im confused. is the pilot gonna need just the 1500 hours and then the airline will train them for the ATP or is the pilot gonna need all of the requirements in the regs for the ATP and then the airline will train them for the ATP or does the pilot need the ATP multi to get at least an interview with an airline??

Would be interesting if they put in a mandate stating that the only way you could fly for a US part 121 carrier was to obtain your training from a 2 or 4 year Associates or Bachelors degree or come through the military. Might sound kind of out there, but really it's not. To fly a Jet in the military you MUST have a 4 year degree. Why should it be any different for part 121?

because in the military your school and flying hours are getting paid by tax payers on the civil world....different world my friend....I had to go on debt to get my 4 years degree and flight training.

and I have to get a job out of school to pay back doing whatever (most of the time not flying related jobs)...military they have a job coming out of the academy with a check in hand

I would expect that the airlines would require the applicant to posses the certificate for and interview. Just like now you must posses a commercial certificate to be interviewed.

The military does NOT require that you have a four-year degree to fly airplanes. They require that you have the degree to be a commissioned officer. As it turns out the services which fly jets use commissioned officers but that is not a legal requirement. There are many army pilots who do not have degrees.

I agree that airline pilots should have degrees, but I'm not sure that it should be legislated.

And it is ridiculous to require graduation from an aviation degree program. Many of those do not have particularly high standards at all...if you can pay, you can fly! Even the military does not require that you go to any particular college...but they will dis-enroll you from flight training if you screw up more than once or twice.

I didn't know that a 4yr degree could have prevented the crash! :rolleyes: How does my 4yr degree in computer science going to help me become a qualified pilot?

"I have to say that a pilot with 1500 hours of flying from XXX to YYY and isn't materially any more valuable to an airline than one who's done it for 500. There's only so much you can learn in a CRJ or Embraer."

You will get from the experience what you put into it. If you choose to be a $#!tty instructor, you aren't going to learn a darn thing while doing it. By your logic, everyone should be ready for upgrade with 500 in type - are you ready to defend 800 hour Part 121 PIC's?

Experience is not only measured in hours, but also years. You learn things flying day in, day out over a sustained period of time that you will draw on for the rest of your career. Not discounting hour, but if you could build 1500 hours in a summer (not possible I realize), do you think you'd be ready for the left seat having never de-iced or operated in icing conditions? I realize that most SE trainers don't deal with the previous two problems, but what about analyzing if you can conduct an IFR training flight in a non-known icing aircraft in the midwest in January? Would you learn anything from that exercise? Would you be developing judgement? Would you be evaluating options and alternatives if you were to go? Do I need to continue?

It will help you, especially when you get into modern turbine powered airplanes...which are all computerized and menu driven.

I guess, but if any of the computers fail in flight, we have a checklist for that. Maybe even a memory item down the line. A degree will not save me from a crash

I'm a huge believer in highly structured, mission oriented training programs like Lufthansa's direct entry program or those used by the US military. Every flight is specifically designed to train, evaluate, and provide experience that closely simulates what those pilots will experience on a daily basis. The academics are of a much higher caliber and far more comprehensive than the jokes that are the ATP written (or Inst., Commercial Pilot, CFI, etc.). In this sort of program candidates are ready to be co-pilots on day number one, regardless of actual flight hours.

I'm less impressed with a totally arbitrary 1500 hour requirement as some sort of litmus for ATP's and regional/major carrier employment. The 1500 hours most CFI's scrape up are of varying utility, and certainly not standardized in any fashion. Pilots get flying wherever and whenever they can, which is fine, but hardly structured or supervised. The "crew concept", checklist discipline, use of high performance aircraft and jets/simulators, exposure to truly high density airports and operations, formal recurrent training, etc. etc. are all going to vary very, very widely.

1500 hours is a blunt instrument that tells a carrier almost nothing. Why not 1000? Why not 2000? Why not 10,000?

It does have the "advantage" of being easy to legislate and costs the airlines and the FAA nothing, which is why it will pass.

Personally, I'd rather see a formula that takes the type of training history into account and formalize minimum hiring requirements on that basis . . . not unlike the JAA, which has something like 14 pretty difficult exams plus sim rides to get fully checked out. Coupled that with a mentoring program mandating new airline hires fly with a highly expereinced captain and you'd actually improve safety. This will never, happen, of course.

Sigh...

This BS question again? Seriously? If you don't have one, get one. If you have one and you still have to ask, you should have paid more attention.

Wow! I just heard about this 1500hr minimum on the news. I wonder what the long term affects will be if this gets into law? Personally, I think it will cause a pilot shortage because there will be a lot of competition for the low time guys with fewer options, so a lot of them will quit in frustration. It might be good for the 1500+ guys as the employers will have to pay more to attract pilots from a smaller pool.

Sorry I didn't mean to come across as thinking I was too good to be a CFI. I'm instructing right now and I have several hundred hours of dual given already (most of it from before my regional job and subsequent furlough). I was just stating a fact that I would need to get a couple hundred more to get to the ATP mins or else possibly lose my recall rights. I'm not sure if I'll get there before this bill gets passed given the state of the economy, but that's life.

Gotcha. Keep plugging away. They will pile up fast. Sorry about the furlough. It's a shame what they are doing to you ASA guys. Keep positive...get the hours and let's hope for a quick recall for all of you.

Yep, pilot shortages are good !

Low supply and High demand helps increase attractive compensation.

Could we lose recall rights?

I'd be interested in hearing that as well. Kind of stinks that I would easily be over 1500 hours if I hadn't been furloughed. Someone a few numbers higher will have had over a year of "endangering the public" by flying their last 500 hours as an FO to qualify under the proposed rules.

However, before anyone happily jumps on me with their "pull up the ladder behind them" mentality, I support this nonetheless.

On just an opinion, I seriously doubt it. I know, on one hand, the airlines would love to just hit the reset button on those furloughed that don't meet the new requirements because the new guys will be cheaper.

On the other hand, I don't see any possiblity that they won't, AT THE VERY LEAST, let you keep your number and let you come back when you have the time.

Personally, I'm seeing grandfathering language that will protect most (ie. if you currently have 500hrs or more as SIC in type before a certain date.)

So what are the few like myself supposed to do? I will be a senior this fall in college, I currently have 1900TT 350Multi, CFI and part 135 current. I will not be 23 until I am a year and a half out of school. I will graduate when I'm 21 and 1/2. So for all my hard work teaching since I was a freshman, I will not be able to be hired for a year and a half after I graduate?

I wouldn't be to worried about it. You will be at least 23 before there will be any substantial hiring in the 121 world.

So just out of curiosity, if this were to pass, what happens to the furloughed pilots that don't meet these requirements. Does this mean they need to meet them to be recalled, or, since they've already been hired, they are grandfathered in?

That is an EXCELLENT point!!! Let's hope it truly happens!!!:D Then not only would we have better qualified pilots in the cockpits, but we would also have better rest requirements and better pay!!!! All the things we have all been asking for for years!!!

/warning: wild guess from someone in the same position as you

If I had to make a prediction right now, of what would happen if this passed as proposed...it would be that all existing 121 pilots get grandfathered in, furloughed pilots have to meet the new rules, and whether or not you can keep your seniority varies from company to company.

For all purposes, you and I are unemployed. We do not work at our respective airlines in any capacity. All we have is a contractual promise of a recall before additional new hires. That means as much to the government as our deadhead pay, or callout times (i.e. nothing).

Unless the government is lobbied specifically to ADD grandfather clause for furloughed pilots (and all the folks who were hired at 500 hours but have since broken 1500 will ***** and moan to ALPA that it's not worth the time), it's back to CFI'ing for us.

Of course, this assumes it even passes as proposed. The RAA can publicly say they support it, and lobby to the opposite.

