Jazz to launch pay for type rating program

[L39Guy]

This has really digressed into a mud slinging exercise.

From my vantage point, there seem to be a number of themes and here is my take:

1) "I had to do time 'up north' as might right of passage so why should these snot-nose college kids get to take a pass on that experience".

Different people take different paths to the airlines (if that is their objective). In most cases, "doing time" in the north (or elsewhere) was the only way to get the experience to be hired by Jazz (or others) - I have flown with individuals who spent 8 to 10 years after their initial flying training (be it college or non-college) before getting hired by Jazz. Today, one can go directly from college to Jazz (and other 705 operators).

I don't recall seeing anywhere that one has to do time anywhere first. It's supply and demand combined with focused training. Supply and demand is such that Jazz (and others) need lots of new pilots; training by outfits like Seneca, Mount Royal, etc. is such that Jazz can take them in and have them flying as fully qualified FO's.

This sort of situation happened in the early 1970's and late 1980's - Air Canada, CP Air, Pacific Western and a few others were hiring directly out of all of these schools (plus Selkirk College). In some cases, 250 hour wonders were hired by PWA without any college training and went straight into the right seat of a B737-200. It can be done and it can be done safely with the proper initial training, supervision and attitude.

2) "The 250 hours won't be able to fly and fly without an autopilot nor do crosswind landings".

Initial training, supervision and attitude. If they have the basic skills as they have demonstrated up and until getting hired by a Jazz, for example, with the right attitude they'll learn as they go at Jazz or Encore, etc. Yes, if all they do is fly on the autopilot their skills with atrophy quickly but I fly with individuals on the B787 that don't want to hand fly and their hand flying skills atrophy too. But those with the attitude of wanting to do some hand flying, their skills will build rather than atrophy. And, with a Jazz or Encore, they will get lots and lots of practice even with the CRJ.

It is should be noted that Sunwings also takes new grads from these schools too and manages to train them to fly a B737-800 with 250 hours.

This comment deserves a response in particular: "The risk is already there, we just don't know how to mitigate it. Asiana 214 in San Francisco in 2013 is a great example of overdependance on automation. The argument is being made that it played a role in the 737 Max issues as well."

I think that is a rather simplistic - Asiana had other issues such as four pilots failing to speak up when the airspeed decayed, the fact that these pilots never do visual approaches or hand fly, a weird thrust mode that was not well understood by all pilots worldwide, etc. As far as the Max issues are concerned, these airlines had a policy of autopilot on at 400 ft on departure all the way to 200 ft upon landing. Jazz, Encore, and others do not use those policies to coverup a lack of hand flying skills.

3) There seems to be an economic argument - that is if your mommy and daddy are rich enough, you too and skip can buy your way into Jazz (in this case).

Fair argument. $126K after already paying for a post secondary education already is a lot of shekels. I have no interest in delving into people's finances however flying training whether you do the post secondary then Jazz/CAE/Seneca route or any other route is going to be expensive. The machines we need to train with (airplanes and simulators, both static and full motion) are expensive devices, to say nothing of the 1:1 or 1:2 instructor to student training ratio.

How one finances all of this a challenge for sure. Did the parents do an RESP? Did the student save? Did the student work part time during the school year? Maybe some debt financing may be required. But, as I pointed out earlier, that is the cost but what about the benefits (directly into Jazz then AC), living in Southern Canada, first class equipment and training.

But let's turn this question around. Suppose this Jazz/CAE/Seneca program was free (underwritten by Jazz). Would that change any of the arguments in 1) and 2) above?

4) skytramp2800's posting today was kind of funny but if it was a sincere post but then the author inadvertently proves the point of why post-secondary education and advanced flying training is required today.

Airlines pilots today are systems managers. Absolutely. They manage a pretty sophisticated flight guidance system (FMS) as well as monitor a myriad of aircraft systems. They operate fancy communication and navigation systems. They fly all of over the globe including over the pole. They fly through lots of airspaces with different procedures and regulations (China, Russia, etc). At one time there were 5 individuals in a flight deck - a Captain, a First Officer, a Flight Engineer, a Navigator and a Radio Operator. Today, there is just a Captain and First Officer doing the work of the other three with a little help from automation.

They manage a crew, although if you have a good in-charge flight attendant the back of the airplane takes care of itself. But, nevertheless instances arise with passengers (often medical emergencies) that require maturity and experience to address. That is part of being a Captain or his designate, a First Officer.

This gig is no longer a "hands and feet" job; it has evolved into a full on manager of aircraft that can cost up to $20,000 per hour or more to operate. Yes, hand flying skills are required in addition to all of the other skills needed to be a systems manager in a modern, two pilot flight deck.

My advice to anyone following this thread who is thinking of an aviation career and contemplating their training options it so ignore all the noise that this thread is creating and ask the following questions:

a) where to I want to work? Jazz, Encore, Porter, then migrate to an AC, WestJet, Transat, etc.?
If so, this program may be for you.
b) where do I want to work? Southern Canada with the outfits above or elsewhere?
If so, this program may be for you
c) do I want to eventually want to fly for AC?
If so, this program may be for you as it this program is a direct path (reduced risk) to that objective.
d) do I want to spend some incremental money to achieve a), b) and c)
If so, this program may be for you

No matter which way you add it up, the training is going to be expensive, just like it is elsewhere including the US and places like UND, Emery-Riddle, etc. And, just like the US, airlines in Canada are seeking a post secondary education whether the nay-sayers agree or disagree about the virtues of it.

[ant_321]

This has really digressed into a mud slinging exercise.

From my vantage point, there seem to be a number of themes and here is my take:

1) "I had to do time 'up north' as might right of passage so why should these snot-nose college kids get to take a pass on that experience".

Different people take different paths to the airlines (if that is their objective). In most cases, "doing time" in the north (or elsewhere) was the only way to get the experience to be hired by Jazz (or others) - I have flown with individuals who spent 8 to 10 years after their initial flying training (be it college or non-college) before getting hired by Jazz. Today, one can go directly from college to Jazz (and other 705 operators).

I don't recall seeing anywhere that one has to do time anywhere first. It's supply and demand combined with focused training. Supply and demand is such that Jazz (and others) need lots of new pilots; training by outfits like Seneca, Mount Royal, etc. is such that Jazz can take them in and have them flying as fully qualified FO's.

This sort of situation happened in the early 1970's and late 1980's - Air Canada, CP Air, Pacific Western and a few others were hiring directly out of all of these schools (plus Selkirk College). In some cases, 250 hour wonders were hired by PWA without any college training and went straight into the right seat of a B737-200. It can be done and it can be done safely with the proper initial training, supervision and attitude.

2) "The 250 hours won't be able to fly and fly without an autopilot nor do crosswind landings".

Initial training, supervision and attitude. If they have the basic skills as they have demonstrated up and until getting hired by a Jazz, for example, with the right attitude they'll learn as they go at Jazz or Encore, etc. Yes, if all they do is fly on the autopilot their skills with atrophy quickly but I fly with individuals on the B787 that don't want to hand fly and their hand flying skills atrophy too. But those with the attitude of wanting to do some hand flying, their skills will build rather than atrophy. And, with a Jazz or Encore, they will get lots and lots of practice even with the CRJ.

It is should be noted that Sunwings also takes new grads from these schools too and manages to train them to fly a B737-800 with 250 hours.

This comment deserves a response in particular: "The risk is already there, we just don't know how to mitigate it. Asiana 214 in San Francisco in 2013 is a great example of overdependance on automation. The argument is being made that it played a role in the 737 Max issues as well."

I think that is a rather simplistic - Asiana had other issues such as four pilots failing to speak up when the airspeed decayed, the fact that these pilots never do visual approaches or hand fly, a weird thrust mode that was not well understood by all pilots worldwide, etc. As far as the Max issues are concerned, these airlines had a policy of autopilot on at 400 ft on departure all the way to 200 ft upon landing. Jazz, Encore, and others do not use those policies to coverup a lack of hand flying skills.

