|
ANPRM: New 121 Pilot Certification Rqmts.
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...0-02643_PI.pdf
Questions asked by the FAA (who is seeking input) in the ANPRM: 1A. Should the FAA require all pilot crewmembers engaged in part 121 air carrier operations to hold an ATP certificate? Why or why not? 1B. If a part 121 air carrier pilot does not hold an ATP certificate, should he or she nevertheless be required to meet the ATP certificate aeronautical knowledge and experience requirements of § 61.159, even if he or she is serving as SIC? Why or why not? 2A. Are aviation/pilot graduates from accredited aviation university degree programs likely to have a more solid academic knowledge base than other pilots hired for air carrier operations? Why or why not? 2B. Should the FAA consider crediting specific academic study in lieu of flight hour requirements? If so, what kind of academic study should the FAA accept, and to what extent should academic study (e.g., possession of an aviation degree from an accredited four-year aviation program) substitute for flight hours or types of operating experience? 2C. If the FAA were to credit academic study (e.g., possession of an aviation degree from an accredited four-year aviation program and/or completion of specific courses), should the agency still require a minimum number of flight hours for part 121 air carrier operations? Some have suggested that, regardless of academic training, the FAA should require a minimum of 750 hours for a commercial pilot to serve as SIC in part 121 operations. Is this number too high, or too low, and why? 3A. Should the FAA propose a new commercial pilot certificate endorsement that would be required for a pilot to serve as a required pilot in part 121 air carrier operations? Why or why not? 3B. If so, what kinds of specific ground and flight training should the endorsement include? 3C. The FAA expects that a new endorsement would include additional flight hour requirements. At a minimum, the FAA requests comments on how many hours should be required beyond the minimum hours needed to qualify for a commercial pilot certificate. Some have suggested that the FAA require a minimum of 750 hours for a commercial pilot to serve as SIC in part 121 operations. Is this number too high, or too low, and why? 3D. The FAA is considering proposing to require operating experience in a crew environment, in icing conditions, and at high altitude operations. What additional types of operating experience should an endorsement require? 3E. Should the FAA credit academic training (e.g., a university-awarded aviation degree) toward such an endorsement and, if so, how might the credit be awarded against flight time or operating experience? We are especially interested in comments on how to balance credit for academic training against the need for practical operating experience in certain meteorological conditions (e.g., icing), in high-altitude operations, and in the multi-crew environment. 4A. Would a carrier-specific additional authorization on an existing pilot certificate improve the safety of part 121 operations? Why or why not? 4B. Should the authorization apply only to a pilot who holds a commercial certificate, or should it also apply to the holder of an ATP certificate? 4C. Should such an authorization require a minimum number of flight hours? If so, how many hours should be required? 5A. Can existing monitoring, evaluation, information collection requirements, and enforcement associated with pilot performance be modified to improve pilot performance? 5B. If so, what specific modifications should be considered? |
Witch Hunt
Witch Hunt! The FAA is so out of touch they don't even know what questions to ask. Here's a question. If the performance requirements are going to be increased, is the pay going to be increased by federal mandate as well?
|
2A. Are aviation/pilot graduates from accredited aviation university degree programs likely to have a more solid academic knowledge base than other pilots hired for air carrier operations? Why or why not? |
Originally Posted by DashAlmighty
Here's a question. If the performance requirements are going to be increased, is the pay going to be increased by federal mandate as well?
|
When a ANPRM is put out for public comment, who is exactly the audience they are targeting in the public. Are they looking for comment from passengers, airline managements, pilots, senators, etc?
I still don't understand why senators who have no knowledge of Industry weigh so heavily on its outcome. The FAA should be listening to recommendations by the NTSB and the DOT. There are so many document cases in the past 20 years where people have died in aircraft accidents when they could have been avoided had the FAA actually made changes according to the NTSB's recommendations. Comair 3272 would be one of them. I think the FAA needs a complete overhaul. Anymore it is about as worthless as an airline union(association.) The FAA backs down from airline managements more so than ALPA does. It's disgusting! |
credit for specific courses taken...?
They would definitely need to define these required courses. I majored in Aviation Management and one of the classes taken was Aviation Safety. Do you remember what commercial and instrument ground school was like (or the material required for experience)? Yeah, that was what the class was like. Total waste of my time. Some of the kids in the flight side of things had to take systems I believe, which I have no clue what could of been covered. Purdue from what I hear covers the FMS, which I wish I could learn more about.
University and college experience should be taken with a grain of salt and the FAA would need to be more specific on what subject areas they really want to see. If a school has a King Air and allows students to take a class for that, does that make it cool to get rid of hours to fly a CRJ? It could possibly help in the sim or gnd school I guess and reduce the amount of ppl washing out. Lower mins for college completed would help me possibly get a job, but there are a lot of ppl out there I'm sure again that are in the boat with me. |
Originally Posted by DashAlmighty
(Post 758134)
Witch Hunt! The FAA is so out of touch they don't even know what questions to ask. Here's a question. If the performance requirements are going to be increased, is the pay going to be increased by federal mandate as well?
|
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 758334)
Feds set the rules. Feds don't set the pay. The market does. If there is still a mountain-stack of resumes on Colgan's desk there is no need to raise the pay.
We are our own worst enemy in regards to pay. As long as we keep showing up for the turd sandwiches, they will keep serving them. Bon appetit. |
Well hopefully rules like requiring an ATP and having tighter training would help reduce this mountain of resumes. Currently you can run off to Gulfstream and be in an airliner in less than 6 months, presumably. That means any Joe Two-teeth can sign up and be a fancy airline pilot. Not the type of professional college grad the public (and us) want in the front office.
While the gov't can't set artificial pay levels it can set up barriers to entry. They did it back in the day by requiring pilot licenses which was in the name of safety (can't just let anyone hop in an airplane and go for a spin, literally). Nothing wrong with saying that we don't believe 250 hours makes you a good candidate for a job at an airliner or the type of training needs to change. I think the fact that there are too many pilots out there clamoring for these low-end jobs is proof positive that it's WAY too easy to get into this biz. |
Originally Posted by iPilot
(Post 758371)
I think the fact that there are too many pilots out there clamoring for these low-end jobs is proof positive that it's WAY too easy to get into this biz. |
Originally Posted by AirWillie
(Post 758387)
And it will continue to stay that way until the FAA, management and the rest of them realize that this is not a hobby.
What we have to do now is to make sure that when things do improve they can't just get some high school flunkies to take a 6 month course and come in and take the low wages. That's where the ATP thing comes in. If you want to fly and airliner, you need to be a professional and the time and effort required to obtain an ATP should help in that matter. If the FAA has other ideas as far as changing training or certification standards then that's even better. The nice thing about the ATP rule is it's nice and easy to legislate and still goes a long way for our cause. If all goes well Age 65 will run it's course and the demand for pilots will resume. However, this time hopefully the airlines will have to work like every other company hiring professionals and have to pay to compete for the qualified pilot. Not as it has been for the last 10 years or so and have pilots compete for the scarce jobs out there. |
Originally Posted by iPilot
(Post 758371)
Well hopefully rules like requiring an ATP and having tighter training would help reduce this mountain of resumes. Currently you can run off to Gulfstream and be in an airliner in less than 6 months, presumably. That means any Joe Two-teeth can sign up and be a fancy airline pilot. Not the type of professional college grad the public (and us) want in the front office.
While the gov't can't set artificial pay levels it can set up barriers to entry. They did it back in the day by requiring pilot licenses which was in the name of safety (can't just let anyone hop in an airplane and go for a spin, literally). Nothing wrong with saying that we don't believe 250 hours makes you a good candidate for a job at an airliner or the type of training needs to change. I think the fact that there are too many pilots out there clamoring for these low-end jobs is proof positive that it's WAY too easy to get into this biz. |
Testimony today:
YouTube - HouseTransInf's Channel Vote here: WashingtonWatch.com - H.R. 3371, The Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009 Your vote is important, my vote changed the results by 1%...... Transportation and Infrastructure Committee: Press Release :: T&I Subcommittee Reviews Safety Program |
Originally Posted by TurboDog
(Post 758319)
When a ANPRM is put out for public comment, who is exactly the audience they are targeting in the public. Are they looking for comment from passengers, airline managements, pilots, senators, etc?
I still don't understand why senators who have no knowledge of Industry weigh so heavily on its outcome. The FAA should be listening to recommendations by the NTSB and the DOT. There are so many document cases in the past 20 years where people have died in aircraft accidents when they could have been avoided had the FAA actually made changes according to the NTSB's recommendations. Comair 3272 would be one of them. I think the FAA needs a complete overhaul. Anymore it is about as worthless as an airline union(association.) The FAA backs down from airline managements more so than ALPA does. It's disgusting!
Originally Posted by rjboy
(Post 758414)
Absolutely correct. I have been preaching this for 5 years. If we can get an ATP mandated for 121 ops it will be the best thing to happen for pilots in years. Why isn't mighty ALPA shouting that low time pilot's are unsafe from the rooftops? They are too scared of upsetting some of the 700 hour ALPA pilots.
|
Originally Posted by rjboy
(Post 758414)
Absolutely correct. I have been preaching this for 5 years. If we can get an ATP mandated for 121 ops it will be the best thing to happen for pilots in years. Why isn't mighty ALPA shouting that low time pilot's are unsafe from the rooftops? They are too scared of upsetting some of the 700 hour ALPA pilots.
|
Trip7, that is what I was thinking. The military, getting on with foreign carriers,medical jobs, etc. All of them have hurdles, except the regionals.
|
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 758626)
On the other hand we have 700hr or less F-18, F-16 etc pilots defending our country. Which leads to the question, is it the low time pilot that's unsafe? Or the training they went thru? Or maybe even the selection process inadequate?
|
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 758626)
On the other hand we have 700hr or less F-18, F-16 etc pilots defending our country. Which leads to the question, is it the low time pilot that's unsafe? Or the training they went thru? Or maybe even the selection process inadequate?
You also mention selection process. There is only one measurable way to raise the selction process without involving subjective judgment of individual interviewers. Raise the minimums to even apply for Part 121 jobs. ATP should be the bare minimum. The payrate should be adjusted accordingly. |
Originally Posted by Lighteningspeed
(Post 758648)
You are certainly not the first person to make this comparison but that is not a good comparison. In fact there is no comparison. There is a big difference between puddling around in a school C172 or a DA40 single engine airplane at 135 kts for 250 hours and going through intense military flight training in F18s or F16s for 250 hours.
You also mention selection process. There is only one measurable way to raise the selction process without involving subjective judgment of individual interviewers. Raise the minimums to even apply for Part 121 jobs. ATP should be the bare minimum. The payrate should be adjusted accordingly. |
Originally Posted by Lowlevel
(Post 758667)
I agree with the min. time increase (to ATP min.), but my question is, why would pay go up? When I was hired, the minimums at my airline were 1200 TT and 200 multi. The pay scale now is the same as it was then, but in the past year and a half, people were hired at 240 TT. So, if raised back to 1500 TT, the airlines would probably just keep the same pay. After all, we took that pay a few years ago when they wanted 1200 TT.
Payrate will not go up unless airlines are regulated by the government but that is not going to happen. Hiring standard needs to go up. ATP, 1500 hours and documented part 135 or CFI experience and a college degree should be the minimum. |
AT the end of last summer we picked up a few new CFI's. One was very ****ed off that he was instructing instead of at an airline. "In June when I started they told me I'd be flying at a Regional by the end of the summer." This was September and he had about 270 hours.
For him..becoming a pilot was something to do over summer break and in his mind a 60K investment was well worth it to be an airline pilot in 3 short months. Although we all know the truth about the industry..Ive actually heard the same BS marketing still going on. Just last week I heard "Theres no better time to train for an exciting career as an airline pilot!!" at the local pilot-mill. All it takes is a small turn around and you'll see the truth twisted until slots are filled with guys who scoff at anything other than RSD (right seat direct). While ATP is not a cure all for what ails the industry (I'd like to see fatigue addressed) it can help thin the herd of the ZERO to HERO over summer breakers. |
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 758334)
Feds set the rules. Feds don't set the pay. The market does. If there is still a mountain-stack of resumes on Colgan's desk there is no need to raise the pay.
|
Originally Posted by Copperhed51
(Post 758730)
I couldn't disagree with this more. The government preventing us from having any leverage (striking) through the RLA is what maintains low wages. Give this only bit of leverage back to the pilots and you'll see pay increase in no time...especially if a strike could be coordinated between different pilot groups. Just because there are resumes on the desks doesn't mean those pilots are going to be trained and ready to go in enough time to save a company during a pilot strike.
