I agree. Many of those schools must have greased Schumer to water down the proposal. Who came up with this 800 hour number? It would have been so much simpler if politicians just stuck to their guns and required ATP and 1500 hours period for Part 121 flying.

 

I will say that even though the 800 hours is a disappointment, I would argue this does not give the pay-to-play schools a free pass. Flight training has gotten incredibly expensive even to get to 250 hours. Has anyone seen what it costs to rent a 172 lately? To have to pay for 800 hours even if it means splitting it with another CFI is craziness. Add that onto the tight credit for student loans and I doubt you'll be able to find too many takers. I think people will just go back to the old way of working for 135 companies or instructing to get the time.

 

Yeah no kidding. I went out the other day to see how much it would cost me to rent a DA40 and I was blown away by the increase in the hourly rate.

I hope you are right about the prediction but I am skeptical because I have seen so many people with wealthy parents who paid for everything so their kids can go to Embry Riddle, Flight Safety, UND, etc.

I have a feeling in the near future, if it's not already like that, the makeup of US airline pilots will be 20% from prior military and 80% from civilians with wealthy parents. Just like in Europe where it will cost you more than $300/hr to rent a C172.

 

Does anyone have the bill number for this new legislation? I can't find it under the reauthorization bill. What I'm interested in is if it applies to a new commercial, or only part 121. I haven't found an actual source one way or the other.

 

Probably only applies to 121, I don't think they are going to change the requirements for a base commercial. That is already adequate for what it is intended for...traffic watch in a 172 or as a starting point for the CFI certs.

This compromise is actually good news...with all of the special interests involved I was concerned that the whole ATP concept would just get stalled in congress and fade away. This looks like they are serious about getting it done, and compromise was probably the only way.

800 hours is better than 250, especially if there are some other requirements to go with it.

I am wondering if the big flight schools managed to modify the requirements (other than the 1500 hours) to suite their own interests. If advanced aircraft training is required, the big schools might end up being the only way to get it. Smaller schools will not be able to afford or King-air or whatever.

It might be cost prohibitive for many folks to pay for the training if they cannot get a 135 or 91 job which meets the requirement. They may end up having to wait until they get 1200+ hours anyway before they can get into advanced airplanes.

If there are not enough paid opportunities, it might actually create a shortage of entry-level pilots. This might be bad if taken to extremes.

 

i'd agree with this statement. Certainly seems to be alot of pencil whipping going around...We're a nation founded on the trust system, and now the honest lose.

 

This effectively makes me unqualified for the job I once had.

I have 600 or so hours of SIC in RJs, then another 1000 hours PIC at a commuter airline in the northeast. The only thing is, 900 of those 1000 hours at the commuter has been single-pilot. For those keeping count, that puts me at 700 hours of multi-crew experience, and unqualified to sit right seat in an RJ. Don't mind that I've sat there in the ice blowing boots as quick as possible, dug through lines of thunderstorms with a 1970s radar in New England, and hand flown ILSs to 1800 RVR. Apparently that doesn't count for anything.

No, the guy with 800 hours in the right seat of some RJ being supervised by a senior captain is more qualified than 90% of the pilots at my current carrier. If the FAA is looking to keep thousands of 135 pilots with large amounts of real-world PIC experience out of the cockpit of RJs, congratulations, they've done it.

EDIT: By the way guys, I've read and re-read the article, and it appears to me that it's not 800 hours total time...it appears that it's 800 hours of multi-crew experience plus icing experience. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

EDIT 2: Disregard. I finally saw the "some of..." caveat near the end of the article. Got fired up and skimmed that part. I r win at reading comprehenshun. But, my point still stands: What about the pilots who've cut their teeth flying single-pilot freight?

 

Or the pilots who cut their teeth and made their mark in the single seat fighter/attack world? I don't have any experience in a true Multi-crewed aircraft unless instructing to a single seat mentality counts, but I'm sure that I can easily adapt to such an environment. Heck - plenty of others have before me!

No....I personally think this bill ended up going the wrong way. Just requiring an ATP for a P121 carrier position would have been an easy solution in my opinion; but a compromise is a compromise is a compromise.

USMCFLYR

 

Just got married, got laid off from an IT job and now am a cashier at a local store to make ends meet.

 

I like to go against the grain, so can someone tell me what is so wrong about rich parents paying for a child's flight training? Is the implication they aren't as skilled or as committed to the job as someone who had to take out a big loan? Seems to me, it's all about jealousy.

As for the 800 hour compromise, the devil is in the details. Off the top of my head, the requirement for icing basically seems to indicate the government is setting up the 135 world as the feeder system for the regional world. Again, are there enough jobs out there in 135 land to help meet those requirments so airlines, big and small, can remain adequately staffed?

Also, isn't this compromise just setting the 135 world up as the next area for a major problem? Are the members of Congress going to scream and shout about poor training when the inevitable accident occurs with a 600 hour SIC pilot at the controls of a King Air? It certainly seems to me they are sloughing off this problem on the 135 providers because they are used by significantly less passengers.

Now, if the requirements listed in this article are to be rigorously covered in sim training by 121 carriers as opposed to be forced to take place before hiring, that's a different story. Still, I think this compromise is even worse than the ATP rule. At least with the ATP proposal, there was no tinkering with what flight conditions were needed to fly.

Nothing good happens when uninformed members of Congress get involved in a field about which they know nothing. Are there any former airline pilots in the Congress?