Proposed ATP/1500 Minimums for 121 Carriers
07-29-2009 | 02:16 PM
#171
Banned
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,934
Likes: 0
From: EMB 145 CPT
Requiring an ATP to be an AIRLINE pilot is a small step in the right direction.
More important in my opinion is that training standards and checkrides at ALL levels, PPL, CPL, Instrument, ME..etc, be ramped up to make it difficult to acquire these certifications. The fact of the matter is given enough time and MONEY... anybody can get enough training to pass these checkrides. BUT, do you want the guy who took 38 hours to solo in a 172 flying with you..... or the guy who took 50 extra hours of instrument flying to GET it RIGHT before his checkride? Professional training facilities like CAE and FSI etc ... do a fair job of evaluating the customer.. but remember .... MONEY is involved and they dont want to **** off clients. I know I am sorta rambling but I think it needs to be HARDER to get ratings and certifications..etc.
More important in my opinion is that training standards and checkrides at ALL levels, PPL, CPL, Instrument, ME..etc, be ramped up to make it difficult to acquire these certifications. The fact of the matter is given enough time and MONEY... anybody can get enough training to pass these checkrides. BUT, do you want the guy who took 38 hours to solo in a 172 flying with you..... or the guy who took 50 extra hours of instrument flying to GET it RIGHT before his checkride? Professional training facilities like CAE and FSI etc ... do a fair job of evaluating the customer.. but remember .... MONEY is involved and they dont want to **** off clients. I know I am sorta rambling but I think it needs to be HARDER to get ratings and certifications..etc.
Need for Stronger Academic Emphasis
The Joint Aviation Authority (JAA), now the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and FAA pilot licensing requirements are both ICAO-compliant. The single biggest difference between EASA and FAA is knowledge requirements. The FAA theoretical knowledge is simply not as demanding as EASA, which has 14 written exams versus one by the FAA, which is a multiple-choice exam. The EASA exams require the student to be tested for 30-40 hours. By stark contrast, the FAA publishes its exam questions with answers provided so a student can purchase them, study the questions, and pass its single exam. Examination questions are not available for EASA exams in such a manner.
The least demanding Federal Aviation Regulations which govern commercial pilot license requirements (i.e., §61.125 and §61.155) specify the aeronautical knowledge requirements for commercial and airline transport pilot ratings. These rules were written decades ago, when there was no expectation that they would be used as minimum standards to train pilots to take jobs as airline first officers. The requirements emphasize weather and navigation, including interaction with air traffic control. There is some mention of aircraft aerodynamics and human factors, including aeronautical decision making and judgment as well as crew resource management. The regulations allow self-study and many such training courses emphasize passing the test rather than learning the material. We do not feel these requirements are adequate to prepare a professional airline pilot. The ground instruction of these subjects needs to be strengthened with required formal classroom academic instruction and more extensive testing and examination.
The EASA-approved training course for a commercial airline pilot tends to be rather structured and rigorous. FAA should develop and implement a corollary ground school and testing process in FAR Part 121 for all pilots who seek commercial airline careers. Testing akin to the quality of the Certified Public Accountant (CPA) exams or bar exam for attorneys would benefit aviation by serving as a screening tool to ensure that, in the future, only the most knowledgeable and dedicated pilots join the ranks of airline pilots.
http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/pre...-09written.pdf
07-29-2009 | 02:16 PM
#172
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
While I agree that the bar needs to be greatly raised concerning regional hiring minimums, I have one objection with the ATP certificate requirement for new FO's. If you look at ATP mnimum requirments, you will see 1,500 hours total time, which I greatly agree with. However, you will also notice that you need 500 hours cross country.
It is very difficult to get 500 hours cross country as a CFI, because most of your flights are local in nature, and very few are x-countrys. It takes a really long time to get that much x-country time as a CFI.
How does one get all that x-country time. People on this forum will certainly say, fly freight, light piston twins, whatever it takes. Unfortunatley, there are not enough jobs for all the newbies to go work at ameriflight and airnet. I agree with 1,500 hours, but due to the nature of the flying, an ATP might be a stretch for certain jobs. I was very fortunate to fly at a 121 freight company and got hired at 300 hours. With the new minimums, that would have no longer been possible. Personally, I think it was a great experience, and I dont see how flying as a CFI for 2 years before that and doing 9,000 touch and goes in a 172 would have better trained me.
It is very difficult to get 500 hours cross country as a CFI, because most of your flights are local in nature, and very few are x-countrys. It takes a really long time to get that much x-country time as a CFI.
