Exceptions to H.R. 5900
 

I know when the wording of H.R. 5900 came out there was talk of exceptions down to 1,000 hours for a frozen ATP with a four year degree in aviation as well as another one for the military, but recently I have not heard too much about it. Does anyone know if they are still in the works at this point?

FAA released an NPRM proposing that in February of this year, comments closed in April. Someone emailed the FAA about it and posted their response here.

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/av...-rumors-3.html

To sum it up, the FAA expects a final ruling on the Restricted ATP requirements in the Spring or Summer of 2013.

Once the comment period closed (in April), the FAA began reviewing what everyone had to say. The exceptions (1000/750) were simply proposed. Based off the comments, testimony, etc, etc the FAA will release the final ruling. Apparently that ruling was supposed to be out this month, however, someone on this forum emailed the contact at the FAA and posted her response which basically said the final ruling would be out spring of next year. I'm assuming they received more comments then anticipated.

HR5900 is still a go, so all pt. 121 pilots will need an ATP by August 2013, however, it is now up to the FAA to determine what is needed for an ATP. The 1000/750 proposal may stick, they may just keep the current ATP req's in place and offer no exceptions, or (what many think will happen) they'll lower those exceptions even more and tier it as well. So for example, 500 for aviation grades with a jet course, 750 for jet course OR aviation school, military, 1000 for this, 1250 for that, etc. That's what I heard from a friend who's been working on the HR5900 stuff in DC. So we'll see.

Thanks. I'm a current CFI, but will miss the age requirement for the ATP by slightly under 3 months, so as far as I can tell, I'll have the 1,500 hours anyways by then, but have a lot of friends banking on these exceptions.

This is why pilots are their own worst enemies. Banking on anything in aviation is risky. However, banking on anything to lower the standards of a certain quality that effects the industry as a whole is a real bad idea. Tell your friends to maybe re-access their wishes. It's better in the long-run.

I bet it goes even lower than what was originally proposed.

What a useless bill to fix the aftermath of Flight 3407. One pilot already had the ATP and the other was a pretty decently experienced CFI. I highly doubt that pilots having an ATP beforehand would have prevented the crash. These pilots were tired/fatigued, but from the looks of it, it was due to commuting, commuting through the night, and resting in a crewroom.

Really? Fighting a stick-pusher is due to fatigue? Hardly...not that this bill will change anything, anyway.

Commuting on a redeye from Seattle! :eek:

I think they both had > 3000tt as well.

From the sounds of the CVR, he had no idea what was going on. His actions have been concluded as those based on startle factor, and not thinking it through. They were alert enough to be talking pretty much nonstop, even below 10k. This accident was somewhat related to fatigue, but not based on their schedule. Both were tired from their commutes and their sleep in the crew room, with the FO flying while clearly sick. Not that I blame her, she financially couldn't afford to call in sick.

Yes, and not just a redeye from SEA, but a Fedex redeye. That means an initial redeye from SEA to MEM, wait a couple of hours in which you pretty much can't sleep, and then board another plane for a redeye to EWR. There's no quality sleep here. The CA's story is only a little better, he didn't commute through the night. But in both cases, their commute choices (one through the night) and more importantly, their sleep choices (crew room) led to fatigue that night. Their original schedule that day had a EWR-ALB turn and the accident flight to BUF for the overnight. The ALB turn cancelled. The accident happened on their first actual leg, with duty time being very low. It would have been an entirely different story if this accident was leg #7 on a 13:45 hr duty day. Then the industry would have screamed schedule fatigue. But as it happened, the commute+sleep issues was more so the problem.

Her (our) passengers and their families can't afford for her (us) to fly while sick.....

I bet you are one of those guys that sarcastically comments on global warming when the news says it's "colder than average" in a specific place.

I can't believe such narrow minded people succeed as professionals in the aviation career.

I have ATP so I don't care about this ruling, but aviation has existed without this until now. How is it lowering standards by not having it? Aviation is the safest it's ever been without it ever existing. THE PILOT AT THE CONTROLS HAD HIS ATP. It is being used by pilots who think it will help their careers by limiting the options of young people.

I want the rule to pass in its full writing. I also want all the FO's with ATP to be able to log turbine PIC and be competitive applicants for larger carriers.

In my opinion, and this is soley my opinion based on many years of observation and a firm believing in experiential learning is that it's not about the ticket or how many hours you have when you are capable of catastrophic damage. It's about the experience you obtained prior to ever being able to become capable of adversely effecting the lives of paying passengers.

In other words, I believe that if this rule had existed many years prior to the Colgan crash, there is a good chance it would not have ended up the way that it did.

Sure they still would have been fatigued, underpaid, and unprofessional. However, following initial warning of an impending stall both pilots would have responded (not reacted) to the condition and reversed it's severity thus resulting in some paperwork, carpet dancing and maybe the loss of their jobs rather than the ultimate in unfavorable results. A smoking hole.

The reason that I feel that this new law could have possibly prevented the seriousness of the events is because the captain that had his ATP would have otherwise never earned his ATP if he wasn't forced to the way he was. The airlines kept ignoring the signs that he hadn't experienced enough nor was he competent enough to serve as a captain.

The mistakes made by the flight crew were very basic and happen often in the world of general aviation and other forgiving forms of flying. Something he was never able to experience. I feel as if he were to experience this same exact scenario in a more forgiving environment, one of two things would have occurred. Either he would learn from his mistake and apply that to his experience when he becomes a captain or he would quit flying all together because he scared the crap out of himself and realized it's just not the thing for him. It doesn't matter what the FO did. She just made the situation worse. But if he had never gotten them into the situation in the first place she could have done what ever she did and everyone would have been fine.

Some people were never meant to become pilots. Under our current culture and set of rules, this will never be caught. Until it's too late.

This guy was never supposed to become a pilot.

Very well stated.

The CA and FO both had significant career shortcuts, with the CA having been involved in Gulfstream.

Pinnacle 3701, the Pinnacle MKE accident (no one was hurt, but over a million dollars of damage done to the plane), Comair 5191, and this Colgan accident all involved Gulfstreamers.

Yep exactly. Had the Colgan captain (and others mentioned) been required to have an ATP and 1500TT before going to an airline, they never would've made it.

Its tough to get to 1500TT in general aviation. You have to have a lot of skill and you're going to be put in more than a few situations where you have to prove your worth as a pilot both to others and to yourself/the airplane/the situation.

Obtaining that level has a required baseline skill/ability/motivation/talent that is easily filtered and cannot be bought. Is it a very good moron-filter.

Exactly! Well put!

I think what he's saying is, you could have a pilot that's "low time", yet is rather competent and ACTUALLY knows how to fly a plane, had some exposure to multi engine/turbine equipment, a would have done the right thing.

OR, you could have a "high time" pilot that is substandard, his experience was mostly in a VFR environment, whatever. And would have done as the Colgan CA would.

And YES, I think changing the requirement is one of the best things to happen in our career field. But it's not really a cure all fix. A guy could go out and burn 1500 hours on NOTHING but VFR cross countries using a GPS. Last time he did a stall was on his COMM checkride over 1200 hours ago, etc and be deemed "qualified". Whilst a lower time pilot that has different more/more intensive experience would be deemed "unqualified".

Like I said, I AGREE with the change, but it should go deeper than just a TT requirement. And YES, I KNOW the amount of change and govt red tape/B.S. that would have to be overcome would be insane. I'm juss sayin'.......

Anyway, as mentioned by others, Afterburn nails it with a very direct, straightforward wording at the end of his post.......

True, but remember, people can react to fatigue in various ways. If you read/listen to the CORPEX CVR, they were babbling like crazy.

And as far as the sick thing, I believe it also later released that there was a concern of punitive action by the company over sick calls IIRC, but not for sure. I though it was also a factor in the 170 at CLE. But I'd have to go back an read it all again

Again, agree. But besides not having the proper rest before duty causing fatigue, so does time since awake. Did the first turn cancel before starting, or well before starting their duty period? I don't know. But if it was one those situations where they show up, delayed delayed delayed, THEN finally canceled, that comes into play in the time since awake.

XJT, that makes perfect sense...I'm also in agreement with Afterburn, who put it more succinctly than I ever could have! Unfortunately prior experience cannot be dictated, nor would you want it to...but the demand for pilots will undoubtably (and already has to a great extent, as evidenced by Colgan et al) allow those that have the intelligence, but not necessarily the skill or aptitude to be safe and successful, access to an airliner regardless.

As afterburn said, very well put.

People not wanting the rule to go through, wanting the exceptions and 'tiers' for an aviation degree, a jet course, whatever are furthering the entitlement is already so prevalent with new pilots. Everyone expects to get their wet commercial and go to an airline, then upgrade as soon as they get 1500TT, get a thousand hours as PIC, then go to SWA and love life. It's disgusting.

Instruct a little bit, get a 135 job, earn some pay for a bit, make some decisions, scare yourself, start thinking that airline passengers (who still think they're on Delta, United, etc) deserve something better from their crews.

Of course, the same people who demand exceptions and butchering of the rule are the ones who want more, bigger RJs...they want to fly the CRJ-900 and ERJ-190 because they're mainline airplanes, OMG! Disgusting.

Build 1500 hours before going to the airlines??

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8kqtnhFVu1r565d9.gif

Sadly, that used to be the defacto standard.....but over the past few years it fell and now the noobs feel screwed because of the the "new" minimum.


sigh.....

Well, what the heck are you going to do now when you need to attract cheap inexperienced pilots to make a start up airline to undercut your old airline that was costing too much?

