House introduces bill on aviation safety

Lisa Treon

7/30/2009
The House Subcommittee on Aviation, chaired by Congressman Jerry F. Costello, introduced a bill yesterday afternoon—the Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009—to improve safety and training practices for the airline industry. The legislation was drafted following recommendations made at several meetings, including a roundtable discussion with the leadership of the nation’s nearly 90,000 frontline union pilots that took place on July 15.
Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., a co-sponsor of the bill, said the bill contains provisions opposed by both labor unions and airlines, “who will probably raise some Cain over this.”
At the roundtable discussion, the Aviation Subcommittee brought up some very serious issues in pilot safety highlighted by recent aviation accidents, including the US Airways Flight 1549 ditching in the Hudson River and the fatal Continental Connection Flight 3407 in Buffalo, N.Y. Attendees included US Airways Flight 1549 Captain Chesley Sullenberger and First Officer Jeffrey Skiles, along with representatives from:

• the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA), representing the US Airways pilots;
• the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations (CAPA);
• the Allied Pilots Association (APA), representing the American Airlines pilots;
• the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; and
• the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA).

Currently, pilots can be hired on a flight deck with an FAA commercial license, which requires 190 flight hours in an approved school or 250 hours from an unapproved school. Conversely, an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) license will require significantly more aeronautical knowledge and 1,500 hours of flight experience. With regional airlines flying sophisticated aircraft in our nation’s busiest airports, pilot leadership was unanimous in its belief that an ATP license should be a minimum requirement for both pilots.
Some of the other key issues addressed by the aviation experts and incorporated into the bill include:

• Requiring the Secretary of Transportation to provide an annual report to Congress on what the agency is doing to address each open NTSB recommendation pertaining to Part 121 air carriers.
• Establishing comprehensive pre-employment screening of prospective pilots, including an assessment of a pilot’s skills, aptitudes, airmanship and suitability for functioning in the airline’s operational environment.
• Creating a pilot records database within 90 days to provide airlines with fast, electronic access to a pilot’s comprehensive record.
• Directing the FAA to update and implement a new pilot flight and duty time rule and fatigue risk management plans within one year to more adequately track scientific research in the field of fatigue. Current FAA rules permit 16-hour workdays for pilots.
• Directing the FAA to develop and implement a plan to establish an Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP), a self-reporting safety system, and a Flight Operational Quality Assurance (FOQA) program for all commercial airlines and their unions.

The bill is H.R. 3371.


--------------------------------------------------------

That's from fltops.com website -- the congressional committee was expecting pushback on the legislation from labor unions and airlines. ALPA has endorsed it:

ALPA News Release

The Senate version of the bill doesn't include the ATP provision:

Senate panel approves air safety measures : City & Region : The Buffalo News

Then the House-Senate conference committee will have to find some common ground on the bill to bring it to a vote on the floors of both the House & Senate.

So we'll see if that provision remains or not after the August recess most likely in September.

My opinion is more experience always enhances safety -- an ATP certificate is the next step in experience level. The question is are we willing to pay for it? I think it's strange that the FAA thinks this will not enhance safety..but ALPA applauds it. We'll see who wins.

I also think a college degree is a good thing for pilots, not necessarily because a particular degree applies to this profession, but because it builds good study habits. Colgan Air leaders acknowledged that the pilots failed to follow procedures for an impending stall in the last few moments of the flight. Maybe if they knew their flight manual better it wouldn't have happened. Maybe if they had more experience it could have been avoided through a better cross-check of instruments.

Right now it's premature to assume the House version of the bill will be the final version.

 

From NoBeta: "A lot of people like to complain...and they have no problem pointing out problems.....

Answer to that is ( What Did You Do About It )

It's one thing to complain and it's another to take action...so my suggestion the next time you fly with what you believe is a pilot lacking skills that you think he should have....you can do something about it...offer advice ..Tell him...hey I know we are busy right now but call me on your day off and I will kick you down some of my experience...tell him to go study such and such chapter in the AIM or what ever you think could help this person...even a person with a lot of experience can make mistakes so do not expect everyone to be perfect...We can all do something about this.....or we sit around and complain..."

What should be done? After all of the publicity… This situation occurred yesterday August 1st. There is a cockpit jump seater from a connection carrier on the redeye from LAX to ATL. Young guy, appears to be younger than the captain’s youngest (25) but age wasn’t addressed nor confirmed. Spikey hair style.

During the course of the flight, jump seater says he is based in ATL, tried living there for a while and didn’t like it. So he moved to Tahoe, which he loves. He woke up on Friday, drove the 70ish miles to Reno. Got a direct Reno to LAX jump seat. He had approximately 1 hour sit in LAX till redeye. After landing in ATL, he says thanks for the ride and great you got me in 5 minutes early cause I only have 30 minutes till sign-in.

Will they never learn? “If we should all do something about this…” what is the something? The teachable moment had passed once he dashed out the door? He isn't employed by airline, but he's flying our passengers around. I know I don't want my family in the seats behind him!

 

An ATP is great to have if someone wants to fly for a 121 carrier, but I think the real concern should be how the 1500 hours were obtained. For instance, if someone has a good mix of CFI, personal flying, and some combo of 135 or 91 flying, that's wonderful.

Having said that, 1200 hours of CFI time may not be the greatest thing either. Most instructing is done with student pilots. Certainly, that improves a CFI's desire to keep himself or herself from dying, but skills can evaporate while sitting in the right seat. Do several hundred hours of pattern work make a person that much more ready for and ATP?

I think we can all agree that a 300 hour pilot is not the most desirable situation for an airline. A 750 hour pilot probably isn't either. A 1000 hours looks a lot better and 1500 looks great, but hard numbers like that don't take into account the quality and mix of flying.

From a business perspective, I wouldn't like the mandatory time requirement as, in certain circumstamces, it cause an artificial shortage of pilots. Still, more hours are always better.

 

From the perspective of someone in a profession that gets continually undercut due to an excess of "qualified" pilots...that's music to my ears!

 

My skills GOT MUCH better sitting in the right seat as a CFI because I was able to sit back and watch MINUTE DETAILS on why they were about to screw up, why there were screwing up, and why they had just screwed up. But I was dedicated to being the BEST CFI I could be.

I think on top of 1500 hours TT they should require 1000 hours PIC. This will keep guys from SIC timebuilding.

Remember this...at 300 hours I had maybe 1 critical decision where I had to think quick, outside the box, and if I failed it would be a crashed plane, or damaged plane, or an FAA violation...at 800 I had maybe 2 critical decisions, and by 1500 hours I had about 4-5 critical decisions.

The more you fly the more you will encounter mechanical irregularities, ice, thunderstorms, odd ATC clearances/mistakes, and other emergenices. So time is the quantitative unit of the likelyhood of how much one has been tested and proven successful. 1500 hours is a huge difference between 300 hours for EVERYONE on an INDIVIDUAL level.

 

Having hours doesn't mean anything if you don't have the knowledge or the competence to go with it.

One could have 1500 hours an be quite ignorant to flight operations. Someone could have 500 hours (with a very good training program), and have huge amounts of SA and experience.

The reality is, in the US, our training programs suck. Any person with some cash can attend crash courses and end up with a ATP at the end of a couple of months.

Listen, not knocking the regional guys here. Many of which are my friends. But in discussing "here we were stories", I've had several comments like "where did you get that training?" or "yeah, my company never taught me that."

Clearly, by their own admission, there's a problem with the training programs. Additionally, this just isn't a civilian or regional problem. Ask a military trained guy whats the FAA minimums for takeoff alternates and/or maximum flight/duty periods. I bet you they probably don't know. The military has a lot different "numbers".

I applaud the suggestion that an ATP should have 1500 hours as a minimum. However, it isn't going to fix anything if we also do not address the lack of education about the profession.

 

I highly doubt that a 1500 hour minimum will so much for overall safety. For one, the airlines will not be hiring people with less than that for a while anyways in the current job market. What would increase safety would be a much better screening process and higher training standards. Just for a moment compare any mainline yearly training to any regionals yearly training. It is night and day. Bottom line is that safety costs money. Regionals are in the business or running as lean as possible, so the first thing that gets the ax is any training over what is specifically required by law.

To increase safety you need more than a min hour requirement. Any idiot can fly around for 1500 hours, but that doesn't make them safe. The interviews need to be hard, and intellectually challenging. Forcing people to make tough decisions using a knowledge base that they will be able to rely upon on the line if hired.

I would rather see the government put minimums of hours of yearly training for the airlines. FO's should hit the SIM every 6 months, just like the CA's. We should all have a training schedule that looks more like the Legacy airlines. Including a couple days of ground school that focus on not only CRM, security, FOQA and regs., but also a number of systems. The SIM should be more robust as well, in addition to the standard single engine approachs and V1 cuts, you should see some scenarios that force a crew to make tough decisions all the way to a final outcome and learn from that expierence.

Force people to either buck up, be highly trained professionals or hit the streets.

 

whats peoples problem with young people or making their hair look decent for women? are you gay? seriously get over peoples image welcome to the 21st century people use ipods and keep their appearances up by not waking up showering and doing nothing with their hair. get real already

 

I think there should be something in that bill that says we can't take lengthy vacations without going back in the sim, because we all know how awesome our "skills" are right after one.

 

Well...not really, but I agree that any idiot can make it through a non-airline training program. Any idiot will get themselves violated, fired, hurt or killed in 1500 hrs if they are making PIC decisions. Unless they are a trust fund baby, no one can "just fly around for 1500 hrs", they need a job that will pay for those hours. They have to follow regs, make decisions, and at least somewhat act like a professional. All traits that make flying 50 people around much more safe.

That said, I do agree with you about training at the airlines because of the reasons you gave. Seems like everyone else so far has just said that training needs to get better in an effort to place blame for the Colgan crash. The way I see what you wrote is that training at the airlines should be an augmentation of previous training and experience.