3) There seems to be an economic argument - that is if your mommy and daddy are rich enough, you too and skip can buy your way into Jazz (in this case).

Fair argument. $126K after already paying for a post secondary education already is a lot of shekels. I have no interest in delving into people's finances however flying training whether you do the post secondary then Jazz/CAE/Seneca route or any other route is going to be expensive. The machines we need to train with (airplanes and simulators, both static and full motion) are expensive devices, to say nothing of the 1:1 or 1:2 instructor to student training ratio.

How one finances all of this a challenge for sure. Did the parents do an RESP? Did the student save? Did the student work part time during the school year? Maybe some debt financing may be required. But, as I pointed out earlier, that is the cost but what about the benefits (directly into Jazz then AC), living in Southern Canada, first class equipment and training.

But let's turn this question around. Suppose this Jazz/CAE/Seneca program was free (underwritten by Jazz). Would that change any of the arguments in 1) and 2) above?

4) skytramp2800's posting today was kind of funny but if it was a sincere post but then the author inadvertently proves the point of why post-secondary education and advanced flying training is required today.

Airlines pilots today are systems managers. Absolutely. They manage a pretty sophisticated flight guidance system (FMS) as well as monitor a myriad of aircraft systems. They operate fancy communication and navigation systems. They fly all of over the globe including over the pole. They fly through lots of airspaces with different procedures and regulations (China, Russia, etc). At one time there were 5 individuals in a flight deck - a Captain, a First Officer, a Flight Engineer, a Navigator and a Radio Operator. Today, there is just a Captain and First Officer doing the work of the other three with a little help from automation.

They manage a crew, although if you have a good in-charge flight attendant the back of the airplane takes care of itself. But, nevertheless instances arise with passengers (often medical emergencies) that require maturity and experience to address. That is part of being a Captain or his designate, a First Officer.

This gig is no longer a "hands and feet" job; it has evolved into a full on manager of aircraft that can cost up to $20,000 per hour or more to operate. Yes, hand flying skills are required in addition to all of the other skills needed to be a systems manager in a modern, two pilot flight deck.

My advice to anyone following this thread who is thinking of an aviation career and contemplating their training options it so ignore all the noise that this thread is creating and ask the following questions:

a) where to I want to work? Jazz, Encore, Porter, then migrate to an AC, WestJet, Transat, etc.?
If so, this program may be for you.
b) where do I want to work? Southern Canada with the outfits above or elsewhere?
If so, this program may be for you
c) do I want to eventually want to fly for AC?
If so, this program may be for you as it this program is a direct path (reduced risk) to that objective.
d) do I want to spend some incremental money to achieve a), b) and c)
If so, this program may be for you

No matter which way you add it up, the training is going to be expensive, just like it is elsewhere including the US and places like UND, Emery-Riddle, etc. And, just like the US, airlines in Canada are seeking a post secondary education whether the nay-sayers agree or disagree about the virtues of it.

You keep saying airlines are seeking post secondary education. We all know there is really only one airline in Canada that gives a hoot about post secondary.

[GhostRider6]

This has really digressed into a mud slinging exercise.

From my vantage point, there seem to be a number of themes and here is my take:

1) "I had to do time 'up north' as might right of passage so why should these snot-nose college kids get to take a pass on that experience".

Different people take different paths to the airlines (if that is their objective). In most cases, "doing time" in the north (or elsewhere) was the only way to get the experience to be hired by Jazz (or others) - I have flown with individuals who spent 8 to 10 years after their initial flying training (be it college or non-college) before getting hired by Jazz. Today, one can go directly from college to Jazz (and other 705 operators).

I don't recall seeing anywhere that one has to do time anywhere first. It's supply and demand combined with focused training. Supply and demand is such that Jazz (and others) need lots of new pilots; training by outfits like Seneca, Mount Royal, etc. is such that Jazz can take them in and have them flying as fully qualified FO's.