How does one get all that x-country time. People on this forum will certainly say, fly freight, light piston twins, whatever it takes. Unfortunatley, there are not enough jobs for all the newbies to go work at ameriflight and airnet. I agree with 1,500 hours, but due to the nature of the flying, an ATP might be a stretch for certain jobs. I was very fortunate to fly at a 121 freight company and got hired at 300 hours. With the new minimums, that would have no longer been possible. Personally, I think it was a great experience, and I dont see how flying as a CFI for 2 years before that and doing 9,000 touch and goes in a 172 would have better trained me.
07-29-2009 | 02:33 PM
#173
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
While I agree that the bar needs to be greatly raised concerning regional hiring minimums, I have one objection with the ATP certificate requirement for new FO's. If you look at ATP mnimum requirments, you will see 1,500 hours total time, which I greatly agree with. However, you will also notice that you need 500 hours cross country.
It is very difficult to get 500 hours cross country as a CFI, because most of your flights are local in nature, and very few are x-countrys. It takes a really long time to get that much x-country time as a CFI.
How does one get all that x-country time. People on this forum will certainly say, fly freight, light piston twins, whatever it takes. Unfortunatley, there are not enough jobs for all the newbies to go work at ameriflight and airnet. I agree with 1,500 hours, but due to the nature of the flying, an ATP might be a stretch for certain jobs. I was very fortunate to fly at a 121 freight company and got hired at 300 hours. With the new minimums, that would have no longer been possible. Personally, I think it was a great experience, and I dont see how flying as a CFI for 2 years before that and doing 9,000 touch and goes in a 172 would have better trained me.
It is very difficult to get 500 hours cross country as a CFI, because most of your flights are local in nature, and very few are x-countrys. It takes a really long time to get that much x-country time as a CFI.
How does one get all that x-country time. People on this forum will certainly say, fly freight, light piston twins, whatever it takes. Unfortunatley, there are not enough jobs for all the newbies to go work at ameriflight and airnet. I agree with 1,500 hours, but due to the nature of the flying, an ATP might be a stretch for certain jobs. I was very fortunate to fly at a 121 freight company and got hired at 300 hours. With the new minimums, that would have no longer been possible. Personally, I think it was a great experience, and I dont see how flying as a CFI for 2 years before that and doing 9,000 touch and goes in a 172 would have better trained me.
Last edited by Tiger2Flying; 07-29-2009 at 02:36 PM. Reason: Spelling
07-29-2009 | 02:33 PM
#174
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,166
Likes: 0
From: 737 Capt
While I agree that the bar needs to be greatly raised concerning regional hiring minimums, I have one objection with the ATP certificate requirement for new FO's. If you look at ATP mnimum requirments, you will see 1,500 hours total time, which I greatly agree with. However, you will also notice that you need 500 hours cross country.
It is very difficult to get 500 hours cross country as a CFI, because most of your flights are local in nature, and very few are x-countrys. It takes a really long time to get that much x-country time as a CFI.
How does one get all that x-country time. People on this forum will certainly say, fly freight, light piston twins, whatever it takes. Unfortunatley, there are not enough jobs for all the newbies to go work at ameriflight and airnet. I agree with 1,500 hours, but due to the nature of the flying, an ATP might be a stretch for certain jobs. I was very fortunate to fly at a 121 freight company and got hired at 300 hours. With the new minimums, that would have no longer been possible. Personally, I think it was a great experience, and I dont see how flying as a CFI for 2 years before that and doing 9,000 touch and goes in a 172 would have better trained me.
It is very difficult to get 500 hours cross country as a CFI, because most of your flights are local in nature, and very few are x-countrys. It takes a really long time to get that much x-country time as a CFI.
How does one get all that x-country time. People on this forum will certainly say, fly freight, light piston twins, whatever it takes. Unfortunatley, there are not enough jobs for all the newbies to go work at ameriflight and airnet. I agree with 1,500 hours, but due to the nature of the flying, an ATP might be a stretch for certain jobs. I was very fortunate to fly at a 121 freight company and got hired at 300 hours. With the new minimums, that would have no longer been possible. Personally, I think it was a great experience, and I dont see how flying as a CFI for 2 years before that and doing 9,000 touch and goes in a 172 would have better trained me.
07-29-2009 | 02:44 PM
#175
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Here is what ALPA said about that:
Need for Stronger Academic Emphasis
The Joint Aviation Authority (JAA), now the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and FAA pilot licensing requirements are both ICAO-compliant. The single biggest difference between EASA and FAA is knowledge requirements. The FAA theoretical knowledge is simply not as demanding as EASA, which has 14 written exams versus one by the FAA, which is a multiple-choice exam. The EASA exams require the student to be tested for 30-40 hours. By stark contrast, the FAA publishes its exam questions with answers provided so a student can purchase them, study the questions, and pass its single exam. Examination questions are not available for EASA exams in such a manner.
