Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




Goose17
02-09-2010, 06:01 AM
From the latest Jetflyer email talking about the new legisltion:

The legislation requires airline pilots to hold an FAA Airline Transport
Pilot (ATP) license, which can be obtained with a minimum of 1,500
flight hours.
Current law requires a first officer to have a Commercial Pilot License,
which can be obtained with 250 flight hours.


So does this mean even regional pilot FOs need 1500 hours now?

Goose17


BooyaOhYeah
02-09-2010, 06:16 AM
Yes, it means everyone needs 1500 hours. However, there are exemptions in the bill. For example, if you train with an accredited college such as Auburn, Purdue, UND, Embry-Riddle then you are exempt from that requirement. At least in the current bill.

HIREME
02-09-2010, 06:20 AM
so far it's just a proposal...IF it makes it in the final version in the Spring of this year then yes...all airline transport pilots will need a *gasp* Airline Transport Pilot's liscense. Will it happen? It almost makes too much common sense for it to happen. There's also talk of substituting college credits toward an aviation degree for some of the flight time.


MX727
02-09-2010, 07:03 AM
so far it's just a proposal...IF it makes it in the final version in the Spring of this year then yes...all airline transport pilots will need a *gasp* Airline Transport Pilot's liscense. Will it happen? It almost makes too much common sense for it to happen. There's also talk of substituting college credits toward an aviation degree for some of the flight time.

Actually, I think they are discussing an airline and equipment specific SIC license that will become only be valid while you are on that equipment at that airline.

An SIC ticket that will expire, if you will.

Daniel Larusso
02-09-2010, 07:21 AM
Actually, I think they are discussing an airline and equipment specific SIC license that will become only be valid while you are on that equipment at that airline.

An SIC ticket that will expire, if you will.

You go over to the regional forum and watch people get all giddy about these changes thinking that they will lead to greater wages along with enhancing safety. Most of them still fail to see that nothing short of good ol' fashioned negotiating and sacrifice will get that done. Exemptions to this reg were/are inevitable for a number of reasons and while they may(debatable imo) improve safety, they will likely do the opposite for negotiations. If people have a SIC license that is equipment/airline specific that will be a serious hammer in negotiations for management when it comes to FO wages. It will also likely tempt some unions at those carriers to essentially advocate a B-scale for fo's in the longevity years that most pilots would tend not to have ATP mins. I could see that sort of thing really being a player at 'career-fo' regionals like Eagle.

MX727
02-09-2010, 10:01 AM
Here is the article I read:

FAA Takes First Step Toward Stricter Commercial Co-Pilot Licenses

By ANDY PASZTOR

Seeking to improve the qualifications of airline crews, federal aviation regulators on Friday took the first official step toward creating a new commercial co-pilot's license that could mandate tougher academic requirements and enhanced flight-training for high altitudes or bad weather.

By releasing some preliminary concepts and asking for public comments about whether the agency should proceed with formal rulemaking, Randy Babbitt, the head of the Federal Aviation Administration, is following up on earlier promises to beef up licensing requirements in the wake of the crash last year of a Colgan Air Inc. turboprop outside Buffalo, N.Y.

In the document released Friday on the Federal Register's Web site, the FAA said the Colgan crash, which killed 50 people, raised questions about whether current co-pilot training includes "enough hours training in various weather conditions to be able to recognize a potentially dangerous situation" such as icing or a midair stall, and "respond in a safe and timely manner."

The FAA is considering, among other things, raising academic requirements for new co-pilots; requiring hundreds more hours of flying experience than the current minimum of about 200 hours; and requiring co-pilots to obtain additional training in pressurized aircraft.

One of the most controversial issues broached by the FAA is the possibility of creating a new type of license that would be valid only as long as a pilot continued to work for a specific airline flying a certain type of aircraft. Once he or she moved to work for a new carrier, such a license no longer would remain in effect. The purpose of such a license, according to the FAA, "would be to ensure that each carrier has provided" its pilots with training geared to its specific fleet and operations.

The FAA's move parallels some of the changes advocated by pilot union leaders and independent safety experts. It also comes as lawmakers are considering legislation that would mandate new co-pilot experience and training standards, including a dramatic increase in the minimum number of hours required behind the controls prior to flying passengers.
http://online.wsj (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103018319116&s=10080&e=001fugnPQWFsxfVf-pRc2u95oBSPbWu76lj_HV8PoDI8t8rlCC_1xRrwQuP7rudJaHW b__iUFPfRjigSdgcjdZnIsqYB-JPc0J0jx9ozD1U03di715oa4w-BenIkOChSryX11WQjf5FF2bVgxZagrI-vBwf-dl2JUvwpG7QHUHkbKA3O1ss-xrwWql_1Q_gx8hvVclGd4kOCnC2J8ZOK4-mZ8byl8un3XfPPYgbq8uDEfk=)

BooyaOhYeah
02-09-2010, 06:16 PM
My problem with it is this:

A pilot living in Florida can have 1500 hours in a Cessna 150 and 152 and get a multi-engine rating and ATP in a week. How does that solve the problem of not having enough experience?

In other words, that Florida pilot has never seen ice/snow or dealt with icing. Vice versa, a pilot with the same circumstance in North Dakota may have never flown in the thunderstorm laden area known as Florida.

Nitefrater
02-09-2010, 08:39 PM
As a wise man one said, "There's a difference between 3000 hours of experience, and experiencing the same hour 3000 times."

BooyaOhYeah
02-09-2010, 09:00 PM
As a wise man one said, "There's a difference between 3000 hours of experience, and experiencing the same hour 3000 times."

That captures it exactly.

727C47
02-10-2010, 05:05 AM
the shame of it is the DC3 operators who would take a 500 hr wonder under their wing and nurture them in the round engine freight dojo,where they would be exposed to wind ,and weather,along side some grizzled old sensei who would impart much wisdom don't exist anymore in the lower 48. That was true learning,art and science,with a bit of Ernie Gann,and St.Ex thrown in as well. its tough for a newbie with low time to find that experience.

FliFast
02-10-2010, 05:15 AM
My problem with it is this:

A pilot living in Florida can have 1500 hours in a Cessna 150 and 152 and get a multi-engine rating and ATP in a week. How does that solve the problem of not having enough experience?

In other words, that Florida pilot has never seen ice/snow or dealt with icing. Vice versa, a pilot with the same circumstance in North Dakota may have never flown in the thunderstorm laden area known as Florida.

An excellent post that sums it up. The burden unfortunately is with the hiring departments and their responsibility is sometimes ignored. If you are hiring for the MD11 / 747 / 777, why would you ignore qualified candidates and then hire the HR Managers neighbor who has 2000 hrs of turboprop time.

Conversely, the hiring market "economics" also lend themselves to further erode qualified candidates from working at certain airlines. An airline with a bad reputation, low pay scale or a whole host of other employment difficulties may only be able to garner less experienced candidates.

Full circle to the original author's post. You can teach a primate to do a job, but with the number of qualified candidates on the street and employed, but looking; why waste time, money, and possibly safety with on-the-job training.

FF

MD11
02-10-2010, 09:09 AM
You go over to the regional forum and watch people get all giddy about these changes thinking that they will lead to greater wages along with enhancing safety.

I am a furloughed regional guy and I believe the proposed fatigue rule changes are the most important of all and will enhance the job overall... and maybe monetarily,,, but I'm not holding my breath on that one. If I ever get recalled,,, I don't look forward to multiple East coats turns after 3 hours of sleep.

the shame of it is the DC3 operators who would take a 500 hr wonder under their wing and nurture them in the round engine freight dojo,where they would be exposed to wind ,and weather,along side some grizzled old sensei who would impart much wisdom don't exist anymore in the lower 48. That was true learning,art and science,with a bit of Ernie Gann,and St.Ex thrown in as well. its tough for a newbie with low time to find that experience.
The shame of it is that many flying guys/gals don't know much about aviation history or its heritage let alone some the great aviation authors. Saint who? You know,, Wind,Sand and Stars? What? I don't even bring it up anymore...

Sniper
02-10-2010, 10:31 PM
Would you want a guy fresh out of Embry Riddle in your right seat before a guy with an ATP or a prior military pilot?

There's a study that the head of Embry Riddle pushed in front of the House Aviation Subcommittee that has the following conclusion: 500 hour or less TT pilots who are graduates of flight school degree programs perform better in initial training than any other pilots, including "prior military pilots".:eek: No, I'm not joking.

Go here (http://Transportation.house.gov/Media/file/Aviation/20090923/AABI_UAA_Dr%20Tim%20Brady%20testimony%209.23.09%20 AvHrng.pdf), page 3, paragraph 2 - read it for yourself.

Flaps50
02-11-2010, 06:43 AM
You go over to the regional forum and watch people get all giddy about these changes thinking that they will lead to greater wages along with enhancing safety. Most of them still fail to see that nothing short of good ol' fashioned negotiating and sacrifice will get that done. Exemptions to this reg were/are inevitable for a number of reasons and while they may(debatable imo) improve safety, they will likely do the opposite for negotiations. If people have a SIC license that is equipment/airline specific that will be a serious hammer in negotiations for management when it comes to FO wages. It will also likely tempt some unions at those carriers to essentially advocate a B-scale for fo's in the longevity years that most pilots would tend not to have ATP mins. I could see that sort of thing really being a player at 'career-fo' regionals like Eagle.

If they require 1500 hours and an ATP minimum without any exceptions for "this and that" then the wages will go up. The supply of qualified pilots with quadruple digit flight time during this past decade who were willing to work as airline pilots for regional wages essentially dried up. That and that alone is why the regional airlines were forced to either increase wages and attract more experienced pilots (which the regs didn't require) or lower their standards to Commercial Pilot mins so they could find the pilots who were desperate for work. They chose the later option. This new law if enacted appropriately will help wages increase and that is what is really needed to supply higher qualified pilots to those seats again.

If the ATA is allowed to enact exceptions for certain college programs it will do nothing for safety, but enrich the colleges that supply these pilots as they have been doing for years anyway. It will be a tragedy that does not address the issue and the companies will win again and labor will lose.

When will they realize that anyone can pass a test that they have been given the answers to. What pilots really need is experience generated from years of flying in the system as a professional pilot starting from the ground up with no shortcuts.

Gunter
02-11-2010, 04:37 PM
This will not result in higher wages or result in a 'shortage' of pilots. Whatever exceptions that are necessary to prevent these outcomes will be adopted.

Congress reacted to a possible shortage of pilots by raising the age to 65. Yes, they thought a shortage was coming and used it as an excuse to support the legislation. Probably because Kit Darby told them so.

They aren't worried about our pensions, are mildly concerned about safety but are very worried about the mere possibility that ticket prices will go up or that airline stock investments/management bonuses may suffer.

Daniel Larusso
02-11-2010, 06:09 PM
Flaps50,

While a 'shortage'(don't buy it personally) is good for leverage, nothing will be gained regional or major without strong negotiating and pilot group support. Nothing. Never has been otherwise, never will be. As has already been noted, the airlines and colleges are looking at workarounds. They will take the theoretical pot of money that would have gone to increased wages and use it to lobby for and support the college programs mentioned or some other similar ab initio deal, protecting their investment and ratcheting down wages with licenses that are beholden to a specific operator and equipment. Once the airline unions realize that there isn't much that can be done for their junior FO's because of the regulatory ramifications of the latter, they will circle the wagons and spread the pot elsewhere. I would imagine that regional FO wages from about years 1-4 to stagnate or falter with Captain and FO wages beyond year 4 getting the gains. The mileage may vary depending on the makeup of the individual airlines seniority list and their upgrade opportunities. It will likely be a bloodbath like most things pilots envision through their eyes vs. managements'.

stratofactor
02-12-2010, 11:06 AM
Job Security for Riddle

Would you want a guy fresh out of Embry Riddle in your right seat before a guy with an ATP or a prior military pilot?

There's a study that the head of Embry Riddle pushed in front of the House Aviation Subcommittee that has the following conclusion: 500 hour or less TT pilots who are graduates of flight school degree programs perform better in initial training than any other pilots, including "prior military pilots".:eek: No, I'm not joking.

Go here (http://Transportation.house.gov/Media/file/Aviation/20090923/AABI_UAA_Dr%20Tim%20Brady%20testimony%209.23.09%20 AvHrng.pdf), page 3, paragraph 2 - read it for yourself.

Whistlin' Dan
02-12-2010, 06:35 PM
I can hear the clicks of thousands of "Parker P-51's" being readied for "flight..."

Scoop
02-12-2010, 08:23 PM
[quote=Sniper;762037]

There's a study that the head of Embry Riddle pushed in front of the House Aviation Subcommittee that has the following conclusion: 500 hour or less TT pilots who are graduates of flight school degree programs perform better in initial training than any other pilots, including "prior military pilots".:eek: No, I'm not joking.

Sniper,

I believe it (even though the statement appears relatively subjective) but I don't think it means a lot. Basically people fresh out of school did better in initial training because they were just immersed in that exact environment, training to those specific procedures. A military fighter guy may be seeing those procedures for the first time.

If you put the same groups out on the line and they were faced with situations not recently reviewed and trained specifically for in school - which group do you think would do best?

Scoop

Check 6
02-13-2010, 06:36 AM
Sniper,

I believe it (even though the statement appears relatively subjective) but I don't think it means a lot. Basically people fresh out of school did better in initial training because they were just immersed in that exact environment, training to those specific procedures. A military fighter guy may be seeing those procedures for the first time.

If you put the same groups out on the line and they were faced with situations not recently reviewed and trained specifically for in school - which group do you think would do best?

Scoop

I agree, the problem is do you think congress understands the difference?:cool:

Dan64456
02-13-2010, 07:14 AM
Yes, it means everyone needs 1500 hours. However, there are exemptions in the bill. For example, if you train with an accredited college such as Auburn, Purdue, UND, Embry-Riddle then you are exempt from that requirement. At least in the current bill.

That's a terrible idea. Are they trying to put every small FBO in the country out of business?

TwinTurboPilot
02-13-2010, 12:09 PM
let me get this straight.... Applicant A 800TT/100multi- ahhh you went to riddle spent $100k learning how to fly. your only solo time is the min required to get your private. Your not even allowed to fly your seminole alone because the school wont allow it. All bouncing around sunny florida with CFIs who dont even know what a luscombe or a champ is.

Applicant B 1450TT/255multi- lets see you went to podunk FBO in no where Texas, learned in a old steam gauge 150. Had an 70 year old instructor who
was actually passionate about flying and taught so much more than just the PTS. You went and scared the living crap outta yourself a few times flying single pilot freight in a 310 that a rat wont even live in.

Sorry applicant B you lose, shoulda spent another $60k on your ratings.

PS ive never done any single pilot light twin flying, but have alot of respect for the people who have.

atpcliff
02-13-2010, 04:59 PM
Hi!

House passed the bill with the ATP requirement. Senate is working...current version has no ATP. Differeneces have to be ironed out before Prez signs.

FAA is also working on same thing, and has NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) out. The FAA wants YOUR COMMENTS!!! Tell them the college course thing is bullsh!t and only an ATP will do!

If Congress likes the FAA rule, they may stop their process. If they don't, or if the FAA takes too long, they may put their own bill in place.

ALSO, the FAA is schd to come out with the new Flight/Duty/Rest rule in Mar??? If COngress doesn't like it, they can override with their own. THe F/D/R will mean virtually ALL -121 airlines will have to hire more pilots.

cliff
NBO

The Walrus
02-13-2010, 08:58 PM
It will be at least a year before the new F/D/R rules come out.

atpcliff
02-15-2010, 12:39 AM
Hi!

I responded to the NPRM about the ATP/1500 hours/airline training requirements.

I said ATP should be required for 121 about 10 times, in response to a number of questions.

When they asked if time should be reduced for Avaition universities, to something like 750 hours, I said that having an approved curriculum taught at a University OR an FBO with a qualified instructor was OK to reduce the time by 10%, so that you would only need 1350 hours for your ATP.

I also said that 5-20 hours of Actual IMC, in the airplane, should be required for an ATP, and that Icing, and High Altitude aircraft handling training should be required in the simulator.

cliff
NBO



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1