Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Regional
FAA looks at revising tougher pilot training >

FAA looks at revising tougher pilot training

Notices
Regional Regional Airlines

FAA looks at revising tougher pilot training

Old 07-27-2014, 07:43 AM
  #111  
Bracing for Fallacies
 
block30's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
Posts: 3,543
Default

Originally Posted by CBreezy View Post
I have friends who are in serious debt because of places like Riddle. There is no way those powerhouses are letting their flight programs whither and die. I'd be very surprised if they were denying new loans to them.
This is exactly what I was thinking. No way those places would be cut off from the student loan funding stream.
block30 is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 06:29 AM
  #112  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Left seat of a Jet
Posts: 514
Default

Many great posts. Unless congress/politicians are willing to bridge the terrible salaries and the cost of doing business with their own money, the airlines will continue to shrink unprofitable routes/ operations in which they have to invest their own money to make a profit.
bozobigtop is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 07:03 AM
  #113  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 618
Default

The real problem with staffing is wages. You can work just about any job in America and make more the a regional pilot. Kids coming out of school are not going to be jumping at a 20k job when they can make 35-50 with corp america. Compound that with the cost for training and you got a shortage of pilots.
stbloc is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 07:23 AM
  #114  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 34
Default

No new facts here, but a new opinion piece from the Buffalo News.

Stand firm on air safety Foolhardy FAA again seems willing to weaken vital pilot training rules - Opinion - The Buffalo News

And, again, the Federal Aviation Administration looks to be trying to weaken the new flight safety rules enacted by Congress in the aftermath of the deadly 2009 crash in Clarence Center. It’s becoming routine, and the FAA is beginning to show what appear to be its true colors – more concerned with satisfying the airline industry than it is in ensuring air safety.

Let’s be clear: Fifty people died here because of poor pilot training. Flight Capt. Marvin D. Renslow took the exact opposite action the situation required when Continental Connection Flight 3407 stalled due to dangerously slow air speed. That’s why the Families of Flight 3407 campaigned and, with the muscular help of Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., fought for legislation increasing training requirements for new pilots.

The law was passed and virtually since that day, the airlines, the FAA and even some in Congress have sought to subvert it. Schumer has helped to fight back against those efforts and we presume he will monitor this latest maneuver to ensure that the law is fully implemented.

Industry leaders are shedding crocodile tears about a lack of pilots because of the new training requirements. Basically, they want to continue, as much as possible, operating in the same way: underpaying and overworking pilots whose training doesn’t cost too much. It’s a cynical game whose consequence played out in Clarence Center five years ago.

This issue cries out not just for our congressional delegation and the Families of Flight 3407 to stand firm on this issue, but for Congress to evaluate the function and performance of the FAA. If it has been so badly infiltrated by the airline industry that it cannot reliably implement safety laws passed by Congress and supported by Americans, then perhaps its mission and organizational structure – including its lines of accountability – need to be re-evaluated.

The crash of Flight 3407 was a watershed moment. Too many Americans are being flown on regional carriers, profiting the large airlines at the expense of passengers whose safety has been placed in the hands of inadequately trained, poorly compensated cockpit crews.

That changed with the ensuing legislation. It needs to stay changed.
ClearRight is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 08:11 AM
  #115  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Position: Feito no Brasil, CA
Posts: 833
Default

Well, we're mostly still poorly compensated. And my training hasn't changed much.
AdiosMikeFox is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 10:29 AM
  #116  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: Square root of the variance and average of the variation
Posts: 1,602
Default

Originally Posted by block30 View Post
This is what I don't understand; I've got a buddy who just graduated with a four year degree in art with 70k in student loans. Who the heck was issuing those loans for a degree in art?!
Difference between government loans and private loans. Once the GOVT money is exhausted, people starting turning towards the 11% interest private loans. Of course you can eliminate those in bankruptcy, the GOVT loans not so.

I was a stupid 20 something in college that over-borrowed and used the money for things other than school (I'm sure I'm wasn't the only one).
However, mine totaled 26K for a four year degree at Western Michigan University and flight training outside of the aviation dept. I got a degree in psychology and did all my training at a mom and pop part 61 school (Private to ATP). Didn't hurt me a bit that I didn't have the aviation dept pedigree. The cost these days is absurd through the university. I could go to Law school at the University of Michigan for the same price.

As to the art degree it's not just that - I see a lot of people getting sociology degrees with 60K in loans that have career prospects in the 35K range. My B.S. in psychology would be basically minimum wage worthless outside of aviation had I not leveraged it into human factors work and entered graduate school.

Last edited by Std Deviation; 07-28-2014 at 10:40 AM.
Std Deviation is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 10:39 AM
  #117  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: Square root of the variance and average of the variation
Posts: 1,602
Default

Originally Posted by ClearRight View Post
No new facts here, but a new opinion piece from the Buffalo News.
The FAA mission to concomitantly "promote" and "regulate" aviation are diametrically opposed philosophies.
Std Deviation is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 11:05 AM
  #118  
Gets Weekends Off
 
beech1980's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: B-737
Posts: 696
Default

Originally Posted by block30 View Post
OK, but what about the four year degree aviation programs? UND, Riddle, Purdue, ERAU, WMU, etc.
I was just looking out of curiosity to what Riddle and UND cost.
I was in shock when I saw it! Riddle is 43k a year just for a BS degree. Plus another 60K for flight training. Then you add on room and board and all the other ridiculous fees and charges. Your looking at close to 250K!!
I went to UND in the 90"s and I think it ran about 65k. For same degree and training that you get at Riddle it's about 150k... UND is a bargain if you can get reciprocity,it might knock another 20k off. If you put these figures in front of a 17-18 year old kid they might think twice about it. I know I'm not paying for my son to do this, and i'm definitely not co- signing a loan...
It should be illegal for someone to spend 250k to make 22k first year and at some regionals not more than 35k as an FO. That was eye opening.
beech1980 is offline  
Old 07-28-2014, 12:07 PM
  #119  
Gets Weekends Off
 
USMCFLYR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Default

Originally Posted by Std Deviation View Post
The FAA mission to concomitantly "promote" and "regulate" aviation are diametrically opposed philosophies.
I was told that they figured that out some time ago and that those two ideas were separated - mission statement redefined.
The current MISSION STATEMENT does not mention such opposed ideas:
Mission

The only 'promote and regulate' I see any more is to:
"Regulating civil aviation to promote safety"
What we do

They (the gov't) at least recognizes this when it comes specifically to Commercial Space Travel as disclosed in this GAO report:
GAO report number GAO-12-836T
entitled 'Commercial Space Transportation: Industry Trends, Government Challenges, and International Competitiveness Issues' which was released on June 20, 2012.
...suggesting that FAA and Congress must remain vigilant so that potential conflicts in FAA’s safety oversight and industry promotion roles do not occur.
Congress required the 2008 DOT-commissioned report
to discuss whether the federal government should separate the
promotion of commercial human spaceflight from the regulation of such activity.
USMCFLYR is online now  
Old 07-28-2014, 01:25 PM
  #120  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,936
Default

Originally Posted by Std Deviation View Post
The FAA mission to concomitantly "promote" and "regulate" aviation are diametrically opposed philosophies.
Yes true! Their charter is (was?) flawed. It's funny, way back when there was the CAA which was disbanded and a new FAA was created for many of the same problems with today's FAA.
tom11011 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MetalGear
Technical
8
01-24-2013 08:08 PM
jumppilot
Safety
27
07-18-2012 08:32 AM
USMC3197
Regional
66
11-12-2009 06:54 PM
Todzilla
Cargo
34
06-30-2009 11:29 AM
CRM1337
Major
1
10-02-2005 07:12 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


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices