In April 2022, Purdue University will host an aviation industry symposium that seeks to “address a rapidly approaching shortage of pilots and aircraft maintenance technicians.”
This symposium has secured FAA Administrator Steve Dickson as a headliner. They’re also looking for additional presenters, if you are interested.
The symposium’s three objectives are:
- Reviewing projected levels of demand and supply for pilots and mechanics.
- Identifying the challenges and roadblocks that impede future pilots and mechanics.
- Proposing a unified position on policy changes and actions required to address the challenges and roadblocks.
I’ll be as succinct as possible with my thoughts to the objectives:
- Is this really necessary?
- On the pilot side, the 1,500-hour rule stands as a huge hurdle.
- Again, on the pilot side, repeal or amend the 1,500-hour rule. Also, clarify and simplify earning potential of various careers.
What is the 1,500-hour rule?
Following a 2009 Colgan Air accident in Buffalo, New York, Congress enacted the Airline Safety and FAA Extension Act of 2010. The law required all first officers to have an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate. ATP candidates must have a minimum of 1,500 flight hours. Prior to this new rule, airlines could hire commercial pilots (which require a minimum of 250 flight hours) as first officers.
Less succinct thoughts
I don’t mean to pick on Purdue, but do we really need to “review projected levels of demand and supply for pilots and mechanics”? Boeing has produced a Pilot and Technician Outlook annually for many years. The most recent version is 2021-2040.
From that report: “Long-term demand for newly qualified aviation personnel remains strong, as 612,000 new pilots, 626,000 new maintenance technicians, and 886,000 new cabin crew members are needed to fly and maintain the global commercial fleet over the next 20 years.”
Suffice it to say, we need more pilots and technicians. Lots more.
While I do possess a commercial pilot certificate, I have never flown professionally. But from my perspective, the 1,500-hour rule remains a huge hurdle to overcome for prospective professional pilots.
Since the 1,500-hour rule came as a result of Congressional action, I assume it will take Congressional action to change the rule. Congress should revert the standard for a first officer to that of a person holding a valid commercial certificate and perhaps 500 hours.
Ultimately, whether the 1,500-hour rule is changed or not, I believe we need to more clearly communicate career opportunities. All opportunities — not just those in the aviation industry. It could be as simple as helping someone connect the dots between learning about a career track and what that track could mean in their lives.
After all, I remember sitting in math, and English, and physics, and [insert class here] in high school thinking, “When will I use this in my future?” I’ve had the same conversations with each of my three kids. While those building blocks are vital, they are also difficult to connect to an uncertain future.
ATP Flight School has a simple to understand graphic that demonstrates total career earnings, for example.
“With the annual earnings of senior captains around $400,000, some pilots can expect a $7 million career in total earnings.”
To be sure, a lot of things have to happen in the correct order for someone to enjoy a $7 million career in the aviation industry, but it’s possible.
It would be great if there was a similar chart for all types of careers — plumber, electrician, surgeon, truck driver, engineer, etc. A teacher or mentor could ask Jane or Billy what they are interested in, flip to the appropriate chart, and then talk about what the milestones mean and what it will take to achieve those milestones.
“There is a cost to everything. That cost may be expressed in money, or inconvenience, or pain, or time. Make no mistake, however. There is always a cost,” wrote General Aviation News Politics for Pilots columnist Jamie Beckett in a recent column. “Knowing how to plot a course through life that minimizes the cost, while maximizing the gain, is essential if we wish to ultimately reach our most ambitious goals.”
Saving, or bolstering, any industry isn’t easy, but it doesn’t need to be difficult either.
The airlines are a rosy spot, right now. But what happens when the pilots are replaced by electronics?
I suspect that within the lifetime of today’s pilots, we will see the copilot replaced by electronics.
Won’t happen until they can teach a computer to say, “Nice landing, captain!”
Any airline pilot who wants to stay in an airline seat past age 65 has either done a horrible job of managing their personal finances, had terrible timing or bad luck with their choice of employer, or just has no life outside the cockpit. The airline job will grind a person down and take a toll on their physical and mental health (irregular wake/sleep cycles, unhealthy diet options, stress, and constantly changing schedules). And if you commute to work that brings a whole other level of hell to the party. Not to mention the toll on family life caused by frequent and prolonged absences. Been there. Done that. Captain for a major airline who retired early and got a fulfilling job in a non-flying aviation profession. Now I fly my own plane when I want to and enjoy every hour at the controls. As to the 1,500 hour requirement, I believe that could be somewhat relaxed, but not sure we want a 500 hour “child of the magenta line” in the right seat of a jet with 75 trusting souls in the back. Experience matters.
The 1,500 hour rule is an overreaction. Sure, more experience is (usually) better, but if you have to pay to get to the 1,500 hours, people are going to say hey, I’ll be an internet influencer or blogger or stock broker or something else, and I’ll just fly for fun – now and then.
Some people are qualified at 250 hours (which I do think is a bit shy), some at 500, 750 and so on, and some people will never cut it. A blanket requirement of “1,500 hours” is a (typically uninformed) political (“feel-good”, see we’ve fixed the problem!) response to a personnel problem.
I also think that mandatory retirement at 65 is a mistake. I know people who are 50 who I would not trust to push a shopping cart, and I know people who are 80 who are healthy and sharp as ever.
Universities often do studies not so much because there is a need for them, but because they can get grant money to do them. Never mind that it is often a duplication of an existing study. I’ve also seen them charge for the study and then have their students (who pay absurd tuition) actually DO the study, so the school is double dipping. Nobody gets fired for requesting a study, just like nobody gets fired for buying IBM.
Mike,
Well stated. My thoughts exactly with respect to both the hour and retirement requirements.
The retirement requirement is, in my opinion, probably a bit outdated. I think we would be better served letting medical factors be the decider, I mean the ATPs over 40 are getting a new exam every six months anyway!
As for the hours, 1500 is absolutely about politicians having the appearance of being decisive and in control, rather than actually fixing the problem. Again, in my opinion, that requirement just thins the applicant pool and makes meeting hours the primary qualifier, rather than actual skill (or talent). Further, I think it probably reduces the overall quality of the CFI pool out there. I mean, how many of the CFIs turning out new ATP wannabes today are primarily focused on meeting ATP hour requirements themselves, rather than on being genuinely good teachers?
But what can we really expect when the all powerful Federal Government is the gate keeper? (And this is coming from a career federal employee…)
Just chasing the spotlight when the basketball team is ranked no. 7