And despite this, I still would support the rule. As inconvenient as it would be. Although I do think true ATP mins (not just 1500 hours) is a little bit more than is needed to address their concerns.

Folks, pay is not going to change based on the 1500/ATP proposal. As long as American carriers compete on cost, pay is going to be what it is. That's just the way it works here. In Europe, airlines compete based on service. I'm all for that happening here, but the paying public isn't going to like the big ticket increases associated with that.

Make the 1500/ATP proposal the goal, but give airlines discretion when economic conditions warrent. That may be where this ends up. I like the higher times, but arbitrary numbers can have unintended consequences.

Here is what ALPA said about that:

Airline Training Programs

Most airlines, which include many of the major or “legacy” carriers and the larger, “mature,” regional airlines, do an outstanding job of hiring and training pilots. They normally require significant flight experience including substantial amounts of multi-engine and turbojet time. However, some smaller regional airlines which may have very thin profit margins due to the economics of the contract between them and their major airline, have traditionally not offered compensation packages which enable them to hire experienced pilots. As a result, they must often employ pilots with little experience and bare minimum qualifications who are willing to take these low-paying positions in exchange for an opportunity to build experience so that they can move to a career airline. ALPA has prepared a white paper on improving future airline pilot performance which discusses training, hiring, and mentoring airline pilots which we would be pleased to make available to the committee.

Some airline training programs, including those at mature regional airlines, are extensive and exceed the regulatory minimums. When pilot experience at the new-hire level dropped severely below 1,000 hours, or less than a year’s worth of total flight experience, these airlines wisely extended their training process and doubled the initial operating experience (IOE) program requirement for these pilots. However, this cannot be said for all airlines.
Economic pressures push some airlines to train to the minimum requirements set by regulations. These minimums were established decades ago and were based on pilots coming into the airlines with much more experience than many pilots have today. Experience allows pilots to broaden their approach to problem solving and decision-making above the technical proficiency needed to fly the aircraft. It allows for the recognition of outside patterns and trends that develop during the course of routine flights and permits crewmembers to accomplish tasks specific to their cockpit position as well as be aware of the tasks being performed by other crewmembers.

Experienced pilots tend to identify more pertinent clues and generate more alternatives in problem solving and decision making than inexperienced pilots ALPA believes the licensing and training methodologies used successfully in the past may not work where airline pilots entering airline operations do not have the background or experience that previous generations of incoming airline pilots possessed. In meeting this challenge, the airlines and other training providers must develop methodologies to “train experience” that in the past was acquired in the traditional maturation and progression to becoming an airline pilot. This training should include extensive and detailed academic courses of learning taught in classrooms by well-qualified instructors.

Screening

Few, if any, airlines tailor their training programs based on their new hires’ past flying experience. The airline industry has seen significant changes – some of which involve pilot demographics – that have not been reflected in our training practices. For example, there are considerably fewer former military pilots in the airline ranks than in years past. The military services extensively screen their candidates, who are generally required to have a four-year college degree, before being accepted into pilot training. Once accepted, military training provides intense and rigorous classroom academic instruction as well as in-depth flight instruction that takes over one year. Additionally, pilots today coming from non-military backgrounds often do not have the challenging experience of their predecessors on which to build – e.g. flying corporate, night freight, or flight instructing - before being hired at entry-level, or regional air carriers. These demographic changes require a new focus on standardization and professionalism training and even some fundamental flying skills. The previous training programs based on the assumption of more experienced pilot candidates will not be sufficient; “one-size-fits-all” training is ill suited to the task.

The financial commitment of training and the historical time commitment to build experience to qualify to be hired by an airline through the civilian route and the considerable time and sacrifices needed to serve in the military acted as a screening process to eliminate those only marginally interested in becoming an airline pilot. However, with new pilots being hired with as little as 200 hours total flight time (much of which could have been in a simulator) and fewer military pilots seeking airline jobs, this de facto screening process that helped ensure only the highest performing people make it to the airlines is no longer effective. Today, many regional airlines do nothing to discourage their experienced pilots from quitting so as to hire lower-paid replacements.

