Status of the 1500 hr ATP requirement?
 

Has this rule passed and is now law or is it still pending? Can anyone supply a link to this rule or any information about its current status. My son is in a University aviation program thats accreditted and suppossedly the 1500 hour requirement will be lowered for students graduating from such programs, any info on this as well. Also I appreciate everyones input, but please refrain from the "Don't become a pilot" responses.
Thanks in advance,
Vito

The law was passed by Congress and signed by Obama--it's law. The FAA's implementation regulation has been announced in the Federal Register yet, not expected before spring. In any case, the ATP requirement is effective August, 2013. What the FAA will "call" an ATP is the question. The talk is some reduction for military and degree programs, 750 hours for mil, 1000 for college programs.

How this plays with ICAO FCL standards is yet another question.

GF

Just to fill the square--don't become a pilot

This is being discussed here:

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/av...le-rumors.html

BLUF: The new law allows for (but does NOT require) reduced aeronautical experience requirements for grads of university (and military) programs but leaves the details up to the FAA. They decide when and how to implement this...or if to implement it.

The FAA apparently thinks they will have this ironed out next summer. So that probably means 2015+ unless someone applies a lot of pressure.

You are wise to ask here rather than take the word of university recruiters...they can blow a lot of smoke without actually lying since nobody knows what will ultimately happen. If your kid is starting now, assume he'll need 1500. If he can't hack a couple years as a CFI, he had better not go down this road.

Thanks for the info guys. Just as I thought there is still a grey area concerning the actual hours or excemptions/reductions. Time will tell

1000 hrs collage flying ? Would this apply only to
instructors who work for the university ?

No, it's a college aviation program (think UND or ERAU) plus a 1,000 hours; not being a college instructor.

GF

Most likely it will work like this:

It would only apply to graduates of certain specific training programs associated with a university and 4-year degree. Once they graduate, they can get an ATP with 1000 TT. They can get the the hours anywhere they want, including working as CFI's at thier alma mater, but they would not be required to work there.

CFI's who happen work for university flight programs would not get reduced mins unless they also graduated from a university program.

The difference between 1,000 and 1,500 hours seems negligible to me. I don't even understand why this would be in there. If you can get to 1,000 hours you should be able to get to 1,500 rather easily.

Somebody at some point in the distant past decided 1500 was the bar for the ATP. Presumably they did some sort of analysis or careful consideration.

Oh no, I get that... What I'm trying to say is that I don't understand the reasoning behind reduced minimums for graduates of a college program. I just don't see how that would improve safety (which is what I thought this whole HR was about to begin with).

I have a mixed feelings about that.

One hand a deep academic background is beneficial in any complex endeavor, and this is a way to encourage people to get that background.

On the other hand I feel that over-confidence and complacency set in around the 400-500 mark for the average pilot who does not have a previous "operational" background (military, hard-core law enforcement, logger, oil rig, etc). It may take a another 1000 hours for such a complacent pilot to scare himself straight.

The 400 hour demographic complacency issue is well documented.

I can understand that... Accidents happen when you least expect them to. Which is why constant vigilance is key.

And I just don't see how graduates of a "career pilot program" or university program have any more in depth knowledge of aviation than the guy/gal who went to the local FBO and received flight training. Not to mention the serious narrowing of future possibilities that an aviation degree leaves you with. That doesn't seem very smart to me.

Maybe its just me... I dunno. I just don't get the rationale.

Well, those "graduates" learn about transport category systems, v1, v2, etc, all sorts of stuff they like you to be familiar with. The problem is that $$ talks and poor performers don't really get washed put all that much, so there isn't much there to assure that the knowledge or understanding is really there IMO. Does that make one safer? I'd say not really, but no one wants to invest in a battery of tests that would be necessary to separate people regardless of hours and "knowledge".

I think the last three posts on here (rickair, chris reed, james) have all been brought up very good points, and reflect the not so cut-and-dry nature of developing a professional pilot.

I fear that;

-Piloting could be a profession that is bought, not earned and developed.

-We may be reaching a point where a degree trumps, rather than paves the way for real life experience.

-'Large schools' are looking out for their financial security; not the good of the aviation industry, much less the individual flight student.

-Large schools do have the clout to affect rule/law making to the their favor.

-Large schools could potentially check some boxes (to satisfy the FAA's 1,000 hour reduced minimum) but not teach anything a half-motivated person couldn't find out by picking up a book/video/youtube....

