H.R.3371 The Actual Bill
08-01-2009, 06:49 PM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Tu-95 PIC
Posts: 104
It actually does not say that although I wish it did.
The laws calls for immediate enhancements in the screening of new-hires, but does NOT require an ATP for them. It does not give any real details about the screening process either, that being left up to the administrator (FAA).
The only language regarding the ATP says everyone has to have one three years after passage of the bill.
The laws calls for immediate enhancements in the screening of new-hires, but does NOT require an ATP for them. It does not give any real details about the screening process either, that being left up to the administrator (FAA).
The only language regarding the ATP says everyone has to have one three years after passage of the bill.
On a side note, and I realize this is being real picky, but they are constantly referring too the ATP as a 'license.' It's a certificate, and the reason I remember that is because I got chewed out by an examiner when I called it a license back in the day when I took my Private Pilot checkride.
I just hope the airlines don't come back and say 'Hey, they want an Airline Transport Pilot License, and the FAA doesn't offer that, so we can go ahead and continue hiring low-timers..'
Any thoughts on this?
08-01-2009, 07:59 PM
#62
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: EMB 145 CPT
Posts: 2,934
The ATP requirement will be required of part 121 air carriers. The flight time duty time regs, it doesnt specify. I guess it would be up to the administrator. I would hope they apply to everyone, including part 135 that way there is no question for air carriers like Cape Air, Great Lakes, Skywest, etc...level the playing field
08-01-2009, 08:04 PM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV
Posts: 3,732
The ATP requirement will be required of part 121 air carriers. The flight time duty time regs, it doesnt specify. I guess it would be up to the administrator. I would hope they apply to everyone, including part 135 that way there is no question for air carriers like Cape Air, Great Lakes, Skywest, etc...level the playing field
08-01-2009, 10:57 PM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: crj-200 FO
Posts: 479
24 months (2yrs) + 3 yrs from date of enact = 5 yrs
08-02-2009, 01:13 AM
#65
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Posts: 88
I think this is an excellent idea and a great bill.
08-02-2009, 03:08 AM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Posts: 188
08-02-2009, 12:54 PM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: B737 CA
Posts: 1,518
Of course the FAA disagrees. This bill represents a blow to the FAA's authority because it essentially says, "Ok, you guys aren't doing a very good job of enacting regulations that protect the flying public, so we're going to do it for you". Congress has always had that authority since 1958 but has used it fairly seldom, usually their only role is oversight of the FAA. Congress is using authority generally left to the FAA, and NOBODY in government likes to be overruled by Congress.
08-02-2009, 01:36 PM
#68
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,205
They will probably fix the wording before then.
08-02-2009, 07:37 PM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: PIC Challenger 605
Posts: 454
Of course the FAA disagrees. This bill represents a blow to the FAA's authority because it essentially says, "Ok, you guys aren't doing a very good job of enacting regulations that protect the flying public, so we're going to do it for you". Congress has always had that authority since 1958 but has used it fairly seldom, usually their only role is oversight of the FAA. Congress is using authority generally left to the FAA, and NOBODY in government likes to be overruled by Congress.
08-03-2009, 12:53 PM
#70
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: EMB 145 CPT
Posts: 2,934
I think you are misreading the bill. Here is the relevant section:
SEC. 10. FLIGHT CREWMEMBER SCREENING AND QUALIFICATIONS.
(a) Requirements-
(1) RULEMAKING PROCEEDING- The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall conduct a rulemaking proceeding to require part 121 air carriers to develop and implement means and methods for ensuring that flight crewmembers have proper qualifications and experience.
(2) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS-
(A) PROSPECTIVE FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS- Rules issued under paragraph (1) shall ensure that prospective flight crewmembers undergo comprehensive pre-employment screening, including an assessment of the skills, aptitudes, airmanship, and suitability of each applicant for a position as a flight crewmember in terms of functioning effectively in the air carrier’s operational environment.
(B) ALL FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS- Rules issued under paragraph (1) shall ensure that, after the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, all flight crewmembers–
(i) have obtained an airline transport pilot license under part 61 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations; and
(ii) have appropriate multi-engine aircraft flight experience, as determined by the Administrator.
(b) Deadlines- The Administrator shall issue–
(1) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a notice of proposed rulemaking under subsection (a); and
(2) not later than 24 months after such date of enactment, a final rule under subsection (a).
What this is saying is that the FAA has to issue an NPRM within 180 days of enactment. And the FAA will issue a final rule not later than 24 months after that date of enactment. And that the final rule will require all crewmembers to have obtained an ATP within 3 years of the date of enactment. So if the FAA drags their feet and actually takes the maximum time allotted to them by this bill (assuming it becomes law in its current form), there will be only 12 months from the date of the final rule for crewmembers to obtain their ATP.
Three years total.
SEC. 10. FLIGHT CREWMEMBER SCREENING AND QUALIFICATIONS.
(a) Requirements-
(1) RULEMAKING PROCEEDING- The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall conduct a rulemaking proceeding to require part 121 air carriers to develop and implement means and methods for ensuring that flight crewmembers have proper qualifications and experience.
(2) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS-
(A) PROSPECTIVE FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS- Rules issued under paragraph (1) shall ensure that prospective flight crewmembers undergo comprehensive pre-employment screening, including an assessment of the skills, aptitudes, airmanship, and suitability of each applicant for a position as a flight crewmember in terms of functioning effectively in the air carrier’s operational environment.
(B) ALL FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS- Rules issued under paragraph (1) shall ensure that, after the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, all flight crewmembers–
(i) have obtained an airline transport pilot license under part 61 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations; and
(ii) have appropriate multi-engine aircraft flight experience, as determined by the Administrator.
(b) Deadlines- The Administrator shall issue–
(1) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a notice of proposed rulemaking under subsection (a); and
(2) not later than 24 months after such date of enactment, a final rule under subsection (a).
What this is saying is that the FAA has to issue an NPRM within 180 days of enactment. And the FAA will issue a final rule not later than 24 months after that date of enactment. And that the final rule will require all crewmembers to have obtained an ATP within 3 years of the date of enactment. So if the FAA drags their feet and actually takes the maximum time allotted to them by this bill (assuming it becomes law in its current form), there will be only 12 months from the date of the final rule for crewmembers to obtain their ATP.
Three years total.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
