Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Regional
FAA first officer qualification rule >

FAA first officer qualification rule

Search

Notices
Regional Regional Airlines

FAA first officer qualification rule

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-17-2012, 09:16 PM
  #1  
New Hire
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 8
Default FAA first officer qualification rule

Did this pass in Congress yet, or is it still in the works. ( Increasing hours logged for FO before hire).
afraj is offline  
Old 05-17-2012, 09:23 PM
  #2  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,822
Default

Originally Posted by afraj
Did this pass in Congress yet, or is it still in the works. ( Increasing hours logged for FO before hire).

What planet have you been on? Yes, it passed.
ERJF15 is offline  
Old 05-18-2012, 02:40 AM
  #3  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,091
Default

Yes, it passed. It does not increase hours, it requires an ATP to fly for an airline (which usually means 1500 hours).

Effective date Aug 1 2013.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 05-18-2012, 03:21 AM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: 7ER B...whatever that means.
Posts: 3,982
Default

Has anyone else noticed an increase in the number of inane questions being asked by noobs with seemingly random or poorly thought out screennames?
freezingflyboy is offline  
Old 05-18-2012, 03:24 AM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 268
Default

The final rule hasn't been written yet. It is still in the NPRM stage. Comments were due by April 30, 2012. The law that congress passed mandated implementation by 8/1/2013.

Remember the rest rules though? That law was supposed to be released no later than 8/1/2011. It came out 5 months late, and included a 2 year implementation period.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012.../2012-4627.pdf
ASAnotASAP is online now  
Old 05-18-2012, 03:33 AM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
PerpetualFlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2011
Posts: 495
Default

Originally Posted by ASAnotASAP
The final rule hasn't been written yet. It is still in the NPRM stage. Comments were due by April 30, 2012. The law that congress passed mandated implementation by 8/1/2013.

Remember the rest rules though? That law was supposed to be released no later than 8/1/2011. It came out 5 months late, and included a 2 year implementation period.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012.../2012-4627.pdf
What? You're mixing up two different rules. First, the rule that all flight crew members have an ATP has been finalized and goes into effect August 1, 2013. The rule governing the new minimum requirements of the ATP license is what you're thinking of. The comment period for that rule just ended.
PerpetualFlyer is offline  
Old 05-18-2012, 03:50 AM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 268
Default

Originally Posted by PerpetualFlyer
What? You're mixing up two different rules. First, the rule that all flight crew members have an ATP has been finalized and goes into effect August 1, 2013. The rule governing the new minimum requirements of the ATP license is what you're thinking of. The comment period for that rule just ended.
Yeah, you're right. The law that Congress passed included a statutory requirement for FOs to have an ATP by 8/1/2013, and does not require action from the FAA.
From the NPRM:

"However, about 75 percent of these
costs (about $55 million annualized) are
the result of the underlying statutory
requirement that all pilots operating
under part 121 have an ATP by August
1, 2013. Although the FAA currently
requires 1,500 hours for an ATP
certificate, the requirement for all part
121 flightcrew members to hold an ATP
certificate will take effect whether or not
a regulation is issued."

So it's in everyone's best interest for the FAA to move quickly with the regulation, otherwise, everyone will need an ATP obtained under the current requirements.
ASAnotASAP is online now  
Old 05-18-2012, 05:50 AM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Posts: 332
Default

Has anyone else noticed an increase in the number of inane questions being asked by noobs with seemingly random or poorly thought out screennames?
They've been too busy with their earbuds jammed in too tight to pay attention to what is happening around them!
love2av8 is offline  
Old 05-18-2012, 05:54 AM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: CFI/II/MEI
Posts: 481
Default

What congress passes is the law of the land. The FAA cannot override that. It would take an act of congress to change/undo/delay implementation of the ATP rule.

But since congress can be bought, all it would take is for the right people to pony up enough money....
Bellanca is offline  
Old 05-18-2012, 06:50 AM
  #10  
Banned
 
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 1,071
Default

Originally Posted by freezingflyboy
Has anyone else noticed an increase in the number of inane questions being asked by noobs with seemingly random or poorly thought out screennames?
You mean like "freezing flyboy"? . JK
Slats is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
flyinpigg
Major
3
01-27-2012 06:30 AM
ewrbasedpilot
Major
1
12-10-2010 06:44 AM
Freightbird
Cargo
9
04-26-2007 04:31 AM
fireman0174
Major
46
11-19-2006 05:49 AM
Tech Maven
Hangar Talk
17
10-30-2006 10:41 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