The words “no delay” do a huge amount of work in ground control and takeoff clearance. Maybe some pilots hear it so often they lose its meaning. Or maybe controllers dealing with professional aircrews don’t use it enough.
Aug 30, 2023Liked by Chris J. Karr, David Thornton, Jay Berman
I'm impressed by the improvement but still a white-knuckle flyer. Actually, a non-flyer since I retired. A near miss flying into Miami for Super Bowl X contributed greatly to my apprehensions. We were low enough for me to be studying the drainage layout when I began to wonder what that green plane below us was doing when our plane made a sudden left turn and began climbing. The pilot sounded pretty calm when he announced we got a little too close another plane and we would turn around and land shortly.
Aug 30, 2023Liked by Chris J. Karr, David Thornton
What are your thoughts on the 1500 hour rule? While it may sound great that all* Part 121 FOs have at least 1500 hours, flying 1000+ hours as a CFI/CFII at a Class E untowered airport presumably provides very different experience than even those working as CFI/CFIIs out of towered airports, let alone those who build some time flying surveys or flying Part 135 operations once the pilot hits the 135 minimums. Would there be greater value in the model used elsewhere where a lower time commercial pilot (500, 750, ???) can build time as an FO with senior/instructor captains on a regional in the type of operation in which they will be spending their career?
(Using Colgan as an excuse for the 1500 hour rule seems odd since both pilots that night had over 2000 hours. My understanding is that rest rules and, maybe, airlines having access to pilot history were the more relevant factors.)
You’re right that Colgan wasn’t due to low time pilots, but I that was probably on the FAA wanted list anyway.
I think there should be alternative to the 1500-hour rule. In fact, there are a few exceptions such as a 750 requirement for military -trained pilots. A lot of foreign airlines (and US military) put low-time pilots into high-performance jets with training that is specifically geared to jet operators where most U.S. pilots are trained with a piston/prop mindset. A similar in-house airline training program could be a good alternative.
The FAA doesn’t seem to be considering removing the rule though. They’re actually talking about implementing the 1500-hour rule for for scheduled charter ops, which currently have a loophole.
Wow. Requiring 1500 hours for charter ops would seem to be counterproductive based on what you wrote. Would we rather have jet-trained crew pilots with 750 hours (or 300 even) versus 1500 hours of poking holes in the sky in Cessnas doing primary instruction, CFII currency, and maybe some King Air time?
It's a little more specific than all charters. This would apply to scheduled operations that are similar to scheduled airline flights but that operate under FAR 135.
At some level the FAA's hands are tied on modifying the 1500-hour rule because it was passed by Congress but I agree they are showing they are now wedded to it with the notice of proposed rulemaking on the scheduled charter ops. The pending denial of Skywest's proposal for expanding scheduled charter operations is indicative of this and, potentially, a failure to grasp what the captain shortage at the regionals is doing to smaller markets.
The difference between turbine and piston/prop mindset obviously is relevant. What, to me, seems more relevant is that a large number of the new pilots are building time as instructors with limited actual PIC flying. Does hundreds of hours of saying "more right rudder" and "standard rate turns" provide the experience value intended? The FAA has to say "yes it does" because disallowing dual-given time in the ATP pre-requisites would completely destroy the new pilot pipeline.
Additionally, the insanely high cost of flight training has made it nearly impossible for new pilots to gain flight hours by doing anything other than instructing. Gone are the days of somewhat plentiful low-time flying jobs. Since there is no alternative, inexperienced instructors (some of whom, honestly, have no real business instructing other people) are forced to do so if they want to build time to get to that magical 1,500 number. They don't necessarily want to instruct - they have to.
It's like sending your kid to 9th grade math class that is taught by an 11th grade math student that doesn't want to be there, because the 11th grader can't graduate and get the job they want until they "do their time." Mind you, the 11th grader still has to pass 12th grade (ATP in this analogy), which is the only class in school taught by an actual teacher. Oh, and by the way, this school is costing you an absolute fortune.
Perfect description. Back in 1985, I could get my primary instruction fairly cheap. I don’t think it’s possible now for under $10-15k. Only the rich can afford to be recreational private pilots.
Wet rental of a C172 is $150-250/hr in the Phoenix area depending on the vintage, the airport, and whether it is through a flying club with flying clubs being the least expensive (claimed lower prices are dry but the cost of 100LL adds up fast). I think Piper training aircraft are roughly the same. I don't think any of the schools here are using C150s though if they are out there, they would be less expensive. CFIs are generally $75/hr, whether independent or through a school. The DPE for a checkride is a minimum of $800 with the potential of quite a bit more depending on location and demand from the accelerated flight programs. I've heard of some DPEs charging 2-3x that because of the demand but that could be coming from the all the accelerated flight schools here. In other words, even if you can do your checkride at the minimum of 40 hours, you are at or over $10k.
I don't know what the cost was in 1985 but there has been 38 years of inflation since then.
