FAA's position on 3371??
12-10-2009 | 04:22 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Fail, I think too many people (pilots) are getting shortsighted because they are just concerned whether this 3371 magic pill is going to be a miracle and get them back to work with more pay asap. In this way a lot of pilots behind this legislation are no different than the lobbies. Addressing Quality and Quantity is the way to go...The FAA has it right this time, they are standing strong and not giving a knee jerk reaction.....
The real FAIL is you thinking that the "training" the FAA has planned will be anything other than a $200 endorsement flight worth less than the plastic it's typed on.
12-10-2009 | 04:33 PM
#12
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,154
Likes: 0
From: none ya...
I disagree with you. I think we should give the process a chance. I think what he said made a lot of sense and many other pilots agree also. Im sure this will split pilots down the middle, but anyone thinking that 1500 hours would have magically prevented 3407 is not paying attention. For the 3rd time we need Quality and Quantity, not knee jerk reactions.....that is not to say that even though I disagree with your opinion that I dont understand your skepticism.
12-10-2009 | 04:39 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
I disagree with you. I think we should give the process a chance. I think what he said made a lot of sense and many other pilots agree also. Im sure this will split pilots down the middle, but anyone thinking that 1500 hours would have magically prevented 3407 is not paying attention. For the 3rd time we need Quality and Quantity, not knee jerk reactions.....that is not to say that even though I disagree with your opinion that I dont understand your skepticism.
12-10-2009 | 04:47 PM
#14
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,154
Likes: 0
From: none ya...
While I agree that quality IS more important than quantity overall, you're right, my skepticism with the FAA is what makes me angry about this. Do I think the 1500 hour thing was a band-aid fix? Yes, probably. From a pilot perspective do I like the POTENTIAL for pay increases, yes. BUT I simply do not think that the government agency that makes the written test questions and answers available to all would do anything more than cover up an issue like this with a silly endorsement on a certificate or in a log book such as the high-altitude and high-performance endorsements.
I may end up eating my foot, and you may be right (I hope not for the industry sake), but I guess I really want to see the process run its course and actually work this time. I might be nieve, but I hope that standards will tighten for training, along with some more defined entrance requirements. I am ok, with 800, 1000, 1200, 1500 or whatever they come up with as long as they address quality and it stays the same despite industry ebbs and flows. No more 1500 this year, 300 next year followed by 700 the next one. This is what causes inconsistantcy in quality of training.
12-10-2009 | 05:02 PM
#15
Moderator
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,080
Likes: 42
I think this will only help places like ATP and Pan am academy and gulfstream PFT.
Places like that will simply add a 1 day ground school to include icing, unusual attitudes and crm and they will be the saviors of our profession.
I dont like that idea. I think the FAA is ALMOST onto something. 1500 TT AND require training in areas of special interest.
Places like that will simply add a 1 day ground school to include icing, unusual attitudes and crm and they will be the saviors of our profession.
I dont like that idea. I think the FAA is ALMOST onto something. 1500 TT AND require training in areas of special interest.
12-10-2009 | 05:33 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
From: N/A
A good start would be:
Revamping AQP requirements and then requiring it for all 121 carriers.
I think this has been talked about in the aviation subcommittee hearings before, but I think that might be what Babbit is talking about.
Revamping AQP requirements and then requiring it for all 121 carriers.
I think this has been talked about in the aviation subcommittee hearings before, but I think that might be what Babbit is talking about.
12-10-2009 | 07:50 PM
#17
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
From: B757
The final version had an exemption for Part 141 schools that are accredited with the Aviation Accreditation Board International I believe. The 1500 hours will not apply or there will be an exemption because of that clause....
Aviation Accreditation Board International
Aviation Accreditation Board International
12-11-2009 | 09:08 AM
#18
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
From: Banker....UGH!
Cfi Time?
I may end up eating my foot, and you may be right (I hope not for the industry sake), but I guess I really want to see the process run its course and actually work this time. I might be nieve, but I hope that standards will tighten for training, along with some more defined entrance requirements. I am ok, with 800, 1000, 1200, 1500 or whatever they come up with as long as they address quality and it stays the same despite industry ebbs and flows. No more 1500 this year, 300 next year followed by 700 the next one. This is what causes inconsistantcy in quality of training.
What about the CFI that has 2000 hours dual given flying little rotten johnny around the pattern to learn how to land? Does this equate to quality time? Did the thousands of hours save the passengers on American Airlines flight that crashed in Cali Colombia? One person isn't the reason and don't empower government to steal our ability to fly and earn a living. This hourly requirement is for the birds. Situational Awareness and professionalism is the key and anyone can fly the buttons, but it takes more than a monkey to stay situationally on top things.
12-11-2009 | 10:24 AM
#19
New Hire
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
I just stumbled forum on this while looking up more news on the bill. I'll admit I'm a low time pilot that hasn't even gotten his commercial yet, so I'm not going to argue on what a set experience requirement should be. I just know I'm skeptical about what will be accomplished when this is brought about by and incident involving a captain with 3,379 hours and first officer with 2,220. Both were well over the proposed requirements and the captain had his ATP. However, poor training was mentioned in a Wall Street Journal article back in May.
Would a 1,500 hour rule help prevent future incidents? I couldn't say for sure. I just know that in the incident that has sparked the bill, it wouldn't. Proper training likely would have.
Would a 1,500 hour rule help prevent future incidents? I couldn't say for sure. I just know that in the incident that has sparked the bill, it wouldn't. Proper training likely would have.
12-11-2009 | 11:14 AM
#20
2 days off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,853
Likes: 0
From: Embraer Systems Analyst
I disagree with you. I think we should give the process a chance. I think what he said made a lot of sense and many other pilots agree also. Im sure this will split pilots down the middle, but anyone thinking that 1500 hours would have magically prevented 3407 is not paying attention. For the 3rd time we need Quality and Quantity, not knee jerk reactions.....that is not to say that even though I disagree with your opinion that I dont understand your skepticism.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
