Horray, more government intervention! Of course there won't be any unintended consequences, not THIS time.

 

Wasn't the FAA supposed to publish their rules on academic credits towards the hour requirement for the ATP? I thought I remember it was supposed to come out in December, but then it got delayed and I never heard if they made it public yet. I know a lot of people were talking about a credit of 700-750, but I haven't seen that number anywhere official.

 

So you get hired at Silver Airways, great. But if you don't have the 250 PIC total, then you're not elegible for the ATP. Just saying, build the flight time before getting hired at any regional!

 

You can get an ATP if you are short on TT, it has always been like this and it does not matter where or how you received your training. The catch is that you will have the restriction does not meet ICAO requirements. After obtaining 1500 hours go to your local FSDO, show your logbook, and the restriction is removed.

 

This is what I was wondering about. I have just shy of 250 PIC, and I'll have that by August 2013. I'm just wondering what's up with this reduced minimums talk and if anything will come of it.

I know PSA, CommutAir, Air Wisc, and ExpressJet are all upping their mins and/or know of the new time req's and are hiring people that will have the time by then.

 

You cannot be short on Total Time, you need 1500 hours for the ATP, but SIC time can count toward that 1500 hours if in an airplane requiring two pilots and under pt 121.

 

Not correct, it may have been in the past, but is no longer the case.

You can get an ATP with "does not meet ICAO requirements" if you are short the PIC requirements.

 

I still don't think this will affect wages. I mean look at 135. They've had higher mins for smaller aircraft for years, and they have no problems paying their pilots bottom dollar.

 

Well yes you could, at least the last time I read the damn FARS you could.

I cracked open that dusty FAR book and did a little research and apparently they changed this back in 2009. So you are correct this exemption no longer applies. Before it was changed the exemption was as follows:

FAR 61.159 was revised in Aug 2009 and no longer includes this provision. It used to read:

(d) An applicant may be issued an airline transport pilot certificate with the endorsement, “Holder does not meet the pilot in command aeronautical experience requirements of ICAO,” as prescribed by Article 39 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, if the applicant:
(1) Credits second-in-command or flight-engineer time under paragraph (c) of this section toward the 1,500 hours total flight time requirement of paragraph (a) of this section;
(2) Does not have at least 1,200 hours of flight time as a pilot, including no more than 50 percent of his or her second-in-command time and none of his or her flight-engineer time; and
(3) Otherwise meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
(e) When the applicant specified in paragraph (d) of this section presents satisfactory evidence of the accumulation of 1,200 hours of flight time as a pilot including no more than 50 percent of his or her second-in-command flight time and none of his or her flight-engineer time, the applicant is entitled to an airline transport pilot certificate without the endorsement prescribed in that paragraph.

Oh Well

 

So... What I get out of these new requirements is that.... the FAA may now determine WHETHER OR NOT they think you should have an ATP... as opposed to when someone earns the license by meeting a set of predetermined OBJECTIVE standards and minimum requirements??? Sounds like the ATP license is about to go down the same road that the second amendment has. Fantastic! I hope no new prospective ATPs are outspoken about their government and its policies otherwise, they might not be "allowed" to have one.