3407 was a knee jerk response. Both pilots in the cockpit that night each had significantly more than 1500 flight hours. In my opinion Colgan Air 3407 had a lot to do with the extreme fatigue, poor working conditions, and toxic culture of Colgan Air. I do think experience was part of the problem but I just do not understand where the 1500 hours came from since both the Captain and First Officer were well over that on that fateful night. The problems lied more with Colgan Air itself and I don't really think I agree with penalizing the rest of the industry for it.

I agree, kind of a knee jerk reaction by the government. What of other crashes by pilots with many hours? Air travel is extremely safe but like other forms of transportation, errors happen, whether pilot error, or equipment malfunction, zero accidents are impossible. Washington always seeks to assign blame to prove they are on top of things but raising the hours that high has discouraged many from pursuing a career as a pilot. I would hope the 1500 hours can be rolled back.

cheapgreek wrote:

KentB27 wrote:

I think the entire flight hours situation resulting from Colgan Air 3407 was a knee jerk response. Both pilots in the cockpit that night each had significantly more than 1500 flight hours. In my opinion Colgan Air 3407 had a lot to do with the extreme fatigue, poor working conditions, and toxic culture of Colgan Air. I do think experience was part of the problem but I just do not understand where the 1500 hours came from since both the Captain and First Officer were well over that on that fateful night. The problems lied more with Colgan Air itself and I don't really think I agree with penalizing the rest of the industry for it.

I agree, kind of a knee jerk reaction by the government. What of other crashes by pilots with many hours? Air travel is extremely safe but like other forms of transportation, errors happen, whether pilot error, or equipment malfunction, zero accidents are impossible. Washington always seeks to assign blame to prove they are on top of things but raising the hours that high has discouraged many from pursuing a career as a pilot. I would hope the 1500 hours can be rolled back.

Do you enjoy pushing people back onto food stamps, because that's what your encouraging?

How about a combined flight deck minimum of 3000 hours with no member under 900 as well as a combined minimum on the type they are flying?

Chaostheory wrote:

Fact backed up by studies done in the UK CAA, France DGAC etc. There is no significant difference in aircraft mishap rates when crewed by low or high hour pilots. This is indisputable and is further borne out by the ab initio cadet path being used successfully for over 30 years by the likes of BA, Swissair, LH, AF, SIA etc. Think quality of hours (training) versus quantity.

You can't compare the training environments of the US and Europe. They're both their own systems, they are fundamentally different, and while one is not necessarily better or worse than the other, you can't just pick and choose one component you like about one system, plug it into the other, and expect things to go fine. Pilots in Europe get lots of supervision early on. Most pilots in the US get about 25 hours of supervision and then are sent out to fly with captains who may have just completed 25 hours of supervision as a new captain themselves. That's a recipe for trouble when the first officers have low time and first got exposed to the realities of the airline environment two weeks ago.

Chaostheory wrote:

Some airlines develop their pilots by adopting a graduated approach in which cadets are assigned second officer roles for a period of time. Others place an emphasis on manual handling skills, extended LOFT as well as line flying under supervision. Both approaches work.

And US airlines do neither of them. They could certainly start if they wanted to, and if they did then there would be reason to bring hour requirements down. Until that happens, however, the US carriers are on the AirAsia model you described - getting people through training and into the cockpit at low cost - and with that model the experience requirements are vital.

I love aviation and actually considered the career change into the passion. But ultimately leaning towards just getting PPL and buying a plane.

The amount of money just to get licensed is absurd.

Tenerife happened with one of KLM's top captains flying. Colgan Air 3407 happened with fellas above 1500. OZ 214 and AC 759 also happened with multiple veteran pilots.
The rule, then, seems rather arbitrary and knee-jerk. In this industry, arbitrary and knee-jerk means it gets nudie scanners and a ban on sandwiches soon #TSA

DiamondFlyer wrote:

cheapgreek wrote:

KentB27 wrote:

I think the entire flight hours situation resulting from Colgan Air 3407 was a knee jerk response. Both pilots in the cockpit that night each had significantly more than 1500 flight hours. In my opinion Colgan Air 3407 had a lot to do with the extreme fatigue, poor working conditions, and toxic culture of Colgan Air. I do think experience was part of the problem but I just do not understand where the 1500 hours came from since both the Captain and First Officer were well over that on that fateful night. The problems lied more with Colgan Air itself and I don't really think I agree with penalizing the rest of the industry for it.

I agree, kind of a knee jerk reaction by the government. What of other crashes by pilots with many hours? Air travel is extremely safe but like other forms of transportation, errors happen, whether pilot error, or equipment malfunction, zero accidents are impossible. Washington always seeks to assign blame to prove they are on top of things but raising the hours that high has discouraged many from pursuing a career as a pilot. I would hope the 1500 hours can be rolled back.

Do you enjoy pushing people back onto food stamps, because that's what your encouraging?

Last I checked, making $17k as a regional FO is better financially than making nothing and paying $120 an hour to fly a SkyHawk in circles, or making peanuts sporadically by teaching flying at some random FBO.

KentB27 wrote:

I think the entire flight hours situation resulting from Colgan Air 3407 was a knee jerk response. Both pilots in the cockpit that night each had significantly more than 1500 flight hours. In my opinion Colgan Air 3407 had a lot to do with the extreme fatigue, poor working conditions, and toxic culture of Colgan Air. I do think experience was part of the problem but I just do not understand where the 1500 hours came from since both the Captain and First Officer were well over that on that fateful night. The problems lied more with Colgan Air itself and I don't really think I agree with penalizing the rest of the industry for it.

Indeed, and what has been done to address fatigue and poor working conditions?

What were the old requirements anyways, and what were the "unwritten" requirements (i.e., how many hours did the airline want typically)? Truly no airline pilot at a regional started with only 250 (I think that was the number). Certainly they needed much more than that to be considered and hired. Was getting an ATP a thing in the past as well, or new with this 1500 hour rule?

I'll chime in her with my $0.02. I've seen plenty of guys with "little" experience (300 hours and flying a widebody) who are super keen, knowledgeable, well-prepared, conservative and alert. They keep up with their studies, always go the extra mile and so on. On the other end, I've seen guys with over ten thousand hours who are complacent, do the minimum required, and are just sitting out the time in the seat. I wouldn't call them unsafe exactly but their lack of enthusiasm means they're not as sharp as they should be.

Conversely, I've seen low hour pilots who are not nearly as proficient as they should be, and I've seen old guys who are real pros. They've been there, done that, and importantly always stay sharp.

Which one of these pilots is going to remember that obscure detail that saves their life when the fecal matter hits the rotary air impeller? Which one of them will perform the correct actions from memory in a critical situation?

Bottom line: Hours are at best a vague measure of proficiency. 1000 more hours in a light piston are not much use compared to 40 hours of multi-crew LOFT in a simulator. Training and ATTITUDE count for much more than just hours. Of course a 10000 hour pilot tends to be better than a 500 hour pilot. This is statistically established. However hours by themselves are just hours. I didn't develop my skills very much flying a 172 between three airports I knew well, in the day, in good weather, while building hours.

Want to make aviation safer? Address chronic fatigue, non-standard radio work and poor aviation English, congested airspace/airports with overworked controllers, incomplete taxi signage. I could go on...

CarlosSi wrote:

KentB27 wrote:

I think the entire flight hours situation resulting from Colgan Air 3407 was a knee jerk response. Both pilots in the cockpit that night each had significantly more than 1500 flight hours. In my opinion Colgan Air 3407 had a lot to do with the extreme fatigue, poor working conditions, and toxic culture of Colgan Air. I do think experience was part of the problem but I just do not understand where the 1500 hours came from since both the Captain and First Officer were well over that on that fateful night. The problems lied more with Colgan Air itself and I don't really think I agree with penalizing the rest of the industry for it.

Indeed, and what has been done to address fatigue and poor working conditions?

What were the old requirements anyways, and what were the "unwritten" requirements (i.e., how many hours did the airline want typically)? Truly no airline pilot at a regional started with only 250 (I think that was the number). Certainly they needed much more than that to be considered and hired. Was getting an ATP a thing in the past as well, or new with this 1500 hour rule?

Many pilots at my airline started on a widebody at 250-ish hours. However the situation is different from the US, where there is a comparatively large supply of pilots.

rbavfan wrote:

The increase in hours was way to high a jump, has affected all US operations to some extent & still did not do anything for the improper training of the crew. It was a feel good reaction to look like the government was doing something.

Many Major Airline maintenance folks are making at or close to $100k. It's no longer that uncommon anymore..

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

Tenerife happened with one of KLM's top captains flying. Colgan Air 3407 happened with fellas above 1500. OZ 214 and AC 759 also happened with multiple veteran pilots.
The rule, then, seems rather arbitrary and knee-jerk. In this industry, arbitrary and knee-jerk means it gets nudie scanners and a ban on sandwiches soon #TSA

Doesn't the 1500 hours rule means pilots must fly all kinds of small planes, with less automation, and more by the butt flying, before they can fly an airliner ?

Aesma wrote:

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

Tenerife happened with one of KLM's top captains flying. Colgan Air 3407 happened with fellas above 1500. OZ 214 and AC 759 also happened with multiple veteran pilots.
The rule, then, seems rather arbitrary and knee-jerk. In this industry, arbitrary and knee-jerk means it gets nudie scanners and a ban on sandwiches soon #TSA

Doesn't the 1500 hours rule means pilots must fly all kinds of small planes, with less automation, and more by the butt flying, before they can fly an airliner ?

That is one way of looking at it. But what's the point? The question should be, "Does flying more hours in light planes with little automation make you a better airliner pilot?" I don't think the answer to that question is "yes".

The transition from light aircraft to airliners is a big one, both due to the massive differences in performance and complexity, and even more because of the intricacies of multi-crew operation. You can take a guy with 4000 hours in light aircraft and he'll be challenged with the transition to a swept wing airliner about as much as the guy with 300-400 hours. (However if you take a guy with significant turboprop experience, especially multi-engine, he'll typically find it much easier. Or a guy with fast jet experience.)

With regards to airliner prep, IMHO an additional 1000 hours in a light aircraft is worth less than 20-30 hours doing LOFT in an airliner simulator. I'm not saying those 1000 hours have no value. They do have value. They just don't have nearly as much value as whoever passed this law thinks.

As for "by the butt flying", we are specifically taught in airliners not to fly by the seat of our pants. You can't fly a heavy swept-wing airliner by the seat of your pants.

History has shown that cadet programs are safe. My opinion is that even in todays automated aircraft people should still possess some manual flying skills. But these can only partially be obtained by previous experience in light aircraft (or even military jets). The Captain of QZ8501 was an ex Air Force Pilot flying fast jets (I think F16 IIRC) and still he got confused when the copilot stalled the aircraft. What matters more than previous experience is recency. I think instead of requiring new pilots to have 1500h before being allowed to fly for an airline there should be a mandated amount of General Aviation flying every year (that has to be paid by the employer). This should keep peoples handling skills sharp. This probably won't be feasible due to costs and there is also an argument that general aviation experience is not 100% relevant to the airline environment (I do not really agree with this - of course you have Mach phenomena etc. occurring only in jets, but there general handling in most situations is similar enough). However people should be encouraged to fly manually on the line more. You could for example require crews to fly a certain amount of raw data approaches in a month (two would be a good start), to fly approaches with auto thrust off etc.
These measures are more appropriate than the 1500h rule - a well trained cadet with 200h is a good baseline to start the learning process on the line. Of course Captains need to be sharp and help these guys out. It really takes around 1000 to 1500h to be really comfortable on a jet in all situations in the airline environment, but during those first hours that Captains should be mentoring the new pilots.

Flow2706 wrote:

History has shown that cadet programs are safe. My opinion is that even in todays automated aircraft people should still possess some manual flying skills. But these can only partially be obtained by previous experience in light aircraft (or even military jets). The Captain of QZ8501 was an ex Air Force Pilot flying fast jets (I think F16 IIRC) and still he got confused when the copilot stalled the aircraft. What matters more than previous experience is recency. I think instead of requiring new pilots to have 1500h before being allowed to fly for an airline there should be a mandated amount of General Aviation flying every year (that has to be paid by the employer). This should keep peoples handling skills sharp. This probably won't be feasible due to costs and there is also an argument that general aviation experience is not 100% relevant to the airline environment (I do not really agree with this - of course you have Mach phenomena etc. occurring only in jets, but there general handling in most situations is similar enough). However people should be encouraged to fly manually on the line more. You could for example require crews to fly a certain amount of raw data approaches in a month (two would be a good start), to fly approaches with auto thrust off etc.
These measures are more appropriate than the 1500h rule - a well trained cadet with 200h is a good baseline to start the learning process on the line. Of course Captains need to be sharp and help these guys out. It really takes around 1000 to 1500h to be really comfortable on a jet in all situations in the airline environment, but during those first hours that Captains should be mentoring the new pilots.

Would be interesting if airlines not only bought simulators for training but bought Cessna aircraft for GA training for all active pilots. I kind of like that idea.

ikramerica wrote:

Flow2706 wrote:

History has shown that cadet programs are safe. My opinion is that even in todays automated aircraft people should still possess some manual flying skills. But these can only partially be obtained by previous experience in light aircraft (or even military jets). The Captain of QZ8501 was an ex Air Force Pilot flying fast jets (I think F16 IIRC) and still he got confused when the copilot stalled the aircraft. What matters more than previous experience is recency. I think instead of requiring new pilots to have 1500h before being allowed to fly for an airline there should be a mandated amount of General Aviation flying every year (that has to be paid by the employer). This should keep peoples handling skills sharp. This probably won't be feasible due to costs and there is also an argument that general aviation experience is not 100% relevant to the airline environment (I do not really agree with this - of course you have Mach phenomena etc. occurring only in jets, but there general handling in most situations is similar enough). However people should be encouraged to fly manually on the line more. You could for example require crews to fly a certain amount of raw data approaches in a month (two would be a good start), to fly approaches with auto thrust off etc.
These measures are more appropriate than the 1500h rule - a well trained cadet with 200h is a good baseline to start the learning process on the line. Of course Captains need to be sharp and help these guys out. It really takes around 1000 to 1500h to be really comfortable on a jet in all situations in the airline environment, but during those first hours that Captains should be mentoring the new pilots.

Would be interesting if airlines not only bought simulators for training but bought Cessna aircraft for GA training for all active pilots. I kind of like that idea.

I believe Jet Blue is doing some sort of in house abinitio pilot training at this time. May have just graduated their 1st class??

