Agreed, some of these proposals are some of the dumbest ideas and concepts I have ever heard, but then again I wouldn't expect anything else from Washington these days. The rationale for these rules, with regard to icing, is ridiculous.

Basically, this rule will entice newly-minted, freshly-certified commercial pilots to fly into icing conditions prior to applying at a regional airline. I'm not sure what metric the FAA will use to determine an individual's particular background and experience level with icing conditions, but it'll be interesting to see what they come out with. I guess we need to start adding an column for icing in our logbooks as well now.

End of the day, icing had very little/nothing to do with this crash, so it seems amiss to try and tap in new regulation for a "unrelated factor" contributing to the crash.

It comes down to substandard treatment, compensation, and work rules which need to be addressed at the federal level. The fact that pilots, regional ones especially, operate hundreds of thousands of flights every year safely while giving and committing so much only to get back so little in return.

Washington expects and regulates towards nothing less than perfection from the pilots in this country, yet the politicians will not even attempt to understand or commiserate with the hardships many pilots are dealt with.

If only, we as American Citizens, held our Elected Public Servants to the same Professional Standards that we act upon day in and day out, if only.

You will just start to see a lot of falsified log books regarding icing conditions.

This new rule is a wet dream for places like Gulfstream Academy or any other operation offering a "pay-to-play" right seat program.

I can already see the ads...

"Get 200 hours of multi-pilot flying at Crappy Airlines to meet the FAAs new multi-pilot requirement for only $30,000."

:mad:

Where is everyone getting these icing conditions rules? What are the specifics?

Well, this proposal is better than nothing. I had a feeling that the airlines were lobbying hard against a 1,500 hour requirement, but with the specific experience and training required in those 800 hours hopefully should weed out a lot of folks. I am afraid though, that a lot of pencil whipping will occur when this passes.

I thought the ATP rule was overkill, but I never imagined they could come up with something so stupid as this idea. This places an unfair burden on pilots to fly marginally crappy airplanes in potentially deadly weather conditions. (Sorry for making a political point, but anything Chuck Schumer comes up with is a horrible idea.)

What is the practical application of this idea? Does this lunatic proposal apply to the general application for a commercial liscene? If so, there will never be another issued. Does this mean you can't become a CFI until you gotten a commercial at 800 hours? If so, general aviation flight training is all but dead.

How does this affect those of us not with an airline, but with far more time than 800 hours. I have 1300 hours, 200 mutli, and 150 hours of actual instrument. Does this mean I will have to wait for terrible weather that includes icing and then go fly in it?

I've been a loud opponent of the ATP rule, but given the choice, I would rather see the ATP rule. The law of unintended consequences is alive and well any time the government gets involved.

These requirements would only apply to part 121 pilots.

135 flying would allow you to safely fly in icing conditions. Right seat in a King Air, do what it takes. If you want it bad enough, you'll find a way to get it. The days of 250 hours direct to the right seat are rightfully over.

Just so you know, I am not and was never an advocate of 250 hours direct to the right seat. Still, I think these types of government forced regulations place a terribly unfair burden on the airlines and those choosing to make piloting a career. My sense is this is just another in a series of moves designed to strangle general aviation and make airline flying the domain of military pilots.

It's true that 135 offers aircraft capable of flying in icing, but how realistic is it that these jobs will be available? There aren't that many right now and I doubt many will spring up because of this. When you consider the shadiness of some 135 operators and the requirements insurance providers place on some, I just don't see how it will work effectively and not cause a major pilot shortage.

That's just my view and I know other will disagree with me.

too bad the colgan crew did not have 800 hrs.
too bad the sim did not count as rigorous training.
too bad congress thinks they have the knowledge to deal with anything more serious than a hangnail.
too bad we will not do a national strike over DeMint(ed) proposed legislation re CR/FDR's.

+1. I agree.

BTW, what are you doing lately since your furlough, Diver Driver?