The least demanding Federal Aviation Regulations which govern commercial pilot license requirements (i.e., §61.125 and §61.155) specify the aeronautical knowledge requirements for commercial and airline transport pilot ratings. These rules were written decades ago, when there was no expectation that they would be used as minimum standards to train pilots to take jobs as airline first officers. The requirements emphasize weather and navigation, including interaction with air traffic control. There is some mention of aircraft aerodynamics and human factors, including aeronautical decision making and judgment as well as crew resource management. The regulations allow self-study and many such training courses emphasize passing the test rather than learning the material. We do not feel these requirements are adequate to prepare a professional airline pilot. The ground instruction of these subjects needs to be strengthened with required formal classroom academic instruction and more extensive testing and examination.
The EASA-approved training course for a commercial airline pilot tends to be rather structured and rigorous. FAA should develop and implement a corollary ground school and testing process in FAR Part 121 for all pilots who seek commercial airline careers. Testing akin to the quality of the Certified Public Accountant (CPA) exams or bar exam for attorneys would benefit aviation by serving as a screening tool to ensure that, in the future, only the most knowledgeable and dedicated pilots join the ranks of airline pilots.
http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/pre...-09written.pdf
Need for Stronger Academic Emphasis
The Joint Aviation Authority (JAA), now the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and FAA pilot licensing requirements are both ICAO-compliant. The single biggest difference between EASA and FAA is knowledge requirements. The FAA theoretical knowledge is simply not as demanding as EASA, which has 14 written exams versus one by the FAA, which is a multiple-choice exam. The EASA exams require the student to be tested for 30-40 hours. By stark contrast, the FAA publishes its exam questions with answers provided so a student can purchase them, study the questions, and pass its single exam. Examination questions are not available for EASA exams in such a manner.
The least demanding Federal Aviation Regulations which govern commercial pilot license requirements (i.e., §61.125 and §61.155) specify the aeronautical knowledge requirements for commercial and airline transport pilot ratings. These rules were written decades ago, when there was no expectation that they would be used as minimum standards to train pilots to take jobs as airline first officers. The requirements emphasize weather and navigation, including interaction with air traffic control. There is some mention of aircraft aerodynamics and human factors, including aeronautical decision making and judgment as well as crew resource management. The regulations allow self-study and many such training courses emphasize passing the test rather than learning the material. We do not feel these requirements are adequate to prepare a professional airline pilot. The ground instruction of these subjects needs to be strengthened with required formal classroom academic instruction and more extensive testing and examination.
The EASA-approved training course for a commercial airline pilot tends to be rather structured and rigorous. FAA should develop and implement a corollary ground school and testing process in FAR Part 121 for all pilots who seek commercial airline careers. Testing akin to the quality of the Certified Public Accountant (CPA) exams or bar exam for attorneys would benefit aviation by serving as a screening tool to ensure that, in the future, only the most knowledgeable and dedicated pilots join the ranks of airline pilots.
http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/pre...-09written.pdf
Book knowledge is not the answer here. The European model is flawed at best. Who cares if they have the equivalent of a CPA up front. They have imbiciles with 250 hrs in the right seats of A320's. It is still a fundamental lack of basic stick and rudder and instrument skills.
Tightening supply is a GOOD thing to raising wages. It's too bad this is now happening when the majority of the hiring has happened. There are still plenty of people at major carriers with commercials in the right seat (AA73 for example).
07-29-2009 | 02:46 PM
#176
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,144
Likes: 802
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Hey no worries everyone, in 20 years the computer will be doing the job, management will only have to deal with 1 pilot in the cockpit, and everyone will be complaining on how inexperienced the computers have become...do you all think there will be a time requirement for R2D2?? I would be telling the young ones to screw the ATP minimums and get a degree in aerospace engineering to fix C3PO...
And to the gentlemen/lady who stated 50% of republic pilots will be wiped out...
come on guy really?? I'm astonished at your ignorance...
And to the gentlemen/lady who stated 50% of republic pilots will be wiped out...
come on guy really?? I'm astonished at your ignorance...
The technical challenges to achieving the needed reliability are tremendous, and center mostly around artificial intelligence capable of recognizing and responding to unforeseen events, or multiple system failures.
The problem with going single pilot is that the FAA's fundamental guiding principle on aviation safety is to accept no reduction in safety, period. Any regulatory changes must provide an equivalent or greater level of safety. Since pilots do become incapacitated occasionally, the automation must be at least as reliable (and flexible) as a human being. The flexibility is actually the hard part to achieve.
The DoD is confronting a huge reliablity issue with it's UAS's. It's OK to have low survivability with hand-launched model-airplane UAV's...they are cheap. But they have lost almost half of their predators, mostly to non-combat causes. Predators are real airplanes...they cost millions!
Also the DoD is aggressively pursuing UAS technology for combat and surveillance purposes...but not for any role involving transporting human beings.
07-29-2009 | 03:49 PM
#177
New Hire
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Automation reliable enough to allow single-pilot airliners will not happen in our working lifetimes, and probably not in our lifetimes period.
The technical challenges to achieving the needed reliability are tremendous, and center mostly around artificial intelligence capable of recognizing and responding to unforeseen events, or multiple system failures.
The problem with going single pilot is that the FAA's fundamental guiding principle on aviation safety is to accept no reduction in safety, period. Any regulatory changes must provide an equivalent or greater level of safety. Since pilots do become incapacitated occasionally, the automation must be at least as reliable (and flexible) as a human being. The flexibility is actually the hard part to achieve.
The DoD is confronting a huge reliablity issue with it's UAS's. It's OK to have low survivability with hand-launched model-airplane UAV's...they are cheap. But they have lost almost half of their predators, mostly to non-combat causes. Predators are real airplanes...they cost millions!
Also the DoD is aggressively pursuing UAS technology for combat and surveillance purposes...but not for any role involving transporting human beings.
The technical challenges to achieving the needed reliability are tremendous, and center mostly around artificial intelligence capable of recognizing and responding to unforeseen events, or multiple system failures.
The problem with going single pilot is that the FAA's fundamental guiding principle on aviation safety is to accept no reduction in safety, period. Any regulatory changes must provide an equivalent or greater level of safety. Since pilots do become incapacitated occasionally, the automation must be at least as reliable (and flexible) as a human being. The flexibility is actually the hard part to achieve.
The DoD is confronting a huge reliablity issue with it's UAS's. It's OK to have low survivability with hand-launched model-airplane UAV's...they are cheap. But they have lost almost half of their predators, mostly to non-combat causes. Predators are real airplanes...they cost millions!
Also the DoD is aggressively pursuing UAS technology for combat and surveillance purposes...but not for any role involving transporting human beings.
Ray Kurzweil - Singularity Summit at Stanford
Not to hijack the thread...
But back to the main point, I agree that there should be a total time of 1500 but I just think the whole way the airline profession is set up is the problem starting with seniority. Although I agree that time with the company should reflect QOL, schedule and pay...I disagree with upgrading somebody to captain (assuming they have the minimums) just because they have been there long enough. The ATP should be required but there needs to be an additional standardized test that would weed out those incompetent enough to be a captain.
07-29-2009 | 03:59 PM
#178
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,142
Likes: 4
From: FIRE ALPA
While I agree that the bar needs to be greatly raised concerning regional hiring minimums, I have one objection with the ATP certificate requirement for new FO's. If you look at ATP mnimum requirments, you will see 1,500 hours total time, which I greatly agree with. However, you will also notice that you need 500 hours cross country.
It is very difficult to get 500 hours cross country as a CFI, because most of your flights are local in nature, and very few are x-countrys. It takes a really long time to get that much x-country time as a CFI.
How does one get all that x-country time. People on this forum will certainly say, fly freight, light piston twins, whatever it takes. Unfortunatley, there are not enough jobs for all the newbies to go work at ameriflight and airnet. I agree with 1,500 hours, but due to the nature of the flying, an ATP might be a stretch for certain jobs. I was very fortunate to fly at a 121 freight company and got hired at 300 hours. With the new minimums, that would have no longer been possible. Personally, I think it was a great experience, and I dont see how flying as a CFI for 2 years before that and doing 9,000 touch and goes in a 172 would have better trained me.
It is very difficult to get 500 hours cross country as a CFI, because most of your flights are local in nature, and very few are x-countrys. It takes a really long time to get that much x-country time as a CFI.
How does one get all that x-country time. People on this forum will certainly say, fly freight, light piston twins, whatever it takes. Unfortunatley, there are not enough jobs for all the newbies to go work at ameriflight and airnet. I agree with 1,500 hours, but due to the nature of the flying, an ATP might be a stretch for certain jobs. I was very fortunate to fly at a 121 freight company and got hired at 300 hours. With the new minimums, that would have no longer been possible. Personally, I think it was a great experience, and I dont see how flying as a CFI for 2 years before that and doing 9,000 touch and goes in a 172 would have better trained me.
07-29-2009 | 04:24 PM
#179
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
From: Left Out
I guess my question is the ATP would be required to be hired or would the applicant need to be eligible for the ATP? Going on an ATP check ride in an old Seminole or other comparable light twin does not exactly excite me, nor do I think it will better prepare anyone to fly a turbine powered aircraft.
07-29-2009 | 04:42 PM
#180
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
From: Skeptical
I guess my question is the ATP would be required to be hired or would the applicant need to be eligible for the ATP? Going on an ATP check ride in an old Seminole or other comparable light twin does not exactly excite me, nor do I think it will better prepare anyone to fly a turbine powered aircraft.
Not saying it won't happen, just that this is not a standard practice today.
