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.
Since the old system already had a great safety record, the airlines do not need the new system to prevent crashes.
As for the lack of young pilots...I’ve noticed a trend in teens showing no interest in learning to drive. They would rather play video games. Teens who do not want to learn to drive REALLY are not going to go $100K+ in debt to learn to fly!
“Since the old system already had a great safety record, “
You didn’t read my comments. The old system was based on airlines keeping the safety standards high, but as we get stupid in this country and let unqualified people become execs and managers we make dumb decisions that suffer safety. No one gets fired anymore if there is a crash, so who cares, right? Cut that training budget. Work pilots harder. Who cares, it isn’t my job in jeopardy if people get killed.
The Dumbing Down of America.
“The old system was based on airlines keeping the safety standards high...”
No. Commuter airlines had hired commercial, non-ATP pilots for years, and still had a great safety record. Someone with 700 hrs can still be a good pilot, and the traffic SYSTEM still provided an excellent margin of safety. A safe pilot does not require 1500 hours of flight time...
In answer to your statements talking about the 1500hrs, this is what I posted earlier: “The 1500hr requirement will force commuter airlines to require their applicants to be ATP-rated, meaning having polished skill-sets beyond a basic commercial ticket. That will affect safety.
I also point out: “While the 1500hrs thing isn’t a measure of pilot proficiency or safety, in and of itself, but add an ATP to the 1500hrs and you do improve safety.”
I include this observation: “1500hrs and still having a basic commercial/instrument ticket is just flying and flying and never really achieving the highest proficiency and capability. In my mind, any pilot with 1500hrs SHOULD be looking to earn that ATP otherwise (again in my mind) he is lazy.”
That affects safety.
What does ATC have to do with the safety of the pilot?
Basically, if given a choice between hiring a pilot with a basic commercial ticket versus hiring a guy that has an ATP, I'd pick the ATP because they are indeed safer. . .and with the glut of ATP-rated guys out there, they will work for the same pay on a commuter airlines as a basic commercial pilot.
The cost of learning to fly is way tooo high (thank you personal injury lawyers), so MOST major airline pilots received their training via the military. They don't pay to learn to fly, the get paid to learn to fly.
Average Joe civilian pilot pays his way to get a private ticket first. That cost will not go up if an ATP is required to fly commuter airlines. The Joe pilot will pay his way to earn a commercial and instructor ticket and from there fly short-hop deliveries in very small aircraft, instruct students. . .all geared toward logging hours and earning higher tickets, eventually earning an ATP.
Paying for an ATP out-right only happens if you are like a Saudi Prince with billions in the bank and can afford to pay the tab. So the "cost to learn to fly" will not go up because of the ATP requirement (the 1500hr requirement).
While the 1500hr requirement doesn't state “ATP,” that will be the result.
Not that many pilots get their ATP right at 1500 hrs. Many exceed 3000 hrs before they get the chance. I know loads of pilots without their ATP that are well past 3000 hrs. Considering it is not uncommon for a regional pilot to get 600-900 hrs in a year, it as also a bit silly to mandate 1500 hrs anyway as they will exceed 1500 hrs fairly quickly anyway.
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.