FAA Reauthorization Bill
 

With all the focus on Health Care, seems the FAA Re-Authorisation Bill got passed by the senate yesterday.... With the focus on Nextgen, some word on FAA rewriting the fatigue rules, plus the 800 hrs experience req. for 121 first officers.

The Associated Press: Bill aims to speed up air traffic system overhaul

so when would it have to be implemented by airlines then??

Honestly they'll be talking about NextGen when even the youngest person on APC retires. What's wrong with radar anyway? WWII-era equipment? So are florecent bulbs and WD-40 but you don't see them going out of fashion any time soon.

It's the biggest red herring in the history of the world. What a better way to blame overcrowding of NYC's airspace, lack of qualified controllers, and not enough runways than some pie-in-the-sky technology that is way out of our price-range? I can't wait for all this new stuff to be implemented and STILL be stuck at JFK for hours in the conga line.

I'm curious to see what the bill will look like when it comes out of joint committee. The hour’s requirement may go up some with a meet in the middle deal.

Hopefully. 800 is neither here nor there and the icing condition rule is odd. May as well make it a year or two of 135 experience to fly 121.

I thought the 800 hours WAS the meeting in the middle... between 250 and 1500. As I understood if the FAA doesn't set standards for the 800 hours then it automatically becomes atp with 1500 hrs in a year.

The problem with radar is it is larger, heavy, has large moving parts, and uses a lot of power. This means it's expensive to buy, maintain, repair, upgrade, and replace.

For national security reasons, they probably won't get rid of it entirely but it might spend a lot of time turned off (saving wear, tear, and energy).

The advantages of new system includes direct routing for most flights, with associated time and fuel savings.

We can go direct now with RNAV/GPS but are not usually allowed to because that does not always provide ATC with adequate traffic de-confliction, which is done manually by controllers making decisions. The new system would automate de-confliction, with the onboard aircraft avionics making some decisions.

This will save a ton of money. Can the FAA implement it within a reasonable timeframe and budget? Will congress fund it adequately? I dunno.

Is this all that was mentioned on the topic of fatigue? Once again doing nothing?


Section 306 -
Directs the FAA Administrator to: (1) conclude arrangements with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for a study of pilot fatigue; and (2) study flight attendant fatigue, acting through the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI). Authorizes appropriations.

I agree but what good is direct with reduced lateral separation if there aren’t enough runways and gates to accommodate the traffic? If you have 2 RWY’s and can only receive 2 a/c every 2 minutes, then after being given direct we’ll just end up in a holding pattern thus negating our time and fuel savings.

The bill does allow $8B for airport improvements but that won’t help SFO get a second RWY to support Parallel ILS’s to mins……………….it will help them build a new terminal, update Eq, etc. but what good is that if you’re still restricted on giving and receiving a/c?

This is the congressional bill.

The FAA has a draft rule which should be released soon which is supposed to have significant changes to duty/rest.

It's confusing but the are two separate processes occurring in parrallel, a bill in congress and an FAA regulatory rulemaking. The FAA kind of does their own thing, but congress can always override their rules with a law (which is what the 800 hour law would do).

I suspect that if the FAA blows off duty/rest, congress will legislate something instead. The FAA (and the airlines, and maybe evn us pilots) would rather the FAA do it than congress...too many details to screw up.

HR 3371 was the bill that has passed the house in October. It requires the ATP within 3 years.
H.R. 3371: Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)
Its counterpart in the Senate is S 1744 that also requres an ATP within 3 years. It was introduced by Chuck Schumer last October and is in committee.
S. 1744: Enhancing Flight Crewmembers' Training (GovTrack.us)
Now the House has an Reauthorization bill as well
Read The Bill: H.R. 4853 - GovTrack.us
This is passed the House and is awaiting a Senate vote.

I cannot find the actual Senate bill that all of the articles refer to as passed. If anyone has read the Senate bill post it please.

All of these bill must be the same when they come out of both house and Senate before they land on the Prez's desk

Back when i was in school there was a study i read that pilots with 800 - 1000 hrs were considerably more dangerous than other groups. Trying to dig it up but i'm on the road. I think it was relating to getting a lil experience and then over confidence sets in. If i remember correctly it was in relation to single pilot operations (not entirely valid here because of 135 IFR PIC req.) but nonetheless....

That's why the 800hr comment.

Oh and Dashdriver, Glad your keeping track! Its all a bit of a mess.

trying to keep track...

elephants and asses confuse the masses

Yeah--one would think they would at least bump it up to 135 IFR PIC requirements...I've always wondered about that one actually--if a CA becomes incapacitated, theoretically wouldn't you want the FO having the same experience required to fly 135 solo, since he/she is technically a 121 PIC at that point???