....Which honestly, I feel describes the aviation college I went to. (The professors of that program are *of course*, arguing vociferously against raising mins for part 121 FOs. Gee, I wonder why.)

I'm with ChrisReed on this one.

I have a mostly part 61 background and I currently instruct at a University, and I don't know how the students at the University are any more qualified than a lot of people coming out of the 61 world.

They are very sheltered, most of them graduate from our program without flying through a cloud, they have a limited number of airports they are allowed to go to, the longest cross country they ever get to go on is 250 nm one for commercial (and our school is talking about changing that so they don't actually go 250 nm from our home airport), they aren't allowed to file IFR for solo flights, we go to ridiculous lengths of hand-holding and spoon-feeding when they are not doing well, and the list goes on.

Sounds like the school I went to in DAB. There really is no experience to be had. They tell where, where, why for everything. Them sit in the right seat to make sure you'll be ok.

However, those big schools have a lot of money and are pushing really hard to get this rule changed. I have a feeling the regionals, RAA, et al are doing the same.

I think the release of the new ruling will find the requirements for an ATP to be well below that of 1500tt.

So they have had a "turbine transition" course? Big whoop. That doesn't make up for having real turbine experience in 91 ops. I took a turbine transition course through the school I went to and had systems training on King Airs. It didn't in any real way prepare me for FO duties in the 91 world. Not sure what that has to do with going to a University program either. Anyone can buy a "turbine transition" course.

Thats exactly what seems absurd to me about a lot of the University aviation programs... Most of the kids are oblivious to real-world commercial ops and are led to believe that regional airlines are basically the only career track out there. Considering the amount of money it takes to get through one of those University program, I'd say a lot of those kids come from "sheltered" backgrounds. I'm sure that isn't reality in every case but it sure has seemed that way with the ones I have met. Not to mention the inherent sense of entitlement (and generally poor critical thinking skills) that the ones I have met exhibit. Once again, I'm sure that isn't the case with all... But that has been my experience. I think the rule should stand at 1,500 for all except maybe military pilots. But that is a different story altogether.

Agreed with everything said above. I have flown with several grads of a flight school in a very cold, very flat state since I have access to a reasonably priced twin for time building. It is a pre-1970's steam gauge panel with no GPS. 3 of 4 were completely lost with steam gauges and almost had a meltdown when they asked where we were flying and I said 'wherever you want to fly'.... I think my skills certainly meet or exceed any that can be found from a 141 grad - I just chose to get a degree in Finance instead of Professional Flight.

This reduced mins plan is Malarkey! If low hours were a recipie for disaster, we'd have planes falling from the sky everyday... Most of the major airline crashes I can remember were the result of 8000+ hour pilots that made the wrong choice at the wrong moment. This is going to funnel all the wide eyed naiive kids with SJS to UND and ERAU with degrees that will be worthless without a medical (think surprise diabetes, etc). Part 61 flight schools are going to wilt and die a slow death as the lemmings all march on to Daytona & GFK.

Great conversation! I'm sure we can debate this topic forever and there are no right answers. I personally enrolled my son in an "Accredited" university program at Kent State precisely for some of the reasons you all mentioned. I wanted him to learn on steam engined instruments (They have glass as well, but they learn steam first) and I wanted him to see real weather as opposed to palm trees. I'm military and personally I hope after graduation he decides to go this route but it his choice. As far as comparing flight schools versus one of these University programs all I can offer is this example.
Last spring my son was still in High School studying for his PPL written and license. He was overwhelmed with all the knowledge he needed to pass the PPL writtten. He studied the books, but essentially he memorized the FAA questions and passed. This semester at Kent State he has an entire class dedicated to teaching the knowledge behind the questions and the final exam for the class is the actual FAA PPL written exam (He's exempt from the final since he has it already) Anyway, he has told me how much he's learning and the concepts behind the questions. He's also taking alot of courses in ATC, Commercial ops etc..He calls me up to ask questions about topics I have no clue about and I'm a 11,000 hour ATP and current Military pilot, so even though we all know examples about kids paying for ratings or two week crash courses etc etc he really is getting a solid foundation in aviation and perhaps thats why they are offerring a small reduction in hours from this ATP requirement. Not saying which way is better.
Keep the conversation going!

