Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
House Passes Bill Raising Standards For Pilots  
User currently offlineN6238P From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 510 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 6561 times:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/p...al-airlines-safety,0,4821457.story

The bill saying that all 121 pilots must have an ATP passed 409-11 pretty much indicating very shortly this will be regulatory.

If this goes though, how will this change U.S. aviation for people like me who are trying to get to the airlines via the 4 year university route? I'm an 300hr+ CFI and there is a huge gap between that number and 1,500. For anyone familiar with this subject, what will happen to pilots already flying part 121 that have not yet reached 1,500hrs? Will this suddenly saturate the already saturated low time part 91 and part 135 pilot market?

Thoughts and comments?


To actively root against anybody is just low, and I hope karma comes back at you with a vengeance
46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline413X3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 6561 times:

As most bills, it will probably die in the Senate, while the House members can show their voters how hard they work on the "tough" issues

User currently offlineADXMatt From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 954 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 6442 times:

From the article....

The bill allows the FAA to credit course work at specific flight training schools toward the requirements for receiving an Air Transport certificate. The schools had expressed concern that would-be pilots would skip the schooling to concentrate on accumulating flying time.


So basically nothing will change.


User currently offlineMSNDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 6386 times:

Here's the full Bill:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...cong_bills&docid=f:h3371eh.txt.pdf

Vast majority of it results in the Government getting more data on people then they probably need to have access too.

It also doesn't specify an ATP per se.... It requires a group of "experts" recommend the requirements for hire. There's probably going to be some sort of sliding scale of requirements set.

My beef is the government intrusion part of it. Anything the government has is susceptible to getting stolen or hacked. Remember Social Security numbers on missing Government computers not long ago?

[Edited 2009-10-15 14:30:44]

User currently offlineDispatchguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1253 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 6368 times:



Quoting N6238P (Thread starter):
The bill saying that all 121 pilots must have an ATP

And you know, since you are trying to be an AIRLINE pilot, whats the problem of holding an ATP prior to flying airline passengers around????

I've felt this has been long overdue.

My guess is that current 121 people who do not hold 1500 TT, or their ATP, would be grandfathered, but no new pilots with less than the 1500TT and the ATP; its about time.

While it wouldnt have stopped the BUF CJC accident, this shouldve happened a long time ago. Tired of 500hr boy wonders flying right seat in an RJ...



Nobody screws you better than an airline job!
User currently offlineMSNDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 6343 times:

Dispatchers are caught up in this too.... Read the text.

Quoting Dispatchguy (Reply 4):
My guess is that current 121 people who do not hold 1500 TT, or their ATP, would be grandfathered, but no new pilots with less than the 1500TT and the ATP; its about time.

From the Bill:

PROCEEDING.—The Administrator
of the Federal Aviation Administration shall conduct a
rulemaking proceeding to amend part 61 of title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations, to modify requirements for the
issuance of an airline transport pilot certificate.


In a nut shell, the definition of an ATP is about to change...

[Edited 2009-10-15 14:35:00]

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21865 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 6326 times:

Quoting N6238P (Thread starter):
If this goes though, how will this change U.S. aviation for people like me who are trying to get to the airlines via the 4 year university route?

The article says that the bill has provisions to credit time spent at specific schools. I'm trying to find that specific text so that I can read it - it wasn't in the original bill, so I can't really comment on it. I do know that the administration of at least one large university flight program were saying that if the bill passed in its original form, it would pretty much be the end of the program. Why would anyone spend their money on a flight degree when they're going to be no better off than they would if they got their ratings from Bob's FBO at their local airport? And that's stupid, because while I don't believe that UND or ERAU or Purdue training automatically makes you a competent airline pilot, it leaves you in a much better position than many (though not all) Part 61 schools out there. That ought to be reflected somehow, and whatever provisions got added to the bill might do that. I don't know - I'll have to find them and read them.

It's also worth mentioning that I heard from the FAA administrator a little over two weeks ago that they were coming out with their own NPRM on the issue, involving a hour minimum in the area of 750 and some sort of multi-crew certification, and I haven't seen it yet. So it seems a bit premature for the House, which knows crap about proper pilot training and qualification, to be passing this before that NPRM is out. But that's the House for you.

Quoting N6238P (Thread starter):
I'm an 300hr+ CFI and there is a huge gap between that number and 1,500.

Not to mention the 500 cross-country hours.

Quoting N6238P (Thread starter):
For anyone familiar with this subject, what will happen to pilots already flying part 121 that have not yet reached 1,500hrs?

They have some time to get it, so they'll be ok. You build time pretty quick in the airlines anyway.

Quoting N6238P (Thread starter):
Will this suddenly saturate the already saturated low time part 91 and part 135 pilot market?

Yup. One of the things brought up by many of the witnesses that testified on this bill is that they all had to go through the 135 market to build their time. Fair enough, but they were all doing that a long time ago, and the 135 market is a lot smaller now.

Quoting N6238P (Thread starter):
Thoughts and comments?

They can wave the safety flag all they want, but what this is really about is pay and working conditions. Experience and training are fungible to a certain extent - the US military puts pilots with less than 1000 hours in command of large transport aircraft and executive transports flying VIPs around, and airlines in Europe and Asia will put pilots with 300 hours in the right seat of 737s and 777s. They both have good safety records to show for it because they tightly control the training and make sure that those who come out of their programs have the skills that they need. The closest thing the civilian world in the US has to those sorts of programs is the university flight schools, but they don't really come all that close. And so we end up with higher experience requirements. But requiring an ATP would not have prevented the Colgan accident - the captain obviously had one, and while I don't know whether the FO had one or not, she had the required time to. And yet the accident still happened. That was a result of poor training, as well as poor pay and working conditions. And since it's tough to legislate pay and working conditions (though I do think it's possible), the union groups have decided to bet that if they make it a lot harder to become an airline pilot by requiring more experience, there will be fewer who choose to do it, and thus by law of supply and demand, the airlines will have to pay more and treat their pilots better in order to be an attractive career. If they're right, it could be a very good move. If they're wrong, it could well be disaster for the US airline industry, as there just won't be enough pilots to meet the country's needs.

I have my doubts that it can work. The road to being a pilot is much like the road to being a doctor - it's a decent commitment to doing it (granted, the schooling is not as long for a pilot as it is a doctor, but a doctor's training is applicable to more fields than is a pilot's). So there has to be something there at the end to make it all worthwhile. For a doctor, that's pretty easy, because whether the economy goes up or down, people are going to get sick, and their skills will be in demand. But the job security of a pilot can fluctuate a lot with the economy, and the likelihood of it ever being a stable career again is not that great. So the reward for putting in the time and/or money to get yourself to a point where you can be an airline pilot is the prospect of a job that could very easily disappear if things go sour, at which point there would be no lateral mobility, and you might be forced to leave the profession and find something else to do with your life (which your years of putting in time would then be a liability in). Would you take the plunge with that outlook?

Granted, we have the lateral mobility problem right now, and there's no real easy solution to that one. But I am not at all convinced that this will be as beneficial, for safety or for working conditions, as it's made out to be.

Let's not forget that the pilot hiring market is, at the moment, hit by both the recession and the fact that there are no retirements going on because of the change from 60 to 65. Once we get some vertical mobility back into things in a couple of years, when those who were 60 at the time of that change turn 65 and are forced out, things may change in terms of pilot supply, and this may be a case of legislating something that will work itself out in a couple of years.

Quoting 413X3 (Reply 1):
As most bills, it will probably die in the Senate

Hopefully. Or at least it will stall out until the FAA can put out their idea.

EDIT: Didn't see that MSNDC9 had posted the text of the bill as passed - thanks for that, I'll take a look.

-Mir

[Edited 2009-10-15 14:43:03]

[Edited 2009-10-15 15:00:39]


7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFlyingbronco05 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3840 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 6312 times:

And with this needs to come a huge pay raise. If no pay raise, prepare for a shortage of pilots.


Never Trust Your Fuel Gauge
User currently offlineAirNz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 6291 times:



Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 3):
My beef is the government intrusion part of it. Anything the government has is susceptible to getting stolen or hacked. Remember Social Security numbers on missing Government computers not long ago?

Anything in your house, wallet or computer can even more easily be stolen. That doesn't seem to annoy you, so why this paranoia of government 'intrusion' (I don't mean from yourself specifically)? What could government 'intrusion' possible gain that they don't honestly already have access to?

Quoting Dispatchguy (Reply 4):
And you know, since you are trying to be an AIRLINE pilot, whats the problem of holding an ATP prior to flying airline passengers around????

I've felt this has been long overdue.

 checkmark  I agree with you entirely


User currently offlineMSNDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 6294 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 6):
Hopefully. Or at least it will stall out until the FAA can put out their idea.

No doubt. The requirements in this bill alone are going to put some heavy financial burdens on Aviation.


User currently offline413X3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 6228 times:



Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 3):
My beef is the government intrusion part of it. Anything the government has is susceptible to getting stolen or hacked. Remember Social Security numbers on missing Government computers not long ago?

There are many valid reasons out there but this isn't really one of them. Private industry has the same issue with leaking private information


User currently offlineMSNDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 6206 times:



Quoting AirNz (Reply 8):
Anything in your house, wallet or computer can even more easily be stolen.

I have never been robbed of anything, yet the loss of my data on a government computer resulted in identity theft which took months to repair.

Quoting AirNz (Reply 8):
That doesn't seem to annoy you, so why this paranoia of government 'intrusion' (I don't mean from yourself specifically)? What could government 'intrusion' possible gain that they don't honestly already have access to?

Its the level of intrusion on multiple levels, not just this. It seems to be a philosophy run amuck right now with the government. Exaclty how much personal data does the government require? When is enough enough?

Quoting 413X3 (Reply 10):
There are many valid reasons out there but this isn't really one of them. Private industry has the same issue with leaking private information

Private industry can be sued for failure.

[Edited 2009-10-15 15:17:24]

User currently offlineAtpcliff From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 6103 times:

Hi!

The House version SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES an ATP. The Senate has a similar bill, and does NOT have the exclusion for non-flying hours to count towards the 1500-ATP requirement.

Last year, I know that these types of hiring practices were going on:
-Hiring new airline FOs who had less than 200 hours Total Time, who had their Commercial Licenses.
-Hiring new airline FOs, who did not have a Commercial License, without an interview. Their Commercial checkrides were already scheduled, and they were awarded a new-hire class date that was after the Commercial checkride date, contingent upon them receiving their Commercial.
-Hiring new airline FOs without a Commercial License, but who met the minimum requirements for a Commercial. At the successfull completion of simulator training, they would be awarded their Commercial License concurrently, and do their first Commercial flight with paying passengers, while on IOE.

This bill also has some improved specific training requirements, and tells the FAA to change their crew Flight/Duty/Rest for the better.

cliff
NBO



TRY. It's all you have control over, and it's what God wants.
User currently offlineFutureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2608 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 6042 times:

I'm still a CFI, working on ATP minimums and I have to say I support the bill. It may not be the end all/be all but it is a step in the right direction. Perhaps a small, and slightly sideways step, but a step nevertheless. Hours aren't everything but at the very least if they require an ATP it will require people to go out and get some experience prior to hauling people around.
If you put in the work, and don't mind making some sacrifices hitting ATP minimums can certainly be done in a reasonable amount of time.



Life is better when you surf.
User currently offline413x3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 5952 times:



Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 11):

Private industry can be sued for failure.

you can sue the government


User currently onlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1630 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 5940 times:



Quoting Futureualpilot (Reply 13):
If you put in the work, and don't mind making some sacrifices hitting ATP minimums can certainly be done in a reasonable amount of time.

Sure, but you can't do anything about not being 23 years of age. Its time to move the FAA ATP to ICAO standards of 21 years of age. And, while we're at it, perhaps a frozen ATP is the way to go.

Also, I'd heard that the provision requiring an ATP has a 3 year grace period that the airlines would still be allowed to operate with pilots who didn't have the ATP upon hire.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offline727forever From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 794 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 5918 times:



Quoting N6238P (Thread starter):
For anyone familiar with this subject, what will happen to pilots already flying part 121 that have not yet reached 1,500hrs?

Do what the rest of us have done. Fly traffic, banners, go to Alaska, become a CFI, fly drug test specimin, corporate, etc. There still are jobs out there. These jobs teach you the things that a class room just can't to get you ready for 121 flying. The first time seeing the inside of a cloud or ice on the wing really needs to occur prior to flying 121 with people in the back depending on you to have seen this before.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 15):

Sure, but you can't do anything about not being 23 years of age. Its time to move the FAA ATP to ICAO standards of 21 years of age. And, while we're at it, perhaps a frozen ATP is the way to go.

Also, I'd heard that the provision requiring an ATP has a 3 year grace period that the airlines would still be allowed to operate with pilots who didn't have the ATP upon hire.

On August 8, 1997 the FAA changed a rule regarding the ATP. Prior to this date, an ATP candidate who met all requirements of the ATP except the age requirement could take the written, oral, and checkride prior to his 23rd birthday. Upon successful completion the Examiner presented the candidate with a letter of completion that he could present to the nearest FSDO on his 23rd birthday to accept his ATP. I did this on August 4, 1997. The new rule could include something like this if they wanted to.

While generally I think the House of Representatives is a bunch of monkeys who never accomplish anything of worth, something in this arena needs to be done. For far too long the industry as a whole has been going the wrong way. When non-revving to work I see things that 15 years ago simply wouldn't have been tolerated of pilots. No hats, tattoos lining the arms of pilots, interesting facial hair and piercings, the whole "backpack" crowd, etc. The bar has been lowered and if these characters have that little respect for their uniform it makes you wonder what kind of respect they have for procedure and work ethic in the cockpit. It is high time that the standard be raised again and it needs to start by stopping the lowering of the bar and increasing the standards to join the profession.

727forever



727forever
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 5881 times:



Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 5):
From the Bill:

PROCEEDING.—The Administrator
of the Federal Aviation Administration shall conduct a
rulemaking proceeding to amend part 61 of title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations, to modify requirements for the
issuance of an airline transport pilot certificate.

In a nut shell, the definition of an ATP is about to change...

Perhaps, it'd be interesting to see.

I'd hate to see special 'exceptions' made for Riddle/Perdue/etc grads just because their training was 'special', when someone who came from a Part 61 school that may be good or even better than someone who paid for the big name college training.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 5877 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 6):
Experience and training are fungible to a certain extent - the US military puts pilots with less than 1000 hours in command of large transport aircraft and executive transports flying VIPs around,

You can't really compare the selection process of the military, or the budget for training, to the civilian world. They both use airplanes, but the similarity ends there.

Quoting Mir (Reply 6):
Europe and Asia will put pilots with 300 hours in the right seat of 737s and 777s.

They are not without their problems, and have a much higher wash out rate. Also, you might want to look at the source of funds for training.

Quoting Mir (Reply 6):
And so we end up with higher experience requirements.

And this is not a bad thing. With experience, comes maturity and better decision making.

Quoting Mir (Reply 6):
And since it's tough to legislate pay and working conditions (though I do think it's possible),

It has been a disaster when tried in the past. Wage and price controls are always short term fix with significant long term ramifications, almost all of them bad.

Quoting Mir (Reply 6):
If they're wrong, it could well be disaster for the US airline industry, as there just won't be enough pilots to meet the country's needs.

The market will find an equilibrium if given a chance.

Quoting Mir (Reply 6):
So the reward for putting in the time and/or money to get yourself to a point where you can be an airline pilot is the prospect of a job that could very easily disappear if things go sour, at which point there would be no lateral mobility, and you might be forced to leave the profession and find something else to do with your life (which your years of putting in time would then be a liability in). Would you take the plunge with that outlook?

That has always been the case. There are many ways to lose this job and only a few to keep it. You run that risk until the day you retire. That is true of many careers.

Quoting Mir (Reply 6):
Let's not forget that the pilot hiring market is, at the moment, hit by both the recession and the fact that there are no retirements going on because of the change from 60 to 65.

Why should that matter? We should wait to change the standards until it is convenient for the current crop of entry level pilots? At times things will occur that are to your advantage. Other times you will encounter setbacks. The challenge is to make the best of each circumstance. That will be the only constant in your career.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21865 posts, RR: 55
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 5817 times:



Quoting Atpcliff (Reply 12):
Last year, I know that these types of hiring practices were going on:
-Hiring new airline FOs who had less than 200 hours Total Time, who had their Commercial Licenses.
-Hiring new airline FOs, who did not have a Commercial License, without an interview. Their Commercial checkrides were already scheduled, and they were awarded a new-hire class date that was after the Commercial checkride date, contingent upon them receiving their Commercial.
-Hiring new airline FOs without a Commercial License, but who met the minimum requirements for a Commercial. At the successfull completion of simulator training, they would be awarded their Commercial License concurrently, and do their first Commercial flight with paying passengers, while on IOE.

I don't think anyone would say that such practices are sound, but the choice is not between that and requiring an ATP. A middle ground does exist.

Quoting 727forever (Reply 16):
For far too long the industry as a whole has been going the wrong way. When non-revving to work I see things that 15 years ago simply wouldn't have been tolerated of pilots. No hats, tattoos lining the arms of pilots, interesting facial hair and piercings, the whole "backpack" crowd, etc.

I understand your concern on those matters, but I'd argue that such things have more to do with the type of person a pilot is and not how much flight time they have.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 18):
You can't really compare the selection process of the military, or the budget for training, to the civilian world. They both use airplanes, but the similarity ends there.

I agree, as I said in my post.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 18):
They are not without their problems, and have a much higher wash out rate.

I'm not opposed to a higher washout rate. I think it would be a good thing to apply stricter standards in training programs - there are people in flight training who really shouldn't be there, but they keep plugging at it.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 18):
With experience, comes maturity and better decision making.

Possibly. Conversely, extra experience means extra time to let bad habits develop. There's ten years of experience, and then there's one year of experience repeated ten times.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 18):
We should wait to change the standards until it is convenient for the current crop of entry level pilots?

I'm just saying it might be worthwhile to see what happens when the forced retirements start coming again, so that we don't legislate to solve a problem that's going to solve itself anyway if, as you say, the free market is given a chance. Unless we plan on continuously extending the retirement age, we're not going to find ourselves in the state we are now very often in the future.

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 17):
I'd hate to see special 'exceptions' made for Riddle/Perdue/etc grads just because their training was 'special', when someone who came from a Part 61 school that may be good or even better than someone who paid for the big name college training.

The reason that university training is considered "special" is that when someone shows up with a degree from a UND or Purdue or ERAU, you know that in addition to their flight training (which I agree is not particularly better than what one could get at an FBO), they've also taken ground classes in courses that Part 61 doesn't cover - things like CRM, systems, human factors, meteorology, etc. That's the difference, and that's why I think the exemptions are appropriate. If there's a Part 61 school out there that does teach those things with similar depth, I would be in favor of them also getting exemptions.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineN6238P From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 510 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 5808 times:



Quoting 727forever (Reply 16):
Do what the rest of us have done. Fly traffic, banners, go to Alaska, become a CFI, fly drug test specimin, corporate, etc. There still are jobs out there. These jobs teach you the things that a class room just can't to get you ready for 121 flying. The first time seeing the inside of a cloud or ice on the wing really needs to occur prior to flying 121 with people in the back depending on you to have seen this before.

This is the thing, I am a CFI and I am flying maybe 20hrs a month. I have too many friends that are unemployed CFI's, CFII's, MEI's not because they are incompetent but because the market is down. There aren't jobs out there like there used to be. Friends of mine that actually got jobs at an FBO as CFI's cannot get any flight hours because no one is training. Corporate flight departments are shutting down left and right. No one wants to pay for expensive training and if this bill passes, no one is going to want to pay for the extras.

I give tours of my schools aviation department to prospective students and their parents all the time. The main questions that come up all the time are "How much will this cost?" and "What will they do when they leave?" What do you think will happen to the number of new pilots when they find out they are guaranteed when they leave school or obtain their ratings, they're going to be flying for minimum wage for the next few years. Or hell they find out they wont even be flying at all.

I feel this bill is a knee jerk reaction. Why is 121 flying the only dangerous type of flying? If this argument that low time pilots are incapable of handling a state of the art regional jet, why is the safer alternative flying single pilot IFR in a 40 year old Twin Commander? Why should the only way I could build time flying be in a skydiving club's 206 that hasn't made a log book entry in ten years? Why should I have to risk my life every flight in order to eventually fly a safe aircraft. I don't understand the reasoning behind this bill and I don't understand how being young makes us bad pilots.

Comair 5191 had over 10,000hrs.. TT between the two pilots. Colgan Air 3407 had 5,500+ hrs. TT between the pilots. These two accidents specifically are the cause for this bill. Where did having less than 1500hrs. ever come into play in either accident? Thousands of flights happen everyday with young F/O's. Every single one of them takes off and lands without incident.



To actively root against anybody is just low, and I hope karma comes back at you with a vengeance
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5738 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 5778 times:



Quoting N6238P (Reply 20):

Comair 5191 had over 10,000hrs.. TT between the two pilots. Colgan Air 3407 had 5,500+ hrs. TT between the pilots. These two accidents specifically are the cause for this bill. Where did having less than 1500hrs.

Finally, someone else gets it! This bill was nothing but lip service to people who pay too much attention to CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and the rest.

Quoting Flyingbronco05 (Reply 7):
And with this needs to come a huge pay raise. If no pay raise, prepare for a shortage of pilots.

As long as Congress doesn't try and legislate the pay, the market will work it out, and salaries will go up, or airlines will start doing zero-hero training themselves. It'll take several years (up to 10), but it's the only way to keep planes flying.

In the mean time, you'll either see more fatigued pilots or more canceled and delayed flights.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineLuv2cattlecall From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1650 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 5708 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Dispatchguy (Reply 4):
And you know, since you are trying to be an AIRLINE pilot, whats the problem of holding an ATP prior to flying airline passengers around????

Because it's unnecessary. Plane's are falling out of the sky by any measure..

Quoting Dispatchguy (Reply 4):
While it wouldnt have stopped the BUF CJC accident, this shouldve happened a long time ago. Tired of 500hr boy wonders flying right seat in an RJ...

So because you're "tired of 500hr boy wonders flying right seat in an RJ" the world should revolve around that arbitrary POV?

Quoting Mir (Reply 6):
So it seems a bit premature for the House, which knows crap about proper pilot training and qualification, to be passing this before that NPRM is out. But that's the House for you.

I'm sure that goose-Hitler's book talking about pilot pay has influenced some of these dullards a bit..

Quoting Flyingbronco05 (Reply 7):
And with this needs to come a huge pay raise. If no pay raise, prepare for a shortage of pilots.

Not really... if there was no pay raise, and that really did deter people from becoming pilots, the supply would go down, causing pay to rise, until the equilibrium point is reached. What pilots are saying is that current pay is acceptable enough to make being a pilot worthwhile, or there wouldn't be a constant flood of new applicants.

Quoting 727forever (Reply 16):
Do what the rest of us have done. Fly traffic, banners, go to Alaska, become a CFI, fly drug test specimin, corporate, etc. There still are jobs out there. These jobs teach you the things that a class room just can't to get you ready for 121 flying. The first time seeing the inside of a cloud or ice on the wing really needs to occur prior to flying 121 with people in the back depending on you to have seen this before.

Ah...the "do it because we had to" argument. There aren't that many of those jobs floating out there...something about 10% unemployment, Fed/Ex, electronic check clearing, etc..

Again, there haven't been ANY recent pax fatalities directly attributable to lack of pilot experience. In fact, the deadliest pax fatality number, from Tenerife, was due to pilot OVER-experience.

Btw, it's spelled specimen, but I forgive you for not using spellcheck, since those before you had to do things the hard way and flip through a Webster's every time they didn't know how to spell basic words.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 18):
They are not without their problems, and have a much higher wash out rate. Also, you might want to look at the source of funds for training.

True, but even their aircraft aren't falling out of the sky...



When you have to breaststroke to your connecting flight...it's a crash!
User currently offlineHawkerCamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 5692 times:



Quoting Flyingbronco05 (Reply 7):
And with this needs to come a huge pay raise. If no pay raise, prepare for a shortage of pilots.

Could this cause an influx of pilots from overseas?
Could this cause an outflux of sub1500hrs US pilots overseas?


User currently offline727forever From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 794 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 5686 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 19):
I understand your concern on those matters, but I'd argue that such things have more to do with the type of person a pilot is and not how much flight time they have.

However, many of those individuals who think that way will not go the distance when it isn't just so easy to show up and get hired. It should be as tough to get hired at a Regional as it is at a Legacy. We are flying the same passengers are we not?

Quoting Mir (Reply 19):
Possibly. Conversely, extra experience means extra time to let bad habits develop. There's ten years of experience, and then there's one year of experience repeated ten times.

Bad habits can be trained out or the pilot gets weeded out. A lot more positive things can come from honing the basic airmanship of experience.

Quoting N6238P (Reply 20):
I feel this bill is a knee jerk reaction. Why is 121 flying the only dangerous type of flying? If this argument that low time pilots are incapable of handling a state of the art regional jet, why is the safer alternative flying single pilot IFR in a 40 year old Twin Commander? Why should the only way I could build time flying be in a skydiving club's 206 that hasn't made a log book entry in ten years? Why should I have to risk my life every flight in order to eventually fly a safe aircraft. I don't understand the reasoning behind this bill and I don't understand how being young makes us bad pilots.

It's called basic airmanship. It is only gained through experience. Theory and classroom training will not get you there. I had 1500 hours when I got my first 121 job. Of that, 500 was multi, 200 of that was multi turbine, the rest was single time bumping around in the sky with students or flying traffic reporters. It all contributed to the building blocks approach to gaining experience. It made me ready. On the other end of the spectrum I later was an IOE Captain in the CRJ. I did IOE on a lot of 600 hour pilots. The overwhelming majority came from ERAU, Perdue, UND, or OSU. Nearly all had never spend anytime in IMC. None had ever seen what ice really looks like or what it does to the performance of the airplane. They had never used a radar before. When things got hairy I was on my own as they didn't even have enough experience to be aware of the danger lurking on the horizon. They really weren't ready but I had 25 hours to get them there before I turned them over to the line Captains who would spend the next 1000 hours trying to punch through their egos to teach them. I did it with a lot of forced hand flying, stuff that they should have been doing prior. Unfortunately in todays legalistic environment, flight operations departments don't want pilots handflying unless the autopilot is MEL'd. However, when it is the airline won't cancel so you better know how to fly. Oh wait, the kids that never really flew before to get their experience and skills sharp will be flying now. Good luck.

Quoting N6238P (Reply 20):
Comair 5191 had over 10,000hrs.. TT between the two pilots. Colgan Air 3407 had 5,500+ hrs. TT between the pilots. These two accidents specifically are the cause for this bill. Where did having less than 1500hrs. ever come into play in either accident? Thousands of flights happen everyday with young F/O's. Every single one of them takes off and lands without incident.

Thousands of flights happen everyday with young FOs. I was one of them. But I came to the table with experience despite my age and was ready to learn more. What happens when the lowtime FO gets paired up with the weak Captain, let's face it there are weak Captains out there and a lot of them come from Gulfstream, on a night with bad weather? Colgan 3407 is what happens. We probably can't weed out all of the weak Captains, but we can raise the minimums back to where they used to be to make sure that someone is giving the Captains weak and strong assistance.


I jumpseated home the other day on a CR7 and naturally had to sit in the cockpit. The FO was a young guy who had been with the airline for 2 years. He was one of the 200 hour guys when hired. He had a horrible attitude and didn't have the experience beat into him to know basic airmanship. There was a lot of weather in the area and he had his radar tilted up 5 deg while in cruise. It painted a lot of blank sky. We were going in and out of some heavy rain and he was flying at 325 knots through moderate turbulance at times. Rough air penetration speed is 280. After over 5 minutes of this the Captain, who was busy handling company business, looked over and told him to slow down. The FO just gave him a blank look and slowed 10 knots. A lot of good that did. Not only was he inexperienced, but he wasn't learning anything while there. He was just going through the motions all the while indignified that he hadn't upgraded to Captain yet. On the other hand, at least he have his hat and no tattoos.

727forever



727forever
25 Mir : If someone like that shows up, don't hire them. Simple as that. Hire the guy that isn't part of the "tattooed, non-hat-wearing, facial-hair-possessin
26 413x3 : Am I the only one who finds it completely ironic that a low time pilot is not capable of being a co-pilot on a passenger plane, but perfectly capable
27 SB : A remark from an outsider, if I may. I really don't see the logic of instructing to build experience. Surely you would want an experienced pilot teach
28 LarSPL : so showing up with 1500hrs says you are experienced? is lots of hours the same as experience? If you have weak captains, your training is wrong, your
29 Par13del : A lot of post by pilots etc. talking about piloting however, this is the only post which I think really addresses what I consider the basic root of t
30 Spudsmac : The good old attitude of "we had go through this crap, so why shouldn't you?" I hate it when people say things like this because what it does is acti
31 Adam42185 : I am an aspiring pilot and this new legislation certainly makes me want to fly in another country until i have built up the hours to fly in the Unite
32 Aaron747 : There's nothing wrong with high wash out. The standards in European and Asian programs exist specifically to weed out those who can be identified as
33 MSNDC9 : Good luck with that.
34 727forever : I'm glad to see that I got emotions all fired up on the forum. Alright, let's do this. No, I'm not advocating doing it because we had to do it. What I
35 SLUaviator : I really like having higher hiring minimums but hate the idea of letting congress determine what they should be. They can take the advice of "experts,
36 Lowrider : I merely bring this up to for those who thing the ab initio style of training is the ulitmate solution for pilot training woes. You risk as much comm
37 413x3 : But how would a 500 hour wonder be capable of doing this? You don't trust them in the right seat yet they are lecturing a complete new person on how
38 413x3 : It happens all the time
39 Flybyguy : In a macabre sense, higher experience guidelines will probably kill some unsafe and careless pilots in the process... before they take paying passeng
40 Aaron747 : Well nobody made that claim, hence the agreement that there are some problems in those programs. I was speaking mainly of the premier cadet programs
41 727forever : There is a world of difference in teaching in a 172 at the speeds it is traveling at and a CRJ in bad weather with mom, dad, and little Suzy in the b
42 Saab2000 : This is all well and good, but when are they going to address the real safety issue in the house - fatigue? The 16 hour day is common at the so-called
43 Mir : It does appear ironic, yes. But what makes it work is that flying a 172 or Warrior or other light trainer is very much unlike flying an airliner - it
44 Maverick623 : Excuse my language, but that pisses me off. That attitude has allowed planes to be flown into the ground, and has absolutely no place in aviation. Th
45 Aaron747 : Lowrider, et al, I'm still waiting for someone to produce evidence that the companies I mentioned, and their cadets-turned-low time pilots, have produ
46 727forever : Everything in life is not as black and white as some people make it. Exceeding the rough air penetration speed in moderate turbulence is a soft limit
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
FAA Drops Its Rest Plan For Pilots On Long Hauls posted Sun Mar 15 2009 13:50:20 by LAXintl
GoJet, A Career Liability For Pilots? posted Sat Dec 6 2008 14:55:02 by Aviateur
Midwest Sets A Friday Deadline For Pilots/FA's posted Wed Jul 9 2008 14:42:19 by N917me
Performance Appraisal For Pilots posted Sun Apr 6 2008 20:14:38 by GrandTheftAero
Are Protocols In Place For Pilots To Nap, Chat posted Fri Nov 23 2007 03:47:30 by AR385
Pilot Raising Money For Diabetes Research posted Mon Oct 15 2007 17:18:38 by Medic2366
Flyforbeans.com Looking For Pilots posted Fri Jul 27 2007 13:30:21 by Levent
World Standards For Seat Pitch/Width/Recline? posted Sun Jul 1 2007 13:20:17 by Jetfuel
Country With Most Opportunities For Pilots posted Fri Jan 26 2007 19:01:09 by Detroitflyer
What Is The European Job Market For Pilots Like? posted Sat Nov 25 2006 02:42:57 by JAM747