FAA looks at revising tougher pilot training
 

FAA looks at revising tougher pilot training rules implemented in wake of Flight 3407 - City & Region - The Buffalo News


WASHINGTON – The Federal Aviation Administration is thinking of revising the tougher pilot training rules that it implemented just last year, and the Families of Continental Flight 3407 – who won passage of a law calling for the new standards – aren’t very happy about it.

The agency set up a committee earlier this year that will “develop and recommend to the FAA new or updated guidance material, notices, handbooks and other related materials for air-carrier training and qualification,” according to the committee’s charter, which the Flight 3407 families obtained and released Tuesday.

The formation of the committee in April came amid loud complaints from the airline industry about the new FAA rule that requires new commercial pilots to have 1,500 hours of cockpit experience. The regional airlines – which generally employ younger, lower-paid pilots and which fly an increasing share of flights on behalf of the big-name airlines – say that new requirement is creating a pilot shortage.

But the families, who fought long and hard for that experience requirement, said the FAA’s move to set up that new pilot training committee could undercut their fight for aviation safety.

Leaders of the families group said they were particularly concerned that Donald R. Dillman, managing director of flight operations for Airlines for America, an industry group, is co-chairman of the committee along with an FAA official.

“This whole process just reeks of the old days of the FAA taking its marching orders from the airlines, which is exactly how the major safety gap between the regional and mainline carriers was allowed to develop in the first place,” said Scott Maurer of Moore, S.C., whose daughter, Lorin, was among the 50 people killed in the Feb. 12, 2009, crash in Clarence Center.

The 15-member committee does not include representatives of either the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations or the National Air Disaster Alliance/Foundation, groups that fought for tougher pilot standards the last time the FAA addressed the issue.

“It is extremely disappointing to see the two parties who didn’t toe the company line on the previous pilot qualification rule-making committee, who stood up for the flying public and for putting safety first, not be included on this new, hush-hush panel,” Maurer said.

FAA spokeswoman Laura J. Brown did not respond to a detailed set of questions about the new committee.

In the committee’s charter, the FAA said that it set up the new panel because the aviation industry is constantly evolving.

“The FAA must continue to review existing air-carrier training and qualification regulations, policies, and guidance to ensure they are current and relevant,” the agency said. “In addition, there continues to be new challenges with changing technology and new research that may necessitate the development of new regulations, policies, and guidance.”

But the Flight 3407 families have insisted that the 2009 crash in Clarence, which federal investigators blamed on pilot error, proved that the tougher pilot training and experience rules implemented last year are necessary.

“These new qualification requirements provide an opportunity to elevate the profession of regional airline pilots by enhancing their entry-level preparation and credentials, and hopefully the FAA will recognize this and stand up for the safety of the flying public,” said Susan Bourque, of East Aurora, whose sister Beverly Eckert, a 9/11 activist, was killed in the crash.

Saw this, but I wont pay much attention until CNN or NBC carry the story. It'd be better for young pilots, but part of me would be really upset that it's right after I reached 1500.

The alternative would be to completely remove the Age-65 restriction and allow pilots to continue Part 121 flying until they could not pass a flight physical. After all, fractional/corporate pilots don't face that restriction. What's the difference between operating a 737 to Hawaii and a Gulfstream? Answer: The Gulfstream is a higher performance airplane.

oh yes, that mythical safety gap between regionals and mainline.

Correct answer: one is an air carrier that holds itself out to the public, the other is not.

No, The answer is when the 73 crashes you kill far more people than in a Gulfstream.

Well, that and the 737 has 150 more warm bodies...flying public at that.

There is a gap. Maybe not between every regional and every major, but there is definitely a gap for some. It has very little to do with pilot experience. It has a lot to do with the training and safety departments and maintenance.

Find me a single aviation accident directly attributed to a pilot being 70 rather than 65... Now find me one with an I diagnosed brain tumor in a guy who's under 50.

Age and physical condition are not directly related. If I continue my lifestyle I'll probably be flying a desk when I'm 60, but such is life.

I think they just bring up the 1500 hours for head lines. I think the real change if any would be reworking the ATP written prerequisite scheduled to take effect AUG 1.

The difference is the guy riding in the back of the Gulfstream has a direct say in how old the the guys ridding in the front are. The folks riding in the back of 737 don't have a say and don't get to interview their pilot. The government says on their behalf.

Pilots always suffer after a crash. That's the way we're punished. First the PRIA from that Eagle crash, then the failed checkride backlash from Colgan. What's next?

Not on a fractional.

Imagine if the current hiring practices (at a few carriers) were brought to light.

Yes, the guy who pays 7.5 million for 1/8 share of a Gulfstream and 5k and hour gets as much say as the traveling public.

Remove the hourly requirements and make the ATP provisional on certain circumstances based in experience. Example: With 300 hours you can get provisional ATP but you need to be run through a more intense training program double the sims and double the OE. This will make airlines more careful as to who they hire and the increased vetting will improve the quality if the pilot candidates who are given the opportunity to enter the Airlines training program.

This differences in performance between these two examples is negligible and irrelevant. This is simply another example of the interests of big business trumping safety in this industry. The 1500 hour rule if reduced to say 750 won't solve the shortage, because it isn't the core cause. It might allow regionals to kick the can down the road another year or two, but the core cause is the disparity of economic reward for resources invested (both time and money) and the corresponding lack of interest in being piñata for unsympathetic maximum profit oriented capitalist businesses when there are more financially rewarding career options that require a fraction of the investment.

I'm sure the fix is in and then until the next accident related to training and experience occurs and more human hamburger is presented to the corrupt fat cats in D.C., it will remain.

I'm sure the pilots now benefiting from Age 60 & age 65 would love that. They got theirs because of Age 60. Why stop now? :rolleyes:

Also, how does an airline staff itself with no mandatory retirement age?

This.


There is a gap, whether you want to believe it or not. As a regional pilot, we're constantly fed the management line of "you're just not qualified for a mainline job. You're not good enough." Then somehow, simultaneously, we're supposed to believe that there's one level of safety. Either I'm just as good as my mainline counterparts or I'm not. If I am, I should be paid appropriately. If I'm not, then I'm not as safe. It's simple.

I have a few thoughts on these comments.

1) There is ABSOLUTELY a difference between a 70 year old pilot and a 50 year old pilot. Medical studies absolutely show that mental acuity declines as you age.

2) Reducing the experience requirements is not about the pilot shortage. It is a justification to continue to pay "intern" wages to pilots. They are getting very close to losing the battle to labor. A4A has a very big interest in ensuring this doesn't happen because otherwise the either have to pick up their own feed (more $$) or pay more for outsourced labor (more $$). Either way, it's a lose/lose for them.

3) No matter what anyone tells you, the same pilot with 300 hours vs a pilot with 3000 hours will be a much better pilot in the latter scenario. Experience does matter. I learned more about aviation and flying after 500 total time than I did in the first 500 hours.

INDUSTRY CONTINUES TO SHIFT BLAME TO REGULATIONS AS CULPRIT FOR REGIONAL AIRLINES' INABILITY TO FIND PILOTS TO WORK FOR FOOD STAMP-LEVEL WAGES

Buffalo, New York - April 29, 2014 – In a show of support for new federal aviation safety guidelines geared at avoiding a repeat of the tragic and avoidable crash of Continental (now United) Flight 3407, the 'Families of Continental Flight 3407' will attend Wednesday morning's House Aviation Subcommittee hearing. The hearing, to be held at 10 a.m. in Room 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building, will focus on air service to small communities, at airports served almost exclusively by regional airlines. The family group will also make rounds on both sides of Capitol Hill to highlight a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on Pilot Supply that exposed the myth being propagated by the airlines that there are not enough ATP-licensed pilots to fill their cockpits.