Flight experience and pilot capabilities cannot be measured by mere flight hours. Airlines used to have an extensive screening process that included psychology tests, academic knowledge tests, simulator flying skill evaluations and medical conditioning exams. As the number of pilot applicants declines and airlines become more desperate to fill the positions, these screening processes have been reduced and some elements completely eliminated.

Airlines need to reestablish thorough screening processes, or their equivalent, to ensure that the applicants they hire will be able to maintain an equivalent or better level of safety, professionalism and performance than their predecessors. Flight schools need to implement extensive screening processes for students pursuing a professional pilot career. Regulators need to provide the oversight to ensure that these screening tools are implemented effectively by the airlines and flight training organizations, as well as modify pilot qualification regulations to include much more rigorous education and testing requirements in order to provide a screening process that begins prior to initial pilot certification and continues at the airlines.

Command and Leadership Training

The FAA does not currently require command training for pilots who upgrade to captain. The agency does require that an applicant for an airline transport pilot certificate have knowledge of aeronautical decision making and judgment, as well as crew resource management, to include crew communication and coordination. We do not consider these requirements to rise to the level of command training. The difference between the two approaches is a focus on knowing what to do versus knowing how to do it. Training in decision making, for example, might emphasize all the things that a pilot must investigate in order to make a sound decision, but might not provide strategies for how to stick to that good decision in the face of pressure from outside entities to compromise.

The role of captain includes far more than the ability to fly the aircraft from the left seat and perform the checklists. Some airlines have courses for teaching prospective captains how to lead a crew, exercise command authority, take charge of a situation, and so forth, all of which are critical safety skills that must be learned. They are not simply inherent to being the one “in charge.” Specific training should include emphasis on setting the tone for compliance by adhering to standardized procedures. Other topics that should be trained include reinforcing the skills, aptitude, and character necessary to lead fellow crewmembers (informally or otherwise) in compliance with procedures.

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.

Mentoring Programs

In addition to promoting professional conduct among crewmembers, at least one airline whose pilots ALPA represents has a detailed, structured, pilot-mentoring program. This program provides a wide variety of resources and benefits to new-hire crewmembers as they become acquainted with their airline and becoming an airline pilot. The program pairs experienced line pilots with new hire pilots in an effort to answer many of the frequently asked questions, such as bidding, jump seat travel, vacation, etc., from new hires. Pilot mentors also assist new hires as they transition from the training environment to flying the line, and throughout their first, probationary year. There is also another aspect of the program that assigns a senior captain or check airman to newly upgraded captains once they are online and out on their own. This greatly assists new captains as they become accustomed to requirements for command.

Continued on next post
|
|
V

And here is a summary of some of what is in the new bill:

Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training Task Force

Establishes a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Task Force that will identify aviation industry best practices regarding: pilot training, pilot professional standards, and inter-carrier information sharing, mentoring and other safety-related practices.

The Task Force shall report to Congress every 180 days on air carrier progress implementing best practices, and make recommendations for legislative and regulatory action.

Implementation of National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendations

Requires FAA to ensure that pilots are trained on stall recovery, upset recovery, and that airlines provide remedial training.

Mandates the FAA to convene a multidisciplinary panel on pilot training for stick pusher operations, and then take action to implement the recommendations of the panel.

Requires 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.

Pilot Qualifications, Screening, Mentoring & Professional Development:

Requires airline pilots to hold an FAA Airline Transport Pilot license (1,500 minimum flight hours required).

Establishes 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.

Requires airlines to: establish pilot mentoring programs whereby highly experienced pilots will mentor junior pilots; create Pilot Professional Development Committees; modify training programs to accommodate new-hire pilots with different levels and types of flight experience; and provide leadership and command training to pilots in command (including complying with the “sterile cockpit rule”).

