New FAA Admin supports 1,500 HR rule
07-30-2019, 07:51 AM
#121
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,393
Originally Posted by captjns
Foreign 121 time? Explain please. One needs to meet The requirements of CFR 121.436 to to act as PIC under CFR 121 operations. There are expats with well over 10,000 PIC, returning to the US, but with less than 1,000 as SIC having to apply for a waiver from the FAA. There was a NPRM a couple of years ago to amend this particular FUBAR from the existing Reg.
No idea what the odds of a waiver are.
07-30-2019, 07:58 AM
#122
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by stabapch
Yet all the proponents (current ATP holders, most of which earned it under the old system) can’t seem to provide a valid argument as to how this change solved the “problem.” Both pilots had WELL over 1500 hours in the disaster that sparked the rule. Lack of experience was not a factor. Does it make things safer now? Potentially, but it’s just a random barrier that was created for no justifiable reason whatsoever. All POLITICAL!
Everything is a 'random barrier' yes - it was political. To bad it took a mishap to finally get the political machine motivated enough to do something about the issue.
07-30-2019, 08:41 AM
#123
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Position: 757/767
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by captjns
Foreign 121 time? Explain please. One needs to meet The requirements of CFR 121.436 to to act as PIC under CFR 121 operations. There are expats with well over 10,000 PIC, returning to the US, but with less than 1,000 as SIC having to apply for a waiver from the FAA. There was a NPRM a couple of years ago to amend this particular FUBAR from the existing Reg.
07-30-2019, 09:05 AM
#124
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 516
Low time european pilots are below average when it comes to ADM or even basic flying skills. They're above average at reading checklists, memorizing weirdo acronyms and turning the autopilot on at 500 feet.[/QUOTE]
Their training philosophy aligns perfectly with the Airbus cockpit. They don't need to know how to "fly" since there is no direct link to the control surfaces.
Their training philosophy aligns perfectly with the Airbus cockpit. They don't need to know how to "fly" since there is no direct link to the control surfaces.
07-30-2019, 09:18 AM
#125
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,926
Originally Posted by Sunrig
I’m aware that there’s no such thing like foreign 121 time. My point was, that I have similar experience to operating under part 121. Difference is, that it was under EASA rules. And I don’t see too much difference in operating for an 121 carrier in the US compared to operate the same aircraft for an airline under EASA rules. I am also aware that it is an FAA requirement to have 1000 hours of SIC 121 time before you can upgrade to CA. That’s why I was surprised when it was mentioned you could be a captain without those 1000 121 hours.
07-30-2019, 09:19 AM
#126
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by Gundriver64
Funny, about all this whining these days about a measly 1500 hours. Back in my aspiring airline pilot days we just lowered our heads and pedaled hard to get done what needed to be done in order to be hired.
To be competitive in the 90s:
A degree.
Worked as an active CFI.
At least a 1000 hours total time.
Between 300-500 MEL time.
And the ability to pay for your own 121 training...
Want to read an interesting perspective about flying with low-time pilots? Find a copy of "Flying Upside Down" on the web. I promise you'll be entertained.
To be competitive in the 90s:
A degree.
Worked as an active CFI.
At least a 1000 hours total time.
Between 300-500 MEL time.
And the ability to pay for your own 121 training...
Want to read an interesting perspective about flying with low-time pilots? Find a copy of "Flying Upside Down" on the web. I promise you'll be entertained.
07-30-2019, 09:20 AM
#127
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,926
Originally Posted by rickair7777
As far as I know the rule still stands as written, ie aeronautical experience for upgrade can only be acquired under US rules (121/135).
No idea what the odds of a waiver are.
No idea what the odds of a waiver are.
07-30-2019, 09:51 AM
#128
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2019
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
And yet the whole issue was where the CA gained his experience (and his training record) - not how much he had at the time of the mishap. The fact that you once again bring up that argument shows that you don't understand the issue.
Everything is a 'random barrier' yes - it was political. To bad it took a mishap to finally get the political machine motivated enough to do something about the issue.
Everything is a 'random barrier' yes - it was political. To bad it took a mishap to finally get the political machine motivated enough to do something about the issue.
07-30-2019, 11:05 AM
#129
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,926
Originally Posted by stabapch
Correct and now the FAA has an improved database that tracks training records, another positive from this tragedy. This was a PROVEN issue that potentially contributed to the crash. I completely understand this part. However, there was no “issue” in this specific event that would make sense to implement a rule requiring an FO to hold an ATP. So I’ll continue to stick with a random politically motivated legislation.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