“You are seeing a tried-and-true page out of the airline industry's lobbying playbook being put into full effect - just stay the course with the campaign contributions and the behind-the-scenes pressure, and over time you will get what you want,” declared Scott Maurer of Moore, South Carolina, who lost his thirty year old daughter Lorin in the crash. “Unfortunately we have some bad news for them: five years later, we are not relaxing and we are certainly not going away. We are going to continue to stand up for the traveling public who deserve what Lorin and our loved ones sadly did not receive, a true 'One Level of Safety' for every passenger boarding a flight operated by a regional airline. And we are most definitely not going to allow them to scare everyone in Washington with their dire predictions of a pilot shortage, not when the GAO report makes it clear that the issue is not whether there are enough ATP-licensed pilots out there, it's whether the airlines are going to continue to drive them away with food stamp-level compensation."
Maurer was referring to industry efforts in the past few months to sabotage recently-implemented regulations regarding pilot fatigue, entry-level hiring qualifications, and airline pilot training protocols. The new rules came about as a result of a landmark regional airline safety bill that was unanimously passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Obama back in August 2010, bipartisan legislation engineered by the leadership of both the House and Senate Aviation Subcommittees. Despite the unanimous passage of the law, some veteran members appeared to waffle on their support of the safety provisions at a House Aviation Subcommittee hearing back in February.
“With the way the political landscape constantly shifts here in Washington, it is imperative that we keep showing up and reminding any members who may be wavering five years later why this bill made such strong sense to everyone back then, and should continue to do so now; namely that safety must always come first,” stated Karen Eckert of Williamsville, New York, who lost her sister Beverly Eckert, a noted 9/11 widow and activist. “Regardless of how economically tempting certain positions may be when it comes to the airline industry's bottom line or a member's reelection campaign war chest, the fact remains that these critical safety provisions were the right thing to do back in 2010 and they remain the right thing to do now. We ask anyone who feels otherwise to take a minute to think of their loved ones - their spouse, parents, children, siblings - and imagine having them taken from you by a needless and preventable tragedy like this one. We are counting on our elected representatives here in Washington to challenge the regional airlines to step up their game when it comes to safety, not to cut them more slack like they did in the decade leading up to Flight 3407.”

Then you should HEAVILY campaign for applying Age-65 to Part 135 and Part 91 flying.

How do they do it now? AS sent a query out to all its older Captains asking when they planned on retirement. Then the bond rate changed and guys realized they were going to take a HUGE hit on the lump sum payout. What happened? 60 pilots AS hadn't planned on losing pulled the plug in November and December.

Did they plan for that? No. However, this summer/fall's hiring will cover for the loss. Hasn't slowed AS down one bit, especially when they have enough pilots willing to pick up extra time and sell vacations.

That's how they do it.

Agreed. However, how do you then justify NO AGE LIMIT for Corporate/Fractional pilots? I've personally flown with a number of pilots who are about to age out who can and do fly rings around the younger guys.

Pass your FAA physical, keep flying. That'll take a small but significant chunk out of the "pilot shortage."

Like was said earlier - 121 is common carriage of the general traveling public, while 91/91K is not.

FWIW, courts have recently upheld 91 flight departments having the same mandatory retirement age as 121 airlines.

Substantiation, please. I recently flew a Part 91 ferry with a 76 year old Captain, so I think you may be wrong.

What? Really?! Have I been living under a rock?

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

The ruling wasn't that Part 91 pilots *had* to abide by the 121 mandatory retirement age...simply that if a Part 91 flight department used the 121 mandatory retirement age as policy it did not constitute age discrimination.

Federal Court: Mandatory Retirement Age for Pilots Is Not Age Discrimination | Age 60 | Personnel Considerations | NBAA - National Business Aviation Association

In short - there is no regulatory mandatory retirement age for Part 91 operators (in part because private carriage is not common carriage) but operators are legally entitled to set an age limit as a BFOQ.

Yes absolutely. Enough with the double speak. The pilots flying the regional lift should have the full support network and resources that mainline pilots have; Training department, maintenance, leadership, mentorship, the ability to take care of oneself (compensation). The ability to make judgment calls without worrying if it will black list them at a future mainline interview.

In the last 10 years, how many passengers have been killed on regional airplanes vice mainline? Just sayin... But yes the "one level of safety" argument, to then have a regional mgmt tell someone they're not good enought to move up... Kind of amazing.

Sort of like what's his name from XJT writing that letter saying that "we're not getting enough pilot candidates that meet our high standards" and in the same breath says the FAAs new standards are too high.

Bingo. The hour increase is not a bad thing, and certainly not the mountain guys have made out of the mole hill. The written, classroom, sim etc training however is way over the top for a vanilla entry level ATP.

There definitely is a gap. Bottom feeder regionals run their applicants through training several times to get them through. I know some majors have done that when the govt. was pressuring them under EEOC rules, but that is not the norm. Everything done at regionals is to meet the min. stds possible. Look at Pinnacle 3701 crash, have you ver heard of something so lame-brained happening at a a major airline?

Why is that? Because those guys built up hours in forgiving airplanes long enough to scare themselves out of doing foolish things.

Yes, let's raise the retirement age, again. Stagnate the industry.... And I for one sure as hell doesn't want to be in a tube until 65 or beyond. Jesus.

Nice backpedal. Guess what? They won't.

Easily said when you're 30. Let's see how you feel when someone orders you to give up something you love on an arbitrary date. Your perspective may change.

Backpedal?

What I wrote is 100% factually accurate, but you inferred something from it that was not intended - that's your problem not mine. Clarifying as to avoid misunderstanding and false conclusions like you obviously made is hardly a "backpedal".

Exxon obviously has a mandatory retirement age...as have a number of other Fortune 500 flight departments.

Your local company operating a Citation or King Air, yeah, probably not.

Don't people fly GA anymore??? I really don't understand that argument. Age 65 ain't enough?

This is what you said.

I inferred nothing...just read what YOU typed.

OK, so you have ONE example. With the airlines hiring hundreds of pilots and the regionals going begging, what do you want to bet the fractionals will be hiring more and more retiring airline pilots, especially if they have large numbers of airplanes on the order books.

I think your playing this slightly naive, it's the same on the interstate commercial drivers have to keep logs and can be stopped with out cause. The general public is not subjected to the same laws as a commercial operator. Part 91 represents the general public in aviation. If you think the retirement age should be the same than a 18 year old should be able to Captain an A380 with 500 people on board takeoff in ZeroZero without an alternate and we should use single engine airplanes to cross oceans without carrying life preservers.

Many items in aviation are life limited do you propose the mechanic runs the engine for an unlimited amount of time or years as long as it passes "his" inspection once a or twice a year. Besides AMEs really don't carry the same liability inspecting you as the mechanic does inspecting the hot section.

Never flew GA much. You don't get too excited putting around in a C172 when you learned to fly in a T-28.

I prefer flying multi-million dollar jets and getting paid for it. But, that's just me. :D

Yes, and if you had critica reading skills you would realize that is exactly what the Exxon ruling in the NBAA link I posted did - it upheld Part 91 flight departments having the same mandatory retirement age as 121 airlines.

One might note I did not write that the court required or regulated the 121 retirement age on 91 flight departments.

I have more than one example, but its not my business to discuss what the policy of operations other than my own.

As to frax hiring retired airline pilots, you're probably right.

But for the third time, 91K isn't public common carriage and fractionals are NOT growing airframes with their orders - they are recapitalizing their existing fleets.

Well you should just fly that 172 with a young person, it'll get real exciting real quick.:)

Also, if they do grow it would have to be new aircraft users. They might grow as pilots are harder to find, but it would be at the expense of a traditional 91 flight department. IE a CJ2 owner sells his jet lays-off pilots and buys a share of a Hawker 800. Total pilots required would not increase.