You'd think so, but these days most everyone making the rules has little to no industry experience, has no real concept of what the real issues holding the industry back are nor has little original thought and gumption to act in any way that could be considered to better the collective good of the profession.

Thanks for straightening me out. I knew there was a reason I'm not in government. I can't keep it all straight.

If that wasn't all clear as mud, here is another one for ya'll.
Is the FAA Reauthorization bill a "Revenue" bill? If so, It MUST originate in the House. Article I Section 7 US Constitution. I'm thinking this parallel bill process wont work because it was attached to a revenue bill. Paying for the FAA.

This is just getting confusing now. So many numbers being thrown around. I have the 800TT but not the 1500TT. Do I still have the 3yrs to get the 1500TT. Pretty hard right now considering I'm on furlough.

That's true, It was somewhere around 500-800 hours. That's why a lot of us prefer 1500.

But the context is very important, and the context is general aviation...

ASSUMING that the pilot is doing typical GA (ie flight instruction)...

He starts out nervous. After 100 hours or so he starts to feel like he's getting a handle on things. After a few students pass their checkrides, he feels pretty kick back.

By 600 hours, he's starting to get bored...he's done most or all ratings more than once and it's turning into groundhog day.

But after another 800 hours odds are good that he will have seriously scared himself (or been scared by a student) more than once.

Or he will know someone who died...I think essentially all of us who instructed to 1500+ hours can say that. I still have a copy of the local newspaper...the entire front page is taken up by a photo of an airplane falling out of the sky in flames. That N-number is in my logbook.

But an 800 hour pilot who transitions to airlines should get his complacency clock reset, at least for a while, as he drinks from the 121 firehouse.

Actually those OTHER requirements (icing, etc) will probably mean that most pilots will need 135 time...so they will get 1200 hours in GA, then another 300+ in 135 before they can even apply to 121. Effectively, it might as well be an ATP requirement. Might even be better...a 135 pilot is going to better prepared than a 1500 hour CFI.

Although I remember from my training that the SECOND period of hig risk was the approx. 1500 hour mark ;)

This is true. The studies I have seen have always been military related. Complacency was the most commonly stated reasons.

Also - in my past community those times related to periods where a pilot would have completed a series of qualification and you are put out a little more on your own than constantly training under the watchful eye of a more experienced pilot/instructor - sometimes leading to mistakes in judgment of either the airplane's capability or their own.

USMCFLYR

Did we notice the following?:

Bans pilots from using personal electronic devices in the cockpit, a response to an incident last October in which pilots of a Northwest Airlines plane flew more than 100 miles past their destination of Minneapolis while they were working on their laptops.

yeh that ped thing is pretty stupid.

Yea, and once again the government has made it pretty vaige. Does that mean at ANY time in the cockpit or just when the break is released? Does that include cell phones?? So, at the gate, after shut down/parking check list. What's the first thing pilots do? They whip out their phones. So now we won't be able to make a phone call from the flight deck?

I think the book referenced above is the Killing Zone by Dr. Paul Craig from Middle Tennessee State University. The "Killing Zone" defined by him is in 50 - 350 hour range. The link and synopsis is below.

The Killing Zone, Paul A. Craig, Book - Barnes & Noble
Synopsis

You can fly through the zone. Or you can die in it. Most pilots earn their private certificate with 40 to 70 flight hours. Then they leave their instructors behind and enter the killing zone. Grimly embracing the period from 50 to 350 flight hours--a vital time for new pilots to build practical and decision-making skills--this deadly zone lays in wait for those who err, killing more pilots than all other periods put together. You don't have to be one of them. Aviation safety specialist Paul Craig--discoverer of the killing zone--shows you the fatal errors that inexperienced pilots make time after time and gives you tactics to avoid them. Based on the first in-depth, scientific study of pilot behavior and general aviation flying accidents in more than 20 years, The Killing Zone:

*Identifies the time frame in which you are most likely to die

*Alerts you to the 12 mistakes most likely to kill you

*Outlines preventive strategies for flying through the zone alive

*Provides guidelines for avoiding, evading, diverting, correcting, and managing dangers

*Includes a "Pilot Personality Self-Assessment Exercise" for an individualized survival strategy

Survive the dangers that lurk in the killing zone.

[QUOTE=rickair7777;782695]The problem with radar is it is larger, heavy, has large moving parts, and uses a lot of power. This means it's expensive to buy, maintain, repair, upgrade, and replace.

For national security reasons, they probably won't get rid of it entirely but it might spend a lot of time turned off (saving wear, tear, and energy).

The advantages of new system includes direct routing for most flights, with associated time and fuel savings.

We can go direct now with RNAV/GPS but are not usually allowed to because that does not always provide ATC with adequate traffic de-confliction, which is done manually by controllers making decisions. The new system would automate de-confliction, with the onboard aircraft avionics making some decisions.

This will save a ton of money. Can the FAA implement it within a reasonable timeframe and budget? Will congress fund it adequately? I dunno.[/QUOTE

NEXTGEN will auto de-conflict traffic , how will it do that? when i retired i didnt see any WW2 equiptment at chicago tracon nor at chicago center in 2004 before i transfered. back in the 1980s and 1990s we use to radar vector aircraft on direct courses 500 to 1000 miles away and we didnt seem to need any fancy computers to de-conflict the traffic, when more and more A/C were equiped with RNAV many many A/C were offered thousand mile direct routings by us in chicago with out the need of a de-conflicting computer, then the FAA with the airlines approval put in NRP routings and TOLD CONTROLLER NOT TO GIVE THESE FLIGHTS DIRECT ROUTEINGS even though 95% of the NRP routes were the same routes for the city pairs as before.

NEXTGEN is nothing more than FAA BS, just ask what this system well do in detail and the will give you the same canned answer, this is becaue they dont know what NEXTGEN will be able to do,oh but it sounds good.

in 1984 when i was hired at chicago center i was told that before i finished my training we would have the new ISSS enroute system, 14 years later all we got was an up grade in the computer and a square radar display.thats what we got after over 15 years and 3.5 billion dollars and not one upgrade allowed me to work more traffic than the old system.when i transfered to chicago tracon in 2004 i was told that by 2005 2006 we would have the STARS system, in 2007 we got new radar displays running the same ARTS 3E that we had for years because the STARS system couldnt keep up with the heavy traffic loads funny thing this is the same type of displays that new york tracon has had for over 10 years. so a system that was over 10 years and billions of dollars to up grade the systems at the busyest airports didnt work and were given to the less busy airports and the older ARTS system was kept.

where am i going with this? well after working for the FAA for over 25 years ive learned that what they say and what they produce are two diffrent things.NEXTGEN will be another multi billion mulit year FAA cluster ####. OH but the contractors will make a pretty penny on it, just remember where MARION is.so if you airline types think this system is gonne save you folks billions in operation costs i have a bridge in BROOKLYN i can give you a good price on.

OG
ZAU/C90 retired

This one I could care less about. That's going to hurt the airlines more than anybody else. I flew with a guy just a couple weeks ago that left his cell phone at home, and we had to do 3 gate returns in 5 days for minor write ups that could have easily been done on the phone. I have stopped using my phone for company calls anyway since they refuse to pay for it, and I'm not wasting any more minutes on that until they do.

iPilot, you hit the nail on the head. The "modernize ATC" is a colossal red herring.

It is a matter of simple physics that it takes x amount of time for an airplane to land, and clear the runway. Add some more if you plan on getting a departure between arrivals.

No amount of new, whiz bang ATC toys will change the laws of physics. ATC has the capability to sequence aircraft to within the limits of the concrete.

It is THAT concrete that is the true limiting factor. But it is THAT ugly truth that the public doesn't want to hear, because REAL capacity increases mean building and expanding the current airports, and the NIMBYS will NEVER let that happen.

In MSP, they brought in the latest experimental PRM radar. It was one of the original test sites. Tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on ATC and pilot training and facilities, and what did all this money produce? From what I am told, the net increase in arrivals was 3 aircraft per hour, which is totally blown if one aircraft is "broken out" .

On the other hand, they build a new runway, which wasn't even aligned with the rest of the complex, and it has had a HUGE increase in capacity and throughput.

Even in cases where a realignment of non-runway related ATC procedures CAN produce viable result is stopped by the NIMBYS. When they tried to re-align the airspace in NYC, all the Limousine Liberals out on Long Island started *****ing, and poof, there goes any improvement.

When they start laying concrete, then they can talk.

Nu

Exactly, NuGuy. So we're spending billions and billions on a project that will have marginal improvements. And in the end, there's only a few areas of the US that have true congestion. For the other 95% of the country good old radar works just fine. It may be expensive to power and maintain but hey, it's paid for.

A much better solution is, as you said, more runways or redrawing airspace properly. Or hey, what about tight slot control to EWR, JFK, LGA and TEB? And I don't mean the lame attempt we've tried so far. I mean serious "if you don't make an appointment you're not landing" slot control. Oh but everyone will complain that there isn't 15 flights daily to RDU or the jets are flying over their house and blowing off their imported italian granite roof tiles.

In the end I think everyone is just happier dealing with the inefficiencies.

Schumer rolled his bill S. 1744 into the Senate reauthorization bill so S. 1744 isn't on the floor anymore. The House passed their version of the reauthorization bill last year so they just have to reconcile the two budget bills.

thanks that explains it. like i said confusing...

#1 way to avoid this "Killing Zone" is to get a job flying a jet at a regional airline! :eek: