Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
1500hr / ATP for Part 121 rule passes >

1500hr / ATP for Part 121 rule passes

Search

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

1500hr / ATP for Part 121 rule passes

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-30-2010, 09:51 AM
  #171  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Posts: 366
Default

Does this bill go into effect immediately after the president signs it?
babs is offline  
Old 07-30-2010, 09:56 AM
  #172  
Gets Weekends Off
 
indapit's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 147
Default

Originally Posted by Whacker77
As far as the three years to enact the law, I'm not sure we can say that. The House bill from last year acknowledged that, but we don't know what the compromise bill states, or at least I haven't seen that yet.

If there is no grace period, then what a disaster for those employed but not yet at 1500. Talk about forced furloughs. Regardless, I hope someone with some sense relays what an idiotic idea mandatory icing experience is. People will die trying to meet this requirement. I thought the whole idea was safety?
You are looking at it the wrong way. The type of person that would put their life in danger to get icing experience is not the kind of person you want in the front of an airliner.

I say let the idiots who want to build icing time in the wrong kind of airplane try it......it will kill all the dumb and unlucky pilots leaving only the smart and lucky ones left.

If you are willing to put your life in danger just to build some time for the chance to get hired at a crappy regional......you have no business flying airplanes.
indapit is offline  
Old 07-30-2010, 09:59 AM
  #173  
Gets Weekends Off
 
atpcliff's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Capt
Posts: 3,215
Default

The OLD language said in effect 3 years after Obama signs, and NO grandfathering in of existing pilots (so if at 1200 hours when it goes into effect, you are out, as you do not have 1500 hours). HOWEVER, is the NEW bill language the same, or different????
atpcliff is offline  
Old 07-30-2010, 10:01 AM
  #174  
Gets Weekends Off
 
MachJ's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 145
Default

Sec. 217 (b) (2) states:

(2) have received flight training, academic training, or operational experience...
It sounds like these items could be done in a sim.
MachJ is offline  
Old 07-30-2010, 10:08 AM
  #175  
On Reserve
 
Elvis90's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Default

New language is found in HR 5900, which was passed yesterday:

Read The Bill: H.R. 5900 - GovTrack.us

(1) NUMBERS OF FLIGHT HOURS- The total flight hours required by the Administrator under subsection (b)(1) shall be at least 1,500 flight hours.

(f) Deadline- Not later than 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall issue a final rule under subsection (a).

So, yes, it's still 3 years to implement from date of enactment (President's signature).
Elvis90 is offline  
Old 07-30-2010, 10:18 AM
  #176  
Gets Weekends Off
 
indapit's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 147
Default

There is a loop hole in the language so people who go to approved flight schools can be credited flight hours for the academic training. Also the flight hours into icing conditions can be waived as well with academic training.

In another section it requires the FAA to design new certificate with the persons picture on it.
indapit is offline  
Old 07-30-2010, 10:28 AM
  #177  
Gets Weekends Off
 
NoStep's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Missionary
Posts: 309
Default

Originally Posted by Whacker77
As far as the three years to enact the law, I'm not sure we can say that. The House bill from last year acknowledged that, but we don't know what the compromise bill states, or at least I haven't seen that yet.

If there is no grace period, then what a disaster for those employed but not yet at 1500. Talk about forced furloughs. Regardless, I hope someone with some sense relays what an idiotic idea mandatory icing experience is. People will die trying to meet this requirement. I thought the whole idea was safety?
No THAT's funny !!
Who said it's really anything about safety? It's a poison-pill bill to force $13 billion in EXTRA spending appropriations for white elephants like Amtrak!! Hell, why not thow in some for the DMV...they're about as efficient as Amtrak?

If it was really about safety, training quality would trump quantity. Pilots seeking employment at airlines would have to go through a military-style training program, and be weeded out accordingly. Airlines couldn't hire somebody with a certain number of busted rides. Checkride PTS for commercial would be tightened. Multi-engine hour requirements would be increased. There would be a substantial hourly requirement for stalls, spins and upset recovery. Up the hourly restriction for cub-captains' pairings with f/o's who don't meet a certain amount of time in type...(etc.)

But instead, we get vague Catch-22 rules like multi-crew experience, flight into known icing training, and of course, more money for boondoggle programs.

But thank God congress is here to rescue us. Now there'll never be another Renslow & Shaw !
NoStep is offline  
Old 07-30-2010, 10:44 AM
  #178  
Gets Weekends Off
 
atpcliff's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Capt
Posts: 3,215
Default

Hi!

If I read it correctly:
Crew Rest/Duty/Flight rules will change within ONE year max, and apply to ALL PILOTS.

ATP required for all -121 pilots, and will include a 1500 hour min, reduceable, and more training that what is required now for ATP....3 years until ATP required.

cliff
GRB
atpcliff is offline  
Old 07-30-2010, 10:50 AM
  #179  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 161
Default

Originally Posted by iPilot
I heard the language states that once enacted airlines must require ATP hours. Anyone already employed has 3 years to get an ATP.
That'll be awesome for those on furlough without 1500 :-/
Clocks is offline  
Old 07-30-2010, 10:55 AM
  #180  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Posts: 393
Default

Originally Posted by Stew75
It does not appear safety is a concern if they are going to have an icing condition requirement. All you need is one incident and a pilot saying "I was trying to get my icing conditions requirement"
Guys,
I think it just says that you need the required training to prepare you to be ABLE to safely fly in icing conditions. So, if I just say to my student, " avoid icing conditions, but if you feel you will encounter it, just turn on the anti-ice equipt BEFORE entering it". Now the student can take the ATP ride. Make sense? It does say you need experience(hours) in difficult operating conditions SUCH AS icing, but does not say icing itself. Did I read this all right, or is there some paragraph in that link really saying you need the 50 hrs of purposely flying in icing?
tone is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
av8rrob
United
13
09-02-2010 06:18 PM
jsled
Union Talk
2
05-18-2010 08:57 AM
BoilerUP
Regional
102
02-26-2010 02:31 PM
CaliPilot
Aviation Law
1
09-19-2009 11:33 AM
whoareyou310
Flight Schools and Training
7
09-23-2008 10:28 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices