ANPRM: New 121 Pilot Certification Rqmts.
02-04-2010, 06:26 PM
#1
The NeverEnding Story
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,501
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:
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?
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.
02-04-2010, 06:43 PM
#2
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 49
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?
02-04-2010, 07:41 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Hot tub for now
Posts: 1,203
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?
air carrier operations? Why or why not?
02-05-2010, 02:52 AM
#4
The NeverEnding Story
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,501
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?
02-05-2010, 05:36 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,197
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!
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!
02-05-2010, 05:48 AM
#6
On Reserve Forever
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Would you like fries with that gear, sir?
Posts: 270
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.
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.
02-05-2010, 06:02 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,409
Originally Posted by DashAlmighty
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?
02-05-2010, 07:13 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 638
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.
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.
02-05-2010, 07:36 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: MD80
Posts: 1,111
Originally Posted by iPilot
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.
02-05-2010, 07:47 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 638
Originally Posted by AirWillie
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