|
At the very least they could end this whole "work under the status quo" for 4-5 years bull.... clearly that's a benefit to the company delay a contract for 4-5 years and generally there's no boost in compensation until it's finalized... aka each year inflation deals you a decreasing paycheck.... every contract needs to have an automatic raise in each year that would at least mitigate feet dragging to achieve cost savings, or maybe the cooling off period could automatically start with the ammendable date...
|
Well if the last hiring spree was any indication, people with ATP qualifications simply weren't applying to regionals. If that's the new minimum the regionals will be forced to attract the talent any means necessary. Think of all the folks working part 135 that could apply, or folks at other regionals. Just like any other business out there, airlines will have to compete to get qualified folks to work for them. That means bringing pay up to something that people would actually want to work for.
A good example is military guys. Back in the day they'd retire from the military to become airline pilots. Now, nobody in their right mind would go to even a major now after a career in the military. Most go now to the corporate world where pay is in line with their expectations. These are the people that airlines will need and should try to attract to fill those positions. Not 250 hour zero-to-heros. Same goes for folks that flew 135 freight, corporate, or basically any type of professional flying prior to flying 121. |
Originally Posted by iPilot
A good example is military guys. Back in the day they'd retire from the military to become airline pilots. Now, nobody in their right mind would go to even a major now after a career in the military. Most go now to the corporate world where pay is in line with their expectations.
|
Well ok poor examples. But anyway the point is very well qualified pilots are not going to the regionals and even some majors because of the low pay. If the airlines are required to hire higher time individuals they'll have to pay well enough to convince these types of pilots to work for them instead of some private jet outfit. Currently the regionals can just take people who have such low time they can't get hired anywhere else, so they can pay accordingly.
|
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 758334)
Feds set the rules. Feds don't set the pay. The market does. If there is still a mountain-stack of resumes on Colgan's desk there is no need to raise the pay.
|
Originally Posted by Copperhed51
(Post 758730)
...The government preventing us from having any leverage (striking) through the RLA is what maintains low wages...
Originally Posted by Copperhed51
(Post 758730)
...especially if a strike could be coordinated between different pilot groups...
|
Originally Posted by SilkySmooth
(Post 759203)
Mainline carriers (through their pilot's scope giveaways) have figured out that having seven different contract carriers will effectively shield them from any strike.:mad:
You really are a dreamer.:rolleyes: Most pilots are capitalistic libertarians. Keep dreaming:) |
Originally Posted by FlyJSH
(Post 759224)
That would be flying struck work. As a union member, you cannot be forced to fly struck work.
|
Originally Posted by SrfNFly227
(Post 759483)
As I understand it, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, only flying that was being done by the striking pilots would be struck work. This means that if Delta operates 7 flights from DTW-ORF and each is by a different company, 6 of those flights would continue to operate after 1 company goes on strike. Those 6 routes are not "struck" work.
At any case 6 will be down to 4 soon as 2 of those, Mesa and Chautauqua will be dropped by DAL soon, according to most people. |
SkyWest will not fly struck work...didn't for Comair, won't next time.
|
Originally Posted by SrfNFly227
(Post 759483)
As I understand it, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, only flying that was being done by the striking pilots would be struck work. This means that if Delta operates 7 flights from DTW-ORF and each is by a different company, 6 of those flights would continue to operate after 1 company goes on strike. Those 6 routes are not "struck" work.
Originally Posted by Lighteningspeed
(Post 759510)
No I think that is incorrect. First of all 3 of those 6 are DAL owned regionals so if one strikes, the other should respect the strike as all 3 are ALPA members. Only one likely to continue to fly will be SkyWest since they are non union. If SkyWest strikes, then the rest of the DCI should respect that also to support SkyWest pilots. Chautauqua pilots are Teamsters members and not ALPA so can't say how they will act.
At any case 6 will be down to 4 soon as 2 of those, Mesa and Chautauqua will be dropped by DAL soon, according to most people. As surf said, if airline X flies DTW-ORD 2 times a day, and Airline Y flies DTW-ORD 2 times a day and goes on strike, airline X continuing to fly their 2 and only 2 DTW-ORD routes is NOT crossing the line. |
It's imperative for our profession to insure that this additional experience gets put in the books. The first time a person is really in command of an airplane should not be at a 121 airline and that 121 airline should not be anyone's first flying job. That's the first step at making professional pilots (professional = being paid) how is someone a professional if they have never had a flying job before. Becoming professional as a pilot is meant for flying smaller planes without a boat load of passengers on board preferably teaching the craft itself for awhile for starters.
FO 121 Airline Minimums = ATP with 1500 hours, previous professional experience as a pilot, and a 4 year degree is what I say. Wages will go up if this happens too. No more 6 month wonder kids. (oh yeah, read speak and understand English too ;-) Lets go a step further and make Captain mins for part 121, 2500 hours and 1000 turbine engine. When regionals weren't hiring anyone with less than 1500 hours anyway there was still a large pool of applicants because the wage and benefit collapse from 911 hadn't happened yet. Now there are way less pilot starts in the country do to the erosion of the profession by airline managements and the supply of qualified pilots under these new rules will be much less. |
Originally Posted by Flaps50
(Post 759677)
It's imperative for our profession to insure that this additional experience gets put in the books. The first time a person is really in command of an airplane should not be at a 121 airline and that 121 airline should not be anyone's first flying job. That's the first step at making professional pilots (professional = being paid) how is someone a professional if they have never had a flying job before. Becoming professional as a pilot is meant for flying smaller planes without a boat load of passengers on board preferably teaching the craft itself for awhile for starters.
FO 121 Airline Minimums = ATP with 1500 hours, previous professional experience as a pilot, and a 4 year degree is what I say. Wages will go up if this happens too. No more 6 month wonder kids. (oh yeah, read speak and understand English too ;-) Lets go a step further and make Captain mins for part 121, 2500 hours and 1000 turbine engine. When regionals weren't hiring anyone with less than 1500 hours anyway there was still a large pool of applicants because the wage and benefit collapse from 911 hadn't happened yet. Now there are way less pilot starts in the country do to the erosion of the profession by airline managements and the supply of qualified pilots under these new rules will be much less. |
Originally Posted by Flaps50
(Post 759677)
FO 121 Airline Minimums = ATP with 1500 hours, previous professional experience as a pilot, and a 4 year degree is what I say. Wages will go up if this happens too. No more 6 month wonder kids. (oh yeah, read speak and understand English too ;-) Lets go a step further and make Captain mins for part 121, 2500 hours and 1000 turbine engine.
Originally Posted by Lighteningspeed
(Post 759681)
Well put. As I've said before, minimum for any part 121 carrier should be ATP, 1500 hours, prior professional flying experience including, CFI, Part 135, Freight etc, and College degree, fluent in the English language, preference to US Citizens.
And I see no justification to giving preference to US citizens (over, say, resident aliens) unless you're going to start requiring airline pilots to have security clearances (and there's no reason to do that). As a side, I wonder what an ATP min for 121 FOs would do to compensation for other sectors of the pilot industry (135, CFIs, ect.). I could see it creating a glut of low time pilots, leaving a larger number of CFIs to compete for potentially less students, driving down CFI pay even further. (for reference, I have a 4 year degree, a security clearance, and am currently applying to regional airlines with less than ATP mins) |
Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB
(Post 759620)
SkyWest will not fly struck work...didn't for Comair, won't next time.
|
Originally Posted by Nevets
(Post 759890)
Honest question, but considering that SKW have turned down three opportunities to unionize, why would it matter to the pilots to fly struck work? It seems as though you want your cake and eat it too. You don't want the stigma of flying struck work yet you also don't want to participate in the brotherhood that reinforces that stigma, so why would it matter to the pilots? I know why your management wouldn't want it, because they know if they can't provide the cake for their pilots to eat, the stigma created by the brotherhood the pilots continue to vote down will be enough for them to vote for it the next time. Seems like some sort of double standard from my perspective.
|
Originally Posted by Blueskies21
(Post 759918)
Probably b/c most of those guys won't be at skywest forever, and most of the majors ARE union of one sort or another. I am curious if they have it in their contract that they don't have to fly struck work, if they actually avoided it before then perhaps they do.... of course I'm not sure how much skywest would be overlapping coverage with comair either...
But they don't have a contract. Their management is just smart enough to not force them into more of an awkward position they are already in. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:35 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands