The problem with hourly requirements, is that they're not a consistent barometer.. but of course we need some sort of minimum.

Personally, I'd like the hourly requirements to be so high, that it eclipses any grey area. I'm talking about 2500 or more hours, before even being a first officer on a Dash-8. In other words, make the bar so high that it takes the cost of it out of the hands of the would-be pilot, and places it in the hands of the airlines. Make it so that they have no choice but to commit huge sums for training new pilots. It wouldn't effect competitiveness, because they'd all have to do it.

And while we're at it.. dramatically increase maintenance standards too. Obviously, this will increase ticket prices, and that will result in less people flying.. less crowded airways and less crowded airports...

It's safer AND greener 

Seriously though.. I've spent a lot of time at a busy flying club.. seen many graduates from Ohio State University's aviation program stop by for a hour-building stint, on their way to regional cockpit jobs.. and frankly, many of them aren't anywhere near ready.

Is there not a class room hours requirement?

The problem is, how do you get those hours?  Most private pilots will never attain that.  Currently, and in the past, pilots built time flight instructing, or flying light aircraft for hire. 

I have two major problems with this new legislation.  The first is the fact that this is a knee-jerk reaction to the Colgan air crash by politicians.  They all seem to have missed the fact, that the pilot of that plane had 5000+ hours. 

My second problem also addressed the Colgan incident.  The pilot had 5000+ hours, but killed himself and the passengers in something that even a private pilot should have recognized, a stall.  The FDR clearly shows, the pilot panicked and yanked back on the stick, and held it there all the way down.  The 5000 hours he had, were probably all the same, take off, autopilot, land...etc.  That is where using hours as a measure of experience is a major failure.  I know pilots that have under 1000 hours, but those hours are all spent learning, and the pilots are very, very good.  Then you have pilots with thousands of hours, most of which is spent zoned out letting the autopilot fly.  Those have quit learning, and are just "driving the bus". 

The truth is, if they really wanted to prevent another Colgan, is to overhaul airline training, and to strip some power from the pilot's union.  The captain of that flight, should have never been hired, and should have been fired long before he got the chance to kill anyone.  He failed multiple checkrides and was frequently noted for his lack of professionalism.  With as many pilots as there are looking for jobs, there is no room to accept a mediocre, even a troublesome, pilot.

The article, in typically ignorant style, refers to "commercial airline pilots." What they mean is "ATPs" also known as "air transport pilots" or "airline pilots".

There's no such thing as a "non-commercial airline", and an airliner or its PIC is not defined by type, they are defined by the phrase "carrying passengers or freight for hire or compensation on scheduled routes."

A pilot could get a 747 type rating and just fly his friends around in it for fun without holding an ATP.

On the other hand, if you want to offer three scheduled runs  a day from Farm A to Farm B in a Piper Cub, and you sell tickets, you are an ATP and your Cub is an airliner.

No, really.

But enough about that... 


I agree that a line must be drawn somewhere, minimums-wise, and who will argue that having more hours is bad... especially for an ATP?

500 hours, for example, is certainly enough to show whether or not one is a good pilot; more than enough, really.

But "good pilot" and "good transport airplane commander" are two very different things.
An ATP has many more opportunities to be negligent  (pressure of all kinds when part of a commercial outfit flying a schedule), yet the stakes are much higher (hundreds of pax in a plane that is very big and very fast). It's not for everyone, even some pilots who are "naturals" when it comes to flying or even passing tests. There has to be sufficient "seasoning" of pilots headed for airline positions.

The actual facts bear this out. Insurance companies, for example, deal with tangible evidence when assessing risk- accident stats, mostly.
The company that insures my glider club's Citabria won't honor the policy if a pilot flies tows, solo, in that plane without 500 total hrs, minimum, 100 tailwheel (if I'm not mistaken) and something like 50 in the same make and model.

And of course, a minimum number of dual tows is required (which also covers the FAA's towplane-pilot signoff).  All this is needed, even though a commercial rating is not (even if pax in the glider pay for the ride, tow pilots are exempt, under FAA rules, from the usual requirement for a CP certificate when money is changing hands).

I could have done all of my 200+ hrs so far in a Citabria, and do very well flying my first tow with guidance from the back seat, yet as far as the insurance co. is concerned, I'd be a terrible risk.

You might say the actuary tables, like the FAA's myriad regs, are written in blood, blood spilled in accidents. Which is why, when airline accidents are particularly "hot" in the mass media, there is a cry from the public for higher minimums.... and the airlines and the FAA are hard-pressed to argue with that logic.

But on the other hand, of course, the key problem related to minimum hours for any certification is the tendency to think the hours tell the whole story.  Studies of all pilots show that statistically they are safer before their first 100 hours, then get quite dangerous up to 500 hours, then get safer up to about 1000 hours, then tend to get worse again. A lot worse. and it's not age-related, if that's what you're thinking...age does not seem to be as much a factor as hours, even when it comes to medical emergencies in flight.

It's simply not a matter of "the more flying you've done, the safer you get."

But since so much of the airline business depends on inspiring confidence, it behooves them to rely heavily on the number of hours... the average person wouldn't understand the subtle complexity of what makes a pilot a good airline pilot as opposed to a "good stick."

Brett_Henderson wrote on Mar 12^th, 2010 at 8:02pm:


'Nuff said.

And in the same vein, I remember a story about two multi-thousand-hour ATPs, both captains, who partnered up on a Stearman. One day they had a problem in the pattern and wound up fighting over the controls, with fatal results.

Neither of them would dream of doing that on the flight deck of an airliner, probably, yet they just didn't have the right mindset to share a Stearman.

It definitely works both ways.... "good ATP" doesn't guarantee "good pilot" in every situation. Especially if that ATP has grown used to getting his way all the time.

Brett_Henderson wrote on Mar 12^th, 2010 at 8:11pm:

And that's why we read the checklist!

I still think the problem they are looking to fix lies in the airline's training programs.  I honestly think when you get hired for an airline position, you are required to take a drug test and get a partial lobotomy.  I have seen more stupid actions out of airline pilots in my career than I have in private or other forms, including watching a Saab 340 takeoff with a 15 knot direct tailwind, and using up all of the runway.