YouTuber on the 1500 Hour Rule. What Do You Think?

Bonchie

Bonchie

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 23, 2014
Messages
1,505
Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
Came across this YouTube video from what I gather is a popular content creator. It's basically all the reasons the 1500-hour rule is "ridiculous."

And while he makes some good points about financial burden, I’m not sure that applies to getting time post training (I.e. paid) anyway.


Call me a stick in the mud, but I just don't agree anymore. At 250 hours, you don't know what you don't know, and I look back at how crappy of a pilot I actually was back then (at the time, I thought I was great, of course) and I'm glad the system made me gain the experience I now have.

Too many people dismiss instructing as just repetitive hole boring, but I learned a ton and became a way more proficient, confident flyer. Teaching really does teach you a ton.

I’ve done several commercial students through their checkride and I didn’t have one that was so amazing I thought they didn’t need to build time after that.

I'm not saying the 1500-hour mark itself means a lot as far as judging competency, but certainly, I learned a lot up to 1000 hour mark at least. At that point, I'd agree some plateauing occurs as you just grind the rest out, but then you've only got half a year or so left of you are time-building, and that time will be spent trying to get interviews and carrying them out anyway.

Regardless, I see all the low-time pilots in the comments of that video insisting they should be put in the right seat of a jet and I roll my eyes, both because of how naive they are and because that would have been me saying the same thing. Kind of a nice wake-up call to never think you know more than you do, even in the place you are now.
 
Last edited:
In the airline world, there is always two pilots. The left seat person has a lot of experience.

The right seat person can be lower time and build that time and experience in the airline world.

Maybe not 250 hour newly minted commercial (see Ethiopian Airline Max crash with FO with 272 hours TOTAL time), but, IMO, 1500 and ATP is overkill.

Remember, the rule came about due to Colgan crash. Where both pilots were over 1500 hours.
 
Ha, I think I’d rather have them in the right seat of a legacy major airline than anywhere else.

Turns out, that’s the easiest flying there is…

Small airline, instructing, part 135… you gotta know something and figure it out yourself. Need REAL experience for that.
 
I know a couple of retired airline captains who were hired as 250 hour wonders back in the 1960s. Both became captains and flew for the "majors" until mandatory retirement age. With that said, I do believe that such relatively low time pilots need to be paired with very experienced captains.

Don't forget the Asiana SFO crash which involved a high time cockpit crew.
 
Seems there could be a test to sort it out. Take groups of 500 hour, 1000 hour, and 1500 hour pilots and put them in a simulator to test basic flying and decision making skills.
 
Bonchie said:
Came across this YouTube video from what I gather is a popular content creator. It's basically all the reasons the 1500-hour rule is "ridiculous."

And while he makes some good points about financial burden, I’m not sure that applies to getting time post training (I.e. paid) anyway.


Call me a stick in the mud, but I just don't agree anymore. At 250 hours, you don't know what you don't know, and I look back at how crappy of a pilot I actually was back then (at the time, I thought I was great, of course) and I'm glad the system made me gain the experience I now have.

Too many people dismiss instructing as just repetitive hole boring, but I learned a ton and became a way more proficient, confident flyer. Teaching really does teach you a ton.

I’ve done several commercial students through their checkride and I didn’t have one that was so amazing I thought they didn’t need to build time after that.

I'm not saying the 1500-hour mark itself means a lot as far as judging competency, but certainly, I learned a lot up to 1000 hour mark at least. At that point, I'd agree some plateauing occurs as you just grind the rest out, but then you've only got half a year or so left of you are time-building, and that time will be spent trying to get interviews and carrying them out anyway.

Regardless, I see all the low-time pilots in the comments of that video insisting they should be put in the right seat of a jet and I roll my eyes, both because of how naive they are and because that would have been me saying the same thing. Kind of a nice wake-up call to never think you know more than you do, even in the place you are now.
Click to expand...

As someone that has trained Soldiers to take multi-million dollar tanks out into the world and fire live rounds I ask a couple simple questions....

1. was the rule created because people with less experience were used as evidence?
2. was there a study done on the quality of pilot that was hired at 250, 700, 1000 hours?
3. is there a comparison of the different training pipelines and the quality of candidates?
4. was the 1500 rule taken from real data or was it created from a layman that simply wanted to get votes because they looked like they were doing something?
 
What's the 1500 hour rule ? I don't see anything that says anything about 1500 hrs required.
 
As has been explained already, the shortage is in hours of SIC to upgrade to CA in 121, not a shortage of airline dreamers on the outside with 1500 CTP/written/ATP qualifying hours banging down the regional doors because they now pay decent wages. Even if you delete that rule but keep 121.436a3i, nothing would change in terms of your ability to on-board on a regional right now, literally nothing. IOW for those with a commercial ticket currently kvetching about the colgan rule getting in their way of liVing da dReam, in the words of Bloat:
finding-nemo-bags.gif
 
I think it’s obvious that a 1,500 hr pilot will most likely be a better pilot than say a 250 hr pilot. Having said that, there’s no reason to require that out of an FO. They’re being paired with someone with way more hrs than 1,500.

Just like in the military, there’s no need and it would be impossible to fill cockpits with a 1,500 hr requirement. Guys are slamming on to carriers single pilot with a few hundred hrs. Even transport guys go to their first assignment with a couple hundred hours. It’s not like they’re taking unreasonable risk because it’s the military.

Now single pilot 135, 1,500 hrs isn’t that far off the mark. We require 2,000 hrs and even then, some really don’t have the background for the job. An example of hours doesn't necessarily equate to relevant experience.
 
Last edited:
While I agree that the 1500-hour mark (or ATP certificate) mean almost nothing in terms of who should or shouldn’t be in the right seat of a jet, my experience is that the ones who are most vocal about it tend to be the most work to fly with.

I think the military comparison comes up a little short, since for the most part I don’t believe there’s a “train til you can pass, no matter how long it takes” option there.
 
It's not a 1,500 hour rule. It is an ATP rule. You can get a qualifying ATP wtih 750, 1,000, 1,250, or 1,500 hours, depending on the type of training you had. It also requires a lot of other experience than just the total time requirement.
 
How many airline passengers have died on a US based airline since the ATP rule was passed?
 
MauleSkinner said:
I think the military comparison comes up a little short, since for the most part I don’t believe there’s a “train til you can pass, no matter how long it takes” option there.
Click to expand...

Not only a little short, a lot short. Banging out cat traps at night in a Hornet single pilot at 300 hours is not in the same galaxy as as flying boxes in caravans into proverbial Burley, ID over potato plant steam stacks single pilot at 300 hours. Which is to say it's completely back @sswards to suggest the latter would "writ large" lend itself to require more hours than the former. Before one could utter that, one would have to normalize for input. And well.... that's another two additional galaxies apart, I don't care who that offends. I think the problem is that some people take what C-5 pilots do in peacetime (strat airlift) and attempt to normalize it anywhere near representative of the joint arms employment that military aviation on the pointy/tactical side is involved in. That's just terrible bad faith arguing, if not rank out of the loop/uninformed.

I take exception to the notion we aren't taking risks by manning our front line with our junior. We absolutely are, and we have the deaths to show for it as a consequence.

Point being none of it makes it prudent to compare military excess loss and training accessions with that of a civilian carriage/revenue model. It's apples and cantaloupes.

We do have the position of the market and the government when it comes to tie-breaking this misunderstanding. Thence the reason airlines and the FAA alike give credit (unduly, according to the part 61 grievance crowd) for military-aviation and part 141 backgrounds over part 61 entrants, good. bad. indifferent. The aggrieved can take it up with Congress I guess (R-ATP, airline military conversion bonuses, et al).

aftCG said:
I don't want to hire pilots with 1 hour, 1500 times
Click to expand...
Don't look now, but that's airline flying, WB in particular, especially when normalized for the statistical 'mode' of airports landed in compared to 91/91k. I'm being partly facetious of course, as I know what you're trying to imply (diversity of experience).

MPL in Europe continues to challenge the virtue of aptitude-vetting by experience-diversity proxy argument. I happen to disagree with MPL, but I'm just saying that the debate is far from settled.


Groundpounder said:
How many airline passengers have died on a US based airline since the ATP rule was passed?
Click to expand...

Very fair point. I think one, Jennifer Riordan. Got partially sucked out of a SWA 73. Terrible way to go, guaranteed wasn't instant.
 
Last edited:
DavidWhite said:
Are you the new Chief Pilot out there?
Click to expand...
Ass chief. Most resumes cross my desk first.

Without quoting anyone specific, I think the .mil comparison is valid. Of course there's no "train until you're good enough". There's "meet the criteria by this milestone or get lost". Trapping a carrier deck at 300 hours in a turbine powered aircraft says LOADS about the difference in flight training. No one in the navy just flies around burning JP4 to pump up the logbook.

Some people don't have what it takes to fly in the challenging conditions we fly in for single pilot 135. I employ some of them. I love some of them like a brother, but I wouldn't hire them again if I knew what I do now.

The analysis of the Colgon crash is a joke. It was the high hour captain in the left seat pulling back on the yoke when the plane stalled. It didn't have Jack to do with the FO.
 
hindsight2020 said:
…MPL in Europe continues to challenge the virtue of aptitude-vetting by experience-diversity proxy argument. I happen to disagree with MPL, but I'm just saying that the debate is far from settled…
Click to expand...
That’s the most comparable experiment environment going around, so at least it’s fruits to fruits.

As for part 121 deaths if we’re saying that’s solely due to 1500hr FOs, that says evrything else we’ve done in the name of safety hasn’t improved safety at all.
 
Not too long ago before the 1500 rule, airlines wouldn’t even look at you until you had 1500 and 250 multi. It was in riddle and other big name schools were sliding their pilots into jobs with less hours.

And the starting pay was $15k to work at a regional.
 
[QUOTE="aftCG, post: 3387544, member: 26141"
The analysis of the Colgon crash is a joke. It was the high hour captain in the left seat pulling back on the yoke when the plane stalled. It didn't have Jack to do with the FO.[/QUOTE]

I believe the first officer's retraction of the flaps was a major factor in the Colgan Air crash. The FO retracted the flaps without being told to do so by the captain. Ya just don't retract the flaps when you're already low 'N' slow.
 
Capngrog said:
[QUOTE="aftCG, post: 3387544, member: 26141"
The analysis of the Colgon crash is a joke. It was the high hour captain in the left seat pulling back on the yoke when the plane stalled. It didn't have Jack to do with the FO.
Click to expand...

I believe the first officer's retraction of the flaps was a major factor in the Colgan Air crash. The FO retracted the flaps without being told to do so by the captain. Ya just don't retract the flaps when you're already low 'N' slow.[/QUOTE]

But at least the FO knew how to recover from a stall.
 
WDD said:
Seems there could be a test to sort it out. Take groups of 500 hour, 1000 hour, and 1500 hour pilots and put them in a simulator to test basic flying and decision making skills.
Click to expand...
Well... it's not going to be a good test. I have seen so much variation in basic flying skills and ADM no matter what experience level there was.

Back in 2001, as a new CFI, I did my first flight review and was disturbed by how awful the pilot was at altitude control and flying a consistent, appropriate traffic pattern. I judged him safe but was a bit reluctant to sign him off. I did, and then called my flight instructor who trained me for the CFI rating. She said, "You're gonna see everything, from airline pilots who can't fly small airplanes, to farmers who can fly better than you can. Your decision to sign them off is based on whether you would let them take your kids or grandchildren for a ride."
 
NJP_MAN said:
What's the 1500 hour rule ? I don't see anything that says anything about 1500 hrs required.
Click to expand...

To be hired by an airline, you will need 1,500 hours, unless, I believe, you have attended a Part 141 school, where you can qualify with 1,000 hours. Of course, it is not that simple, because the hiring company will also want multi-engine time, turbine time, etc.
 
Gilbert Buettner said:
To be hired by an airline, you will need 1,500 hours, unless, I believe, you have attended a Part 141 school, where you can qualify with 1,000 hours. Of course, it is not that simple, because the hiring company will also want multi-engine time, turbine time, etc.
Click to expand...
Or 1250, or 750. Depends on your training. 1500 hours isn't the rule. restricted ATP is the rule.
 
NJP_MAN said:
Or 1250, or 750. Depends on your training. 1500 hours isn't the rule. restricted ATP is the rule.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. It never mattered to me. I left active service with just under 1,500 hours but went back to my old job in TV news.
 
I believe the bigger issue is the shrinkage of ways to get to the required hours. It's feast or famine often. There are only so many jobs out there right now that can help you build the time. Check hauling and some of the other old standbys have gone away due to progress. Even aerial photography has had some impact with drones, and whenever there are too many pilots and the shortages aren't being yelled about, it can be harder to have enough students to build time fast as a CFI. I think most of this isn't about the 1500 hours, but about barriers to entry, but then the airlines yell pilot shortage to fill up the flight schools to get their CFI's the time.
 
"1500 or 1250 or 1000 or 750-hour rule depending on your training" doesn't roll of the tongue.

Sometimes names for things, especially slang ones, aren't entirely accurate.

Look at asbestos. Not extinguishable? Really?
 
aftCG said:
^this
If you're "grinding away" or "boring holes" to get to 1500 hours you miss the point entirely.
I don't want to hire pilots with 1 hour, 1500 times
Click to expand...

People have to get their time in whatever way presents itself. But for the most part, anyone getting to 1500 will have some breadth of experience. Instructing, especially with the CFII, is pretty varied, and that’s probably 90% of time building aside from military. For every one guy I know who did pipeline patrol, I know ten guys who instructed.
 
The atp requirement was never really about safety. It did not meaningfully change the safety aspect of 121 aviation.

It was sold as a safety improvement by the politicians. So now any retraction of said rule plays out as a reduction in safety to allow more profit. So we are probably stuck with having an atp requirement.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
The atp requirement was never really about safety. It did not meaningfully change the safety aspect of 121 aviation.

It was sold as a safety improvement by the politicians. So now any retraction of said rule plays out as a reduction in safety to allow more profit. So we are probably stuck with having an atp requirement.
Click to expand...

Exactly. ALPA exploited the Colgan crash (both pilots were well in excess of 1,500 hours) and paraded the families of the victims in front of Congress demanding the ATP requirement to slow the flow of new pilots, in turn driving up wages. It was never about safety.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Exactly. ALPA exploited the Colgan crash (both pilots were well in excess of 1,500 hours) and paraded the families of the victims in front of Congress demanding the ATP requirement to slow the flow of new pilots, in turn driving up wages. It was never about safety.
Click to expand...

There is a labor shortage in every industry in the US today. Did the ALPA cause those shortages too?
 
Airlines are trying to launch programs to time build via the “safety pilot method”. So the breadth of experience is far less than you gain by flight instructing….effectively reducing experience requirements.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I believe the bigger issue is the shrinkage of ways to get to the required hours. It's feast or famine often. There are only so many jobs out there right now that can help you build the time. Check hauling and some of the other old standbys have gone away due to progress. Even aerial photography has had some impact with drones, and whenever there are too many pilots and the shortages aren't being yelled about, it can be harder to have enough students to build time fast as a CFI. I think most of this isn't about the 1500 hours, but about barriers to entry, but then the airlines yell pilot shortage to fill up the flight schools to get their CFI's the time.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that a lot of the “old standbys” like check hauling didn’t start until at least 1200 hours, and getting into the right seat of a regional didn’t generally happen for at least a thousand hours beyond that. Jumping into the right seat of an airliner at 250-300 hours has happened, but for very short periods of time. A couple thousand hours of dual given is more the norm than the exception.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
She was trying to lower the nose, capt was pulling up.
I thought she retracted the flaps on captain’s order?
Click to expand...
My recollection is that she selected landing flaps just as the stick shaker activated, and she retracted them without any communication in the cockpit on the subject.

But even if the captain had commanded it, she shouldn’t have done it. And that is exactly what the ATP requirement is about…getting copilots in the airplane who have the experience to know when not to do what the captain says.
 
For many years the airlines (with the FAA bleesing) taught stalls as a performance manuever. In the sim it was approach to stall, at the first sign os a stall maintain altitude and recover, not climbing or descending.

The Colgan Capt started his recovery the way he was taught, hold altitude. The FO screwed the pooch when she retracted the flaps.

Now stalls are taught as.....stalls. Recognize and recover, which means loss of altitude (nose down add power) is acceptable. Many programs have expanded stall recognition and recovery training.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top