Originally Posted by
dckozak
I've been looking around a bit on this topic, related to ALPA's position and others. Interestingly, I'm finding,
a lot of comment. I thought I'd share parts of it. Since I'm taking out snippets, please feel free to check for your self at
Regulations.gov
AOPA’s Position: AOPA is concerned that potential changes to the airline hiring minimums may have a negative impact on the GA industry by deterring new pilots from beginning training and in turn decreasing the number of qualified pilots to provide the myriad of services provided by general aviation. If the current air carrier hiring minimums or training requirements are changed without taking into consideration the effects such changes would have on economics and safety of the entire system including the potential impact to general aviation, there could be potential consequences that would affect the health of the aviation community as a
whole.
I couldn't "cut and past" ALPA's published paper as it was attached as a pdf file. I did a quick over view and will concede they do propose a min of 750 flight hours for a "restricted 121 ATP" (FO's) when meeting certain requirements, mainly an 4 year college degree in Aviation.
RAA position. Also a pdf doc. About what you might expect
To find it (or any other org's) put RAA in the "search within" box. Otherwise, expect to wade through 2086 responses.
Looking through this ANPRM 2010-0100, I think I can see what the industry
really fears. Way more strong comment from industry here than on flight and duty time changes.
A bit of reality checking is in order here. In the political arena, what ALPA
says in public and pushes for in private are two different entities.
ALPA in fact long ago began quietly supporting the reduction from 1500 hours when Embry Riddle...who has many tie in's with ALPA...came forward with the proposition that a four year degree from "certain accredited colleges" should equate to a specific level of training and knowledge, thus allowing a reduction in flight hours a a trade off. This position was also heavily lobbied by AABI, the accreditation group that certifies aviation schools. This position has not changed.
Why the push? Because based upon the cost of a four year aviation school, mom and dad are looking for junior to find a job right out of school. Not have to "apprentice" for a period of time. Junior should go from the dorm room to the right seat.
Now let's revisit RAA, NBAA, ATA and the other industry groups. They favor reduced hours because it allows a quicker flood of young inexperienced...read "lower cost" pilots that can be used to drive the cost model down.
AOPA? If the cost of an airline job means time working at less glamorous jobs, the odds that junior will remain interested in flying at a young age declines...and erodes the GA base which is already in a serious state of affairs. FBO's need renters and students. A large subset is lost if they see their dream of being an airline pilot requiring extra flying and specific experience.
The argument that a 500 hour pilot is twice as good as a 250 hour pilot is fallacy at best. That's akin to saying a 16 year old with two days of driving experience is twice as good as the one who just got their license today. And while military pilots do enjoy a directed and ntense training cycle and handle complicated aircraft at low time points, the incidence of accidents is higher and if transposed to the passenger industry would be unacceptable.
Industry trends are pushing for lower hours due to the increase in automation. In the cost analysis, the aircraft is programmed to fly from "A" to "B," shoot an approach, land and brake on the centerline. A pilot is only needed to taxi...that can be resolved by kids, video systems and remote control servoed systems IF the travelling public could be sold on a pilotless drone. The 500 hour pilot is the first logical step.
Here's the problem. There are times when the "magic" takes a vacation. Only standby instruments, a radio and skill are available.
And a 500 hour pilot does not have the skillset to safely land the aircraft.
ALPA knows that.
So why are they supporting the rule reduction? New bodies, even at reduced pay scales, equals cash flow.
Now the FAA. They know what the public sentiment was. They have been getting pressured tremendously by ATA, RAA, AABI, AOPA and others. They can't be seen caving to them or to ALPA.
However...an "accomodation" that is suddenly "embraced" by ALPA as a middle road, now becomes a way out. After all...ALPA would NEVER compromise safety.
Babbitt get's his escape from the problem. ATA, RAA get cheaper employees. AABI keeps mommy and daddy writing checks for juniors schooling. And AOPA keeps their pipeline full.
And the profession falls further behind as management now has an excuse for cheaper labor contracts.