FAA Panel urges changes to FO qualifications
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Posts: 138
I'm okay with an MCL but would be happier if you had the option to get that prior to your first 121 job or during your first 121 checkride - thus requiring that checkride to be to MCL standards. In fact, I'd be for renaming the ATP so as not to be referred to as an "airline" certificate and have an MCL that is trully a part-121 only certificate. Let part 91 and 135 keep a renamed version of the ATP.
Apologies if I read it wrong, but if you are you saying GA crews don't belong in this mystical Multi-Crew world, you're dead wrong.
#23
Originally Posted by EWRflyr;871279
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.
[B
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.
[B
Write to [/b]Andy Pasztor at [email protected]
I do not like the sound of those last sentences at all!
I like the sound of at least 1500 hours period.
First 10 hour 2 pilot duty days and now this. Who is the FAA working for anyway?
#24
So you get a tragic crash a year ago and now all of the sudden the airlines don't know how to train their pilots??? I took an FO checkride at a 121 carrier in a jet, then a year later I took a type checkride on a different jet with an FAA observing the instructor doing the checkride. I did not think the type checkride was harder.
How about letting airlines train their pilots and keep the public and politics out of it. 1500, an ATP, and a type checkride is gonna make safer pilots?
But thank you FAA, because now the regionals will have a harder time recruiting pilots when a shortage hit . . . and then maybe that will increase their salaries!!! I am all for that!
How about letting airlines train their pilots and keep the public and politics out of it. 1500, an ATP, and a type checkride is gonna make safer pilots?
But thank you FAA, because now the regionals will have a harder time recruiting pilots when a shortage hit . . . and then maybe that will increase their salaries!!! I am all for that!
#25
FtB;
The problem with the MCL is that its genesis is with less training and solo flying, which will result in a restriction of multi-crewed flight decks.
What it sounds like you may be trying to support is something that is an add on to all of the other certificates once you reach 1500 hrs. It would be almost like an airline endorsement. In effect that is what many of the puppy mills do already. It is "Advanced Turbo-jet training."
What I would prefer to see happen is to move more towards the ICAO minimums to hold a ATPL. They have a stronger hours requirement both with ttl time and with PIC time. Back in the day most pilots only qualified for their ICAO reciprocity with the two for one with their PIC time. (Note: regionals started requiring captain/atp candidates to meeting ICAO minimums to fly to Canada as it limits mirror ICAO)
I would prefer some more formal classroom training, ICAO hrs requirements and the like. Trying to put more lipstick on the current ATP pig does very little to the rest of the world's regulatory agencies.
You could have a ATP-SIC license for 1500 hrs which would be the threshold for 121 operations. It will be in effect what the Commercial MEL is now, but with more robust requirements. The PIC ATP would be an ATPL that mirrors ICAO minima.
#26
So you get a tragic crash a year ago and now all of the sudden the airlines don't know how to train their pilots??? I took an FO checkride at a 121 carrier in a jet, then a year later I took a type checkride on a different jet with an FAA observing the instructor doing the checkride. I did not think the type checkride was harder.
How about letting airlines train their pilots and keep the public and politics out of it. 1500, an ATP, and a type checkride is gonna make safer pilots?
But thank you FAA, because now the regionals will have a harder time recruiting pilots when a shortage hit . . . and then maybe that will increase their salaries!!! I am all for that!
How about letting airlines train their pilots and keep the public and politics out of it. 1500, an ATP, and a type checkride is gonna make safer pilots?
But thank you FAA, because now the regionals will have a harder time recruiting pilots when a shortage hit . . . and then maybe that will increase their salaries!!! I am all for that!
#27
Yes, the instructors are required to train and check more items, but where does the FAA say that the airlines have to keep maintaining the same number of simulator events? The airlines could easily get approval to add more simulator events, but the airlines have their training schedule to keep and don't want to spend one dime extra unless someone else pays for it.
#28
I'm just reading words on a webpage, but it sounds like you are knocking your GA counterparts here -- as if they deserve some lower grade license. There are part 91 outfits that fly 767's (Google), 737's (too many to name) and many other ex-airline jets are finding their way into corporate flying (not that a G550 isn't more sophisticated than most anything you can get your hands on part 121). Many corporate/charter pilots have a background with as much standardization as yours.
Apologies if I read it wrong, but if you are you saying GA crews don't belong in this mystical Multi-Crew world, you're dead wrong.
Apologies if I read it wrong, but if you are you saying GA crews don't belong in this mystical Multi-Crew world, you're dead wrong.
Anyways and more importantly no insult intended.
But as to google and other private operations flying large aircraft, I thought they were Part 125? And any given part 125 exemptions will lose those soon for security reasons.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 09-17-2010 at 05:43 AM.
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Posts: 138
Funny you ask, I originally posted part 121/large part 135 (2 pilot aircraft over x weight) but erased the later when I decided that it should be more concentrated on scheduled airline ops. No insult intended.
But as to google and other private operations flying large aircraft, I thought they were Part 125?
But as to google and other private operations flying large aircraft, I thought they were Part 125?
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 298
So you get a tragic crash a year ago and now all of the sudden the airlines don't know how to train their pilots??? I took an FO checkride at a 121 carrier in a jet, then a year later I took a type checkride on a different jet with an FAA observing the instructor doing the checkride. I did not think the type checkride was harder.
How about letting airlines train their pilots and keep the public and politics out of it. 1500, an ATP, and a type checkride is gonna make safer pilots?
But thank you FAA, because now the regionals will have a harder time recruiting pilots when a shortage hit . . . and then maybe that will increase their salaries!!! I am all for that!
How about letting airlines train their pilots and keep the public and politics out of it. 1500, an ATP, and a type checkride is gonna make safer pilots?
But thank you FAA, because now the regionals will have a harder time recruiting pilots when a shortage hit . . . and then maybe that will increase their salaries!!! I am all for that!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
forgot to bid
Major
15
11-25-2008 09:21 PM
AUS_ATC
Hangar Talk
0
03-08-2006 06:56 PM