Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Sullenberger: 'We Need Experienced Pilots'
Captain Chelsey "Sully" Sullenberger has gone on the record as saying that new rules requiring pilots to have 1,500 hours in their logbooks before becoming an airline pilot are on the mark, and should not be changed because of a supposed looming pilot shortage. (www.aero-news.net) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I want more than 1500 hrs in the pilot's logbook before I climb in an airliner !
Hi again Paul. I would like 5000 hrs or more before I climb aboard but then again I'm a realist. Why does an arbitrary number need to be set, particularly one that puts such a large burden on pilots trying to enter the industry? For you, did something magical happen on the pilot's 1501 hr to carry him/her into the airline world? Remember also that these pilots would initially be flying with experienced captains having plenty enough hours to make you happy. Another question; Who would you rather have as your pilot? A 750 hour pilot that has 500 hrs flying canceled checks in barrons in all kinds of weather and usually at night shooting multiple instrument approaches or a pilot that has 1500 hrs of pattern and some cross country work in C152s. One qualifies and one doesn't. I'll reiterate also, a pilot that has a bad attitude, poor aptitude, and poor training will be unsafe no matter how many hours they have muddled through. We have to leave it to people who know and can judge pilots to make the correct decision on who moves on and who doesn't with no set minimum. We can't have congress that doesn't understand the industry, grabbing publicity and passing laws that have far reaching negative consequences. Once again, I hope all is well with you and always be safe.
Quick question to all those out there who've made it - if the 1500 hrs rule goes into effect, nonmilitary pilots who are just getting their Private Pilot certificates, as well as many students, will likely fall out of the industry as they see little point in continuing to work for an absurdly high number of hours so that they can make less money than the people packaging the food, if they can even get hired. As a young, relatively new Private Pilot (2010), with only about 65 hrs to my credit (but over 150 flights, many in gliders), does anyone have any recommendations on how to build up a few hundred hours without building up a lot of debt? And do you have anything to say on the future of the industry?
Jonathan, not sure about you building up hours, but read all the comments in this column. There is plenty said on the status of and future of the industry.Just because he is a national figure and has the general public's ear right now, doesn't mean that Sully's opinion is any better than the next man. He is on equal footing in this forum and all I will say that he is entitled to his opinion. I don't have to agree with it. I saw a different world back in the day. I was blessed with a good corporate job flying big iron, from which I am now retired. The industry is not the same today as it was back then. All I can tell you guys is good luck.
The recurring point here is that the industry seems to be going downhill, and will go downhill faster when the 1500 hr rule is in effect. Something not discussed is, how can I build up the hours required without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars? In other words, where can a low-time pilot like me build up time and experience, and maybe get paid for it in the meantime?
In regards to your earlier comments:
Regarding crashes, it would seem that many pilots forget to use checklists, sometimes claiming that 'memory serves me better' (although memorization is a good idea anyway). An instructor of mine once said, "It's not a checklist; it's a do-list." It would also appear that the old stick-and-rudder skills are disappearing. The Colgan Air flight might not have crashed had the pilot been ingrained with the knowledge [old habits appear when fatigued] that during icing conditions, the speeds used must be higher, and in any event, you can't pull back on the stick while at a critical angle of attack (i.e. stalling). Supposedly, the Airbus crash off Brazil a couple of years ago had several minutes of that (although I have my own guesses as to what caused the crash, since it seems to follow the TSA crash off Long Island very well). I've heard of quite a few other crashes where flaps weren't retracted, landing gear wasn't lowered, canopy doors weren't secured, fuel tanks weren't switched, etc. because the pilot forgot to do so, even though these things are written down for a reason.
