Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-04-2010, 06:26 PM   #1  
Challenge Accepted Five
Thread Starter
 
BoilerUP's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,833
Default 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:

Quote:
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?

Last edited by rickair7777; 02-05-2010 at 07:33 AM.
BoilerUP is online now  
Old 02-04-2010, 06:43 PM   #2  
Line Holder
 
DashAlmighty's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 49
Default 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?
DashAlmighty is offline  
Old 02-04-2010, 07:41 PM   #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
seafeye's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Hot tub for now
Posts: 1,202
Default

Quote:
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?
Yes because they spent $120,000 for the knowledge. A more expensive school is better.
seafeye is offline  
Old 02-05-2010, 02:52 AM   #4  
Challenge Accepted Five
Thread Starter
 
BoilerUP's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,833
Default

Quote:
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?
You already know the answer to such a question...no, the federal government is NOT going to mandate a pay raise for you.
BoilerUP is online now  
Old 02-05-2010, 05:36 AM   #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TurboDog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177
Default

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!
TurboDog is offline  
Old 02-05-2010, 05:48 AM   #6  
On Reserve Forever
 
point432's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Would you like fries with that gear, sir?
Posts: 248
Default 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.
point432 is offline  
Old 02-05-2010, 06:02 AM   #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Trip7's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DashAlmighty View Post
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?
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.
Trip7 is offline  
Old 02-05-2010, 07:13 AM   #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
iPilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 637
Default

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.
iPilot is offline  
Old 02-05-2010, 07:36 AM   #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
AirWillie's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: MD80
Posts: 1,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iPilot View Post


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.
And it will continue to stay that way until the FAA, management and the rest of them realize that this is not a hobby.
AirWillie is offline  
Old 02-05-2010, 07:47 AM   #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
iPilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 637
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AirWillie View Post
And it will continue to stay that way until the FAA, management and the rest of them realize that this is not a hobby.
Well that or when people stop signing up. I think most of us signed up for this gig with the assumption that we'd be able to make a living flying. I think the word is out now and that's at least one reason why flight schools are so empty versus the last aviation recession (post-9/11).

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.
iPilot is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Part 135 pilot jumpseat on Part 121 or Fedex/UPS? b18onboost Part 135 35 01-10-2021 03:53 PM
Colgan Sunshine Hearing Airsupport Regional 84 02-06-2010 09:38 AM
Acquiring 250 PIC for an ATP Sniper Aviation Law 13 11-15-2009 08:16 PM
Airnet! Longbow64 Part 135 117 07-23-2009 08:46 AM
pic or dual normajean21 Flight Schools and Training 30 10-25-2008 09:06 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:28 AM.