Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Military
ALPA's proposal to prohibit F/A pilots >

ALPA's proposal to prohibit F/A pilots

Military Military Aviation

ALPA's proposal to prohibit F/A pilots

Old 04-20-2010, 10:45 AM
On Reserve
Thread Starter
2Planker's Avatar
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: MD-11 F/O
Posts: 19
Default 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.
2Planker is offline  
Old 04-20-2010, 12:53 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Beagle Pilot's Avatar
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: EMB-145
Posts: 427

Do you have a copy of the NPRM? Maybe it was already addressed.

Besides, everybody knows helo pilots are better team players anyway.

Beagle Pilot is offline  
Old 04-20-2010, 01:00 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: CA
Posts: 1,207

What does ALPA have against Flight Attendants?
shoelu is offline  
Old 04-20-2010, 01:42 PM
Gets Weekends Off
goaround2000's Avatar
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: ERJ145 Captain
Posts: 473

Originally Posted by shoelu View Post
What does ALPA have against Flight Attendants?

LOL...that's exactly what I was thinking when I read the title!
goaround2000 is offline  
Old 04-20-2010, 01:53 PM
Gets Weekends Off
RU4692's Avatar
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Professional Monkey Trainer
Posts: 309

F/A = Fighter Attack. He must be a Navy/Marine pilot.
RU4692 is offline  
Old 04-20-2010, 01:58 PM
Snakes & Nape
Phantom Flyer's Avatar
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: B-767 Captain
Posts: 775
Thumbs up 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
Phantom Flyer is offline  
Old 04-20-2010, 02:34 PM
Gets Weekends Off
GBU-24's Avatar
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 418

Since it covers mil guys I copied the post to the military forum....
GBU-24 is offline  
Old 04-20-2010, 02:56 PM
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,822

Wow! That's tough. I really don't know what to think about that proposal.
ERJF15 is offline  
Old 04-20-2010, 03:01 PM
veut gagner ŕ la loterie
forgot to bid's Avatar
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].
forgot to bid is offline  
Old 04-20-2010, 06:32 PM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Position: MV-22B aircraft commander and IP
Posts: 27

While not an FAR issue, how about if the fixed-wing guys help get helo time counted fully by all carriers and we give them the reach-around and help them with this rule?
exphrog is offline  
Related Topics
Thread Starter
Last Post
04-15-2013 01:49 PM
06-12-2009 04:47 AM
06-05-2009 09:58 AM
03-18-2009 03:52 PM
02-16-2009 07:45 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Thread Tools
Search this Thread