Regarding Capt. Sullenberger, while I have a lot of respect for him, and he's a hero, everyone seems to forget that he had a rating in gliders; engine failures were not an emergency for him, just a routine glider flight, albeit in something weighing a little more. The textbook water landing was perfect - wings level the whole time, good approach, and luck that both the stretch of water was clear of boat traffic and that it played out the way that it did. Compare this to a few other cases where a wing dips and the plane ground-loops. This shouldn't detract from the recognition that he received, but is worth mentioning; after all, he represents GA to the world. [This is also why I don't agree that he should take part in this debate, as even though he is on equal footing, his words carry more weight to the outside world. His opinion is his opinion, but because of his position, it may become public opinion.]
Any thoughts on any of this?
And you mention that it isn't the same as it was in the past. How has it changed, and how was it like back when you were climbing up to Commercial, and from there to ATP?
By the way, thanks for commenting.
In regards to your earlier comments:
Regarding crashes, it would seem that many pilots forget to use checklists, sometimes claiming that 'memory serves me better' (although memorization is a good idea anyway). An instructor of mine once said, "It's not a checklist; it's a do-list." It would also appear that the old stick-and-rudder skills are disappearing. The Colgan Air flight might not have crashed had the pilot been ingrained with the knowledge [old habits appear when fatigued] that during icing conditions, the speeds used must be higher, and in any event, you can't pull back on the stick while at a critical angle of attack (i.e. stalling). Supposedly, the Airbus crash off Brazil a couple of years ago had several minutes of that (although I have my own guesses as to what caused the crash, since it seems to follow the TSA crash off Long Island very well). I've heard of quite a few other crashes where flaps weren't retracted, landing gear wasn't lowered, canopy doors weren't secured, fuel tanks weren't switched, etc. because the pilot forgot to do so, even though these things are written down for a reason.
Regarding Capt. Sullenberger, while I have a lot of respect for him, and he's a hero, everyone seems to forget that he had a rating in gliders; engine failures were not an emergency for him, just a routine glider flight, albeit in something weighing a little more. The textbook water landing was perfect - wings level the whole time, good approach, and luck that both the stretch of water was clear of boat traffic and that it played out the way that it did. Compare this to a few other cases where a wing dips and the plane ground-loops. This shouldn't detract from the recognition that he received, but is worth mentioning; after all, he represents GA to the world. [This is also why I don't agree that he should take part in this debate, as even though he is on equal footing, his words carry more weight to the outside world. His opinion is his opinion, but because of his position, it may become public opinion.]
Any thoughts on any of this?
And you mention that it isn't the same as it was in the past. How has it changed, and how was it like back when you were climbing up to Commercial, and from there to ATP?
By the way, thanks for commenting.
Well, I was very blessed on getting my tickets and into my job. Of course I saw all the deregulation stuff and witnessed that wringing out in Airlines, Rail, and Truck. The biggest change I guess I saw was in operation itself as they started going to the hub/spoke concept. Made sense, all was cool.Most regionals at that time, at least early on, were house owned and that allowed a clear path for both seniority and promotion. Not so now as all of them are contracted, except Eagle but it will probably go that way,and for the wages being paid, it is slave labor. The guy driving the county road grader out here in front of my house makes more money than most RJ captains, and I'm not demeaning the grader man,he's my friend, just comparing skill levels. They will still hire out of the RJ's but your time,seniority wise,won't start until hired. You change companies.Used to be a pretty clear path out of the military but now the money situation has changed that. There are still some from there but not near as many. A man could get a job at some regionals with lower hours and things not be as bad, and that would allow working, while building time/experience. 1500 hours, without the experience, is not going to give the results they want. Regarding Sully; because he did a good thing he has the public ear now and an avenue in which to vent his personal feelings, right or wrong; that said, he is on an equal footing in this forum and all will not agree with him. He did a fine thing, and yes he was both good and lucky/blessed, but as one said here, he did what he was trained to do as would most that speak here. You do your best in a situation like that and that is all you can do.
I'm going to add here that like a lot of other crafts, there was an apprenticeship type concept and some stucture for entry level pilots. What is not out there either, at least widespread, is a college or some institute of higher learning that is offering flying as an accredited/degree program, to where student loans could be qualified for and have a pipeline to the airlines and corporate flying for a job out of school.