1500 hr rule & decreased mins
 

I tried a search and couldn't really find anything, so I figured I'd throw the question out there. If someone graduates from a University with an accredited part 141 flight training program they could potentially be allowed to earn an ATP with less than 1500 hours. We all know this. But what I'm confused about is, does the individual need to a graduate of the degree program (AeroSci, etc) or just have completed the part 141 training within the degree program?

I got out of the Navy a year ago and used the post 9/11 GI Bill to finish my ratings after Private-SEL at Embry-Riddle. I left once I finished my Comm-Multi and moved back home to work and I'm finishing my last 10 classes online. (they made changes anyway that wouldn't have allowed me to do CFI).

Any insight would be great! Thanks! :D

The way I understand the new rule is that someone in your situation may be eligible for hire with less than 1500 hrs. But there won't be any way to get your ATP shy of 1500.

If I'm not mistaken, you are heading to Silver Airways? I talked to the Chief Pilot over here about this issue. According to their policy, anyone hired before the date this rule becomes affective is grandfather-claused. Regardless, you'll do enough flying where the 1500 hours wont be a problem by that date. But actual reduced ATP minimums are highly doubtful but anything's possible.

I could be wrong but I believe that is a negetory. Why else have all the other half way decent and smart airlines stated that as they get closer to Aug 2013 their mins will go up accordingly. Whiskey is already raising theirs back up as well as Surejet. Again I could be wrong...but if it were me I wouldnt take his word for it.

From what I've heard there is no grandfathering of this rule. I would expect one of two things to happen. One the implantation date gets pushed back or two they release some kind of partial credit for working at a 121 carrier or graduating from certain schools.

Darn it all. I was planning on having a job by default ;-)

Your chief pilot has no clue what he is talking about. Straight from the bill:

SEC. 216. FLIGHT CREWMEMBER SCREENING AND QUALIFICATIONS.

(a) REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) RULEMAKING PROCEEDING.—The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall conduct a rulemaking proceeding to require part 121 air carriers to develop and implement means and methods for ensuring that flight crew-members have proper qualifications and experience.

(2) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.—

(A) PROSPECTIVE FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS.—Rules issued under paragraph (1) shall ensure that prospective flightcrewmembers undergo comprehensive preemploymentscreening, including an assessment of the skills, aptitudes,airmanship, and suitability of each applicant for a position as a flight crewmember in terms of functioning effectively in the air carrier's operational environment.

(B)ALL FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS.—Rules issued under paragraph (1) shall ensure that, after the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, all flightcrewmembers—

(i) have obtained an airline transport pilot certificate under part 61 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations; and

(ii) have appropriate multi-engine aircraft flight experience, as determined by the Administrator.

(b) DEADLINES.—The Administrator shall issue—

(1) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a notice of proposed rulemaking under subsection(a); and

(2) not later than 24 months after such date of enactment, a final rule under subsection (a).

(c) DEFAULT.—The requirement that each flight crewmember for a part 121 air carrier hold an airline transport pilot certificate under part 61 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, shall begin to apply on the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act even if the Administrator fails to meet a deadline established under this section.

SEC. 217. AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT CERTIFICATION.

(a) RULEMAKING PROCEEDING.—The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall conduct a rulemaking proceeding to amend part 61 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to modify requirements for the issuance of an airline transport pilot certificate.

(b) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.—To be qualified to receive an airline transport pilot certificate pursuant to subsection (a), an individual shall—

(1) have sufficient flight hours, as determined by the Administrator, to enable a pilot to function effectively in an air carrier operational environment; and

(2) have received flight training, academic training, or operational experience that will prepare a pilot, at a minimum, to—

(A) function effectively in a multipilot environment;

(B) function effectively in adverse weather conditions,including icing conditions;

(C) function effectively during high altitude operations;

(D) adhere to the highest professional standards; and

(E) function effectively in an air carrier operational environment.

(c) FLIGHT HOURS.—

(1) NUMBERS OF FLIGHT HOURS.—The total flight hours required by the Administrator under subsection (b)(1) shall be at least 1,500 flight hours.

(2) FLIGHT HOURS IN DIFFICULT OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS.—The total flight hours required by the Administrator under subsection (b)(1) shall include sufficient flight hours, as deter-mined by the Administrator, in difficult operational conditions that may be encountered by an air carrier to enable a pilot to operate safely in such conditions.

(d) CREDIT TOWARD FLIGHT HOURS.—The Administrator may allow specific academic training courses, beyond those required under subsection (b)(2), to be credited toward the total flight hours required under subsection (c). The Administrator may allow such credit based on a determination by the Administrator that allowing a pilot to take specific academic training courses will enhance safety more than requiring the pilot to fully comply with the flight hours requirement.

(e) RECOMMENDATIONS OF EXPERT PANEL.—In conducting the rulemaking proceeding under this section, the Administrator shall review and consider the assessment and recommendations of the expert panel to review part 121 and part 135 training hours established by section 209(b) of this Act.

(f) DEADLINE.—Not later than 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall issue a final rule under subsection (a).

No where in the text of the bill is there a reference to a grandfather-clause.

Date of Enactment?
 

When was the "date of enactment?"

Of what significance is the Aug 2013 date?

Signed into law August 1, 2010.

Sounds about right at GIA

I love this law. This will be good for the industry as a whole.

Supply down = Demand Up = Pay up?

Fingers Crossed

In theory but lord only knows. I think if the supply goes down enough you'll see some airlines offer a bonus to new hires. It'd be a lot cheaper than increasing pay but enough to attract applicants.

The bonuses will definitely be the first step. However I personally worry that the government will give the airlines something in exchange for this rule. Can you say age 70?

not a chance in hell. From 65 to 70 medical issues go up exponentially. I am just curious what the airlines will do since the number of new student pilots is still way down do to the high expense and lack of available loans. Can we say ab initio programs like the 50s and 60s???

I hope youre right, but consider this. Alot of the old timers have been going to the same medical examiner for 25+ years. They are basically buds. You think their "bud" who is close to retirement himself will deny their long time patient and friend a first class medical? Im thinking no.

It doesn't really matter what their bud thinks if they're dying of cancer or heart disease.

Idk if insurance companies will go for 70

Theyre going for it in Canada.

I honestly can't say I'm surprised though lol!

The medical statistics/facts speak volumes to insurance companies and lawmakers. 65 was lobbied so heavily to help make back part or all of their lost pensions, but it had merit as there wasn't a significant increase in risk. I really doubt any agency is willing to go any further though. At this point the govt. needs to tell the airlines to suck it up (which helps us in the end)....

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.

I am pretty sure it says anything about the administrator will be replaced by numbers from the administrator... This is to allow a law to be passed but have someone from the FAA set the numbers rather than have congress choose them.. I think it also leaves the door open for the administrator to later choose a different number.

Add Australia to that. Days of no set in stone retirement age for domestic is coming....

That will work for non-union shops. But it has been tried at a union airline as was shot down... to paraphrase the argument, "sure management, you can give a hiring bonus, as long as you give it to all of us as well."

Sorry, but in 2007 Piedmont was in fact giving new hires 5k signing bonus while current pilots got nothing. The union certainly didnt get bonuses for anyone else. And yes, PDT is alpa.

Grandpappy....!! Wondered where he has been!!

Does anyne know if the stipulations of this rule are implemented in the FAR's yet? I just looked in FAR 2012 and there is no mention of an ICAO restriction at all.

Also, I'm mainly focused on the use of flight engineer time toward the 1500 hour requirement. I'm hoping they still allow 500 hours to be counted for the ATP so I can attempt it at 1000 hours (much closer to the 600 TT I have now.) Anyone know if they changed this also? Hoping not to waste the 7000 hours of FE time I have (2000 of it is part 121)

Partially correct. We threatened to get an injunction and drag their asses to Federal Court. Management offered an across the board insult of a bonus that decreased with years of service. We declined the offer. After that, management stopped offering the bonus pronto. I can't say whether anyone got the other half of the bonus or not. That would have been paid out after I left the company.

You're correct that we didn't get bonuses for anyone else, but we did get the newhire bonus stopped. I thought we should have hauled them to court anyway but there wasn't much we could have done with the exception of demanding the company take the money they had already paid out. Not exactly good business for the union to demand (again) the membership pay the company...

I'd bet that not too many newhires saw the other half of the 5K. At that time PDT was nothing more than Republic's training ground. I actually ran across one newhire who hadn't finished SOE but had a class date with Republic.

... disregard, duplicate entry...

I have been curious about the time credit for a degree. Was that for a BA/BS? Has anyone heard of any additional time for an MA?