Why 1,500 Hours Doesn’t Guarantee a Safer Pilot and What We Should Do Instead

Capt. Mark
May 11
2 min read

Updated: 5 days ago

When the FAA introduced the 1,500-hour rule in 2013, it was seen as a major safety enhancement as a direct response to the Colgan Air Flight 3407 crash. The logic seemed simple: more flight hours must mean more experience, and more experience must mean safer pilots. But more than a decade later, we have to ask - has this rule really made us safer?

🛫 The Problem with “Hours = Experience”

Requiring 1,500 hours before a pilot can sit in the right seat of a commercial airliner may sound rigorous, but it confuses quantity with quality. In practice, many of these hours are logged in unsupervised, low-structure flying - such as banner towing, sightseeing tours, or instructing students while still a student yourself.

This doesn’t mirror airline operations. It doesn’t build the kind of procedural discipline, crew communication, or decision-making skills that are essential for Part 121 flying.

🌍 A Global Perspective

Other countries take a different approach. In the EU, Canada, Australia, and many ICAO aligned states, airline pilots are trained through competency-based programs, often reaching the right seat with 240 hours and with excellent safety records.

Why? Because their training focuses on what matters: handling complex scenarios, responding to abnormal situations, working effectively in a crew, and managing modern automation.

📉 What the Data Tells Us

According to the NTSB and FAA, most commercial aviation accidents are caused by human factors, not low time. There’s no meaningful evidence that having 1,500 hours reduces the risk of pilot error. In fact, we’ve seen no measurable safety improvement in U.S. regional airlines since the rule was introduced.

And ironically, the rule may be making things worse: by clogging the training pipeline with underprepared instructors and forcing aspiring pilots into roles that delay, not accelerate, true readiness.

✈️ What Actually Works: Competency Based Training

The answer lies in Evidence-Based Training (EBT), which focuses on skills, behaviours, and high-stakes decision-making. In my own work helping airlines adopt EBT, and through my development of the TEMbrief model, I’ve seen first hand how pilots improve when training is targeted, scenario- ich, and aligned with real-world demands.

We need to train for airline operations, not just logbook milestones.

🚧 Unintended Consequences of the Rule

Let’s be honest: the 1,500-hour rule has become a barrier. Not just to innovation, but to access.

It discourages low-income and minority candidates.
It floods the market with low-experience instructors.
It reinforces outdated ideas of what pilot proficiency looks like.

🛠 What We Should Do Next

Create structured cadet programs with milestone-based advancement.
Introduce a U.S. version of the Multi-Crew Pilot License (MPL).
Expand AQP and EBT adoption across regional and mainline carriers.
Align FAA standards with global best practices.

✅ In Summary

Flight hours are just that - hours. What matters is what’s learned during them. Let’s stop pretending that logging 1,500 hours in an unstructured environment is equivalent to being ready for the flight deck of an A320.

The FAA should lead a shift from quantity to competency from outdated metrics to meaningful training. That’s how we build a safer, more diverse, and more future ready aviation workforce.