The pilots we are describing are certainly sweeping generalizations... There are plenty of great pilots that come from University programs. But do they deserve to have reduced hiring minimums? In my opinion no. In most cases they are less prepared for the "real world" of flying and are all in a big rush to hop in an RJ because that is what they are taught. My main point was just that I don't see how gradates of a University aviation program are any better prepared to fly at a regional than the guy who went to his local FBO. If the 1500 hour rule was indeed about safety as they say it is, then the rationale behind this portion of the bill simply doesn't make sense.

Single pilot 135 freight will cure many of those ailments you speak of as well as make a man or woman out of you, and put hair on your chest. You will have to live through the experience of course. I would not trade my 135 freight experience for anything because the experience has really helped my overall aviation experience. Peace!

I think many of you are being very dismissive of the education provided by the big aeronautical universities. Everybody loves to hate ERAU, UND, etc., because they "know a guy" who graduated from that school who was "a really bad pilot," "sheltered," or wasn't a "critical thinker" so they paint with that broad brush.

Using that logic, I could say, "Hey, why go to college anyway? All you learn to do is party and drink beer!" I could also bash Part 61 training and say that all a Part 61 guy has to do is go to a local Mom&Pop, memorize the questions for the written and take the practical with the "well known" local DPE who isn't looking to disrupt his gravy train exam fees and pretty much gives the same "well known/documented" ride to each guy he tests. No one wants to go to a DPE who fails "too many guys," right? Yeah, that Part 61 pilot learns a lot going that route, too.....right?

I went through a big aeronautical university and got that aeronautical degree. It was a very technical degree. I DID learn a thing or two about aviation. The guy that taught our turbines class was a former engineer from Pratt&Whitney. We dissected turbine engines. The guy that taught out aircraft systems class was an A&P, IA, and had been in the airline business for decades. When I press the hydraulic pump button, I understand how the switch works, how an electrical relay works to turn the pump on, why a relay is used, and how a variable displacement engine driven hydraulic pump works. I know that because the instructor had one sitting on the table in front of the class, cut in half so we could see how it worked, and explained it all. The guy that taught our flight engineer course had a Master's Degree, had been an airline pilot for decades, and had been an instructor at his airline for years. And he was a really nice guy because he always told us what question 1 would be on each systems exam: draw the system being tested out, from memory. I took classes in CRM, aviation safety, aviation law, aerodynamics, aircraft performance, global navigation, etc. The flight courses I took were structured courses, and the expectation before every flight was that you studied and arrived prepared. Does a guy who goes through a Part 61 program get that kind of aeronautical education? Is that education worth anything?

I guess you could argue, who cares? I press the button, the hydraulic pump goes on. I press it again, it goes off. Who cares that it is a Vickers variable displacement piston pump controlled by a button on the overhead panel through a 24V DC relay? Well, I think one could argue that after having taken 4 years of classes that go into that sort of detail is worth "something." Back that education up with a structured Part 141 flight curriculum and I can see how they might lower the requirements for the ATP a little bit. Although I don't agree they should :)

But thats just it... Anyone can get training like that if they pay for it. Like I've said. I went to a Part141 school and had formal ground school classes as well. I took a turbine transition course taught by an A&P who went to school for the PT6. And my experiences aren't from one or two guys... I've met several university flight program guys my (albeit relatively short) aviation career and got the same impression off of most of them. I know that is a generalization and that not everyone who attends these programs turns out like that. I just think they should be held to the same standards as everyone else. And for the record, even when I have my ATP mins I don't really plan on going to a regional. I'd really like to fly 135 and see where that takes me. So I really don't have much stake in this as far as I'm concerned. I need 135 mins regardless of what happens so that is what I am working towards.

I did too. However when the poop hits the fan, I fall back on my experience, not what I read in some class at 0kts, 0 G. Book work is not a substitute for real world experience.

I think you raise some valid points. It does seem popular to discount the quality/value/purpose of large university aviation programs, but an FBO will not teach to the same level of detail. The ability to truly understand how an aircraft system works can't be underestimated, especially in an emergency situation.

That said, I'd certainly concede that it is possible for a great a lousy pilot to be developed out of either program. FBOs and 141 university programs both have their advantages and disadvantages, but I believe that the ground school education of a university is likely to be of a much higher quality. I have experienced what a couple of FBOs have to offer, and I prefer the university route myself.

Whoa, 0 G? ;)

Maybe a guy who spent 4 years taking various CRM, aviation safety, and accident investigation courses, for example, will be able to recognize a situation that is rapidly deteriorating and use those skills to prevent the poop from hitting the fan in the first place?

Well some people have engineering degrees that have given them quite a bit of technical knowledge. :). But engineering doesn't count. And my aviation masters and the fact that I've been instructing at one of these universities doesn't count..

If they are going to give every aviation science and airport management major an exception, then what about engineers, and other people with technical degrees, and what about a&ps? Where does it stop? Slippery slope isn't it?

He read it on the vomit comet.

Ah, but he said 0 knots though...

It's more like he was levitating in a classroom.

...or we're only talking IAS and the vomit comet had a pitot tube blockage. Either way, it must have been pretty wild.

Top of a loop and the airspeed needle has dropped below the scale.

Exactly. It should be 1,500 no matter what your education/training background.

The genesis of this issue was the Colgan crash and the F/O's lack of cold weather flying experience as attested by the cockpit CVR and some of her actions during the accident (Lots of blame on the Captain too) I guess congress and the FAA were painted in a corner and this requirement is the result. I'd argue, as others here have said that its more important to experience real world weather extremes than any classroom academics, but thats fodder for another thread. I will say from my own personal experience flying both civilian and military, that the huge difference between the two, outside of the obvious aspects of military flying like formation, air-refueling etc is that in the military our exposure to emergency training is on a monthly basis, and multiple times per month at that, whereas in my civilian job I see EP's once a year on my checkride. That is a huge difference. I'd argue a better option than imposing an arbitrary 1500 hour rule would be mandatory, non-checkride EP training more often. An example, I fly C-17's and we do a two-day sim every quarter where we are bombarded with all kinds of EP's, including multiple system malfunctions. They will simulate a missile strike that knocks out the #4 engine, while fuel is pouring out of the #2 and #3 engines with an associated hydraulic and electrical issue to deal with on top of the smoke etc etc...way more intense and much better training than your garden variety V-1 cut at the airline...
YMMV,
Vito

I wish I had training for missile strikes on my little 172 ;)

Amen to this.

This has been my opinion all along. To prevent another Colgan, there needs to be more training at the airline level in type. I'm not arguing that lack of overall experience isn't an issue. Sub 500 hour pilots should have never been hired at airlines in the first place, however, having 1500 hours of flying the pattern in a cessna 152 isn't going to prevent another Colgan from happening either.

Probably a tiered level system. Add in a jet course as one if the tiers. Heard from a ALPA friend in DC.

I was drinking at the time I was reading said book. :p

I believe that most already do this.

First – sorry for the book. And yes, I have not yet spent a day in the airlines so this is an opinion from only my military background and what I have gleaned during my quest to be an airline pilot…. I may be way off the mark.

Wholeheartedly concur with Vito on this. However, the problem is time and money...it's all about money. The military has great tax-payer paid training budgets and facilities and a squadron really only loses time (not money) if they have to take part of a day to send a pilot to the simulator (and usually that time is just factored in the time the pilot will spend away from his/her family). In contrast, if every airline pilot had to have an EP simulator quarterly, that's at least 3 days per year (plus the annual check ride) that a pilot is not in a cockpit making money for the airline. Then the airline would have to increase its simulation/training budget to accommodate thousands of additional simulator training events per year. Even though this cost would probably be much cheaper than a mishap, the airline safety records are excellent and the odds of a mishap are so small, that it’s probably financially worth the gamble, or simply not a requirement to reduce the already low mishap rate.
Two big differences I see between the military and the airlines that generate a requirement for much more simulation and training for military pilots…... 1. A military pilot is given a great deal of responsibility very early in his/her career. One might become an aircraft commander (PIC/Capt) of a multi-crew aircraft as early as 500-700 hours total time and instantly become the guy with all the “experience” flying with the new guy that might only have a few hundred hours. That rookie PIC has gained quality experience required to handle such a responsibility by the intense use of good simulators and very experienced simulator instructors. 2. The nature of military flying is generally more than a departure and approach procedure to a full stop. As Vito said, the missions military pilots prepare for can be very complex and require a significant amount of training for both normal and emergency procedures. Therefore, simulators are required for realistic training, cost-efficiency, and safety. So, it works out well to throw an EP simulator in every 90 days or less.
Though more EP simulator training for the airlines would be great, I believe the next best thing would be an effective and measurable pilot training/continuing education program. The key words are EFFECTIVE and MEASURABLE. It has to be more, for example, than the FAA multiple-choice exams where it’s possible to memorize answers in a test question bank to get a passing score and walk away with a very limited understanding of the concepts.

Hmmm… let’s say, icing for example…..