Lots of moaning on this thread and no solution. Standard. I'll throw a solution out there. Ab initio training. Tried and true in the military. Solves the "not all hours are made alike" problem inherent with hiring people from all over kingdom come doing backflips to get hired at whatever arbitrary logged hours minimums the economy supports that year. That approach to hiring doesn't fare well for the lowest common denominator and his/her dreams of flying a shiny jet across the sky for 35K a year though.....
Ab initio. Anything else and you're swimming in the same problem as before.
Of course noone has the solution, this is the internet!!
The only real solutions would require a massive paradigm shift from the airlines (and a huge outlay of money by them) which just isn't going to happen. Raising salaries, toughening the hiring criteria, attracting and retaining the best possible candidates while getting rid of those who just don't have a talent for it are the only things that will fix the problem. But they also cost money that the airlines aren't going to spend.
Plus, the airlines' idea of a good pilot and a pilot's idea of a good pilot are generally quite disparate.
I don't think ab initio is going to solve any of the issues from the Colgan crash. The big pilot mills (that everyone hates so much) are basically just ab initio programs that the pilot pays for instead of the company. They teach you to be an excellent 737 (or RJ) operator, but not a pilot. The training is the bare minimum needed to pass the ride on the type of plane you're going to be flying. It's tough to learn ADM and professionalism (two things that were certainly missing from the Q cockpit that night) when you're just checking the boxes between A and B over and over.
Case in point - the Chinese pilot who confused the rudder trim switch for the electronic door lock switch in the 737. He could probably tell you chapter and verse where each system is in the manual, what bus powers it, etc...but he couldn't figure out how to make the plane stop flying sideways until the captain came in and fixed it.
I'll throw another solution out there. Raise the pay so that it's not the bottom rung on the ladder. Oh wait, that's not going to happen.
Bingo. The problem isn't one of a lack of regulation. It's a problem of the companies themselves and endemic in the airline system as a whole. It isn't a problem of a lack of hours, it's a problem of a lack of relevant experience in both seats, mentorship, and quality of training.
Well let's see if I have this right. The low time pilots do not think that experience matters. The high time pilot thinks experience does matter.
You know there is one group that has some skin in this game. The insurance companies have a vested interest in preventing the bending of sheet metal and preventing the scattering of body parts. I am not in the insurance business but I would think they have done the studies, gone over statistics and have a pretty good feel on the best way to avoid the bending of sheet metal and scattering of body parts. I wonder if they attatch any importance to amount of experience and type of experience?
I am not sure this new rule would have impacted this particular accident but I have a hard time with a pilot in a 121 aircraft without an ATP. That is just me. But then I avoid the reginals at all costs anyway.
Like you, I have no problem with requiring an ATP for airline pilots. I don't think it's going to hurt anything...I just don't think it's going to solve ANY of the issues present after the Colgan (or Comair) crashes. I'm all for everyone in 121 having ATPs and PIC types on their planes - but that won't remove the human error element.
As far as the insurance companies - they seem to have set their limits, and they're much lower than those required by the FAA for an ATP. Insurance is one of, if not possibly the only reason most companies set their mins in the 500/50 to 1000/100 range. If insurance would let them, the regionals would probably be happy to stick a guy with a wet commercial in the right seat, pay him half what they pay now, and say "your area of operation is the radio and the gear handle for the first two years."
There have been plenty of crystal clear VFR days with a raging crosswind that I would have VERY much rather been in Q-400 than a J-3 because a Q-400 is about nine thousand times easier to land (well) than a J-3. Also, have you ever picked up a banner ? I have, did it in a ratty old Citabria for a whole season. Are you aware of what's involved ? It ain't easy to do well and since you seem to know everything you probably won't believe me when I say that it REALLY builds skill. As does the conundrum of flying airplanes that break a lot. I also flew skydivers, photographers and bank checks. But I ONLY have about 17,000 hrs and five jet type ratings so I guess I defer your expertise here.
Have you ever landed a Q-400 in a raging crosswind? That airplane wants to tailstrike if you look at it funny; it is NOT an easy plane to land. Period. Let alone well. Anything beyond on-speed, on-sink, on centerline, and in the touch down zone is pure luck in that plane.
But that's fairly unimportant to my overall arguement.
I've been there for several banner pickups. And skydiver drops. Those are fun and all, but require a skill set quite unique (and removed) from that of airline driver. I'm sure you could fly the hell out of a banner tow by the end of that season. I can fly the hell out of a twin turbo-prop. At one time I could fly the hell out of a Cessna single. But I'd wager if you got into a banner tow tomorrow, and I into a Cessna, we'd both be a little rusty. Because while we both fly regularly, it's simply a different skill set than what we use at our day jobs.
Is it good to have a variety of experience? Of course! Does more hours often bring more experience? Of course! Does more hours guarantee more safety or a better pilot? Not at all!
