I really don't know how this thread turned into Riddle bashing... There are several aviation colleges in the US. I truly disagree that a pilot who has had four years of college training in aviation is a bad product. What makes ANY PILOT a bad product is low hours. 141 schools put out a commercial pilot around 190-200 hours. This bill will make it so a pilot needs to get significantly more experience before moving on to an airline.

Even if the hours are lowered for university aviation programs it will not be to 500 hours, my guess is 1000-1250. Also this bill puts significant incentive on a college education which isn't required by regional airlines. I truly believe that this bill will provide some serious education requirements that didn't exist in the industry before. No longer will ATP type schools be able to provide there fast track programs to put people in the cockpit in 6 months. The impending pilot shortage may actually be a shortage because people will not be able to enter the career in a few months.

 

I bet the ATP flight schools have their own lobbyists and congressional allies who are going to work to get the zero to hero schools exempt too as the bill passes through the senate.

The ATPs, Delta Connection Academies, etc. will not go down with out a fight. These places are the worst offenders because they can crank students out in 90 days with 250 hours ensuring there can never be a pilot shortage. The universities gaining exempt status isn't the best thing but the curriculum is probably better there than at a place like Jet U and it does take 4 years to get through a program.

Someone else in another thread proposed a required 1000-1200 flight hours at a university program with an advanced jet training (sim rides, LOFTs, jet systems training, etc.) I think that would be a fair substitute for the last 300-500 hours to reach 121 ATP minimums. I think an individual with 1000-1200 hours and advanced jet training would be better prepared for the airlines than the person who does 1500 hours of touch and gos in a 172 at the local FBO. What we don't want anymore is 250 hour zero to hero pilots able to qualify for regionals anymore. We'll have to wait for any possible changes the senate makes but as it stands now the 250 hour kids are out. That is a victory we can all be happy about.

Unfortunately I think the mom and pop FBOs are going to ultimately get screwed and that this will close the profession off to all but the rich or the kids willing to go 150K in debt.


On a side note I think ALPA should encourage universities (they might do this already, I have no idea) to teach courses about labor vs. management relations or at the very least hand out information to students to teach them how to research airlines and find the better regionals. Teach them about stuff like duty rigs, work rules, etc. so that they don't fall prey to the Mesas and GoJets of the industry.

 

Hours are just numbers. What is 1500 hours of instructing in 152's compared to 500 hours of flying cancelled checks in a Baron?

 

Well, it's certainly a step in the right direction.

However, I am willing to bet that for each hour spent in a degree program at a FAA approved school, they are going to count that as 250 'flight' hours.

4 year degree + your actual flight time will magically equal 1,500 and an ATP.

That loophole needs to be closed.

 

So I'm just putting this out there to see what people say.

What about a requirement for a first-time 121 CA position to have a minimum requirement?

Everybody keeps talking about raising experience. And most people say the best experience they got was at their first transport category aircraft gig. Alot of focus with this bill is looking at first officers but I think raising the CA's experience would be more valuable than limiting entry to the cockpit. Perhaps in order to upgrade for the first time, the pilot must have 2000hrs in type. Once you upgrade for the first time, this limitation is removed.

For example. Pilot A has been employed as an FO in aircraft XYZ and has 2000hrs. He changes companies but still flies the same type for an additional 1000hrs. He now has 3000hrs in type and is ready to upgrade. Now pilot A has 3000hrs in the actual aircraft he is to Captain. I would think he has enough experience to pass his experience on down to the FO's trying for the same goal.

 

I personally think this is a bad idea for a number of reasons. Remember, there are plenty of people with time in excess of 2000 hours who can barely raise and lower the landing gear correctly, so hours is just a number. Experience, competence, and quantity of flight time do not necessarily correlate directly with one another.

Technically, there are already minimum requirements to upgrade. Aside from passing the check ride, IOE, and a company line check, the new 121 captain must also be observed by the FAA if this is his/her first 121 command position.

 

There's a larger issue, and that's preventing the company from arbitrarily handing out bonuses to certain groups of employees. How would you feel if your company handed out a bonus check to all the turboprop FOs because their job is much harder than that of any other pilot?

It's really the same for newhires. I don't have a problem with increasing first year pay, but I want it to be in the contract. If we allowed them to pay bonuses, they would only pay the bonus when they need pilots bad, and not when they are hiring just for attrition.

 

Well, doesn't the ATP still require a pilot to be of 23 yrs of age? That should stop the immediate graduates from going straight to an airline even w/ a loophole.

Anyway, I agree the loophole is straight up messed up. At least the bill came into play and it does restrict things somehow... I hope they can change some of the bill for the better.

 

The reason for the loophole:

There was a study done by the Accreditation board of University Aviation Programs.

It profiled a major airline and compared those who graduated from *ACCREDITED* University aviation programs vs. non-accredited, private 61 flight schools, and the pilot factories, (gulfstream, DCA, etc.)

It showed that the job performance and success at the major airline level showed a high correlation between which type of training you received. At the top, Accredited programs. At the bottom, Pilot mills. Can't read too much into it, because it needs to be replicated.

In addition, both pilots in the 3407 crash were from the pilot mills. I think the university loophole is more a way to discourage the fast track, instead of promoting the schools.

Yes it's only one study, but so far it is convincing evidence that success is correlated to graduating from an accredited program.

 

I don't care how many "studies" are done, there is no direct correlation between success and graduating from an "accredited" aviation program.

One of my best friends at work is at his second major airline (by choice) and has nothing more than a high school diploma. If success is directly correlated to an aviation university, then how do you explain it when someone has no college, thousands of hours, multiple type ratings, and an income in excess of $150K/year as a first officer??