Airline Training Hour Requirements

Studies the best methods and optimal time needed in airline training programs for pilots to master necessary aircraft systems, maneuvers, and procedures; the length of time between training events including recurrent training; and the best methods to reliably evaluate mastery of systems, maneuvers and procedures.

I think there needs to be some changes but an ATP mins to be hired could be more dangerous. It would now allow a CFI to apply, become an FO, and upgrade just a short time later if their seniority allows it. I know a lot of FOs at Mesa that had the seniority to become a captain but not the hours; It forced them to get more experience before they became a captain.

Scary scenairo: A CFI from sunny AZ, get hired 121 in the spring, upgrade to captain in just a few months and then is a captain in ice and other situations they had never experienced. Not a good situation and excatly what is intended to avoid but didn't. This won't happen now but in a few years when the 65ers are leaving, there will be a lot of movement and places like Great Lakes had 6 month upgrades in 2007.

spoken like a guy with about 500 hours!

Just someone who knows that quantity is not always quality. I just think that the mins should be raised for hiring, so should upgrading to captain.

I do agree with you except on this point, under union CBA I believe the airline contractually has to hold that spot and seniority for you. But then again they have a nasty habit of breaking CBA's. It is through no fault that the rules changed midstream, so yes we might have to go back and earn more time. But I think there is a good argument for a grandfathering, nobody requesting it should be at 300 hrs anymore.

.

being recalled is basically being rehired in a predetermined order and given some longevity (i.e. 2nd year pay) because you really have no seniority (no job) on furlough. Semantics.

From a low time hire (lower than my airlines mins) due to hard work put into networking while I could have been logging hundreds or thousands of hours flight instructing, and a furloughed pilot, this is a very hard pill to swallow. I agree 100% that there needs to be changes in the industry and support anything that could lead to those changes. I often said while still working that if mainline were to man up and take back their flying I would not complain for a second about losing my job if needs be. However, as a furloughed pilot I have applied for every opportunity and not even seen an instructor job available to me. My airline at the time of furlough said to us that we didn't even need to remain current to retain our recall rights. I have found it unfortunately necessary to find work away from flying to maintain a livable lifestyle. If they reneg on their promise that flight time and currency is not required for recall it will be devestating to me as I am not close to ATP mins due to time spent on reserve with little flying.

I have had this thought as well. Aside from the lack of will to implement such a program, I see at least a few of other problems:

1) Depending on how you define "highly experienced," a number of airlines might have difficulty scraping up enough captains to meet that criteria.

2) Again, given the recent circumstances, exactly how do we define "highly experienced?" Total time, years flying 121, time on type, check airman, some combination of all of the above?

3) I still think one gains a lot of good experience from both PIC time (be it CFI'ing, 135, or 91). Such a program pretty much eliminates that experience.

4) I also believe one gains experience (call it seasoning) from working as a pilot for a longer chronological period, particularly when it comes to dealing with weather (even more so when you are the PIC).

It certainly appears that Lufthansa's program is successful for them, but could such a program really work in the US, given the way incompetent managements have scuttled many of the carriers, mainline flying has been outsourced, ect?

Personally, I'd like to see a combination of both - some sort of requirement for more useful knowledge (rather than how many flight attendants, fire extinguishers, and megaphones are required) for the ATP written, perhaps even a board type exam. I would like to see the overall barrier to entry to the career raised, which would also help to reduce the glut of pilots which depresses compensation. Make the career a true profession, and insist we be appropriately compensated.

By doing so, you will improve the quality of pilots in the cockpit, in turn improve safety.

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.

Here is the bill
 

H.R.3371
Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...1dITbcW:e1162:

L I B!

(Well, I'll Be!!!)

I honestly haven't yet read ALPA's paper on this. I encouraged to see that they and I are on the same page for a change. I'll have to read the rest of this. Thanks!

It's not their white paper. Its their testimony in congress. Here is the rest of it.

http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/pre...-09written.pdf

http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/pre...-09written.pdf

Just finished hearing it on the webcast. No one voted against it, motion agreed to, on to the house...