Posted on 02/12/2014 8:07:39 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Five years ago this month, two pilots aboard Colgan Air Flight 3407 made a series of fatal errors as they descended near Buffalo, N.Y. The plane spluttered in mid-air, tilting unnaturally, then made a terrible grinding sound as it fell near-vertical from the sky. It hit a house, exploding loudly; neighbors could see the flames from blocks away. All 49 people aboard the flight perished, as did one occupant of 6038 Long Street, which was totally destroyed.
Tragedies trigger calls for action. Unfortunately, such pleas are often more emotional than rational, resulting in bad policy. The legislation passed in response to the Colgan plane crash is a classic example.
In direct response to the Colgan crash, Congress passed the Airline Safety and FAA Extension Act of 2010, which mandated that the Federal Aviation Administration require pilots to complete 1,500 flight hours before they’re allowed to fly commercially, up from just 250 before the act. While this new rule does little to improve safety, it is exacerbating an already severe pilot shortage.
Boeing predicted recently that over the next 20 years, the global economy will demand 498,000 new commercial airline pilots. Already, many existing pilots are inching toward the mandatory retirement age, says Kent Lovelace, chair of aviation at the University of North Dakota. Even though Congress has changed the mandatory retirement age from 60 to 65, over the next decade around half of America’s 54,000 pilots will age out of the profession.
Meanwhile, too few pilots are available to replace the ones who are retiring. A historically low number of people are training to become pilots, and of those, only half are seeking a career with commercial airlines, Lovelace says. For many would-be pilots, the consideration is purely financial: While flight training costs between $60,000 and $70,000, entry-level pilot positions typically pay $25,000 a year or less. Furthermore, the financial turbulence that’s characterized the airline industry since September 11, 2001, has made the profession less attractive to aspiring aviators.
The existing workforce has been stretched even thinner by new anti-fatigue rules. Pilots were once required to have eight hours of time off between shifts, but now they must be given no less than ten hours. This particular anti-fatigue rule was empirically justifiable, and it may well improve safety, but it also results in airlines’ needing between 3 and 7 percent more pilots on the clock at any given time.
Together, these considerations have created a perfect storm for the airline industry, and, as major news sources have recently noted, the pilot shortage is beginning even faster than expected.
In that context, the new 1,500-flight-hour requirement is particularly harmful. Both pilots involved in the Colgan crash had far surpassed 1,500 hours of flight time, so it wouldn’t have prevented the accident. And the new requirement is all the worse because, as Lovelace says, it was “not based on science,” but was rather “a political decision. And it doesn’t matter whether you think it’s good or not. The only way it’s going to change is literally an act of Congress.”
As Congress considered the requirement, Senator Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) didn’t hesitate to trot out the surviving families of Colgan victims. “Every time there was a legislative blockage, we sent them to personally go talk to the senators involved, and every time, they broke through,” Schumer recently told a Gannett reporter.
But this tear-jerking approach to policymaking wholly ignores the facts. The Colgan crash, however horrific, was an extraordinary outlier.
Before the new flight-time rules for pilots kicked in, plane travel was already the safest it had been in the entire history of aviation. By the latest airline-industry count, there’s only one major accident for every 5 million flights on Western-built jets. Even in plane crashes, 95.7 percent of passengers survive, as CNN has reported. The New York Times has reported that “in the last five years, the death risk for passengers in the United States has been one in 45 million flights.”
Such bad policy has real consequences, which are already playing out. Last summer in my hometown of Cheyenne, Wyo., the tiny regional airport had to temporarily suspend 30 working pilots because they had not yet met the 1,500-hour requirement. And earlier this month, it announced it was suspending service to six airports because it couldn’t find enough pilots who met the FAA standards.
Those who once would have flown out of Cheyenne will now be forced to commute to Denver International Airport, about two hours’ drive away. Perhaps some of them will forgo air travel altogether and take a road trip. Keep in mind that between January and June 2013, 15,470 people died in motor-vehicle crashes in the United States; in 2012, only 475 people worldwide died in plane crashes (in comparison, the World Health Organization has reported that 1.24 million people across the world died in car crashes last year). Globally, fewer people die from air travel than die by using right-handed equipment when you’re a lefty, especially when it’s a power saw; by being crushed by televisions or furniture; or by getting a brain-eating parasite.
Though well-intentioned, the new rule does more harm than good, creating an additional and altogether unnecessary barrier to entry for much-needed pilots. Such are the perils of legislation by emotional reaction.
— Jillian Kay Melchior writes for National Review as a Thomas L. Rhodes Fellow for the Franklin Center. She is also a senior fellow for the Independent Women’s Forum.
There were previous minimums that worked well prior to this re-write. Minimum time doesn’t necessarily translate into the proper experience requirements.
The Meddling Morons of DC strike again.
Demand for pilots is rising but the money paid to them isn’t? I think I see part of the problem (and an odd contradiction to boot!).
