ALPA's proposal to prohibit F/A pilots
04-20-2010, 10:45 AM
#1
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: MD-11 F/O
Posts: 19
ALPA's proposal to prohibit F/A pilots
ALPA’s proposal to prohibit fighter pilots.
We’ve got a problem hidden in the details of 4/12/10 BOD update that will prohibit single-seat military pilots from being hired by 121 carriers. As I understand it, no pilot will be hired without a minimum of 200 hours of multi-engine, multi-crew simulator or flight operations (pg 4, Rated Military Pilot). This is generally a good idea except that it unnecessarily prohibits hiring of military single -seat, high performance aircraft whose safety record doesn’t justify the restriction. We need to get the word out to all fighter pilots, and any multi-engine, multi-crew pilots that agree, Fedex or not, to lobby their union reps to change ALPA’ s proposed change to part 61’s ATP requirements for part 121 carriers.
We need to take action to inform our union reps immediately. ALPA’s proposals are very good and should improve safety for all carriers. However, there is a requirement for multi-engine, multi-crew time that unfairly punishes single seat military pilots without any safety numbers to back up the lack of exemption for them.
I am not getting into the single seat vs heavy nor military vs civilian debate; all backgrounds provide excellent part 121 crewmembers and captains, the majority, and all three backgrounds provide a few crewmembers who shouldn’t be employed in part 91 or 121 operations.
The restriction, or lack of exemption, for military, single-seat, single-engine pilots to have a minimum 200 hours of multi-crew, multi-engine flight or simulator time is both unfair but more importantly, not justified by any safety data. ALPA is pushing for all part 121 pilots to have a Part 121 ATP certificate with no exemption for military single-seat pilots (pg 5, question 2B). ALPA provides an exemption under “Restricted” 121 ATP for underage (less than 23) and under-hour pilots (less than the 1,500 min but more than 750 hrs) but no exemption for single seat, center-line thrust pilots.
Please read the links below and if you agree, contact your block rep to request a new exemption for military pilots under the “restricted” part 121 ATP. Military pilots are already exempted under ALPA’ s proposal for a BS in Aviation from an accredited university and any other academic instruction. Ask your rep to change the proposal to include an exemption for military pilots under the “restricted” 121 ATP that waives the 200-hour multi-engine, multi-crew requirement. This new exemption should not prohibit hiring but would not allow the “restricted” 121 ATP holder from acting as PIC until all flight time, i.e., 200 hours as FO on a multi-engine, multi-crew aircraft, requirements are met. This would provide needed experience prior to command to ensure safety while not punishing pilots whose safety record doesn’t justify the proposed restrictions.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
We’ve got a problem hidden in the details of 4/12/10 BOD update that will prohibit single-seat military pilots from being hired by 121 carriers. As I understand it, no pilot will be hired without a minimum of 200 hours of multi-engine, multi-crew simulator or flight operations (pg 4, Rated Military Pilot). This is generally a good idea except that it unnecessarily prohibits hiring of military single -seat, high performance aircraft whose safety record doesn’t justify the restriction. We need to get the word out to all fighter pilots, and any multi-engine, multi-crew pilots that agree, Fedex or not, to lobby their union reps to change ALPA’ s proposed change to part 61’s ATP requirements for part 121 carriers.
We need to take action to inform our union reps immediately. ALPA’s proposals are very good and should improve safety for all carriers. However, there is a requirement for multi-engine, multi-crew time that unfairly punishes single seat military pilots without any safety numbers to back up the lack of exemption for them.
I am not getting into the single seat vs heavy nor military vs civilian debate; all backgrounds provide excellent part 121 crewmembers and captains, the majority, and all three backgrounds provide a few crewmembers who shouldn’t be employed in part 91 or 121 operations.
The restriction, or lack of exemption, for military, single-seat, single-engine pilots to have a minimum 200 hours of multi-crew, multi-engine flight or simulator time is both unfair but more importantly, not justified by any safety data. ALPA is pushing for all part 121 pilots to have a Part 121 ATP certificate with no exemption for military single-seat pilots (pg 5, question 2B). ALPA provides an exemption under “Restricted” 121 ATP for underage (less than 23) and under-hour pilots (less than the 1,500 min but more than 750 hrs) but no exemption for single seat, center-line thrust pilots.
Please read the links below and if you agree, contact your block rep to request a new exemption for military pilots under the “restricted” part 121 ATP. Military pilots are already exempted under ALPA’ s proposal for a BS in Aviation from an accredited university and any other academic instruction. Ask your rep to change the proposal to include an exemption for military pilots under the “restricted” 121 ATP that waives the 200-hour multi-engine, multi-crew requirement. This new exemption should not prohibit hiring but would not allow the “restricted” 121 ATP holder from acting as PIC until all flight time, i.e., 200 hours as FO on a multi-engine, multi-crew aircraft, requirements are met. This would provide needed experience prior to command to ensure safety while not punishing pilots whose safety record doesn’t justify the proposed restrictions.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
04-20-2010, 01:58 PM
#6
Snakes & Nape
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: B-767 Captain
Posts: 775
Keep 'Em in the Cabin
I think ALPA has the right idea. Nothing personal against Flight Attendants but I would recommend they work behind the cockpit door and we'll work in front of it.
Makes for a safer environment. Now taking breaks and coming up to "chat up" the cockpit, that's a different story, especially for the good looking ones.
G'Luck Mates
Makes for a safer environment. Now taking breaks and coming up to "chat up" the cockpit, that's a different story, especially for the good looking ones.
G'Luck Mates
04-20-2010, 03:01 PM
#9
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
I'll admit to thinking, what in the world did flight attendants do to ALPA? And besides that it's not like any FA turned pilot didn't pay their dues?!?
But I see now. Well, first and foremost there should be an exemption for combat trained crews. Consider the guy 3' from you as a "crew". If he moves you move you all move or you ride the rocket, play in the water, and make the news... as opposed to a part 121 crew where the other pilot is also 3' from you and when he lifts a leg you open your air vents.
I still believe that there should be a push for a non governmental certification board or a Part 121 license or multicrew license.
But yes, it's ignorant that somebody didn't think through this rule and that even non mil guys like myself get that single seat is not John Wayne or Chuck Norris but a crew environment with more critical roles and concise communication requirements than a 121 cockpit. And sure there is only one pilot taking off and landing but that can be said of a part 121 cockpit too. Unless the other guy is a [radio edit].
But I see now. Well, first and foremost there should be an exemption for combat trained crews. Consider the guy 3' from you as a "crew".
If he moves you move you all move or you ride the rocket, play in the water, and make the news... as opposed to a part 121 crew where the other pilot is also 3' from you and when he lifts a leg you open your air vents.I still believe that there should be a push for a non governmental certification board or a Part 121 license or multicrew license.
But yes, it's ignorant that somebody didn't think through this rule and that even non mil guys like myself get that single seat is not John Wayne or Chuck Norris but a crew environment with more critical roles and concise communication requirements than a 121 cockpit. And sure there is only one pilot taking off and landing but that can be said of a part 121 cockpit too. Unless the other guy is a [radio edit].
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