There shouldn't be a correlation. For most of them, Gulfstream was years before the accident happened. I cannot buy it when one tries to connect attending Gulfstream to an accident years down the road.

your saying when comparing the three major RJ airline crashes within a few years, and all three captains are from gulfstream, and its not a link?

:confused:
I guess its why you fly planes.

ShyGuy

The habits of taking shortcuts, poor knowledge base, poor skills in general develop early and don't go away unless one is in a very competitive, demanding environment.

The AF used to have Red Flag, theory was that most combat losses occurred in the first ten missions, so let's give them that experience BEFORE combat. Losses, about 1-3 per Red Flag, were considered acceptable because, "we'd have lost them anyway in combat". Gradually, politics took some of the losses seriously and made things safer, if less testing. GA can do the same thing. I lost three friends flying checks, freight still weeds out a few each year.

GF

Well, you now hire people at 1500 hours and pay them $16 bucks an hour because the drool for a regional job will never go away, 500 extra hours won't make the pilot demand more money, nor does it increase the value of the pilot from a management perspective.

Alternatively, regionals could come up with some special part 91 operation (for a profit, of course) and hire 500 hour pilots for $11 an hour because, after all, there would be no other options for said pilot...

I knew we'd come up with a solution! Oooh!, it could be an "Airline Training Academy", they could buy out the flight instruction business, give the instructors "guaranteed interviews" when they get 1500 and are hiring (which doesn't guarantee a job), it's the perfect $11/hr job, plus, you get to say "I'm a pilot for (insert airline here)". No guarantees for students, but they'd still sign up.

There is a correlation... you never had to fly with them as your FO! (not all were that way, but too many...)

All the captains in those accidents weren't from gulfstream- the FO on the Comair accident was, not the captain. Both on Pinnacle 3701, the FO on the MKE, FO on Comair, and CA on Colgan.

There must be a daily act of God occuring to keep Gulfstream/Silver pilots from not crashing all the time since they are soooooo bad.

Yea, it's not like you people landed at the wrong airport within the first few weeks of operating out of Dulles. Whoops...

Again, it's a pretty far stretch to say those accidents can somehow be attributed to Gulfstream or its training. Especially when it's the FO being ex-Gulfstream in those accidents. I can also pick out several legacy airline crashes with both military pilots at the controls. Want to draw a correlation?

The Comair Captain wasn't Gulfstream. The FO was Gulfstream, but a very long time ago before the accident. And with more flight time than the Captain. The Pinnacle MKE Captain wasn't gulfstream, and the CA made the decisions to continue on that one. As for Colgan, that Captain had numerous failures before and after Gulfstream. It was the system that failed. Besides, he lied on the application and no one caught it. Gulfstream or not, it was fact that Colgan was hiring 500 hr guys.

Gulfstream enables pilots who wouldn't be able to otherwise cut it to buy their way into an airline job. Getting to 1500TT and successfully interviewing is tough and a lot of people can't do it.

It isn't anything to do with Gulfstream's training itself, its that it (and other places like it) allow those on the lower end of the scale to slip through the cracks and become qualified enough to get into an airliner. Not to say there aren't some exceptional pilots that came through Gulfstream, but it also enables those without the natural skill/ability/drive/etc to become a successful airline pilot the chance at being one anyways.

Ok, I think that's fair enough, but I wouldn't draw a correlation and say a statement that these accidents were 'because' of Gulfstream Academy pilots. And Gulfstream was hardly the only low-time option. There are tons more CRJ course operators that allow low time pilots to be hired. Besides, at one point in 2004-2007, some airlines like TSA and Piedmont were basically hiring at Commercial/Inst/ME ratings and 250 hours, with no RJ course.

Hiring? Yes. Sending to the line? No. I think Piedmont was alot like TSA. The training department had no problem washing people out who couldn't hack it at TSA.

I don't believe anyone said the fact the the pilots were from Gulfstream was directly causative, but rather that as lowlut aptly explained, they skipped over important, fundamental skills and knowledge that should have been acquired well before they were ever in the cockpit of a 121 carrier.

That is correct, and that is the problem with cut-outs or tiers to the legislation. 1500 hours, period, end of story. Not a perfect solution (I'd personally prefer a bar or board type system involving a panel as well as several loft type scenarios, which I think would be much more effective - but that's another discussion), but it's a start to raising the experience standards back to a very minimal level.

See above.

shyguy- you missed the point. This post was what I was getting at.

+1, however I do find it ironic that at certain regionals washing out weak people= quality people getting to the line, whereas in the eyes of certain others about Pinnacle and some other airlines, washing out the weak= training dept. not doing their job. :confused:

Both scenarios are plausible.

How about when Delta landed on the taxiway in ATL or NW overshot their destination you can point fingers all you want....