BravoOne wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

Flow2706 wrote:

History has shown that cadet programs are safe. My opinion is that even in todays automated aircraft people should still possess some manual flying skills. But these can only partially be obtained by previous experience in light aircraft (or even military jets). The Captain of QZ8501 was an ex Air Force Pilot flying fast jets (I think F16 IIRC) and still he got confused when the copilot stalled the aircraft. What matters more than previous experience is recency. I think instead of requiring new pilots to have 1500h before being allowed to fly for an airline there should be a mandated amount of General Aviation flying every year (that has to be paid by the employer). This should keep peoples handling skills sharp. This probably won't be feasible due to costs and there is also an argument that general aviation experience is not 100% relevant to the airline environment (I do not really agree with this - of course you have Mach phenomena etc. occurring only in jets, but there general handling in most situations is similar enough). However people should be encouraged to fly manually on the line more. You could for example require crews to fly a certain amount of raw data approaches in a month (two would be a good start), to fly approaches with auto thrust off etc.
These measures are more appropriate than the 1500h rule - a well trained cadet with 200h is a good baseline to start the learning process on the line. Of course Captains need to be sharp and help these guys out. It really takes around 1000 to 1500h to be really comfortable on a jet in all situations in the airline environment, but during those first hours that Captains should be mentoring the new pilots.

Would be interesting if airlines not only bought simulators for training but bought Cessna aircraft for GA training for all active pilots. I kind of like that idea.

I believe Jet Blue is doing some sort of in house abinitio pilot training at this time. May have just graduated their 1st class??

They will still have to fulfill their ATP requirements, so they'll have to instruct for a bit. If the results are good, they might be able to get relief on that, but I wouldn't expect it soon.

Mir wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

Would be interesting if airlines not only bought simulators for training but bought Cessna aircraft for GA training for all active pilots. I kind of like that idea.

I believe Jet Blue is doing some sort of in house abinitio pilot training at this time. May have just graduated their 1st class??

They will still have to fulfill their ATP requirements, so they'll have to instruct for a bit. If the results are good, they might be able to get relief on that, but I wouldn't expect it soon.

What perhaps would accelerate the process would be a restricted ATP at say 350 hours. That 350 hours would be made up of some pretty intensive training in both the aircraft and Level D simulators. I believe EK is well on their way launching a program along these lines.

BravoOne wrote:

Mir wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

I believe Jet Blue is doing some sort of in house abinitio pilot training at this time. May have just graduated their 1st class??

They will still have to fulfill their ATP requirements, so they'll have to instruct for a bit. If the results are good, they might be able to get relief on that, but I wouldn't expect it soon.

What perhaps would accelerate the process would be a restricted ATP at say 350 hours. That 350 hours would be made up of some pretty intensive training in both the aircraft and Level D simulators. I believe EK is well on their way launching a program along these lines.

Absolutely not. Anything less than 1000 hours is a non-starter. There's a reason that US aviation is historically the safest out there, because we don't subscribe to these nonsensical cadet schemes they end up creating pilots who are only allowed to fly in cruise, who then stall perfectly good airplanes.

BravoOne wrote:

Mir wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

I believe Jet Blue is doing some sort of in house abinitio pilot training at this time. May have just graduated their 1st class??

They will still have to fulfill their ATP requirements, so they'll have to instruct for a bit. If the results are good, they might be able to get relief on that, but I wouldn't expect it soon.

What perhaps would accelerate the process would be a restricted ATP at say 350 hours. That 350 hours would be made up of some pretty intensive training in both the aircraft and Level D simulators. I believe EK is well on their way launching a program along these lines.

If the airlines are willing to select like the military, train like the military, and spend like the military to do it, they can have their 350 hour pilots.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

Mir wrote:

They will still have to fulfill their ATP requirements, so they'll have to instruct for a bit. If the results are good, they might be able to get relief on that, but I wouldn't expect it soon.

What perhaps would accelerate the process would be a restricted ATP at say 350 hours. That 350 hours would be made up of some pretty intensive training in both the aircraft and Level D simulators. I believe EK is well on their way launching a program along these lines.

Absolutely not. Anything less than 1000 hours is a non-starter. There's a reason that US aviation is historically the safest out there, because we don't subscribe to these nonsensical cadet schemes they end up creating pilots who are only allowed to fly in cruise, who then stall perfectly good airplanes.

- Looking at perhaps the four most high profile flight upsets in past decades, Air France 447, American 587, Asiana 214 and Colgan 3407, the pilots all had thousands of hours of experience.
- I don't think the data supports the US being historically the safest. That title might belong to Australia. Many countries have had a historically lower fatality frequency compared to the US.
- Airlines like Lufthansa, British, Emirates, Finnair, Cathay and Singapore have cadet schemes. Are they unsafe operations?

To me, the current topical issue with in flight upsets (in the cruise of otherwise) seems to be more one of training and awareness than one of experience. Whether he or she started as a cadet or as a 3000 hour flight instructor, a pilot going through airline initial training in the past few years would typically be highly aware of flight upsets in the cruise, given that programmes have changed to incorporate lessons learned. Pilots who joined a decade or two ago didn't have nearly the same focus on cruise upsets during their training.

The facts don't seem to support the hypothesis that cadet programs make commercial aviation less safe, counter-intuitive though it may be from a certain point of view.

Shortened programs are already in operation, in the form of the MPL (Multi-crew Pilot License). These pilots go into a swept wing jet after fewer than 100 hours in a light piston. Importantly though, the undergo significant training in simulators, a type of training which more closely resembles what they will experience on the line. Airlines like Swiss and Cathay Dragon have MPL programs. Hardly fly-by-night operations. http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/ops-infra/training-licensing/Pages/mpl.aspx

Mir wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

Mir wrote:

They will still have to fulfill their ATP requirements, so they'll have to instruct for a bit. If the results are good, they might be able to get relief on that, but I wouldn't expect it soon.

What perhaps would accelerate the process would be a restricted ATP at say 350 hours. That 350 hours would be made up of some pretty intensive training in both the aircraft and Level D simulators. I believe EK is well on their way launching a program along these lines.

If the airlines are willing to select like the military, train like the military, and spend like the military to do it, they can have their 350 hour pilots.

Many major airlines already have 350 hour pilots. For better or worse, the US philosophy is on its way to becoming an anomaly from a worldwide perspective.

There seems to be this impression that airline cadet programs are not good training. I can only speak for what I saw our 0-hour cadets go through, but the programme is tough.
- Selection is highly competitive.
- Every lesson, indeed every flight, is graded. There are constant performance reviews. Very different from building hours on your own with little pressure beyond not hitting anything.
- The pace is accelerated and students must work very hard.
- Simulators are used extensively, especially in MPL programmes.
This kind of training is not military level, but it is not cheap or haphazard.

I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement, but I still contend that an intensive programme focused on airliner flying is much more useful than an additional 500-1000 hours flying light pistons.

I believe this is the common consensus:

1) Given training to a reasonable standard, the 1,500 hour rule does not add additional safety. (see many studies)
2) Lots of other nations with very safe airline systems have thing like the 1,500 rule. (see Europe)
3) The 1,500 hour rules has added costs to the airline industry
4) The 1,500 hour rule has increased starting pilot pay (over what it was before)
5) The 1,500 hour rule has made it harder for new pilots to begin their careers.

Given #1 and #2, there is no safety need for the 1,500 hour rule. If your goal is to increase pilot pay, the 1,500 hour rule is one way, but it seems an economically inefficient way.

kitplane01 wrote:

I believe this is the common consensus:

4) The 1,500 hour rule has increased starting pilot pay (over what it was before)

I fail to see how the rule was determined to be the cause of higher pay. If Colgan crash was responsible for a bump in average pay of regional pilots, it may be due to heightened awareness of working conditions of these pilots. The 1500 hr rule itself did nothing to improve working conditions of the pilots

Starlionblue,

The cadet programs are much like the better military programs in terms of training and standards--far superior to the basics at a US FAR 61 school. That said p, the OZ8501, Colgan and AF 447 crews had hours but lacked dome basic aeronautical sense--a jet transport can't climb at 6,000 fpm at cruise and shy those pilots didn't grasp that will remain a mystery. The MPL program seems too long on rote learning and SOP and too little on airmanship and, yes, seat of the pants horse sense. Yes, a jet can be flown to some degree by seat of pants--fighter guys do it every day.

GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Starlionblue,

The cadet programs are much like the better military programs in terms of training and standards--far superior to the basics at a US FAR 61 school. That said p, the OZ8501, Colgan and AF 447 crews had hours but lacked dome basic aeronautical sense--a jet transport can't climb at 6,000 fpm at cruise and shy those pilots didn't grasp that will remain a mystery. The MPL program seems too long on rote learning and SOP and too little on airmanship and, yes, seat of the pants horse sense. Yes, a jet can be flown to some degree by seat of pants--fighter guys do it every day.

GF

Fair that an airliner can flown to some degree by seat of pants. It does move, after all. However the focus is on instruments. You can't really judge bank and pitch angles visually or by feel.

If the AF447 pilots had kept up with a basic instrument scan the crash would never have happened. Heck, if at autopilot disconnect they'd just looked at the instruments for a few seconds without doing anything, assessing the situation, it would all have been good. If any adjustment was needed, 3 degrees pitch and 80% N1 in the 330-300 will keep you stable for a long time. More than enough time to get the QRH out and do the unreliable airspeed checklist.

However it is easy to judge in hindsight. Of course they did the wrong thing. But why? Surely the pilots knew about nose high upsets. Having flown quite a bit in the middle of the night, over the ocean, with thunderstorms around, it is a sometimes disconcerting situation. The lack of visual clues makes things weird. If you're fatigued (as we often are), making the wrong call in a critical situation is not very far beyond imagination.

Which is why more recent upset recovery training focuses much more on the fundamentals. Nose down in a low speed upset during the cruise is of course the paramount first step.

WingsFan wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I believe this is the common consensus:

4) The 1,500 hour rule has increased starting pilot pay (over what it was before)

I fail to see how the rule was determined to be the cause of higher pay. If Colgan crash was responsible for a bump in average pay of regional pilots, it may be due to heightened awareness of working conditions of these pilots. The 1500 hr rule itself did nothing to improve working conditions of the pilots

Total airline travel in the US is up. Pilot supply is reduced by the rule. Supply and demand.

This is a US phenomenon. I don't know nothing about pilot salary in Uzbekistan.

Starlionblue wrote:

Many major airlines already have 350 hour pilots. For better or worse, the US philosophy is on its way to becoming an anomaly from a worldwide perspective.
There seems to be this impression that airline cadet programs are not good training. I can only speak for what I saw our 0-hour cadets go through, but the programme is tough.
- Selection is highly competitive.
- Every lesson, indeed every flight, is graded. There are constant performance reviews. Very different from building hours on your own with little pressure beyond not hitting anything.
- The pace is accelerated and students must work very hard.
- Simulators are used extensively, especially in MPL programmes.
This kind of training is not military level, but it is not cheap or haphazard.

I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement, but I still contend that an intensive programme focused on airliner flying is much more useful than an additional 500-1000 hours flying light pistons.

I, too, have worked for airlines which had cadet programs and I guess I have a slightly different opinion of the program.

First of all, the selection is very competitive but I am not sure the "best" candidates are actually selected. From my own experience, there are quite a few very bright and intelligent people who just woke up one day and thought "I'd like to become a pilot". My experience has taught me most capable pilots are ones who have been involved with aviation for quite a while. I am not saying the pilots who have a revelation about aviation are not good pilots, but aviation tends to be in your blood.

Secondly, cadet pilots are extremely knowledgeable. They know all parts of the FCOM and every other manual and can quote verbatim any part of the manual, but there is a big gap when it comes to implementing that knowledge. I guess the phrase "book smart" is what comes to mind.

Finally, my biggest issue, is the grading and constant evaluation. You are correct in your description of the evaluation process. However, my opinion only, is part of aviation is making mistakes and learning from the mistakes. I am not saying they should not be evaluated, but they are no longer undergoing basic flight training. I also think part of the problem is the Captains they fly with. To me, a Captain has a responsibility to impart knowledge, allow the cadet develop his/her skills and decision making and challenge their decision making. All of that in a positive atmosphere. From what I have seen, that is certainly not the case. The Cadets are under the microscope constantly and are worried about making the "wrong decision".

What is the solution, I really don't know. One problem is culture plays a great part of the "learning environment" until that changes there will be constant problems.

Some one talked about 350 hour military pilots. First of all, they would not be going to the airlines. However, I'd rather have one of those rather than a the other choices available. The problem with training for G/A in the US is it varies quite a bit from school to school. As Galaxy Flyer point out, the large schools take the military approach. But, there are quite a few "mom and pop" flying schools who don't and that is where the variation in standards comes into play.

Just my $.02 worth.

mmo wrote:

Some one talked about 350 hour military pilots. First of all, they would not be going to the airlines. However, I'd rather have one of those rather than a the other choices available.

Why? I'd rather have a well selected and trained civilian cadet pilot than any military pilots course graduate for a right hand seat job at an a turboprop or jet airline.

Military training is conducted in things like PC-9/21, T-6 and Tucano aircraft. They operate like single seat fighter jets. Their training is geared toward things like low level navigation to targets, formation flying, formation aerobatics, and combat sorties. It's all single pilot procedures and military SOP's, and they have these very strict SOP's drilled into their heads so firmly that it can be hard to retrain them into airline procedures. Having met some trainees they definitely seem more cocky and arrogant than civilian trainees, not a good fit for an airline flight deck. This is because the military wants their pilots to believe they are the "best of the best", great for a fast fighter jet but not for a civilian airliner. Which is why a lot of military pilots have trouble entering civilian airlines after a military career.

Civilian cadets however are specifically chosen for their attitudes and personalities that fit into the airline culture. They are trained on airline SOP's from day one. TEM and LOFT procedures are introduced from day one, and it is now being heavily geared toward multi crew procedures. Customer service training is also being introduced and I believe that will increase the trainees potential as a future leader.

So again, the military trains pilots for military operations, civilian airlines train pilots for civilian airline operations. If I had to take a candidate to train for a RHS 737 or A320 endorsement I'd take the civilian guy anyday.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Absolutely not. Anything less than 1000 hours is a non-starter. There's a reason that US aviation is historically the safest out there, because we don't subscribe to these nonsensical cadet schemes they end up creating pilots who are only allowed to fly in cruise, who then stall perfectly good airplanes.

Yeah right, that's why American pilots don't do stupid things like takeoff without setting flaps and using checklists (Northwest 255), ignore ATC instructions (PSA 182), fly through a thunderstorm (Delta 191), get distracted by a light bulb (Eastern 401), can't recover from a stall (Colgan 3407), takeoff on a closed runway (Comair 5191), takeoff with properly de icing (Air Florida 90), forget to use speed brakes (American 1420), run out of fuel (United 173) so on and so forth.......

mmo wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Many major airlines already have 350 hour pilots. For better or worse, the US philosophy is on its way to becoming an anomaly from a worldwide perspective.
There seems to be this impression that airline cadet programs are not good training. I can only speak for what I saw our 0-hour cadets go through, but the programme is tough.
- Selection is highly competitive.
- Every lesson, indeed every flight, is graded. There are constant performance reviews. Very different from building hours on your own with little pressure beyond not hitting anything.
- The pace is accelerated and students must work very hard.
- Simulators are used extensively, especially in MPL programmes.
This kind of training is not military level, but it is not cheap or haphazard.