Flight instructors crash airplanes. Freight dogs crash airplanes. Banner tow pilots crash airplanes. Even jet airline pilots in jets, with 17,000 hrs in jets, with 5 jet type ratings in jets crash airplanes. More hours can't stop human error, especially when fatigued, task saturated, in an unfamiliar type, and distracted by the person next to you.
And before you say "well more experience, they wouldn't have been talking below 10;" More hours doesn't guarantee more professionalism, or an adherence to sterile cockpit, either. Just that the people breaking sterile cockpit have done it longer. Some of the worst sterile cockpit violations and incidents of distracted pilots I've seen were in the jumpseat of mainline jets with jet pilots, with thousands of hours in jets, and jet type ratings.
We're ALL prone to errors. Bekki and Marv made a lot of them that night, in a row. But none of their individual errors were anything any of us aren't potentially able to make ourselves.
In the Colgan crash, a better flight-instructor in the right seat would have noticed the decaying airspeed and brought it to the attention of the student in the left seat. A banner pilot in the left seat would have been keenly aware of the fact that airspeed is life energy. A check-flyer who scared himself in a iced-up Lance at night a couple of times would have been on his A-game going into Buffalo at night, regardless of how long the day has been and how many gate delays they had to deal with.
Yep, can't disagree with that.
I can disagree with that! First you are in no position to judge what kind of instructor Bekki was. Second, even the best master CFI, or ****-hot banner pilot is prone to errors in judgement, errors in observation, and errors in action. Pilots with twice Marv and Bekki's experience have crashed airplanes in better conditions than what they were in. Flying more does not make one invincible, or remove any chance for complacency and error.
All that notwithstanding - this NPRM does NOTHING to ensure a "better" pilot will be in those seats. It does nothing to address the fategue that may or may not have played a part. It does nothing to address the lack of training and lack of systems integration the company had provided WRT the Q's icing systems. It does nothing to address the lack of upset training present in most regional airline crews. In fact, had this law been in place that night, there's a good chance nothing would be different. Both of them might have had lower seniority numbers, but that's it. They both still would have been in their seats that night. This reg isn't going to make better pilots. Just pilots who have flown the VFR pattern a few hundred more times.
Actually it's a step in the wrong direction that was caused by decades of industry already requiring 1200hrs to get your first airline job. That means that most of those kids sat there as flight instructors for over 1200 hrs flying the same 125 hrs over and over and over again. They are basically really really good 125 hr pilots.
Better way is to have them take the right seat with a senior capt for a year or two coming in with 250hrs of experience. THIS however is where the airlines, especially the regionals have a big problem, they don't have enough (or any) senior captains left to bring the new FOs up.
The time issue is not one of being able to fly the plane. You can take a newbie with regional intelligence and in 3 months and 100hrs in the box, you could have them flying the plane rather well; the thing you cant do in that time is teach them aeronautical judgement and decision making, that is what takes years and is what should be done in the real situation day in and day out because that is where things happen and judgement is learned from the person that's been there and done it for real; not a 300-1200hr CFI still having not yet left the training environment relaying the stories they have been told by those like they that came before, basically what we have now.
What this NPRM basically does is assures us that we will continue further and further down the road of inadequate training. Now I'm not saying another method will have better results as the overall results are still pretty good.
The real problem doesn't have anything to do with training, it has to do with command pilot selection at airlines, it is done by a union seniority number rather than qualification.
Bingo. I'd say the problem also lies with airlines' training in general (for new FOs and new CAs) as well as their hiring procedures. But that's due to economic pressures that you can't change by upping the hours. The airlines are still going to provide only the minimum training required, only as often as they're required to provide it. And they're still going to upgrade a pilot whenever their number comes up, whether they're the strongest candidate or not. Just the way the (broken) system works.
I agree that an airman with a wide range of experience would be better. But one could just as well make the argument that a Blue Angel, Thunderbird, or Red Arrow would have been better equipped to handle situations as well.
The question is where the line is drawn. Having a large number of hours does not necessarily translate to a wide range of experience. If a CFI has been doing only primary instruction and intro flights in AZ for his 1500 hours, will he be as "ready" as the check-flyer or the banner-tower or the CFI who's been teaching primary, instrument, multi, and aerobatics for his 1500?
The fact is that at the input to 121 flying (the regionals and other small carriers), their finances will compel them to do the minimum the FAA requires and NOT ONE BIT MORE.
I just don't see how the new rule as written is going to generate better applicants for those entry-level positions. You'll still have folks who did the bare minimum to get those hours applying.
You'll still have ****-hot banner pilots who can fly anything with wings applying at 1,501 hrs. And you'll still have the instructors who texted their way through 1,501hrs worth of lessons (instead of only 500hrs) in the pattern applying. And the airlines will be just as happy with both.
