Pols: modernizing training "will kill people"
#1
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
And then we have this nonsense from Congress, as expected:
https://reason.com/2023/06/16/senate...l-kill-people/
https://reason.com/2023/06/16/senate...l-kill-people/
![](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/clear.gif)
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2015
Position: MD-88 FO
Posts: 1,570
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
And then we have this nonsense from Congress, as expected:
https://reason.com/2023/06/16/senate...l-kill-people/
https://reason.com/2023/06/16/senate...l-kill-people/
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2017
Position: Retired NJA & AA
Posts: 2,001
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
If the sim time is available (big if) it's probably better than droning around in a Light Sport Aircraft. Especially if they use a crew and the aspiring ATP's can get some CRM and practice SOP's like airlines have. But if its basically Microsoft Flight Sim then no.
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,993
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Canned scenarios in the simulator does not replace actual experience. Most countries overseas realize that 121.436 is a farce. I’ve worked with foreign carriers, as a line trainer and checker, with under 300 hours. They earned their frozen ATPLs. Flying a Boeing as a crewmember afforded them to gain real life experience in real life operations.
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,803
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Canned scenarios in the simulator does not replace actual experience. Most countries overseas realize that 121.436 is a farce. I’ve worked with foreign carriers, as a line trainer and checker, with under 300 hours. They earned their frozen ATPLs. Flying a Boeing as a crewmember afforded them to gain real life experience in real life operations.
#7
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: GA pilot
Posts: 38
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Although there are plenty of loony pols of all ideological persuasions, I would note that this pol was an Army light colonel and helicopter pilot. I suspect she knows a little about flying and training.
#8
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,254
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Once again, the original poster, whom I've blocked due to the continual stupidity of her posts, has taken little thought but to post politically-based false information from questionable sources in the ongoing agenda she has regarding the "fifteen hundred hour rule" (which does not exist). This really needs to stop. It's spammed across most of the forums, now. Enough.
There is no "fifteen hundred hour rule." It doesn't exist. It never existed. Repeating this idiocy only makes one appear more stupid, were that actually possible.
Duckworth did not suggest that more training or modern training would reduce safety. Duckworth argued against dropping the requirement for the ATP.
The original poster is on a crusade to claim the ATP is not necessary for 121 first officers. Disingenuous, given the original posters lack of pilot certification.
Numerous attempted riders are being attempted on the FAA reauthorization bill, from age 67 to alterations to ATP requirements, to cameras in the cockpit. These attempts are being discussed in multiple threads in multiple forums. The original poster attempt at introducing one more is politically driven, as always, and consistently ill-informed.
There is no "fifteen hundred hour rule." It doesn't exist. It never existed. Repeating this idiocy only makes one appear more stupid, were that actually possible.
Duckworth did not suggest that more training or modern training would reduce safety. Duckworth argued against dropping the requirement for the ATP.
The original poster is on a crusade to claim the ATP is not necessary for 121 first officers. Disingenuous, given the original posters lack of pilot certification.
Numerous attempted riders are being attempted on the FAA reauthorization bill, from age 67 to alterations to ATP requirements, to cameras in the cockpit. These attempts are being discussed in multiple threads in multiple forums. The original poster attempt at introducing one more is politically driven, as always, and consistently ill-informed.
#9
#10
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post