I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement, but I still contend that an intensive programme focused on airliner flying is much more useful than an additional 500-1000 hours flying light pistons.

I, too, have worked for airlines which had cadet programs and I guess I have a slightly different opinion of the program.

First of all, the selection is very competitive but I am not sure the "best" candidates are actually selected. From my own experience, there are quite a few very bright and intelligent people who just woke up one day and thought "I'd like to become a pilot". My experience has taught me most capable pilots are ones who have been involved with aviation for quite a while. I am not saying the pilots who have a revelation about aviation are not good pilots, but aviation tends to be in your blood.

Secondly, cadet pilots are extremely knowledgeable. They know all parts of the FCOM and every other manual and can quote verbatim any part of the manual, but there is a big gap when it comes to implementing that knowledge. I guess the phrase "book smart" is what comes to mind.

Finally, my biggest issue, is the grading and constant evaluation. You are correct in your description of the evaluation process. However, my opinion only, is part of aviation is making mistakes and learning from the mistakes. I am not saying they should not be evaluated, but they are no longer undergoing basic flight training. I also think part of the problem is the Captains they fly with. To me, a Captain has a responsibility to impart knowledge, allow the cadet develop his/her skills and decision making and challenge their decision making. All of that in a positive atmosphere. From what I have seen, that is certainly not the case. The Cadets are under the microscope constantly and are worried about making the "wrong decision".

What is the solution, I really don't know. One problem is culture plays a great part of the "learning environment" until that changes there will be constant problems.

Some one talked about 350 hour military pilots. First of all, they would not be going to the airlines. However, I'd rather have one of those rather than a the other choices available. The problem with training for G/A in the US is it varies quite a bit from school to school. As Galaxy Flyer point out, the large schools take the military approach. But, there are quite a few "mom and pop" flying schools who don't and that is where the variation in standards comes into play.

Just my $.02 worth.

mmo, you are spot on when it comes to many cadets. There are absolutely those who seemingly chose between lawyer, doctor and pilot. The "book smarts" rings true as well. I don't know if I would have managed to go through a full cadet program. The constant scrutiny really does make you feel like you are under the microscope, which does not always lead to best performance.

I have noted that in our company a large part of the cadets do have some aviation background (maybe a PPL at least) and many do have a passion for aviation. Not saying all but many. Interestingly, according to management once the cadets rise in the ranks their proficiency metrics end up matching those of pilots from other backgrounds.

Cadet programs aren't perfect, but circling back to the original point: Are 500-1000 more hours floating about in a light piston really that useful in order to build airline proficiency? Isn't it just as well to take the newly minted CPL holder (from a cadet program or otherwise) and plonk him into a good multi-crew course and airliner conversion, and not waste everyone's time building hours in an operation that is not representative of airline flying?

I'm shocked!
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., says he’ll fight any move to relax rules that require airline pilots to have a minimum of 1,500 hours of flight time before they can fly airliners. Schumer was one of the architects of the controversial regs adopted by the FAA at the direction of Congress after the 2009 crash of a Colgan Air Q400 in Buffalo, New York, that killed all 49 people on board and one person who was in the house the stalling Bombardier turboprop landed on. Last week, the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, which advises the FAA on regulatory issues, said the hours requirement should be relaxed in favor of “airline-based education and training programs.” The Air Line Pilots Association and the Association of Flight Attendants voted against the recommendation.

Ironically, Schumer told NPR that what’s needed is for airline pilots to “train in adverse conditions” and that “more training and experience” would have prevented the loss of life. His version of the events was that “there was ice on the wings and one of the levers jammed. There was a way to solve it but the pilot didn't know it because he didn't have enough training. That's why those people died.” That’s not what the NTSB found. The investigation concluded the aircraft entered a stall, the captain overrode the aircraft’s stick shaker/pusher system and pulled back on the yoke and added power while the FO retracted the flaps, further aggravating the stall. The captain had 3379 hours (111 as a Q400 captain) and the FO 2244 hours. Schumer has support for his fight against relaxing the rules in fellow New York Democrat Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who credited the 1,500-hour rule with ending fatal airline accidents in the U.S. “It’s no coincidence that we haven’t had a tragedy like Flight 3407 recently because the rules are working and they have made air travel safer,” she told NPR.

BravoOne wrote:

New York Democrat Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who credited the 1,500-hour rule with ending fatal airline accidents in the U.S. “It’s no coincidence that we haven’t had a tragedy like Flight 3407 recently because the rules are working and they have made air travel safer,” she told NPR.

Not specifically. Since the rule was introduced, UPS put a freighter into the dirt in 2013, Southwest parked an aircraft into the ground nosewheel first in 2013 and Delta ran an aircraft off the runway on landing in 2015. The idea though that there hasn't been a major US airline incident causing passenger fatalities since the 1500 hour rue is purely co-incidence, and it is just confirmation of a worldwide trend. 2013, 2016, 2015 have been the safest years for global aviation in history. And 2017 is on track to be even safer. This has nothing to do with the 1500hr rule. But I wouldn't expect indepth aviation analysis from US Congressmen and woman, especially such "experts" like Chuck Schumer.

sierrakilo44, you obviously understand my reason for the posting as only complete idiots that serve us is Congress or the Senate would believe such nonsense. Sometimes I think we are doomed to fail. Sorry for the rant!

sierrakilo44 wrote:

mmo wrote:

Some one talked about 350 hour military pilots. First of all, they would not be going to the airlines. However, I'd rather have one of those rather than a the other choices available.

Why? I'd rather have a well selected and trained civilian cadet pilot than any military pilots course graduate for a right hand seat job at an a turboprop or jet airline.

So again, the military trains pilots for military operations, civilian airlines train pilots for civilian airline operations. If I had to take a candidate to train for a RHS 737 or A320 endorsement I'd take the civilian guy anyday.

Which is why a lot of military pilots have trouble entering civilian airlines after a military career.

First of all, I am a former military pilot so I am somewhat familiar on their training.

You will never see a 350 hour military pilot because once they get through pilot training they then go to specific aircraft training, in my day it was RTU (replacement training unit). That last anywhere from a few months up to 9 months, then they will go to their first assignment. When I went through USAF UPT, the commitment was 5 years after you graduated, now I believe it's 10 years. In the case of someone who is in the Guard or AFRES, they will spend the same amount of time getting qualified and then a few years flying. That's why you will not see a 350 hour pilot!

I don't quite agree with your generalization about military pilots. Pilot training is just that, it trains the person to become a pilot. The specialized training then qualifies them for the specific aircraft and mission. I hate to burst your bubble, but the military trains pilots to make good decisions, be safe and be aggressive. I don't know if you are even a pilot, not sure what your background is but to make a statement like you did is just unbelievable.

Care to back up your statement about military pilots having trouble? I'd love to see your justification for that stupid statement! If your statements reflect your opinion of military pilots, you have a lot to learn and it proves to me you are not a "real pilot". AMF

I would have to back MMO up on that and I have a civilian background, not that it makes a lot of difference in the big picture. Having flown with many hundreds of pilots from both origins, I have never heard of a military pilot having trouble transitioning to an airline job. Some are quicker than others, but in the big picture they adapt quite well in a short given amount of time. Like most professions there are those who excel, and others that are just good.
I have made these observations after 20+ years as a line check airman and another 10 years in various roles of training development.

mmo wrote:

Care to back up your statement about military pilots having trouble? I'd love to see your justification for that stupid statement! If your statements reflect your opinion of military pilots, you have a lot to learn and it proves to me you are not a "real pilot". AMF

In my experience military pilots aren't automatically recruited into civil airlines after their military time. They might be able to fly a fighter jet, but a lot of them have attitudes and personalities that don't sit well with recruitment teams at civilian airlines. In my country (I'm not in the US btw) a large proportion of military pilots fail the selection processes at airlines. A proportion still will have to spend time after the military in a smaller regional before getting into a major airline.
A lot of them fail because for them, coming to an airline is something they see as a necessary evil, a way to increase their pay and get more time off even though they see civilian flying as "boring" (I would argue it isn't but that's a discussion for another time). Recruiters pick up on that lack of passion, and then are more likely to recruit via cadet programs in which candidates who have a strong passion and aptitude for civilian flying can be recruited instead.

In your previous comments you stated cadets aren't "the best" candidates selected. That they woke up one day and just decided to do it. That is false. In my country to get into a cadet scheme you'll have to prove a long term passion and dedication to aviation, otherwise the airline will tell you that you're wasting your time and to go home.

You also accused them of basically rote learning manuals without having the capacity to think critically. Again nonsense. In initial selection and aptitude testing this is a trait that recruiters specifically look for. It is stressed and developed upon in training and whilst flying as a first officer.

And that cadets don't develop properly where you fly because they are afraid of making the wrong decisions? Again the airlines I know of actively develop the leadership and decision making skills and don't punish them for "wrong" decisions (only unsafe ones).

I would question how the airline you are employed with trains your "cadets". It seems by some of your opinions you're talking about cadets or low houred P2F carriers from Asia or the Mid East, who may suffer from a lack of passion for aviation and cultural tendencies to rote learning information. This isn't what I mean by a well selected and trained cadet in a culture that fosters good growth and career development. I would point to the cadetships of airlines in places like Europe, Canada, Africa, some Asian countries and Australia and New Zealand. These countries have proven that it is possible to foster a safe culture through cadet pilots (some solely cadets) and have done so for decades.