FAA's position on 3371??
 

Suprised this hasnt been posted......is this something else entirely. What is your take? I know babbit was in front of subcomitee today correct???



FAA won't back training requirements pushed by Flight 3407 families : Home: The Buffalo News

I thought they had already made up their minds on the 1500 hour rule.

It's nice to hear that Babbit gets it though. It's not just about number of hours, and that a focus should be placed more on quality and quantity of training.

Really, from what I took Babbit just throw us and our profession under the bus to keep getting running us over and over again. The House and Senate want to get some change but the head of the FAA said "change, why change?"

I don't think hes "getting" it at all. I think it sounds like a lot more blabble without actually doing or changing anything. All they're talking about is making checkrides harder, they're not increasing experience requirements or forcing the airlines to provide higher quality training.

Sure people say hours don't matter, but thats when you don't have hours. Pilots with 200-300 hours, who have spent the majority of their flying career under the watchful eyes of an instructor, are simply not experienced. They haven't been out there and handled unforeseen problems, they haven't scared themselves in weather, they haven't had to make PIC decisions.

Regional airline captains shouldn't be having FOs remark things like "That was the first approach I've ever done in actual IMC!". A lot of people say 1500 hours of putting around in a Cessna are worthless, but I'll take any 1500 Cessna flying flight instructor over a 300 hour wonder any day. Those 1500 hours do an extraordinary amount to make you a better pilot. A 200 hour pilot, unless operating under a training and selection process like found in the military or Europe, simply does not belong in the cockpit of an airliner. period.

I have a great idea, if our training can be improved so greatly as the FAA says, why not do that AND require experience? Oh wait, money is whats important here, not safety. Silly me.


So once again, the FAA is giving into airlines. Instead of making a hard experience rule that will shut down no-experience pilot puppy mills and put actual real pilots with some experience and ability in cockpits, he's just blowing sunshine up our rears. Its sounding more and more like nothing is going to change and thats really unfortunate.

While I am not sure I understand how blackbird said it, I agree that Babbitt just bent us over. It has nothing to do with your so called "Quality over quantity" training, and everything to do with him falling for those lobbyist dollars. The airlines sent some goons to Washington and Babbitt punked out, plain and simple.

I tend to agree. Hopefully in Washington they will address the bigger issues of quality and quantity. Sadly the families, and the public, believe that 1500 hrs is some majic number that makes a pilot incapable of having an accident, and it is proven by the reaction of some of the families.

so he wants icing and stick shaker recognition endorsements? well that training will take about an hour. i see no real change coming out of this bill. the only thing it will do is cause more paperwork to fill out and this bill will be watered down to the point where no real training or knowledge will be gained. both an increase in the quality of training and quantity of flight time is needed to grow safety in aviation.

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.....

Here Mr. I hate the regionals/commuters from way back has the golden opportunity and the position /power to make some real difference in the industry and what does he do? he punts it!! Complete sell out.

Interesting.

Maybe the FAA did some due diligence and realized that low time pilots aren't causing all the incidents/accidents out there that most pilots here seem to think? Nice to hear they're not doing the knee-jerk reaction, if that is in fact the case.

Besides, the idea that there's a statistically significant amount of pilots with <1500 hours out there flying the line (or screwing up) is largely a myth.

"Babbitt argued that basing training requirements merely on the basis of flight hours was not the best way to guarantee that pilots are adequately trained."

I think he's right. Good for him. Besides, his mandate is aviation safety and aviation promotion, not increasing pilot pay.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Cfi Time?
 

:cool: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.

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.

I completely agree with you, the sim training is barely enough to check the boxes. 1500 would not have prevented this. The fo had 1700 as a CFI and 2500 total time and she helped the airplane become unrecoverable by raising the flaps.

It's not so much low-time FO's that are a problem, it's former low-time FO's who upgrade too quickly without a wide enough experience base. Airline pilots are trained to operate in class B environments, ie spoon-fed. But most regionals end up actually operating in General Aviation territory at small, sometimes uncontrolled airports.
Of course you need good training too, but you need an experience base before you can properly apply the training. What we do still has too many variables and complexities to try to apply book-learning to every situation without knowledge of what's really going on out there. Anything less than 1000 hours is ludicrous, those of us who got hired at 1500-2500 hours still had a lot to learn about airlines but at least we had some aviation experience to build when we arrived...

Get real. Nobody who has the slightest clue about aviation thinks that bottom-feeder FO pay is not a safety problem...

- Can't afford to live in base => forced commute => fatigue risk
- Can't afford to live period => second job => fatigue risk
- Lifestyle Stress => fatigue risk

Sure, some Americans live in their cars and work three minimum wage jobs but nobody ever said that's a healthy lifestyle.

I don't know what the answer to this problem is, but I strongly feel mandating a fixed amount of time is not the answer. As I've said before, I'm not arguing for low time hires. I'm just don't like setting a number in stone that can be gamed by crafty people.

I don't think anyone can accurately pick a number that equates to true safety. Personally, I know my skills and overall competency improved greatly as I passed the 1000 hour mark. Did it happen the moment I hit 1000 hours? Of course not, but I noticed that things seemed to operate far more smoothly. For others, it may have been 750 hours or 1250 hours.

I have a background that's a little different from many of those seeking a regional job. I earned a degree in both finance and economics. I learned to fly after college in a 141 school. I built the majority of my time flying solo and have racked up some where close to 125 hours of IMC. I have some instructing time as well, but only in the area of 200 hours.

I noticed someone said the House bill carried an exemption for those who trained at an accredited 141 school. That seems fair, but, sorry to say this, what about my experience shouldn't allow an exemption. I'm not whining about this, I'm just usuing it as an example. As it is, I'm not to far from 1500 anyway (1250 TT).

Having read so many comments about this topic in the last few months, it seems many favor this bill because they believe it will increase pay. I'm sorry, but I don't see any connection between the two ideas. Higher time requirements are not going to force airlines to pay higher wages. That's a pipedream.

Just read what he had to say and myself I completely agree with the view the FAA takes on this.

Take a military pilot who just left the navy with 1000 hours in an F-18 vs. some kid who has 2000 hours flying circles over his farm in a C-152.

2000 hour kiddo gets hired while the Navy pilot does not because he doesn't meet the magical 1500 number.

This is an extreme example obviously but you get the point.

It is obvious to me. Quality not quantity.

I hope you don't get an inexperienced , fresh out of law school counsler arguing your death penalty case. Get my drift?

I keep reading about quality time and not quantity..... Where are the low time pilots going to gain this quality time? The idea is for individuals to obtain an ATP license prior to flying for a 121 carrier, what is wrong with this. Setting minimum standards is a big piece of the puzzle. It is not the entire fix but it is a start.

While one can argue that 2000 hours riding along as an instructor doesn't make you a good pilot it does make you more experienced than a 300 hour pilot doing the same thing. I have had the opportunity to fly with, instruct, and check out both low and high time pilots, that being said hours do make a difference.

The same places they always have. First instructing, towing banners, lifting jumpers, then moving on to a 135 gig.

But that is soooo hard and un-livin'-the-dream.

Experience no longer required.

Here's a Idea for the " Quality over Quantity " crowd

why not do away with the ATP and make it so you can go directly to the left seat with 250 hours and that high quality training ?

I'm not sure what your instructor, school or parents told you, but at 250 hours, your nuts haven't even dropped yet.

If it's not about quantity then why not take it a step further and do away with 135 mins as well? :D Absolutely ridiculous.

I agree with you one hundred percent.

For those that dont know me I was a very lo time pilot. I think you mistook what ive been saying. I'm not going to say what the number should be, I dont know. If its 800 fine, 1500 fine, but lets lose the inconsistency, one number (whatever it is) across the boards, not changing every year. Lets focus on the real issue which is training accountability..Anyone who thinks 1500hrs would have prevented 3407 isnt paying attention.

What I don't understand is this quality vs. quantity argument...if Babbit argues that this is all about the training; why do we have minimums for Private, commercial, ATP etc certificates. Why did the FAA at one time believe it was necessary for an ATP applicant to have all those hours for the certificate? What is magical about 1500 hours?

Sounds to me the lobbyists took some guys out for steak, lobster and strippers.

I agree with you there. The FAA is heavily influenced by the ATA and airline management, so it does not surprise me that Babbitt is taking this position since ATP requirement will cost airlines. However, it does not really matter what Babbitt thinks or wants because the Senate and the House majority will pass this requirement due to overwhelming support for this measure from the public. No politician will risk incurring the wrath of public opinion if they want to stay in office. All the more reason for people to write to their congressmen and senators to pass this requirement.

Actually, he made a comment suggesting the current ATP requirements may betoo little since they are short on icing ops, high altitude ops, crm, and one or two other things.

No opinion, just clarifying.

As pilots we are, above all, practical folks who prefer binary solution sets as opposed to loosey-goosey, touchy-feely solutions. Either something is, or it isn't. We are procedural by nature and like well-defined steps that lead to outcomes with as little surprise as possible. That said, when confronted with issues that have no easy answer (3371, Afghanistan, health care, recession) we are once again reduced to dithering debaters.

There is no easy solution to this question. All of us arrived in our seats through varying paths of experience; to apply a government band-aid mandating x-amount of experience or torturous checkrides, etc. is nothing more than knee-jerk BS for political expediency and to provide eye-wash for the lay public (think Patriot Act, TSA, DHS). This should be all our worst nightmare! Historically, the mass hiring of 300 hour wonders has been, thankfully, rare; it is a statistical rarity driven by unusually rapid growth. There is no need for government-mandated minimums. I don't think we'll see that kind of need again for quite some time. Try to find more than one economist who thinks that we will be roaring back into prosperity and full employment anytime soon, with a corresponding demand in air travel.

My point? Let the FAA, untouched by congressional goons, run the airlines. Yes, our training can always be better. Yes, a few bad apples will always slip through the cracks; they are part of every organization and should be promoted to chief pilot or some other position that involves as little flying as possible :) You cannot legislate bad pilots out of existence. They will always be around, no matter how much you punish the rest of us.

You are naive to think the FAA is an impartial government agency and that if we only left it alone they will get the job done. The FAA is heavily controlled by the ATA and airline management. Airlines are not "run" by the FAA. It is the other way around. The FAA has been in bed with the airline management since the very beginning. It is for this reason why it is going to take both the House and Senate majority to force the FAA to make any changes necessary for public safety.

Minimum standard for airline flying has to start somewhere. ATP std is not too much to ask and easier to measure than highly subjective definition of quality, which differs depending on who you are asking. Besides. Quality does not come without experience.

Ok lets not get melodramatic here, and by the way, any reason you couldnt post that statment under your real handle. Why sign up a new account to make such a off the wall statement...Sorry but people who hide behind keyboards, I tend to not pay much mind too..

Believe it or not it's my first time posting, I'm normally just a lurker, but had to get in on this one.

if the captain becomes incapacitated and the FO now becomes the Captain why should that pilot not have the same experience it takes to get into the left seat, did the brochure leave out the part that you may actually have to assume control ? ?


I have been in the right seat of a regoinal and trust me when I say " there is a world of difference in responsibility " I will go as far as saying you are coddled in the right seat and when you upgrade with no other experience you may change your tune about quality VS quantity

LOL and it shouldn't be the quantity of my posts you judge me by, but the training I received prior to posting

Post something of substance (sorry first one was pure melodrama) and then I'll gladly look at the quality of your post, rather than the quantity. ;)

wrap your mind around this :

you may as an FO be called upon to act as PIC in the event the PIC becomes incapacitated, since you would be called upon to this, then why should you not have the minimum requirements that a captain has ?

I understand the low time guy may have the flows and procedures down and can even pass a checkride to the same standards as an ATP, go thru a couple emergencies and some approaches to minimums with a real live miss in the ice and snow and then come back and tell me how well the simulator prepared you for that.

and I will also state you might be sitting in the right seat get warm fuzzy feelings as you're gaining all this experience, but when you move to the left seat you will understand its a different ballgame