nwa757

Going into the Senate next week.

Vote [for] here:
WashingtonWatch.com - S. 1744, The Enhancing Flight Crewmembers' Training
Your vote makes a difference.... and write your Senators!



S. 1744: Enhancing Flight Crewmembers' Training (GovTrack.us)


Before a speaking engagement at the Heathcare Information and Management Systems Society Conference at the Georgia World Congress Center Thursday, Sullenberger endorsed legislation that would encourage regional airlines to hire more experienced pilots. That legislation is scheduled to be introduced as Senate Bill 1744 sometime next week, he said. 'Sully' Calls for Increased Airline Safety - 11Alive.com | WXIA | Atlanta, GA

nwa757

The bill itself:

Read The Bill: S. 1744 - GovTrack.us

S 1744 IS
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1744
To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to prescribe regulations to ensure that all crewmembers on air carriers have proper qualifications and experience, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
October 1, 2009
Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. GILLIBRAND) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
A BILL
To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to prescribe regulations to ensure that all crewmembers on air carriers have proper qualifications and experience, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Enhancing Flight Crewmembers’ Training’.
SEC. 2. REGULATIONS.
(a) In General- The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall prescribe regulations in accordance with this section to require each air carrier that holds a certificate under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (in this section referred to as a ‘part 121 air carrier’), to develop and implement standards and methods for ensuring that crewmembers have proper qualifications and experience to serve as crewmembers.
(b) Minimum Requirements- In prescribing regulations under subsection (a), the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall require--
(1) each applicant for a position as a crewmember on a part 121 air carrier to undergo comprehensive pre-employment screening that includes an assessment of the skills, aptitudes, airmanship, and suitability of the applicant for the position in terms of the ability of the applicant to function effectively in the operational environment of the air carrier; and
(2) by not later than the date that is 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, each crewmember on a part 121 air carrier--
(A) to obtain an airline transport pilot certificate under subpart G of part 61 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations; and
(B) to have appropriate multi-engine aircraft flight experience, as determined by the Administrator.
(c) Time Requirement- The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall--
(1) issue a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to the regulations required under subsection (a) not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) issue a final rule with respect to such regulations not later than 24 months after such date of enactment

deadstick35

They must feel that no ATP is ok for the next 3 years. Or are they saying that the Senate will allow airlines to fly with woefully unqualified/under-qualified (FYI: sarcasm) crews for the next 3 years?

flyingkangaroo

This bill has far reaching effects. I feel that if it passes the career that many of us seek may one day be restored. If it fails then ten years from now the only place to have a reasonable flying career will be overseas. This bill can create the barrier to entry that is so needed in this industry. I mean this sincerely.

Airsupport

I couldn't agree more. A few years ago anyone with 100k could go in and buy this job. This job is for those who love aviation and do what they need to do and make the sacrifices they need to make to obtain it. This is not a job someone should be able to buy their way into. If you want it, if you REALLY want it, you will flight instruct, fly cargo, or whatever it takes to get your 1500 hours. If you are not willing to do that and dont want to put the time and dedication and experiece into it then I dont want you sitting next to me.

Contrail06

A couple things that always **** me off when I hear this.

Sacrifice: 100k in student loans means you make sacrifices to pay that payment every day for 15 years. Considering this job is all about senority and having the right time in the right plane/place to move on, I cant blame those who went this route.

REALLY want it: Everyone I knew was willing to put in the time required and jobs required to get to a regional. At the time however the choice was this: You can go work for a part 135 or a part 121. So are you saying someone with this choice should pick 135 b/c at this point they should know that when they go to the 121 airline, the training department will push them through rather than truely test if they have what it takes to get on the line? If these low time pilots suck as bad as you say they do is it the pilots fault for taking the job offer or the APD that signed him off?

1500 hours is a step in the right direction and given how washington operates its probably the only improvement we will get in the next 25 years.

Airsupport

Not everyone needed to take out a loan. lots of people have parents who got them the money they needed. This job is not all about seniority!! How many times do I need to say it. This job is about safely moving people around the globe. Looking for the easy way in while having 0 experience is not what this job is about.

Obviously they didn't really want it. They wanted the easy way in. Lack of knowledge and experience didn't matter to them. What mattered was the all might seniority number like you pointed out. So instead of taking the time to learn the craft of flying they jumped all the important little steps it takes to become a professional aviator. Also a lot of the guys took out big loans and then once they had a job at the regionals they realized they didn't like it as much as they did when they were learning. Reality hits and they would have found that out had they spent some time working as a pilot instead of being a professional student. There is a big difference.

So why do you think 1500 hours is a step in the right direction?

iPilot

It would keep those people you mentioned from thinking you can get right seat of a jet by just loading up on debt. Maybe some will find the thought of flying boxes or students too high and will go elsewhere with their student loans. However I think the industry has cured the next generation of shiny jet syndrome quite nicely after 3407. Just go look at any flight school and you'll see they do not have the stary eyed students they once did.

Someday there will be a need for pilots once again, however this time we won't be able to fill the seats by sending thousands of kids to school for 6 months and happy with living like college students at the airlines. They'll need to pay for those of us who are professional enough to spend the time to get our ATP.

afterburn81

That's a good question. One that most people overlook. Even the airlines themselves. I was quite disappointed when our management sent out a letter stating they were very opposed to the proposal in process on the 1500 hr rule. Yeah, we all know that you really can't put a number on a truly experienced pilot. But the key we are missing here is that you can put a number on how many hours the average person will realize that they don't want to do this job (pro aviation). It's called washing out. No one has a chance to wash out if they can just pay for a seat in a jet having never earned it. The profession has lost it's value for that reason alone.

When I first started flying, my instructors would say they were getting burned out after giving about 2000hrs of instruction (2200tt). Now you hear instructors saying they are already burned out after 500hrs of instruction given (700tt). And yes I have heard this straight from instructors mouths. Several of them. I think this has something to do with the fact that there was a while there when anyone could get financing and going to school to be a pilot was the "cool" thing to do. Kind of lost it's passion.

Lets face it. If you are burned out after 1000tt, well you shouldn't do the 121 thing. It's just not for you.

So I say start with 1500hrs and a good portion of the "mavericks" and "icemans" will start to realize that this job (flying passengers scheduled) is not for them before they get there. And better yet, before they get to the left seat and are presented with a critical decision. Pull up or let it push?

dh05z28

I agree with the 1500 hr rule. As someone stated earlier, it is a barrier to entry. That would weed out about 50-60% of the students I had during the last hiring boom. It's all about supply and demand.

The flight schools/universities are going to fight this HARD. ERAU and the others have already started lobbying against this. However, in the long run IF this thing passes, HOPEFULLY things will be on the up and up for pilots, and people with a real ambition to be a pilot will shell out the money, do the time, and get the pay they deserve.

One more thing that needs to change is the Commercial curriculum!??? Chandelles. Lazy 8's???? really? I understand that it helps you "master" control of the aircraft and one pilot who can do a Lazy 8 vs. One who can't....blah blah blah. Keep all that crap in there sure. But instrument skills suffer HUGE during this time. I am mostly referring to career students.

When I was instructing I would try to keep my commercial students in the clouds and on approaches whenever I could. I dont know how many people I had to RE-teach holds too or answer questions like "Do I go missed AT the MDA or the MAP????" The commercial curriculum was created when people still flew those types of maneuvers for 25 cents and hour and dressed like my avatar. (TEAM COCO!!!)

I'm not knocking the old timers, but most entry-level jobs involve more hard IFR flying than 8's on pylons. I am also a firm believer that one should experience instructing for at the very least 6 months, if not to make them a better pilot but to value their life a little more.

However, I have been told (haven't looked it up myself of course ) that the regs are changing for the commercial in the fact that the RG time is not going to be required anymore (kinda weird) and that more instrument time WILL be required. Some good steps in the right direction.