Originally Posted by detpilot

Huh?!?

Filler filler

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer

Section 217 (d) allows credit for specific training that would enhance safety in lieu of the 1500 hours. The consensus seems to be 1,000 hours combined with a college-level training program. ERAU, UND, Purdue sort of program.

I suspect FAA bureaucratic delay will impose 1500 hours until the NPRM is finalized and makes its way thru OMB. Remember, it was OMB that watered down the fatigue rules for cargo carriers.

GF

Originally Posted by Counselor

I think he meant fly a 152 to get the extra 1000 hours, not extra 100 hours. Although that's another 100k to get a 23k a year job.

Originally Posted by sandrich

What I can see happening is a further delay of a finalized ruling. All Congress said was that by Aug 2013, all 121 pilots need an ATP. There's nothing that says that the FAA absolutely has to have a change in by that date. They're just doing it as a way around this new requirement (I may be wrong on this?) What if the paperwork hits a speedbump in the White House, and doesn't come out on Aug 1st... Joe Shmoe with his 1400tt gets fired. One month later, a final ruling comes out (1000tt with a degree, whatever it may be), and Joe realizes he could have kept his job the entire time...

While I do agree that this rule will obviously boost the level of experience for a regional FO, I think some credit is due for the KIND of experience. Consider Joe Shmoe above:

Joe- 121 regional FO, 1400tt (900 hours on-the-job, turbine, people in the back experience shooting approaches in crap weather into busy airports)

Billy- instructor at a flight school, 1500tt doing steep turns over farm fields in Cessnas, just got his ATP

Joe gets fired and Billy gets his "dream" job....how does this make things safer? It will have an obvious positive effect 2 years down the road, but what about in the short term? Take someone who's been "in the suck" for at least a year and give his job to someone who's been doing Intro/Discovery flights for the past three... The big picture makes sense to me, but this part doesn't...

Originally Posted by MikeOldham

So what's up with the idea some people have that CFIs just sit around flying traffic patterns and steep turns!? If anything being a CFI builds a ton of experience being PIC with a copilot that unknowingly is trying to kill you! :)

Originally Posted by sandrich

Nothing at all! I was a CFI myself, and I agree with the intent of this rule. My point was that, in the few months to follow this ATP rule, there will be a few people who have been in the cockpit for a year and may fall short and be regulated out of a job. I completely agree with the statement that CFI builds a ton of experience. But, on Aug 2013, someone who's been flying 121 for possibly over a year with 1400 hours is all of a sudden not safe to be in that seat? This is just entirely my opinion, but if I were a passenger, I'd rather that person up there than someone who just came out of a 'hawk (not to knock on CFIs).

Originally Posted by sandrich

Nothing at all! I was a CFI myself, and I agree with the intent of this rule. My point was that, in the few months to follow this ATP rule, there will be a few people who have been in the cockpit for a year and may fall short and be regulated out of a job. I completely agree with the statement that CFI builds a ton of experience. But, on Aug 2013, someone who's been flying 121 for possibly over a year with 1400 hours is all of a sudden not safe to be in that seat? This is just entirely my opinion, but if I were a passenger, I'd rather that person up there than someone who just came out of a 'hawk (not to knock on CFIs).