|
A high-level FAA advisory panel, seeking to improve cockpit safety, has called for significantly enhanced training and proficiency standards for airline co-pilots, according to people familiar with the report.
The recommendations, these people said, urge the Federal Aviation Administration to require newly hired co-pilots to have more-rigorous training, demonstrate higher academic qualifications and pass tougher flight tests than current government regulations generally mandate. The result could be a new kind of license focused on skills needed to fly high-performance, pressurized aircraft, rather than the propeller-powered planes most fledgling pilots traditionally have used to build up flight hours in their logbooks. Commuter airlines likely would face the biggest and most costly changes, because their new hires tend to have the least experience. If the FAA ends up embracing the proposal—which already has stirred up controversy among industry officials—it would represent the most dramatic changes in decades to commercial-pilot qualifications and licensing. It also likely would revamp the way private pilot-training schools and various companies across the country prepare and test students who want to move into airliner cockpits. Overall, the recommendations aim to ensure higher standards for new co-pilots, so they will be more familiar with the aerodynamics of high-performance aircraft; more knowledgeable about challenges such as high-altitude and winter operations; and better able to react to emergencies including aircraft upsets or stalls. The committee of safety experts, including representatives of airlines and pilot unions, was convened by the FAA to analyze whether tougher licensing rules should be imposed on newly hired co-pilots. The group finished its work last Friday, according to people familiar with the matter, and a final report is slated to go to Peggy Gilligan, the agency's top safety official. The biggest change envisioned by the recommendations, these people said, is to require each co-pilot to demonstrate mastery of the specific aircraft model he or she will be assigned to operate—before being allowed to carry any passengers. Current FAA rules only require co-pilots to have a commercial license and certain minimum experience flying multi-engine planes. Under the proposed standards, co-pilots intending to start flying passengers also would have to obtain a "type rating," or certificate demonstrating competence at the controls of a specific aircraft type. Such ratings are currently mandated solely for captains. But several large carriers, including Delta Air Lines, United Airlines and Continental Airlines enforce their own, tougher hiring standards and essentially require new co-pilots to have such certificates. On Wednesday, an FAA spokeswoman said the agency is "eager to review the recommendations on how the FAA can strengthen pilot experience." She said Randy Babbitt, the agency's chief, "is committed to giving pilots the training and experience appropriate...to handle any situation they encounter." The FAA in February took the first formal step toward imposing new licensing requirements. A spokesman for the Air Transport Association, which represents mainline carriers, declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the Air Line Pilots Association, the largest U.S. pilot union, declined to comment. A spokesman for the Regional Airline Association, which represents commuter carriers also declined to comment. The recommendations come in the wake of several high-profile airline incidents and accidents that highlighted lapses in co-pilot skills and judgment, including the February 2009 crash of a Colgan Air turboprop near Buffalo, N.Y., that resulted in 50 fatalities. Largely prompted by that accident, FAA officials, lawmakers, pilot unions and independent pilot-training firms have been mulling ways to upgrade the qualifications of new co-pilots. Charles Hogeman, a United Airlines captain and head of ALPA's human factors and training group, told pilots at a recent public safety forum: "You're going to see very significant changes in the way pilots are trained and qualified" in the next two or three years Earlier this year, Congress passed legislation mandating that all newly hired co-pilots have at least 1,500 hours of flight time. The recommendations would allow pilots to be hired with fewer hours, but only if they could demonstrate advanced ground-school or flight training aimed at familiarizing them with airline operations. |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 871223)
I think my logic was pretty obvious. I disagree with yours. It's a moot point anyway... I just don't think it was right. The reason I think it was concession is because prior to the merger, fNWA did not have any 7ERs. After the merger, not only did they get them, their categories were effectively protected from pillaging from the other side. Like I said, the issue is moot, I just think Frog had a valid point. It's not worth arguing any further.
I guess it is time for me to ask: What's a 7ER and why didn't fNWA have them before the merger? :D No. Seriously. :confused: |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 871230)
Pelosi????
|
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 871255)
A high-level FAA advisory panel, seeking to improve cockpit safety, has called for significantly enhanced training and proficiency standards for airline co-pilots, according to people familiar with the report.
