1500hr / ATP for Part 121 rule passes
07-31-2010, 08:17 AM
#241
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 638
How about a "flight crew experience" surcharge. $5 a ticket and it goes directly to pilot payroll. That'd fix things up and the passengers won't know the difference when they book their $19 before fees and taxes ticket from JFK-LAX.
07-31-2010, 08:24 AM
#242
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: B767
Posts: 1,901
While in recurrent training last week the checkairman mentioned something about a side letter to this bill allowing puppy mills to pump out pilots at around 800 or so hours. Anyone know the fate of this provision? It would just destroy the intent of this bill and continue placing new pilots in a world of debt while filling the right seat of regionals with cheap pilots.
07-31-2010, 08:42 AM
#243
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Missionary
Posts: 309
Airlines are like any other crafty business as they find a way to circumvent any parts of this bill in-order to make money. If the airlines have to raise their starting pay to attract applicants in which is debatable they most certainly will cut something else such as service or the number of aircraft they now operate. My two business degrees tell me raising salaries across the board even in one category is just like another tax dragging down the business.
America will forget Colgan 3407, probably faster than 9/11.
Age 65 doesn't really kick in for another 3 years, and by then the RAA will have found a way to circumvent this.
Bottom line...I don't think we'll see wage increases from this.
07-31-2010, 08:42 AM
#244
Day puke
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Out.
Posts: 3,865
07-31-2010, 08:58 AM
#245
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: EMB 145 CPT
Posts: 2,934
Heyas,
The rule says the FAA MAY provide a reduction in the number for an ATP for academic work. Not that they must.
To put that in context, there has never been any rule that the FAA MUST require 1,500 hours for an ATP. In many cases, certificate requirements are driven by ICAO requirements. The FAA has been free to reduce the number of hours for an ATP any time they wished. In fact, an ATP with a rotorcraft rating only requires 1200 hours.
Unless the FAA plans to introduce multiple levels of ATP certificates, you're telling me that the FAA will let some hotshot with 800 hours and some class work command an aircraft under 121? Especially when a 135 IFR ATP requires 1,200 hours? The first accident with a sub-1,500 hour ATP as PIC and Congress will burn the FAA from stem to stern.
Not a chance. ATPs will stay at 1,500 hours for everyone unless the FAA decides to go with a multiple tier ATP.
Nu
The rule says the FAA MAY provide a reduction in the number for an ATP for academic work. Not that they must.
To put that in context, there has never been any rule that the FAA MUST require 1,500 hours for an ATP. In many cases, certificate requirements are driven by ICAO requirements. The FAA has been free to reduce the number of hours for an ATP any time they wished. In fact, an ATP with a rotorcraft rating only requires 1200 hours.
Unless the FAA plans to introduce multiple levels of ATP certificates, you're telling me that the FAA will let some hotshot with 800 hours and some class work command an aircraft under 121? Especially when a 135 IFR ATP requires 1,200 hours? The first accident with a sub-1,500 hour ATP as PIC and Congress will burn the FAA from stem to stern.
Not a chance. ATPs will stay at 1,500 hours for everyone unless the FAA decides to go with a multiple tier ATP.
Nu
Dang!
Maybe I'm not being concise in expressing my views...(it's getting late).
Never said get rid of hourly requirements...just make the training and weeding-out process more stringent.
Making rules under the guise of safety, without addressing quality of training issues and competency evaluations that were brought to light by this accident is ridiculous...especially when perpetrated by grand-standing blowhard politicians so they can look like they're doing something.
It's the FAA's job to make aviation regulations, so let them do it. Babbit's one of us...and if he's not doing a good job, Obama should fire him.
There IS something wrong with using the "leverage" of this accident to further an agenda. Some used 9/11 in the same way, and it was wrong then, too.
In the words of Ron Burgundy, "Agree to disagree"
Maybe I'm not being concise in expressing my views...(it's getting late).
Never said get rid of hourly requirements...just make the training and weeding-out process more stringent.
Making rules under the guise of safety, without addressing quality of training issues and competency evaluations that were brought to light by this accident is ridiculous...especially when perpetrated by grand-standing blowhard politicians so they can look like they're doing something.
It's the FAA's job to make aviation regulations, so let them do it. Babbit's one of us...and if he's not doing a good job, Obama should fire him.
There IS something wrong with using the "leverage" of this accident to further an agenda. Some used 9/11 in the same way, and it was wrong then, too.
In the words of Ron Burgundy, "Agree to disagree"
Anyways, this bill does try to get to the root of the problem. It does require more training, including stall training. And it also tries to hit at the contributing factors as well: screening and hiring of pilots, background checks of pilots that include checkride history, requiring training for icing, mentoring, leadership, and professional standards, flight time duty time regulations, studying the effects of commuting, etc. All things that this crew dealt with. And I don't mind at all that this was also used to push for things like increasing the training requirements of the ATP, requiring ASAP, FOQA, LOSA, AQP, and SMS, implementing NTSB recommendations, disclosing operating carriers when purchasing airline tickets, safety inspection on regional airlines, etc. Absolutely nothing wrong with this airline safety agenda to me.
No, I just think 1500 is arbitrary and capricious. I'm not a military trained pilot but I do know that the military (Air Force) allows pilots to be "Aircraft Commanders" (Captains) with a whole lot less assuming they can pass the check-ride. Which makes perfect sense to me. You and I can continue to disagree but the fact remains that Flight Time is only an "indication" of pilot skill not a hard firm skill set.
While in recurrent training last week the checkairman mentioned something about a side letter to this bill allowing puppy mills to pump out pilots at around 800 or so hours. Anyone know the fate of this provision? It would just destroy the intent of this bill and continue placing new pilots in a world of debt while filling the right seat of regionals with cheap pilots.
If the military sets up a special arrangement where their 400 hour guys can qualify for ATPs that's fine by me. As mentioned above 400 hours of military flying and training is not the same as getting it at a part 61 "Joe's Flight Academy" or even a part 141 zero-to-hero outfit like AllATP or Gulfstream.
I will say the University credit thing might not be so bad. I believe UND and Riddle do offer academic training that is worth something over non-accredited schools. However, how much they lower the mins (if at all) is debatable. I don't think you can graduate from any University program with 250 hours (or 190 hours in some cases these days) and expect to hop in an RJ. Maybe allow it to go to 1000 hours for an ATP, but that's about it. Everyone needs some real world flying first, regardless of where you came from.
I will say the University credit thing might not be so bad. I believe UND and Riddle do offer academic training that is worth something over non-accredited schools. However, how much they lower the mins (if at all) is debatable. I don't think you can graduate from any University program with 250 hours (or 190 hours in some cases these days) and expect to hop in an RJ. Maybe allow it to go to 1000 hours for an ATP, but that's about it. Everyone needs some real world flying first, regardless of where you came from.
No it didnt.
07-31-2010, 08:59 AM
#246
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: A320
Posts: 1,316
My reference to the need for an increase in ticket prices has to do with the increase in costs caused by the whole bill. What costs will go up? I have no clue but the bean counters and management at each airline are freaking out about the bill. Since most people in management are one track minded I'm sure the costs will go up because of it. At my company the chief pilots and COO have been trying to feed us the cool aid on how this bill is just flat out unnecessary. That it will affect all of us (pilots) negatively.
The only reason they would have their panties in a bunch would be due to money. They don't really care about anything else.
The only reason they would have their panties in a bunch would be due to money. They don't really care about anything else.
07-31-2010, 09:10 AM
#247
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: CFI
Posts: 416
07-31-2010, 09:12 AM
#248
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
Posts: 3,543
My reference to the need for an increase in ticket prices has to do with the increase in costs caused by the whole bill. What costs will go up? I have no clue but the bean counters and management at each airline are freaking out about the bill. Since most people in management are one track minded I'm sure the costs will go up because of it. At my company the chief pilots and COO have been trying to feed us the cool aid on how this bill is just flat out unnecessary. That it will affect all of us (pilots) negatively.
The only reason they would have their panties in a bunch would be due to money. They don't really care about anything else.
The only reason they would have their panties in a bunch would be due to money. They don't really care about anything else.
Oh, and when is the president going to sign this thing??? I thought the papers said yesterday, then today...but I see nothing. Come on!
07-31-2010, 09:45 AM
#249
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Self employed
Posts: 3,048
07-31-2010, 09:58 AM
#250
Eats shoots and leaves...
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Didactic Synthetic Aviation Experience Provider
Posts: 849
In response your comment about the military and how it certifies it's pilots I would like to say that the military is a whole different world than the civilian world.
{snip}
Secondly, military "Captains" do not serve the general public. This is about passengers that pay for tickets expecting to get to their destination alive. It's not too much to ask. When a K.C. 135 goes down due to pilot error, although tragic and terribly sad, most likely the aircraft wasn't carrying paying passengers. I think that is the point here. You are missing the point.
{snip}
Secondly, military "Captains" do not serve the general public. This is about passengers that pay for tickets expecting to get to their destination alive. It's not too much to ask. When a K.C. 135 goes down due to pilot error, although tragic and terribly sad, most likely the aircraft wasn't carrying paying passengers. I think that is the point here. You are missing the point.
I will agree that 1500 hours doesn't guarantee piloting skill, judgment, or any other factors you'd like to discuss. Nothing can or will - you could require 10,000 hours and still have a bozo slip through now and again. But by the same token, simply passing a checkride is a far poorer indicator than having acquired a relatively minimal amount of real world experience (and yes, I do think 1,500 hours to sit in the right seat of a 30+ ton jet with the paying public on board is pretty minimal - not unreasonably so, but it really isn't that much).
Honestly you sound like someone who is either currently in a pilot mill or a recent graduate thereof and concerned about not having your ATP within the required three years. If that's the case, then I'm sorry that you've chosen to make a bad investment, but did you do any due diligence about both history of pilot hiring requirements and historical industry trends? The last few years have been an aberration (and not a good one in MANY aspects). If you bought into the hype that 300-500 hours to the right seat of a jet was the new norm, then you really didn't do your homework at all.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