This sort of situation happened in the early 1970's and late 1980's - Air Canada, CP Air, Pacific Western and a few others were hiring directly out of all of these schools (plus Selkirk College). In some cases, 250 hour wonders were hired by PWA without any college training and went straight into the right seat of a B737-200. It can be done and it can be done safely with the proper initial training, supervision and attitude.

2) "The 250 hours won't be able to fly and fly without an autopilot nor do crosswind landings".

Initial training, supervision and attitude. If they have the basic skills as they have demonstrated up and until getting hired by a Jazz, for example, with the right attitude they'll learn as they go at Jazz or Encore, etc. Yes, if all they do is fly on the autopilot their skills with atrophy quickly but I fly with individuals on the B787 that don't want to hand fly and their hand flying skills atrophy too. But those with the attitude of wanting to do some hand flying, their skills will build rather than atrophy. And, with a Jazz or Encore, they will get lots and lots of practice even with the CRJ.

It is should be noted that Sunwings also takes new grads from these schools too and manages to train them to fly a B737-800 with 250 hours.

This comment deserves a response in particular: "The risk is already there, we just don't know how to mitigate it. Asiana 214 in San Francisco in 2013 is a great example of overdependance on automation. The argument is being made that it played a role in the 737 Max issues as well."

I think that is a rather simplistic - Asiana had other issues such as four pilots failing to speak up when the airspeed decayed, the fact that these pilots never do visual approaches or hand fly, a weird thrust mode that was not well understood by all pilots worldwide, etc. As far as the Max issues are concerned, these airlines had a policy of autopilot on at 400 ft on departure all the way to 200 ft upon landing. Jazz, Encore, and others do not use those policies to coverup a lack of hand flying skills.

3) There seems to be an economic argument - that is if your mommy and daddy are rich enough, you too and skip can buy your way into Jazz (in this case).

Fair argument. $126K after already paying for a post secondary education already is a lot of shekels. I have no interest in delving into people's finances however flying training whether you do the post secondary then Jazz/CAE/Seneca route or any other route is going to be expensive. The machines we need to train with (airplanes and simulators, both static and full motion) are expensive devices, to say nothing of the 1:1 or 1:2 instructor to student training ratio.

How one finances all of this a challenge for sure. Did the parents do an RESP? Did the student save? Did the student work part time during the school year? Maybe some debt financing may be required. But, as I pointed out earlier, that is the cost but what about the benefits (directly into Jazz then AC), living in Southern Canada, first class equipment and training.

But let's turn this question around. Suppose this Jazz/CAE/Seneca program was free (underwritten by Jazz). Would that change any of the arguments in 1) and 2) above?

4) skytramp2800's posting today was kind of funny but if it was a sincere post but then the author inadvertently proves the point of why post-secondary education and advanced flying training is required today.

Airlines pilots today are systems managers. Absolutely. They manage a pretty sophisticated flight guidance system (FMS) as well as monitor a myriad of aircraft systems. They operate fancy communication and navigation systems. They fly all of over the globe including over the pole. They fly through lots of airspaces with different procedures and regulations (China, Russia, etc). At one time there were 5 individuals in a flight deck - a Captain, a First Officer, a Flight Engineer, a Navigator and a Radio Operator. Today, there is just a Captain and First Officer doing the work of the other three with a little help from automation.

They manage a crew, although if you have a good in-charge flight attendant the back of the airplane takes care of itself. But, nevertheless instances arise with passengers (often medical emergencies) that require maturity and experience to address. That is part of being a Captain or his designate, a First Officer.

This gig is no longer a "hands and feet" job; it has evolved into a full on manager of aircraft that can cost up to $20,000 per hour or more to operate. Yes, hand flying skills are required in addition to all of the other skills needed to be a systems manager in a modern, two pilot flight deck.

My advice to anyone following this thread who is thinking of an aviation career and contemplating their training options it so ignore all the noise that this thread is creating and ask the following questions:

a) where to I want to work? Jazz, Encore, Porter, then migrate to an AC, WestJet, Transat, etc.?
If so, this program may be for you.
b) where do I want to work? Southern Canada with the outfits above or elsewhere?
If so, this program may be for you
c) do I want to eventually want to fly for AC?
If so, this program may be for you as it this program is a direct path (reduced risk) to that objective.
d) do I want to spend some incremental money to achieve a), b) and c)
If so, this program may be for you

No matter which way you add it up, the training is going to be expensive, just like it is elsewhere including the US and places like UND, Emery-Riddle, etc. And, just like the US, airlines in Canada are seeking a post secondary education whether the nay-sayers agree or disagree about the virtues of it.

You keep saying airlines are seeking post secondary education. We all know there is really only one airline in Canada that gives a hoot about post secondary.

So .. the autopilot works all the time? My reality in 705 is that the old autopilot an be easily MEL’d and an automated flight deck on a 705 aircraft turns into a place where the aircraft is being handbombed down to minimums in shit weather and in some cases being flown off of traditional navaids.

What about severe ice? Severe turbulence? MEL’s and as someone said before .. mistakes where it’s best to take off the magic box and fly the damn plane!

Or, doing a short gate visual approach. Three situations where it is not prudent or doable to use the autopilot.

Children of the magenta :

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5ESJH1NLMLs

[goingnowherefast]

.This comment deserves a response in particular: "The risk is already there, we just don't know how to mitigate it. Asiana 214 in San Francisco in 2013 is a great example of overdependance on automation. The argument is being made that it played a role in the 737 Max issues as well."

I think that is a rather simplistic - Asiana had other issues such as four pilots failing to speak up when the airspeed decayed, the fact that these pilots never do visual approaches or hand fly, a weird thrust mode that was not well understood by all pilots worldwide, etc. As far as the Max issues are concerned, these airlines had a policy of autopilot on at 400 ft on departure all the way to 200 ft upon landing. Jazz, Encore, and others do not use those policies to coverup a lack of hand flying skills.

If all the pilots in these examples had 2000hrs in an old King Air, I bet the results would have been much different. The airlines' policies about autopilot use would probably be different had the pilots on staff had a solid background of hand flying.

You sort of made my point when you said "Jazz, Encore, and others do not use those policies to coverup a lack of hand flying skills". How do Canadian pilots typically acquire good hand flying skills? The north. Some recently have been doing that with flight instruction, but northern flying is typical.

This is all lost with the P2F programs

[vermont]

.This comment deserves a response in particular: "The risk is already there, we just don't know how to mitigate it. Asiana 214 in San Francisco in 2013 is a great example of overdependance on automation. The argument is being made that it played a role in the 737 Max issues as well."

I think that is a rather simplistic - Asiana had other issues such as four pilots failing to speak up when the airspeed decayed, the fact that these pilots never do visual approaches or hand fly, a weird thrust mode that was not well understood by all pilots worldwide, etc. As far as the Max issues are concerned, these airlines had a policy of autopilot on at 400 ft on departure all the way to 200 ft upon landing. Jazz, Encore, and others do not use those policies to coverup a lack of hand flying skills.

If all the pilots in these examples had 2000hrs in an old King Air, I bet the results would have been much different. The airlines' policies about autopilot use would probably be different had the pilots on staff had a solid background of hand flying.

You sort of made my point when you said "Jazz, Encore, and others do not use those policies to coverup a lack of hand flying skills". How do Canadian pilots typically acquire good hand flying skills? The north. Some recently have been doing that with flight instruction, but northern flying is typical.

This is all lost with the P2F programs

Read the book flying upside down. Training is the smallest cause of those kinds of issues.

If p2f was the devil we'd have weekly crashes in Europe.

L39guy put out a really good post of all the nuances. I've read the book and culture is the biggest reason to blame for those sorts of incidents.

I find it pretty sad everyone here is hurling insults and fud about a handful of future FOs but nobody seems to care about legitimately dangerous things affecting everyone like lack of rest!

[ayseven]

Once upon a time, not that long ago, airlines had a choice on whom they took to drive their big shiny jets. They always seemed to prefer college, plus experience. Now, for lots if reasons, they don't, hence the college programmes, without the flight experience. But the minute the market changes, what do you think they will do? Why do you suppose that might be?

[Liftdump]

Anybody know what the best headset is for a Q400?

[ayseven]

No not ever been in one at the pointy end. The dog fits nicely under the seats in the back though.

['97 Tercel]

calm down

[L39Guy]

You keep saying airlines are seeking post secondary education. We all know there is really only one airline in Canada that gives a hoot about post secondary.

Yes, it appears that most of the others have dropped the post secondary requirement - that's supply and demand at work. Clearly they are having to change their hiring requirements to meet the dwindling supply.

So, I guess there is really only one left, AC. If you want to fly the big iron and make big bucks, then post-secondary (or a gazillon hours flying big iron overseas somewhere first for 10+ years) that is the price you have to pay.

[L39Guy]

So .. the autopilot works all the time? My reality in 705 is that the old autopilot an be easily MEL’d and an automated flight deck on a 705 aircraft turns into a place where the aircraft is being handbombed down to minimums in shit weather and in some cases being flown off of traditional navaids.

What about severe ice? Severe turbulence? MEL’s and as someone said before .. mistakes where it’s best to take off the magic box and fly the damn plane!

Or, doing a short gate visual approach. Three situations where it is not prudent or doable to use the autopilot.

Children of the magenta :

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5ESJH1NLMLs

I am pretty confident that two, Canadian ATPL holders flying in a 705 operation will be able to hand fly the aircraft from take-off to landing without the autopilot. It may be a lot of work but I am sure that even the 250 hour wonders that many of you so despise would be able to do it; in fact, they might be the most proficient hand flying pilots on the flight deck.

On the other hand, as we have seen with Lion Air (8000 hour and 6000 hour captain and FO) and Ethiopian (8000 hour captain and 350 hour FO) none of them couldn't hand fly an aircraft to literally save their lives. So does the quantity of hours mean anything? Is there a relationship between hours and the ability to manually fly an aircraft? These two examples and Asiana SFO demonstrate there is not. Training, supervision and attitude.

[L39Guy]

.This comment deserves a response in particular: "The risk is already there, we just don't know how to mitigate it. Asiana 214 in San Francisco in 2013 is a great example of overdependance on automation. The argument is being made that it played a role in the 737 Max issues as well."

I think that is a rather simplistic - Asiana had other issues such as four pilots failing to speak up when the airspeed decayed, the fact that these pilots never do visual approaches or hand fly, a weird thrust mode that was not well understood by all pilots worldwide, etc. As far as the Max issues are concerned, these airlines had a policy of autopilot on at 400 ft on departure all the way to 200 ft upon landing. Jazz, Encore, and others do not use those policies to coverup a lack of hand flying skills.

If all the pilots in these examples had 2000hrs in an old King Air, I bet the results would have been much different. The airlines' policies about autopilot use would probably be different had the pilots on staff had a solid background of hand flying.

You sort of made my point when you said "Jazz, Encore, and others do not use those policies to coverup a lack of hand flying skills". How do Canadian pilots typically acquire good hand flying skills? The north. Some recently have been doing that with flight instruction, but northern flying is typical.

This is all lost with the P2F programs

I think there are lots of places apart from "the north" to either learn how to fly or to reinforce one's flying skills. Where do Americans learn how to hand fly? Alaska is not that big.

How about for North Americans hand flying Navajo's, King Air's, Merlin's, and...get ready for it...Dash 8's! I would submit doing 6 sectors per day, day in and day out, hand flying and automatic flying, that one would get pretty good at it.

[GhostRider6]

Did you watch the video?

Whomever talked about the USA - look at colgan 3407... the USA now has a hour/ ATPL requirement for 705 aircraft. Gee, I wonder why ..

Again, everything is all fine and dandy for the 250 hour pilot when things are going well and the flight is cookie cutter . My concern is black swan events and or when weather becomes an issue, ATc errors, crew errors.. etc etc or, even on a clear day when things get mixed up out of the ordinary.

There’s no way a 250 hour pilot has the situational awareness, workload capacity and general ability of a knowledgeable,professional and disciplined 5000 hour pilot who was flown multiple types in a wide array of conditions. This pilot has had to overcome adversity probably at multiple points along their career. These situations are where we as pilots rely on instinct and skills gleaned from our toolboxes.. which are honed from experience.

The 250 hour pilot does not have this capacity. Especially in today’s training environment.

It’s similar for military, police, psychologists, lawyers or other professions. Experience means something...

[L39Guy]

Watched the video many years ago.

Explain to me this: the Colgan air accident was caused by an incorrect response to a stall by the Captain. He pulled when he should have pushed. That’s basic flying skills, much like knowing how to trim an aircraft.

Look at the crew’s experience:
Captain Renslow was hired in September 2005 and had accumulated 3,379 total flight hours, with 111 hours as captain on the Q400. First Officer Shaw was hired in January 2008, and had 2,244 hours, 774 of them in turbine aircraft including the Q400.

The Captain nor First Officer were 250 hour wonders. Combined they had over 5,500 hours of flying experience. How do you explain an inappropriate response to a stall by a 3,000 + hour Captain?

On May 11, 2009, information was released about Captain Renslow's training record. According to an article in The Wall Street Journal, before joining Colgan he had failed three "check rides", including some at Gulfstream International's training program, and "people close to the investigation" suggested that he might not have been adequately trained to respond to the emergency that led to the airplane's fatal descent.[57] Investigators examined possible crew fatigue. The captain appeared to have been at Newark airport overnight, prior to the day of the 9:18 pm departure of the accident flight. The first officer commuted from Seattle to Newark on an overnight flight.[3][58] These findings during the investigation led the FAA to issue a "Call to Action" for improvements in the practices of regional carriers.

The issue here is not the quantity of flying hours but competency. The FAA’s reaction to increase minimum time for an ATPL to 1500 was an overreaction.

[daedalusx]

The issue here is not the quantity of flying hours but competency. The FAA’s reaction to increase minimum time for an ATPL to 1500 was an overreaction.

And yet it had the positive expected consequence of increasing the salaries of airline flight crews down south. The American unions are fighting hard to keep the airline lobbies from reverting the ATP minimums to what it was pre-Colgan. They’re also very smart, they protect their industry, they don’t let Canadian come there and drive their wages down.
You remind me of the poor saps down south who are shilling for more open border and more immigration and more H1B and F visas, pushing the same talking points of the likes of Walmart, Home Depot, McDs, The Chamber of Commerce, Lisa Raitt and others beacons of neoliberals/neoconservative corporatism ideals.
Labour market is nothing but the simplest supply/demand curve.

[GhostRider6]

Watched the video many years ago.

Explain to me this: the Colgan air accident was caused by an incorrect response to a stall by the Captain. He pulled when he should have pushed. That’s basic flying skills, much like knowing how to trim an aircraft.

Look at the crew’s experience:
Captain Renslow was hired in September 2005 and had accumulated 3,379 total flight hours, with 111 hours as captain on the Q400. First Officer Shaw was hired in January 2008, and had 2,244 hours, 774 of them in turbine aircraft including the Q400.

The Captain nor First Officer were 250 hour wonders. Combined they had over 5,500 hours of flying experience. How do you explain an inappropriate response to a stall by a 3,000 + hour Captain?

On May 11, 2009, information was released about Captain Renslow's training record. According to an article in The Wall Street Journal, before joining Colgan he had failed three "check rides", including some at Gulfstream International's training program, and "people close to the investigation" suggested that he might not have been adequately trained to respond to the emergency that led to the airplane's fatal descent.[57] Investigators examined possible crew fatigue. The captain appeared to have been at Newark airport overnight, prior to the day of the 9:18 pm departure of the accident flight. The first officer commuted from Seattle to Newark on an overnight flight.[3][58] These findings during the investigation led the FAA to issue a "Call to Action" for improvements in the practices of regional carriers.

The issue here is not the quantity of flying hours but competency. The FAA’s reaction to increase minimum time for an ATPL to 1500 was an overreaction.

Notice that I said “ knowledgeable,professional and disciplined 5000 hour pilot.”

I agree competency is an issue in 3407. You have a point there. The accident was not an experience alone issue .. in aviation there’s contributing factors.

However, we can agree to disagree. So I think that there is sloppy 5000 hour pilots? Yes... However, there is no ability comparison to an experienced, professional pilot with experience. If I was in a nasty car accident you bet I’d choose the experienced professional doctor vs the professional but totally green doc... sorry.

For example, mountain biking ( sport I love) I improve when I apply the theory! My improvement comes through wanting to improve, riding in ALL conditions and making errors and then learning from them and practice practice practice and critiquing my abilities. ( opening up myself to constructive criticism from professional riders and colleagues) I am not racing the Enduro Word Series right away.

Experienced professional MTB racers are developed and even at the level of world championships guess what? They’re still learning and making mistakes. The pro’s can tackle stuff I can’t at speeds I am not capable of ... my skill isn’t there. My riding ability improved with tutelage and experience. I’m tackling stuff now in conditions I couldn’t have a year ago. I see the discipline of flying as the same... experience.

Why do new drivers have higher insurance rates?

The guys at worlds ( MTB again) also have a mindset, skill level, physical ability that some people just don’t have.

Same with lawyers, physicians etc... experience

[mixturerich]

Guys let’s calm down and step off our high horses and face the facts. Flying an airplane is really not that hard. There are a handful of exotic emergency situations that an inexperienced airline pilot might face but the odds are slim to none these days with all the training, automation, dispatch, maintenance, and flight operations support. Hence why they aren’t smashing widebodies into the ground in China with the little-to-none hand-flying and small airline experience that they have. If they can stay safe, so can we. I think a 2000 hour flying a Navajo these days faces more risk than a 250 hour pilot flying a Q400 does anyways. They practically fly themselves, and if you need help, there’s almost always someone to talk to. Just my opinion.

[Canoehead]

Guys let’s calm down and step off our high horses and face the facts. Flying an airplane is really not that hard. There are a handful of exotic emergency situations that an inexperienced airline pilot might face but the odds are slim to none these days with all the training, automation, dispatch, maintenance, and flight operations support. Hence why they aren’t smashing widebodies into the ground in China with the little-to-none hand-flying and small airline experience that they have. If they can stay safe, so can we. I think a 2000 hour flying a Navajo these days faces more risk than a 250 hour pilot flying a Q400 does anyways. They practically fly themselves, and if you need help, there’s almost always someone to talk to. Just my opinion.

Wow... That's incredibly short sighted.

[KenoraPilot]

Guys let’s calm down and step off our high horses and face the facts. Flying an airplane is really not that hard. There are a handful of exotic emergency situations that an inexperienced airline pilot might face but the odds are slim to none these days with all the training, automation, dispatch, maintenance, and flight operations support. Hence why they aren’t smashing widebodies into the ground in China with the little-to-none hand-flying and small airline experience that they have. If they can stay safe, so can we. I think a 2000 hour flying a Navajo these days faces more risk than a 250 hour pilot flying a Q400 does anyways. They practically fly themselves, and if you need help, there’s almost always someone to talk to. Just my opinion.

Fly a plane isn't that hard, how about the decision making process of every flight? How much command time do you have flying 705? Are you currently a Captain at Jazz on the Q400?

[GhostRider6]

Guys let’s calm down and step off our high horses and face the facts. Flying an airplane is really not that hard. There are a handful of exotic emergency situations that an inexperienced airline pilot might face but the odds are slim to none these days with all the training, automation, dispatch, maintenance, and flight operations support. Hence why they aren’t smashing widebodies into the ground in China with the little-to-none hand-flying and small airline experience that they have. If they can stay safe, so can we. I think a 2000 hour flying a Navajo these days faces more risk than a 250 hour pilot flying a Q400 does anyways. They practically fly themselves, and if you need help, there’s almost always someone to talk to. Just my opinion.

Thank you for your opinion.

We agree to disagree.

Namaste