The recommendations, these people said, urge the Federal Aviation Administration to require newly hired co-pilots to have more-rigorous training, demonstrate higher academic qualifications and pass tougher flight tests than current government regulations generally mandate. The result could be a new kind of license focused on skills needed to fly high-performance, pressurized aircraft, rather than the propeller-powered planes most fledgling pilots traditionally have used to build up flight hours in their logbooks. Commuter airlines likely would face the biggest and most costly changes, because their new hires tend to have the least experience. If the FAA ends up embracing the proposal—which already has stirred up controversy among industry officials—it would represent the most dramatic changes in decades to commercial-pilot qualifications and licensing. It also likely would revamp the way private pilot-training schools and various companies across the country prepare and test students who want to move into airliner cockpits. Overall, the recommendations aim to ensure higher standards for new co-pilots, so they will be more familiar with the aerodynamics of high-performance aircraft; more knowledgeable about challenges such as high-altitude and winter operations; and better able to react to emergencies including aircraft upsets or stalls. The committee of safety experts, including representatives of airlines and pilot unions, was convened by the FAA to analyze whether tougher licensing rules should be imposed on newly hired co-pilots. The group finished its work last Friday, according to people familiar with the matter, and a final report is slated to go to Peggy Gilligan, the agency's top safety official. The biggest change envisioned by the recommendations, these people said, is to require each co-pilot to demonstrate mastery of the specific aircraft model he or she will be assigned to operate—before being allowed to carry any passengers. Current FAA rules only require co-pilots to have a commercial license and certain minimum experience flying multi-engine planes. Under the proposed standards, co-pilots intending to start flying passengers also would have to obtain a "type rating," or certificate demonstrating competence at the controls of a specific aircraft type. Such ratings are currently mandated solely for captains. But several large carriers, including Delta Air Lines, United Airlines and Continental Airlines enforce their own, tougher hiring standards and essentially require new co-pilots to have such certificates. On Wednesday, an FAA spokeswoman said the agency is "eager to review the recommendations on how the FAA can strengthen pilot experience." She said Randy Babbitt, the agency's chief, "is committed to giving pilots the training and experience appropriate...to handle any situation they encounter." The FAA in February took the first formal step toward imposing new licensing requirements. A spokesman for the Air Transport Association, which represents mainline carriers, declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the Air Line Pilots Association, the largest U.S. pilot union, declined to comment. A spokesman for the Regional Airline Association, which represents commuter carriers also declined to comment. The recommendations come in the wake of several high-profile airline incidents and accidents that highlighted lapses in co-pilot skills and judgment, including the February 2009 crash of a Colgan Air turboprop near Buffalo, N.Y., that resulted in 50 fatalities. Largely prompted by that accident, FAA officials, lawmakers, pilot unions and independent pilot-training firms have been mulling ways to upgrade the qualifications of new co-pilots. Charles Hogeman, a United Airlines captain and head of ALPA's human factors and training group, told pilots at a recent public safety forum: "You're going to see very significant changes in the way pilots are trained and qualified" in the next two or three years Earlier this year, Congress passed legislation mandating that all newly hired co-pilots have at least 1,500 hours of flight time. The recommendations would allow pilots to be hired with fewer hours, but only if they could demonstrate advanced ground-school or flight training aimed at familiarizing them with airline operations. My hope is if they do enact this proposal is that the JAA allows reciprocity and we do not need to go re-certify using their standards. |
I'm sensing that this extension by a week for the AE closing must be agony for the SLC guys and probably the entire West Coast. Geeze. Sorry guys. :(
|
Don't Do It!
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 871059)
Looks like Bill Maher might have me on. THAT should be interesting.:eek:
Still, I would love to see you go off grabing Mahar by the throat and throttle him. (I'd give two seats to the Army/Navy game to see that, come on pleeeese) Maybe bring Marcus Luttrell as backup.:D |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 871223)
I think my logic was pretty obvious. I disagree with yours. It's a moot point anyway... I just don't think it was right. The reason I think it was concession is because prior to the merger, fNWA did not have any 7ERs. After the merger, not only did they get them, their categories were effectively protected from pillaging from the other side. Like I said, the issue is moot, I just think Frog had a valid point. It's not worth arguing any further.
BTW, do you have a list of just which 7ER's we were given? :confused: |
Originally Posted by Desperado
(Post 871277)
Your logic is pretty obvious...flawed, but obvious. Think about it, there was no training involved, just a name change.:rolleyes:
BTW, do you have a list of just which 7ER's we were given? :confused: As for the 7ER's given it would be any 767 that currently shows up in your bid package. You had zero before the merger. It doesn't matter anyway since this is the way the company and ALPA is going forward with this transition. |
Actually, it was bounces and TOE.
|
Originally Posted by DALMD88FO
(Post 871283)
Not to throw a wrench in your statement, however there was training involved. Everyone in category went out and got bounces in an actual 767. I would say that would be considered training and more expensive than the two day international procedures course taught at the headshed.
As for the 7ER's given it would be any 767 that currently shows up in your bid package. You had zero before the merger. It doesn't matter anyway since this is the way the company and ALPA is going forward with this transition. Are there no 757's that do ER flying? New K (still learning long after SOC) |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:30 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands