Deal made on hours of training for co-pilots
 

By Jerry Zremski
NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF
Updated: March 13, 2010, 6:44 am / 2 comments
Published: March 13, 2010, 12:30 am


WASHINGTON — Senators have reached a compromise to dramatically increase the number of flight hours new commercial copilots need to get a license, though the figure falls short of what the group Families of Continental Flight 3407 was seeking.
Under a deal brokered by Sen. Charles E. Schumer and announced Friday, new co-pilots would have to have 800 hours of flight experience in specific, rigorous conditions, up from the current 250 hours of general experience.



Deal made on hours of training for co-pilots : The Tragedy of Flight 3407 : The Buffalo News

I wonder whether 'multi-pilot' would require a plane that actually requires two pilots on its type certificate, or can two guys just hop in a C-152? One will log instrument and the other PIC, of course. :D Most flight schools are in places where the weather is great, so there's no icing. Anyone ever heard of an aircraft certified for known icing typically used in civilian training? This will be interesting if it actually passes.

Will the high priced flight schools get a carve out? I hope not. Good ground instruction is worthless if not practically applied.

Sounds like this bill will improve the experience of the average new pilot significantly if it passes in its proposed form - thank you families of 3407.

I've spent my entire career trying hard to AVIOD icing conditions and I do not have much experience flying in icing conditions either, so am I not qualified to sit right seat in an airliner either then? This seems strange overall, but I guess not so much in light of what event is helping push this bill. Personally, I think it falls short (the 800 hours), but then again compromise is the name of the game.

USMCFLYR

I haven't been convinced the ATP shouldn't be a requirement. Of course, my faith in congress is exceeded only by my faith in the FAA - if you know what I mean. Aren't they the same idiots who are contemplating monitoring CVRs for punitive measures? Air Transport aircraft should require an Airline Transport Pilot certificate, seem sort of obvious. Spare me the shrill cries from the Riddle grads...

Deleted... thanks

The law of unintended consequences will undoubtedly come into effect here. When, in a few years, the regional airlines need to hire in significant numbers there will be very, very few pilots with the requisite experience.

What could this mean? Foreign pilots being imported en masse to operate US equipment.

Don't think this can't happen? It happens all over the world.

They should just make it 1500TT. Unfortunately I know flight schools in Central Florida (and the students that go there) that are not only pencil whipping but also 'selling' pencil whipped hours. Very unfortunate and makes me very angry after I know that I (and the general pilot populous) have worked quite hard to get their hours legitimately.

I don't understand this argument. Why would foreign pilots want to work in the US, where we have the worst work rules and pay in the world for pilots? We ARE the third world labor in the aviation world.

Hi!

They'll get the foreign pilots from Africa...oh wait, there is a shortage, so no.
They'll get the foreign pilots from the Middle East...oh wait, there is a shortage, so no.
They'll get the foreign pilots from Asia...oh wait, there is a shortage, so no.
They'll get the foreign pilots from S./Central America...oh wait, there is shortage, so no.
They'll get the foreign pilots from Antarctica???
Europe is even importing experienced pilots, and the T&Cs there are way better than the US, so I don't see that happening.

Alien pilot training on Mars will provide the pilots???

cliff
NBO

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?

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. :confused:

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? :rolleyes: 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?

Well, at least you can't reasonably fly 800 hours in 3 months, and no bank (in this new economic environment) is going to sign loans for that kind of money, and granted, rich kids will be more likely to rent their way to 800, but if every 250 costs at least 50 grand (guesstimate for the run'o'the'mill pilot mill), then 150+K and feeding/housing the kids will make anyone that makes less than a million a year think twice.

When Sen. Wellstone's plane crashed that was that 135 king air into icing with a seasoned crew. does anyone know if anything happened with 135 after that?

I didn't know anything about this mishap. Eerie what they had to say about the crew's proficiency and aflying ability.
Paul Wellstone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (paragraph titled Death)

USMCFLYR

This is the sort of thing we get when congress gets involved. If the term "multipilot environment" means experience in multipilot airplanes, I agree this would be great for the pay for training outfits; there simply are not enough ways to get that experience outside of that, by far most 135s are single-pilot.

What probably will end up happening is schools like ATP and the colleges will get some kind of certification for training in a multi-pilot environment with light twins.

The only way this could be good is if the airlines would have to pay for some kind of specialized training program, but we know that is not going to happen.

Or it will push the "low paying" 15/hour jobs down to a Cape Air type environment (Cape Air=Good Company don't get me wrong here), but that's where someone should be starting, right seat of a light twin (402 to 1900 type airplane) with someone vastly more experienced in the left seat to show them the ropes.

Well, I dunno about you, but if I've got 1000+ hours single-pilot in Twin Cessnas, Barons, BE99s, etc., I'm not going to go fly right seat in a King Air just to "gain experience" before applying to a regional for $20,000/year.

At that point, I'd be much more apt to tell regionals to go stuff it if they don't want me bringing that experience to the table. Their loss.

Yep, if you can't get into the right seat of an RJ after flying F-18s (not that you would), well then, this industry is really screwed up.

Agreed 100% there. While the right seat of a 402 isn't the best place to be, the guys who do that for a few months upgrade and start building real PIC experience without a dispatch department to hold their hand. The only issue beyond that is, well, it's mostly single-pilot once you get your ATP and hit the line. How are regionals going to look at that from now on?

Diver Driver, Congratulations on your marriage.

Sorry to hear about your IT job. Let's hope the economy will start to turn around soon.

This 800 hour thing is just putting lipstick on a pig IMO. The regional airlines will just hire 800 hour pilots and add a couple sims to the beginning of the training process that fulfill the multicrew/Icing requirement on the books then enter the candidate into the normal training process a week later. No change and business as usual, just an 800 hour wonder instead of a 300 hour wonder. Remember back in the 90's you still needed 1500+- to even be looked at so we are still well below what it used to be.

Personally I still believe that the ATP minimum requirement would be the best way to go instead of all this eyewash with 800 plus this and that documented training. Anyone can write something into a training folder, but what has the kid really done professionally prior to getting that first jet job is what is important IMO. The ATP would show that better.

Just remember folks, bills in Congress don't get passed because they make sense. They get passed to further the careers of the lawmakers. This is being done to pacify the public who know little about the subject. They know that by the time any significant hiring will need to take place they can and will quietly make subtle changes to this long after it is out of the public eye.