I smell the nasty stink of unions in this.
Thanks for shouting.
I disagree.
Have a nice day.
Also keep in mind that military pilots do not have to be certified to fly by the FAA. They do not have an airman certificate. Military air traffic controllers, however, do have FAA certificates to control aircraft.
If someone cannot build hours by flying at a commuter airline, how do they get to 1500 hrs without investing an incredible sum of money? And who is going to invest $100K+ to get a job as an airborne bus driver?
The article’s point is that flying was incredibly safe BEFORE the new rules. How safe does something need to be before it is safe enough? Someone flying under the old rules was already safer than if they drove or took a bus.
If you pass a safety rule, it ought to have some measurable improvement in safety as a result, and that additional margin of safety ought to be worth the economic cost. It might be safer if we limited car speeds to 15 mph, but would it be worth the cost?
I was hauling heavy construction machinery on the Interstates at age 15 and was darn good at it if I can say so myself. I agree with TexasFreeper2009.
Who would pay those big bucks to get the ATP? Not many, that is for sure and that is why the military route is best——not only do they pay you to learn how to fly, they pay you well to build hours and experience to make you very competitive for the majors.
The safety rule, as I pointed out, was to say, yes, 1500hrs is good but unless you have an ATP, not good enough.
The question then is; do you want to hire people that are good or those that are the best? The airline industry is not the only place where increased standards and certifications are becoming necessary, and in the case of the commuter airline, one has to consider the affect of lawsuits on their survival. You hire someone that has a commercial and pass over an ATP, and then a mishap occurs then you are facing a hostile court (and court of public opinion) that askes—why didn't you require your pilots to be as proficient and capable as any other airline?
Dang. Did you not read the post? They had that and increased it by a factor of six! The increase was not based on any scientific study but strictly on Democrat lawmaker emotion. Lawmakers Gone Wild!...again.
BTW, did you catch the part that said both pilots involved had FAR more than the new requirements? Probably not.
So what is the real reason for the pilot shortage? Is it because the hour requirement was increased? Not really. There is no shortage of pilots willing to acquire the necessary hours...if it were worth it. But the airlines aren't willing to make it worth their while by offering a wage appropriate for their skill level so why bother? It's the old free market at work. Airlines aren't willing to pay what it takes to get their people so they blame the government and turn to it for a solution.
“After Dems raise the minimum wage you’ll be able to make as much at the counter at Burger King as if you were an entry-level pilot.”
Minimum wage is what pilots already get. Literally.
“how do they get to 1500 hrs without investing an incredible sum of money? “
Many pilots earns hours by being instructors. However, we don’t need any more instructors as there simply isn’t that many students.
The 1500 hours does NOT mean they MUST become ATP. You are confusing the minimum hours to get an ATP of 1500 with this new requirements. ATP isn’t just the hours but the type of hours and that additional test and checkout.
“I smell the nasty stink of unions in this.”
Maybe not. By upping the hours to 1500 over the usual 500 this new rule keeps out many more pilots from becoming airline pilots and therefore union members.
“And who is going to invest $100K+ to get a job as an airborne bus driver?”
For a number of years a student loan paid for this as pilots would go to aviation colleges. That has stopped. No longer are student loans paying for flight time. Many students would spend $35,000 to $50,000 for flight time then become instructors to gain additional hours.
“By upping the hours to 1500 over the usual 500 this new rule keeps out many more pilots from becoming airline pilots and therefore union members.”
You may have a point. I was looking at it from the standpoint of the current older and tired-out union pilots from being axed and replaced by younger ones.
“do you want to hire people that are good or those that are the best?”
I want to hire folks who do a good job at a marketable price. My dentist is not the finest. Under TRICARE, I haven’t seen an actual doctor since I retired...and since the base is shorthanded, even the PA I used to sometimes see has been replaced by a nurse (?) on the other end of a phone. The drivers in the cars around me could kill me, yet they have minimal skills. Most have never had any advanced driver training at a racing school, for example. I ride horses, and my horses were neither bred nor trained by the best to be the best, yet a bolting horse could kill me just as thoroughly as any airline pilot.
In most things, we expose ourselves to some level of danger and accept we are not getting the best. Since the old pilot standards had already resulted in an incredible safety record, why did we need to tighten it to the point almost no one can afford to learn to fly?
Airline pilots are goners by regulation at 60; 65 under some conditions. You’d think the unions would want all the young guns they could get.
“Since the old pilot standards had already resulted in an incredible safety record, why did we need to tighten it to the point almost no one can afford to learn to fly?”
Excellent question. Here’s the answer: Regulations had little to do with safety. Government is rarely the answer. Airlines needed safe pilots because crashes are terribly expensive. Airline safety requirements far exceeded FAA safety requirements. However, as businesses get dumber and dumber along with all other businesses, their safety decisions suffer to the point they have been reduced to meeting only the minimum FAA regulations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.