American Eagle response to the 1,500 rule

Fearless Tower said:
And note to Congress....BOTH of those pilots had well over 1500 hrs.
Click to expand...

Bingo, it's not all about hours. 1500 hours isn't worth crap if you've flow the same hour 1500 times. I'd rather fly with the 500hr guy who's been around in that time than the guy who flew a thousand more hours but only in good conditions.
 
TMetzinger said:
It's a LAW. Congress told the FAA "Thou shalt change part 121" and the FAA is still working out the details (read: exemptions/grandfathering) on how to do this. I suspect they may hope that dragging their feet might work as well for them as it has for DHS when it comes to justifying the SFRA/FRZ.
Click to expand...
Hell....there's at least a precedence of dragging feet....Congress STILL doesn't have an agreed on budget!
 
When I was coming up through the ranks, the all elusive jet time was lauded as the only experience that mattered, because (we were told) jets were harder to fly. The current crop of 90-day ERU wonders would have had their world rocked by the likes of the Metroliners we used to fly 7 legs a day, sans autopilot, IN the weather, instead of over it. Think of it as a 2,000hp twin Cessna and you'll get the idea. Back then, almost everybody had come from a part 135 freight background and still the washout rate for Captain upgrade was about 50 percent.

Hey, I don't fault any of these young pilots for wanting a good flying job. But if no one would hire them to fly single-pilot IFR in a Baron, do you want them in the cockpit of an airliner? Rather than substantially LOWERING the bar for airlines, maybe the bar should be lowered for 135 single-pilot multi IFR. Does it make any sense to have a 1200hr requirement to fly a 310 full of mail bags, and 500hr First Officer on a 50 passenger jet?
 
j1b3h0 said:
Hey, I don't fault any of these young pilots for wanting a good flying job. But if no one would hire them to fly single-pilot IFR in a Baron, do you want them in the cockpit of an airliner? Rather than substantially LOWERING the bar for airlines, maybe the bar should be lowered for 135 single-pilot multi IFR. Does it make any sense to have a 1200hr requirement to fly a 310 full of mail bags, and 500hr First Officer on a 50 passenger jet?
Click to expand...

Well the 1200 hour is for 135 IFR PIC, not just for cargo, right? So it may make sense to have high experience requirements for the next guy flying Buddy Holly. But perhaps relaxing the rules for cargo makes sense.

As far as the FO requirement goes, I'm not convinced that raising it increases safety in any reasonable way.
 
Skylane81E said:
Bingo, it's not all about hours. 1500 hours isn't worth crap if you've flow the same hour 1500 times. I'd rather fly with the 500hr guy who's been around in that time than the guy who flew a thousand more hours but only in good conditions.
Click to expand...

How do you put that into a regulation? Would you require a minimum number of actual IMC, night, cross-country, etc? I don't think the 1500 hour requirement will help much, especially if it is flying a 152 around in good weather, but I don't know how you would create a rule to capture good aviation experiences.
 
TMetzinger said:
Well the 1200 hour is for 135 IFR PIC, not just for cargo, right? So it may make sense to have high experience requirements for the next guy flying Buddy Holly. But perhaps relaxing the rules for cargo makes sense.
Click to expand...

And the problem with the 1200-hour rule still is that you can have people who are just as inexperienced, having 1200 hours of instructional time without any actual weather experience. By the time I hit 1200 hours, I had over 800 hours of multi time in piston twins dealing with long trips and bad weather. A number of 1200-hour pilots I know really don't have any relevant experience that will make them much more qualified to fly Buddy Holly.

As far as the FO requirement goes, I'm not convinced that raising it increases safety in any reasonable way.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that. In a perfect world, FOs and Captains should both be top notch pilots. Certainly our local FOs on PoA are top notch pilots.

It's a hard situation to deal with. Nobody wants pilots without good experience (understandably), but most pilots don't have the financial means to go get that experience on their own dime, which means it's a lot harder to get from A to B other than something like the regionals. I don't think anyone on here would boo-hoo our local Catfish pilot, who did that route.
 
What I love about this whole thing is the upcoming **** storm. Everyone on all sides sees the problem but no one has any real soild solution. As for me I think I'll just watch as it hits the fan. I am not usually the apethetic type, but when you have a situation that's been put off for so long by so many people because no one wants to shoulder an responsibility sometimes my feelings are to just let go and let Darwin.

<---<^>--->
 
The captain who bored the plane into the ground in Buffalo had 6000 hrs, the FO who didn't stop him from doing so 2600.

Changing the requirements from 251 to 1500 is going to make a difference exactly how ?

The captain even went to one of the pilot mills that are vying to be exempt from the 1500hr requirement, the FO in the 2000 hrs she had before signing on with Colgan had never seen a cloud from the inside :thumbsup:.
 
j1b3h0 said:
And feeling kind of sheepish, I look over at him. He had a huge grin on his face, and said "KOOL!" I't fair to say we were on a different wavelenght.
Click to expand...