Thanks for the peek into the air traffic towers and airplane cockpits!
Are you back in the air now?
Yes, I am. Busy week in fact.
That's great news.
The words “no delay” do a huge amount of work in ground control and takeoff clearance. Maybe some pilots hear it so often they lose its meaning. Or maybe controllers dealing with professional aircrews don’t use it enough.
I'm impressed by the improvement but still a white-knuckle flyer. Actually, a non-flyer since I retired. A near miss flying into Miami for Super Bowl X contributed greatly to my apprehensions. We were low enough for me to be studying the drainage layout when I began to wonder what that green plane below us was doing when our plane made a sudden left turn and began climbing. The pilot sounded pretty calm when he announced we got a little too close another plane and we would turn around and land shortly.
What are your thoughts on the 1500 hour rule? While it may sound great that all* Part 121 FOs have at least 1500 hours, flying 1000+ hours as a CFI/CFII at a Class E untowered airport presumably provides very different experience than even those working as CFI/CFIIs out of towered airports, let alone those who build some time flying surveys or flying Part 135 operations once the pilot hits the 135 minimums. Would there be greater value in the model used elsewhere where a lower time commercial pilot (500, 750, ???) can build time as an FO with senior/instructor captains on a regional in the type of operation in which they will be spending their career?
(Using Colgan as an excuse for the 1500 hour rule seems odd since both pilots that night had over 2000 hours. My understanding is that rest rules and, maybe, airlines having access to pilot history were the more relevant factors.)
You’re right that Colgan wasn’t due to low time pilots, but I that was probably on the FAA wanted list anyway.
I think there should be alternative to the 1500-hour rule. In fact, there are a few exceptions such as a 750 requirement for military -trained pilots. A lot of foreign airlines (and US military) put low-time pilots into high-performance jets with training that is specifically geared to jet operators where most U.S. pilots are trained with a piston/prop mindset. A similar in-house airline training program could be a good alternative.
The FAA doesn’t seem to be considering removing the rule though. They’re actually talking about implementing the 1500-hour rule for for scheduled charter ops, which currently have a loophole.
Wow. Requiring 1500 hours for charter ops would seem to be counterproductive based on what you wrote. Would we rather have jet-trained crew pilots with 750 hours (or 300 even) versus 1500 hours of poking holes in the sky in Cessnas doing primary instruction, CFII currency, and maybe some King Air time?
It's a little more specific than all charters. This would apply to scheduled operations that are similar to scheduled airline flights but that operate under FAR 135.
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/288103/
At some level the FAA's hands are tied on modifying the 1500-hour rule because it was passed by Congress but I agree they are showing they are now wedded to it with the notice of proposed rulemaking on the scheduled charter ops. The pending denial of Skywest's proposal for expanding scheduled charter operations is indicative of this and, potentially, a failure to grasp what the captain shortage at the regionals is doing to smaller markets.
The difference between turbine and piston/prop mindset obviously is relevant. What, to me, seems more relevant is that a large number of the new pilots are building time as instructors with limited actual PIC flying. Does hundreds of hours of saying "more right rudder" and "standard rate turns" provide the experience value intended? The FAA has to say "yes it does" because disallowing dual-given time in the ATP pre-requisites would completely destroy the new pilot pipeline.
Additionally, the insanely high cost of flight training has made it nearly impossible for new pilots to gain flight hours by doing anything other than instructing. Gone are the days of somewhat plentiful low-time flying jobs. Since there is no alternative, inexperienced instructors (some of whom, honestly, have no real business instructing other people) are forced to do so if they want to build time to get to that magical 1,500 number. They don't necessarily want to instruct - they have to.
It's like sending your kid to 9th grade math class that is taught by an 11th grade math student that doesn't want to be there, because the 11th grader can't graduate and get the job they want until they "do their time." Mind you, the 11th grader still has to pass 12th grade (ATP in this analogy), which is the only class in school taught by an actual teacher. Oh, and by the way, this school is costing you an absolute fortune.
Perfect description. Back in 1985, I could get my primary instruction fairly cheap. I don’t think it’s possible now for under $10-15k. Only the rich can afford to be recreational private pilots.
Wet rental of a C172 is $150-250/hr in the Phoenix area depending on the vintage, the airport, and whether it is through a flying club with flying clubs being the least expensive (claimed lower prices are dry but the cost of 100LL adds up fast). I think Piper training aircraft are roughly the same. I don't think any of the schools here are using C150s though if they are out there, they would be less expensive. CFIs are generally $75/hr, whether independent or through a school. The DPE for a checkride is a minimum of $800 with the potential of quite a bit more depending on location and demand from the accelerated flight programs. I've heard of some DPEs charging 2-3x that because of the demand but that could be coming from the all the accelerated flight schools here. In other words, even if you can do your checkride at the minimum of 40 hours, you are at or over $10k.
I don't know what the cost was in 1985 but there has been 38 years of inflation since then.