Originally Posted by
Mason32
Just want to see if I understand this correctly.... people are upset because they are changing the rule that will mandate that pilots flying my children, parents and other relatives around have some a minimum level of experience first before getting into a jet aircraft..... and this is a bad thing how? It would seem to ANYBODY that requiring more experience is a good thing. The only people who would not support this, are those who do not have it.... the passengers have always expected this, and the Colgan incident just highlighted that it wasn't required at all... so it's being fixed.
Actually, I consider it extremely arrogant that these low timers expect - read that as feel entitled - to enter the profession at the top of the food chain rather than learn their way through with hard work.
I agree 100%. And can you believe it...our own union...ALPA....is in favour of reducing the minimum required hours to 500! They are on bed with regional airline industry management. Regional airline managements want lower minimums to keep the costs low and to ensure a never ending supply of wide-eyed newbies. If you don't believe me, check this out:
Here is the link:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/1500_hr_requirement_challenge_pilot_FAA_203436-1.html
October 13, 2010
Committee Challenges New 1500 Hr Requirement For FO's
By Glenn Pew, Contributing Editor, Video Editor
The FAA's aviation safety bill passed earlier this year, but a new report suggests the included prerequisite 1,500 hours flight experience for commercial airline copilots may not be necessary.
An FAA advisory committee led by a regional airline official has proposed that 500 actual flight hours may be enough. Language in the safety legislation says that the FAA Administrator "may allow specific academic training courses ... to be credited toward the total flight hours required." The committee suggests that through an elaborate structure of training courses, up to two-thirds of the safety law's required 1,500 flight hours could be satisfied with other credited training. The proposal is merely a recommendation and it is not clear that there is any wiggle room in other language that specifically imposes the flight hours requirement. Meanwhile, the proposal has reignited the total hours versus quality-of-training argument. And pilot groups, industry voices and safety advocates are weighing in.
Legislators who fought for the safety bill's language say the law explicitly requires 1,500 flight hours, and any modifications must be justified by a resultant increase in safety. The president of the Regional Airline Association, Roger Cohen, has a different opinion. Cohen said academic work is "far more useful in training pilots for modern airline operations" than hours spent "towing banners above the beach." As for the FAA, Administrator Randy Babbitt supports improved training over a general requirement for more flight hours. Babbitt has previously commented on the subject, saying "experience is not measured by flight time alone." The Regional Airline Association holds the view that a "proper mix of the experience and academic/training approaches" would best ensure safety.
And two pilot groups represented on the committee have split on the issue. The Air Line Pilots Association backed the committee's recommendations, while the Coalition of Air Line Pilot Associations supported experience over even enhanced training.