If FE hrs count for ATP, can Nav hrs count?
09-26-2017, 05:31 PM
#21
Permanent Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,677
Originally Posted by Cavepilot
You need a NAV for crossing the pond. You need a NAV for MNPS airspace. I don't think needing an FE for all flights is an FAA criteria. I could be wrong but we need to look into this.
your NAV hours will count towards an FAA Nav rating. They do not and should not count towards a pilot ATP. I am a former nav, so I have some understanding, but you are fighting a losing battle.
09-27-2017, 06:43 AM
#22
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,212
FEs are a known quantity and have an established (if largely historical) place in 121 ops. Nav, wso, rio, abm, mpra taco, etc, etc are not consistent experience. It would have to be airframe. Just not enough interest.
09-27-2017, 10:37 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 454
Originally Posted by rickair7777
FEs are a known quantity and have an established (if largely historical) place in 121 ops. Nav, wso, rio, abm, mpra taco, etc, etc are not consistent experience. It would have to be airframe. Just not enough interest.
Last edited by 155mm; 09-27-2017 at 10:57 AM.
09-27-2017, 12:53 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2017
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by Hacker15e
Can you lay out the argument you'll make to the FAA for this?
Does your proposal hinge on simply asserting equivalency with FEs (or rather, equivalency with pilots in the same way that FEs are in the CFR)? If that's the angle, then is your goal the 500-hours-credit-for ATP rule?
If not, then how do you justify the training, skills, and experience of such a widely variant career field as NFOs/CSOs as, by default, equivalent with pilot flight time? Some aircraft have access to flight controls for NFOs/CSOs and some do not. Some aircraft and regulations have airborne decisionmaking authority for NFOs/CSOs and some do not. Credit for all, or credit for some? Split it out by aircraft type or by crew position designation according to the flight control access and/or the decisionmaking authority?
Are you going to argue for straight military NFO/CSO hours to be considered for this, or that if an NFO/CSO holds appropriate ratings in Category/Class/Type they can log the Part-61 "sole manipulator of controls" definition flight time? If the latter, then does that time count straight time, or does it count 3-to-1 ratio like the FE military time? Is the credit only toward the ATP, or other ratings too?
By contrast, consider the training and experience that 18x (rated UAV operators) receive, and their lack of pilot-equivalent credit with the FAA. Consider that rated pilots don't even get to credit their UAV flight time toward flying time requirements, even though that job requires a very similar type of airmanship/decisionmaking to manned flight time (and is arguably more relevant than NFO/CSO time). How do you argue that their time is not valid, but NFO/CSO time should be?
Not trying to hate here...just curious what arguments you're going to bring and what logic you're planning on using to defend it.
Does your proposal hinge on simply asserting equivalency with FEs (or rather, equivalency with pilots in the same way that FEs are in the CFR)? If that's the angle, then is your goal the 500-hours-credit-for ATP rule?
If not, then how do you justify the training, skills, and experience of such a widely variant career field as NFOs/CSOs as, by default, equivalent with pilot flight time? Some aircraft have access to flight controls for NFOs/CSOs and some do not. Some aircraft and regulations have airborne decisionmaking authority for NFOs/CSOs and some do not. Credit for all, or credit for some? Split it out by aircraft type or by crew position designation according to the flight control access and/or the decisionmaking authority?
Are you going to argue for straight military NFO/CSO hours to be considered for this, or that if an NFO/CSO holds appropriate ratings in Category/Class/Type they can log the Part-61 "sole manipulator of controls" definition flight time? If the latter, then does that time count straight time, or does it count 3-to-1 ratio like the FE military time? Is the credit only toward the ATP, or other ratings too?
By contrast, consider the training and experience that 18x (rated UAV operators) receive, and their lack of pilot-equivalent credit with the FAA. Consider that rated pilots don't even get to credit their UAV flight time toward flying time requirements, even though that job requires a very similar type of airmanship/decisionmaking to manned flight time (and is arguably more relevant than NFO/CSO time). How do you argue that their time is not valid, but NFO/CSO time should be?
Not trying to hate here...just curious what arguments you're going to bring and what logic you're planning on using to defend it.
Once upon a time, FEs flew on airliners like DC-8s and 727s. Often these were "third pilots" who didn't log PIC/SIC time, but FE time. When the new law was passed, FE time was included, and so (my assumption) the military FEs were also included, but at a 3-1 rate. A mil FE with 1500 total FE hrs could credit 500 of those toward ATP.
Now for a disclaimer: I can't argue for UAV pilots; not my cup of chili.
I'm not looking for Nav time to be counted as pilot time 1 for 1 w/regard to ATP...neither is FE time. This is about the FAA approved 3 for 1 rule.
My argument is this:
AF/Navy Nav/NFO/WSO/CSO whatever they're called these days, all have:
- A 4 yr college degree (minimum)
- Passed a military flight rating program of at least 12 months in length (longer for NFOs 'cause the Navy can't schedule for $hit)
- Have at least 6 yrs experience as crewmembers in high performance acft (many of us 20 yrs plus), global flight ops, & in class A airspace.
- Take the same Instrument Tests and Approach Plate tests as the pilots (once you're in the fleet).
- Extensive navigation and flight planning experience
Comparatively to the above list, AMC FEs have (in general terms) only the crewmember experience in high performance acft (plus C-130s)
Yes many have college degrees, etc, but that is not a reqmt for their job, like it is for Nav/NFOs. Again, I'm not trashing FEs, just making comparisons.
Additionally, the civilian kid who graduates from Mother Mary's Junior College with an Associates Degree and a CFI can reach ATP mins in 1250 hours. But he/she has most likely never flown more than 172s and an occasional Baron, never been in Class A airpsace, and never flown long duration open water flights. Staying "ahead of the jet" for them means thinking at 100 knots, not 420 or 600.
So, in summary, this is a problem solving expedition. A) The Regionals need many more mature, experienced pilots with high-speed and high altitude backgrounds; and B) I'd like to see a path to more Navs/NFOs getting jobs in aviation and out of these cubicle $hitholes.
If a military FE with no college degree(s), limited Instrument knowledge, no formal "Rating" (like Pilot/Nav) etc can get 500 hrs credit, and Johnny from Mother Mary's Jr College that has the same PPL/IR/CPL/ME/CFI tickets as a Nav/NFO can get by at 1250, then I'd like to see a Nav/NFO with a 4 yr degree(s), 6-20+ yrs flight and Instrument experience catch the same break.
Again, not trying to equate to Pilot flight time (1 for 1); not to trying to hate on FEs (good for them); not trying to degrede Johnny's JUCO degree, but I think Nav/NFos far surpass that level of experience and creditability, especially when we will all have the exact same licenses up through CFI.
This may all be a moot point depending on what comes out of the Senate bill in Congress right now.
Ready for incoming...
09-27-2017, 01:44 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 454
Originally Posted by Castle Bravo
Ready for incoming...
09-27-2017, 04:45 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by 155mm
If I were you, go buy a small single engine aircraft and fly the **** out of it until you have 1500 hours. Some of these LSA aircraft are basically lawn chairs with wings as well and you can get a CFI LSA at 150 hours. If it has a N number log it and you'll be light years ahead over fighting a dysfunctional government.
Even if everyone you deal with is 100% on board with your ideas and wants to help you make the change, and you face zero road blocks, to get something like this done is a multi-year process.
More power to you, and if it helps the generations after you, then good on you. But again, if you are trying to get hired in the next couple of years, I wouldn't count on this as plan A.
09-27-2017, 07:14 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2017
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by Brillo
More power to you, and if it helps the generations after you, then good on you. But again, if you are trying to get hired in the next couple of years, I wouldn't count on this as plan A.
B) The new Congress Bill will determine if it makes sense to press ahead on this issue.
C) The payoff is for the rest of the naviguessors behind me...with GI Bill, etc, etc and the hiring going on, I hope this make a much easier path to the Regionals for them.
D) Yup, the slow wheels of Congress/FAA means I'll hit 65 by the time this is ready for a decision!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
kingair130
Flight Schools and Training
8
10-08-2009 08:55 PM