But is that due to having 500 hours or due to stupidity? One must identify the problem correctly before it can be fixed.
 
p1l0t said:
What I love about this whole thing is the upcoming **** storm. Everyone on all sides sees the problem but no one has any real soild solution.
Click to expand...
I was at the FAA's symposium on the issue about four years ago. A number of "solid solutions" were presented, but they each had a price tag. So far, nobody's willing to pay the price. The new law ends the regionals' low-cost system for dealing with the situation, so maybe they'll be forced to pay. Of course, that might create a situation where the regionals cannot make financial ends meet, in which case they'll either shrink to the markets with enough volume to support a higher overhead cost, or be forced out of business. Either way, there's a ripple effect to the majors, which will lose their now-primary source of "new" pilots, and again, the cost of airline travel will go up.

Now, at that point, will public pressure make Congress amenable to rolling back a "safety" law as they did with the change of the age 60 law a few years ago? :dunno:
 
Ron Levy said:
I was at the FAA's symposium on the issue about four years ago. A number of "solid solutions" were presented, but they each had a price tag. So far, nobody's willing to pay the price. The new law ends the regionals' low-cost system for dealing with the situation, so maybe they'll be forced to pay. Of course, that might create a situation where the regionals cannot make financial ends meet, in which case they'll either shrink to the markets with enough volume to support a higher overhead cost, or be forced out of business. Either way, there's a ripple effect to the majors, which will lose their now-primary source of "new" pilots, and again, the cost of airline travel will go up.

Now, at that point, will public pressure make Congress amenable to rolling back a "safety" law as they did with the change of the age 60 law a few years ago? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Yeah I am waiting to see them push the retirement age up to 70.. Seems like the best way to it put out off longer while still not addressing the problem.

<---<^>--->
 
weilke said:
The captain who bored the plane into the ground in Buffalo had 6000 hrs, the FO who didn't stop him from doing so 2600.

Changing the requirements from 251 to 1500 is going to make a difference exactly how ?

The captain even went to one of the pilot mills that are vying to be exempt from the 1500hr requirement, the FO in the 2000 hrs she had before signing on with Colgan had never seen a cloud from the inside :thumbsup:.
Click to expand...


The point is, the Buffalo Captain and FO were hired by Colgan with very low time. I tend to think getting thrown in an airline cockpit before one is ready (read low total time) is a recipe for arrested development. Probably nothing wrong with either of them that a year of single-pilot, night freight in a piston twin wouldn't cure...oh wait, they didn't have the flight time for that.
 
j1b3h0 said:
The point is, the Buffalo Captain and FO were hired by Colgan with very low time.
Click to expand...

The capt was low time when he was hired, 5500 hrs earlier. Iirc the FO had 2000 hrs of fairweather instructing in Arizona before hiring on with the airline.
Until there are requirements of what the experience has to include, just ratcheting up the raw hours or requiring college courses will not fix the perceived experience gap in airline hires. If you required 1000 hrs of ME time, ATP would come up with a way to fulfill that in a cri-cri on a string circling some airport in AZ.
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
Well the 1200 hour is for 135 IFR PIC, not just for cargo, right? So it may make sense to have high experience requirements for the next guy flying Buddy Holly. But perhaps relaxing the rules for cargo makes sense.

As far as the FO requirement goes, I'm not convinced that raising it increases safety in any reasonable way.
Click to expand...

Why should the 'Buddy Hollys' of the world pilots be held to a different standard than an airline passenger?

Have you ever been saddled with a bad weather day, in and out of Chicago O'hare for several legs with a First Officer who, despite his best efforts, is just overwhelmed with the complexities of deicing and hold-over times and 5 frequency changes...before takeoff!, and the labrith and miriad of taxiways in the snow and ice. Or, while inbound, there are airplanes holding on all points of the compass - collectively running out of fuel, while ORD is changing runways/approaches? It's challenging enough for me, when I have an experienced, skilled person in the right seat. The company wants new FOs to complete IOE in 25-50hrs, but the fact is every Captain they fly with has to provide additional IOE...for years! It really takes almost everybody 1000hrs in each pilot seat on an airliner before they're really on their game, PROVIDED THEY HAVE THE RIGHT EXPERIENCE. If a pilot is incapable of performing to ATP standards in a light twin, AND, making decisions, they place an added burdon on every Captain they work for.

I thing the only real anwer to the pilot shortage problem, is to lower the bar...NOT for airlines, but for 135 single pilot, multi-eng IFR. Make it, say, 500hrs, instead of 1200. If a person can pass the checkride, put 'em to work.
 
Here is a crazy idea.. Make the jobs pay enough that it justifies taking $100k in loans because there is some ROI. (Or one could at least make the payments..) I managed without the loans and at nearly half that cost (BS and CFII) but I am the 1%.. Either way I'm at about 20% ROI [500hrs dual x $20+/hr] after 6 years.. (4yrs instructing part-time I suppose a FT instructor does much better maybe that in a year) Slow return and I did it on the cheap. And don't forget this not much of an increase over what I make maching [and I could make more if I told my Dad to pound sand and worked for the highest bidder but then I couldn't leave at noon to go flying]. If you consider only the difference of what I make hourly its almost neglible based on the investment. So the poor kid out of college with $100k in loans making $25k/yr to fly right seat is a negative ROI... 'merica! Although I fly for free which at a modest $100/hr I already made my money back ten fold. ;)

<---<^>--->
 
Well, if it's any consolation, it sounds as though the supply of (experienced) is drying up. Demand must follow...
 
maddog52 said:
Unfortunately, they rarely if ever do the wetting down anymore. Gotta save the taxpayers money.
Click to expand...

Sheesh. They pay the fire crew to sit there anyway. Can't be that much fuel to run the truck over and run the pumps for a minute.

Call it a training exercise.
 
Flew into Appleton on a BAe146 maybe 3 years ago and we got the washdown and everything for the retiring captain.
 
I think we all know that the 1500 hour rule is just silly.

My club has a rule that prohibits pilots from flying to an airport with a runway less than 2500 feet. I can't fly a 172 into a 2300 foot runway (w75) at 30'msl. But I can fly into a 2700 foot strip a 6000' msl loaded to gross on a hot day and kill myself. I think this rule is similar to the 1500hr rule
 
j1b3h0 said:
Do you have 1500hrs?
Click to expand...

No, but I think that's beside the point. When I hit 1500 hours i'm not going to look down on all of the pilots below that level and scoff at their inexperience and inability.

I say its a short-sighted rule because I know that there are pilots who have less than 1500 hours that are competent and safe, and there are pilots who have more than 1500 hours that are an accident waiting to happen.

Just as I know that some runways under 2500 feet are safe, and some runways over 2500 feet are beyond the capabilities of my airplane.

With a pilot shortage and a high 1500 hour minimum, pilots are going to get hired just because they can meet the minimum, and there is going to be less evaluation & interviewing done by employers to weed out the guys who are not fit for the job.

As an example, my uncle used to fly with a former (well over 1500hours) airline captain in his apache. The apache had a known slight fuel leak in the cockpit (something to do with the tank valve) and the pilot flying the plane would routinely smoke cigarettes in it. Same guy would just pick a light spot in a line of tstorms and just go bombing through it without even bothering to talk to ATC. I don't have 1500 hours, and you certainly won't find me doing either of those things.

Someone said earlier (paraphrasing here) "if the FAA imposes a ridiculous minimum for ME time, ATP will find a way to meet it by flying a cri cri in circles on a string in Arizona"

This isn't to say i don't think experience counts. I have been flying regularly with 3 high-time pilots and I am grateful because I learn much from them. However, I'll stick to my opinion that min. 1500 hours is a poor way of evaluating experience.
 
Last edited:
While I agree that arbitrarily picking 1500 hours is no guarantee of anything I feel it is without question a step in the right direction. Why ? Because the system we have now is FAR worse. If the FAA says to the regionals "Just make sure all your applicants are well rounded and have a wide variety of experience" the regionals are going to keep hiring 250 hr. wonders and swearing that they check out.

Hours equals exposure, not necessarily experience. We can document and easily verify exposure. It is far more difficult, costly and time consuming to verify ACTUAL experience. It is hoped that within this exposure period the requisite experiences will have occurred. The most simple of mathematical odds favor (not guarantee) that this is MORE likely to have occurred in a 1500 hour exposure period versus a 250 hour one. I can easily train just about ANY 250hr candidate to pass an initial simulator checkride (as a matter of fact I used to do so for a meager living) Over all "aeronautical common sense" , which is what we REALLY want to see in an applicant is much harder to quickly discover.

While we would like to think that the regionals will apply some sort of magical, ethereal Jedi-like system of selection the truth is very far from that, thus requiring some kind of a verifiable level of exposure. The only other solution I see is the implementation of a Lufthansa style airline academy, which may end up happening as well.
 
I agree with the exposure idea and that the 1500 hour pilot is generally going to be better than the 250 hour pilot.

However if there is a shortage of pilots above the 1500 hour mark, what is hiring going to look like?

The answer is they'll snap up anyone who meets the minimums. The starting pay is so low they'll have an extremely small number of applicants to choose from for new hires. This is bad. By reducing the minimum they'll have many applicants to choose from and can do a better job of picking professionals instead of yahoos.


At least that's how I see it!
 
Last edited:
Who do you want flying your loved ones? Probably somebody well trained, competent and experienced. I'm not alone in thinking the first (flying) job a pilot gets shouldn't be in an airliner.
 
Because your down looking up.

Looking down, if there is a shortage, they will have to pay more to get the quality guys.

There is absolutely no shortage of pilots that meet the 1500 ATP rule. There is currently a shortage of those qualified people that will work for less than a burger king manager.

Raise the wage to that of the corporate guys or a little more, and you would see plenty of pilots applying. Not only that, if the bottom is raised, the new guys might have a shot at paying off a student loan and maybe buying a house before they die.

But there is no shortage of guys that currently will work for **** pay, then 5 years ***** that they are broke. Not seeing that what they did when they were younger in accepting such **** pay is the reason they will never make good money in the business.

I didn't work my ass off for 10 years to work for 26k a year. I found a job that pays what I feel flying planes should, and its not for any airline.
 
Last edited:
p1l0t said:
I got my Private through Interstate Aviation at Roberston, great people. I teach out of Hartford-Brainard though.

<---<^>--->
Click to expand...

Are you a freelance instructor or do you instruct at an FBO? Just curious because I fly out of HFD. Sorry to get off topic.
 
j1b3h0 said:
Who do you want flying your loved ones? Probably somebody well trained, competent and experienced. I'm not alone in thinking the first (flying) job a pilot gets shouldn't be in an airliner.
Click to expand...

Bah. They put kids in fighters. It's about the training. And the competition.

No competition to do anything but fill a logbook, fly a day of simulator time (and least initially only a day) and look the part at the interview, commercially.

Seniority systems destroy competition after IOE. None there at all other than to pass simulator rides. You're not getting the best, you're retaining the adequate. Some are great, some are barely passing.
 
denverpilot said:
Seniority systems destroy competition after IOE. None there at all other than to pass simulator rides. You're not getting the best, you're retaining the adequate. Some are great, some are barely passing.
Click to expand...

BS.gif
 
j1b3h0 said:
Who do you want flying your loved ones? Probably somebody well trained, competent and experienced. I'm not alone in thinking the first (flying) job a pilot gets shouldn't be in an airliner.
Click to expand...

I want someone well trained and supervised by someone with experience up front. As there is currently no requirement on how you accumulate those 1500hrs, there is no guarantee that increasing the raw numbers will add any more experience to the cockpit.

Many european flag carriers do ab-initio training, they dont even accept you into their program if you have flying experience beyond a private or glider rating. I dont think their safety record is any worse than US carriers overall.
 
I expect there's a lot more to success at an airline career than just meeting standards in the flying evaluations, and seniority.
 
TMetzinger said:
I expect there's a lot more to success at an airline career than just meeting standards in the flying evaluations, and seniority.
Click to expand...

You may never upgrade, but you'll still be sitting in the seat. No matter if there's a 120,000 hour guy furloughed from another airline chomping at the bit to get hired by yours.

The comment was "Who do you want flying your family?" I want the 120,000 hour guy, not the 1500 hour wonder who hit the hiring class right before he did and filled the last slot.

In any non-Union job, people are hired in above others all the time. Get a chance to pick up a 25 year software developer and there's an open req? Yup. He'll be above the fresh-out-of school "I learned Java in 24 Hours!" kid.

Not so at an airline. Experience only gets you to the head of the hiring line. Once hired, you'll work your way back up from Reserve. Doesn't matter if you're Bob Hoover himself.
 
In an odd coincidence, last night I spent 2 hrs sitting next to Jim Oberstar, the man responsible for this law. Would have helped if I had recognized him before we got off the plane, LoL.
 
TMetzinger said:
I expect there's a lot more to success at an airline career than just meeting standards in the flying evaluations, and seniority.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! :thumbsup:

denverpilot said:
You may never upgrade, but you'll still be sitting in the seat.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight, you believe once a pilot is hired by an air carrier he no longer has to meet standards set forth by the regulations and the company? :dunno: Do you believe he is now "exempt" from recurrent evaluations as well as line evaluations?

Some air carriers have an "up or out" clause in the pilot CBA, you upgrade when your time comes or you're out. When I was hired I was specifically told I was being hired to be a Captain. It makes no sense for the carrier to hire First Officers with the expectation they will never upgrade.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
It makes no sense for the carrier to hire First Officers with the expectation they will never upgrade.
Click to expand...

That is only because they are tied into this union seniority thing. If they could hire captains directly from their competitors or the military, there would be no reason not to hire lower level worker bees.
 
weilke said:
That is only because they are tied into this union seniority thing. If they could hire captains directly from their competitors or the military, there would be no reason not to hire lower level worker bees.
Click to expand...

So you are proposing lower standards for F/O's versus Captains???:dunno:

How would that achieve the same level of proficiency and safety that is currently required by regulation and policy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top