Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Regional
Aviation subcommittee hearings live >

Aviation subcommittee hearings live

Notices
Regional Regional Airlines

Aviation subcommittee hearings live

Old 06-19-2009, 10:40 AM
  #101  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Beech 1900D
Posts: 280
Default

Originally Posted by TPROP4ever View Post
I actually agree with some points, however you went way beyond the depth of what I was getting at. I was making the point that the way things are now older pilots should take and mentor the next batch (low time or not), they are already here to stay, so rather than arguing numbers we should work together. I still strive to learn everyday, and challenge myself to continue to be the best I can be, and we all should regardless of total time. ( that is why I referred to TT as an arbitrary number, I think attitude and willingness to be even better than the last flight are just as important to safety.)
Oops. Sorry. I missed your point entirely. My bad.
1900luxuryliner is offline  
Old 06-19-2009, 01:28 PM
  #102  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Sniper's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,001
Default

Originally Posted by YugoDriver View Post
An FO check ride is to ATP standards therefore it is not their ability to fly the plane that prevents them from having an ATP it is only flight time. If you have a good attitude and are safety minded you will be a good FO.
Not true. There are 2 standards in reality. No FAA knowledge test for FO's, ATP knowledge test for CA's. An FO is allowed greater latitude in the judging of whether a "TASK is incomplete, or the outcome uncertain" than a CA. An FO is allowed less detailed systems knowledge during their oral exam. No taxing on the FO Practical. No low-vis T/O for the FO ride either.

Do I have objective proof of this higher standard? No. But ask your CA if they felt their initial oral and type ride were any more difficult than their initial FO oral and ride. Even @ airlines that type the FO, the standard is more stringent for the CA than the FO. If training departments held new FO's to the same standard as seasoned CA's, few FO's would ever make it to the line. You've got to give folks an opportunity to learn the plane - that's just reality.

CA's are held to a higher standard, as they should be. If all airlines went to an 'up or out' policy, there are many 'career FOs' who would be out of a job simply b/c they are not capable of meeting the higher standard applied to CAs by DE's.

Originally Posted by YugoDriver View Post
Attitude and professionalism is what needs to change to improve safety not an ATP.
I can have a great attitude and the best professionalism, but @ 400 TT, there is no way I am a safer pilot than a 10,000 TT CA with a terrible attitude and no professionalism. There is something to be said for commanding a plane and experiencing what happens when things don’t go according to plan that cannot be replaced with attitude and professionalism – and that’s why ‘mainline carriers’ hire pilots who almost exclusively have command experience as a Captain, Aircraft Commander, or for single pilot military aircraft, a flight lead (not to mention the non-flying leadership required of military aviators).

If you want to be an Airline Transport Pilot, you should have to be licensed as such by the regulatory authority (the FAA, in this case). Will an ATP fix everything? No. But it ensures that at one point each and every professional pilot has at least an acceptable level of experience in a variety of flight conditions (x-country, night, instrument, and PIC – or lots of SIC) that will help to ensure that you’ve likely personally experienced many of the conditions and leadership opportunities you will encounter at an airline BEFORE you have paying passengers or high value cargo behind you. To argue that pilots without ATP’s but great attitudes and exemplary professionalism are just as safe as a 100% ATP certified pilot group of any attitude and professionalism is naïve at best.
Sniper is offline  
Old 06-19-2009, 04:17 PM
  #103  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV
Posts: 3,732
Default

Originally Posted by Sniper View Post
Not true. There are 2 standards in reality. No FAA knowledge test for FO's, ATP knowledge test for CA's. An FO is allowed greater latitude in the judging of whether a "TASK is incomplete, or the outcome uncertain" than a CA. An FO is allowed less detailed systems knowledge during their oral exam. No taxing on the FO Practical. No low-vis T/O for the FO ride either.

He was only referencing an ATP ride, not a combined atp/type ride. Yes, I know what you're saying about the rides being different, and the CA having to demonstrate items on his type that an FO doesn't have to, as well as leniency.

If a guy goes to an FBO to get his ATP, how will they simulate a low vis take off like on a 121 type/PC? I know, you can joke that they could put the hood/foggles on him, but that's not reality.

The 5/5/5 or 6/6/6 take off may be required for that airline's approved training program, but not just to get an ATP cert.
dojetdriver is offline  
Old 06-19-2009, 05:17 PM
  #104  
Gets Weekends Off
 
exwaterski's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 328
Default

Originally Posted by TPROP4ever View Post
I actually agree with some points, however you went way beyond the depth of what I was getting at. I was making the point that the way things are now older pilots should take and mentor the next batch (low time or not), they are already here to stay, so rather than arguing numbers we should work together. The fact is at the time all the low time guys (right or wrong) came in legally, and within standards set by the FAA. If that needs to change so be it, thats for the FAA to argue. I still strive to learn everyday, and challenge myself to continue to be the best I can be, and we all should regardless of total time. ( that is why I referred to TT as an arbitrary number, I think attitude and willingness to be even better than the last flight are just as important to safety.)
Relax man nobody is suggesting we should fire the guys currently flying the line obviously they would be grandfathered in.
exwaterski is offline  
Old 06-20-2009, 12:22 AM
  #105  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 243
Default

Regional Air Carriers and Pilot Workforce Issues (House of Reps)

Video
Cactusone is offline  
Old 06-20-2009, 04:25 AM
  #106  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Sniper's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,001
Default

Originally Posted by dojetdriver View Post
If a guy goes to an FBO to get his ATP, how will they simulate a low vis take off like on a 121 type/PC? I know, you can joke that they could put the hood/foggles on him, but that's not reality.

The 5/5/5 or 6/6/6 take off may be required for that airline's approved training program, but not just to get an ATP cert.
Fair enough, though the poster appeared to be talking about FO rides @ a 121 carrier, not getting an ATP in a piston twin @ an FBO.

I was trying to make 2 points:
  1. Though an FO and CA ATP ride are to the same ATP standards, the airline FO ride is more lenient than the CA ride (and that's regardless of whether it is a type ride or not. CA's PC's are to the a higher standard than FO's too)
  2. it is not the possession of an ATP certificate that increases safety, it is the experiences required to get one (flight time, aviation knowledge, and life). Attitude and professionalism (which are arbitrary) will not provide the same minimum level of safety as a 100% ATP licensed pilot group. Requiring pilots to have an ATP before flying 121 is a proper balance of increasing safety without raising the barriers to entry into the profession to an unattainable level for prospective 121 pilots.
Sniper is offline  
Old 06-20-2009, 10:38 AM
  #107  
Day puke
 
FlyJSH's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Out.
Posts: 3,865
Default

Originally Posted by Cactusone View Post
Regional Air Carriers and Pilot Workforce Issues (House of Reps)

Video
Some highlights:

(At 45 minutes) "In Oregon.... a barber who colors hair needs 1700 hours of training...... but the FAA only requires 250 hours to be a FO"

(1:16) In theory, we have one level of safety between the regionals and the majors, in in reality it does not exist

(1:55-2:00) FAA Codesharing does not take safety records into account,
Not implementing NTSB recomendations for stall and upset training.
FLight into freezing rain and severe icing.
Asked of the head of the FAA, "Would you fly on a regional airline if you knew the pilots were not trained to recover from a full stall?" "Not only would I not fly on it, I would ground it"

(3:30) CA Prater's Q&A

(3:45) asked of CA Prater (paraphrasing) Do airlines penalize pilots for calling in fatigues? "Yes.... I will name names"
FlyJSH is offline  
Old 06-20-2009, 10:41 AM
  #108  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV
Posts: 3,732
Default

Originally Posted by Sniper View Post
  1. Though an FO and CA ATP ride are to the same ATP standards, the airline FO ride is more lenient than the CA ride (and that's regardless of whether it is a type ride or not. CA's PC's are to the a higher standard than FO's too)
  2. it is not the possession of an ATP certificate that increases safety, it is the experiences required to get one (flight time, aviation knowledge, and life). Attitude and professionalism (which are arbitrary) will not provide the same minimum level of safety as a 100% ATP licensed pilot group. Requiring pilots to have an ATP before flying 121 is a proper balance of increasing safety without raising the barriers to entry into the profession to an unattainable level for prospective 121 pilots.
Ok, say you got 2 guys;

First guy has been doing canyon tours, glider/banner towing, flying traffic, pipeine, whatever. Basically something that isn't rally IFR/reg intrensive. Just to use a figure, has 2500 TT. He then goes to (insert place to knock out ATP rating here), comes out with an ATP in hand.

Second guy flight instructed in the Northeast, at 1200tt got a non ATP required job flying piston night freight in the Northeast, Has 2500tt and says to himself he's going to (insert place to knock out ATP rating here), comes out with ATP in hand.

Both have experience, do you think that ones experience might be different than the other?

it is not the possession of an ATP certificate that increases safety, it is the experiences required to get one (flight time, aviation knowledge, and life).
Here, it's not the possession of an ATP that increases safety.

Requiring pilots to have an ATP before flying 121 is a proper balance of increasing safety without raising the barriers to entry into the profession to an unattainable level for prospective 121 pilots.
Here, requiring pilots to have an ATP helps a proper balance of increasing safety.

Which is it?
dojetdriver is offline  
Old 06-20-2009, 10:44 AM
  #109  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2007
Position: single pilot cargo, turboprop
Posts: 484
Default

[quote=FlyJSH;632276]Some highlights:

(At 45 minutes) "In Oregon.... a barber who colors hair needs 1700 hours of training...... but the FAA only requires 250 hours to be a FO"

[quote]

Is there a hobbs meter on his clippers?
own nav is offline  
Old 06-20-2009, 01:46 PM
  #110  
Gets Weekends Off
 
flynwmn's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 516
Default

[quote=own nav;632281][quote=FlyJSH;632276]Some highlights:

(At 45 minutes) "In Oregon.... a barber who colors hair needs 1700 hours of training...... but the FAA only requires 250 hours to be a FO"


Is there a hobbs meter on his clippers?
So its what 10 months of training? based on a 40 hour 50 week work week?
flynwmn is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
DBFly9229
Military
11
06-20-2011 06:00 PM
HectorD
Flight Schools and Training
21
03-21-2010 08:52 PM
FlyHigh423
Hangar Talk
6
02-10-2009 11:31 AM
FlyHigh423
Major
15
12-31-2008 02:56 PM
aileronjam
Hiring News
17
11-11-2008 10:27 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