Could the ATP requirements be rolled back?
 

Just wondering what the word is around the community about the possibility of the FAA easing back in the ATP requirements.

This about sums it up.

"Miracle on the Hudson" Pilot Joins 3407 Families In Push For Airline Safety

"3407 families are fearful of a push by the airline industry to ease the training requirements, and that it might be sneaked in as part of a broader bill to re-authorize the the FAA Charter this year."

As long as the families can get public heros like sully to stand up for them, I don't see it changing for at least another 5 years, they fought long and hard to get this rule put into place. I respect sully as a pilot but as a spokesman for the industry, he shouldn't be allowed to speak.

Well...everyone can have an opinion; but I for one absolutely disagree with your assessment of Sully as a spokesman for the aviation industry as a whole and the airline industry inparticular.

+1

filler

Money always talks and BS walks! we will see who outlast who!

Hopefully they double it. Toss in some legislation about high amounts of checkride failures or other background issues.

Why?.......

Not going to happen, at least not while the Colgan families are still around. Nor should it.

The airlines may feel entitled to a vast pool of already-certificated potential employees willing to fly airliners for fast-food wages but the reality is that there is no real shortage until airlines start funding ab-initio flight training for new-hires...if they can't fill classes at that point, then it's a shortage :rolleyes:

I'm not sure how or why anyone can feel entitled to occupy a PILOT seat of an AIRLINE TRANSPORT without at least meeting the requirements to hold an AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT certificate? But stranger (read dumber) things have happened.

You're all delusional if you think this wont be rolled back. Give it a while and it will be. It'll be 500 hours but they're going to give additional Sims during initial and maybe make it a minimum of 100 hours of ioe. They'll significantly reduce the mins in favor of some additional training.

A rollback of the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 could probably happen, but only after many, many years of lobbying by airlines combined with major changes in the political climate.

It's going to happen, and sooner than you think. They (I think delta is pioneering this) are already drafting new hire initial programs that include many more sim sessions to qualify as "credit" toward the 1500 hours.

Remember, HR 5900 which requires all crew members to hold an ATP was passed into law and will not change, however the FAA is charged with determining what you need to qualify for one.

The man isn't very much of a aviation supporter, he's isn't much on getting young blood into the industry. Not just with the 1500 rule. He said he wouldn't even allow his own children to fly

Not sure why any pilot would want to roll back something that contributes to a shortage in the labor supply -- and therefore higher wages.

Amen brother. Seems short-sighted and counter productive.

Congress didn't trust the FAA, so while the law left the deets up to the FAA it also mandated a specific minimum of 1500 hours (also allowed for R-ATP minimums). So the law would have to be changed by congress, not just an FAA pencil-whip. Congress may not really care if a few bottom-feeder regional airlines have staffing troubles.

I am with you on that one. Sully may be a hero and a great guy, but he is by no means a spokesman. His opinions aren't worth much more than all others.

You probably meant to quote the other poster then.

I believe Sully does an excellent job as a spokesman - especially for the woes of the airline industry and SAFETY. He explains the issues well and accurately - something which you won't see a lot of from many other aviation *experts* and often in language that the non-pilot/aviation enthusiast can understand.

I hope they don't change the law anytime soon.

Why? Because today's youth would actually have to work toward something? You can tell me the reward is no longer there as in years past, but the legacies are making gains in their contracts.

So there's a 1500 hour rule. What would you have done in the mid 90s when you actually needed that kind of time to be competitive to fly a turboprop?

Congress will care after the larger airlines discontinue service to their neck of the woods and give them the middle finger!

This was proposed in the past - check ride failures- and shot down by the FAA. The question was, "what's the magic number?" Also, they were concerned about examiner bias: no one wants to be the "career ender."

Unless checkrides can become more objectified, any attempt to use them to weed out plots will be met with stiff resistance. Sen Lautenberg of NJ tried to pull a "One Strike and You Need to Find Another Line of Work," rule and it didn't go anywhere.

I worked for a regional that had a 50% bust rate in the CRJ. It was obviously far from objective.

It would be political suicide for any congress man to publicly try and roll back the new requirements. As long as they keep trotting out grieving widows and parents for the TV cameras, the law will remain as is. Now in another five years or so, the bigger campaign contributions will eventually win.

That's honestly tough to say. History has shown that after a period of time, Americans seem to forget the sadness of tragedy and focus on the pain in their wallet. In, say, 5 years, the angry riot of people demanding $25 round trip fares will drown out the rational "pay them and they will come" people. They will say, "see, there hasn't been a crash in 10 years. It's all good now." Americans are mostly stupid, never forget that.

Given the number of current pilots who hold an ATP, there is no reason to roll back the requirement.

https://www.faa.gov/data_research/av...Air12-2013.xls

Raise the pay and maybe more of those 153,000 ATP's will be attracted to the profession.

Anybody know how many pilots are currently employed by the airlines? I am sure it is less than 100,000. That leaves a pilot surplus of over 53,000 pilots. There is no pilot shortage.

They will have trouble making it off probation. Captains are getting tired of conducting instruction for free. Not sure who is going to conduct this mystical and magical training. Experience is really the best training out there. Not sure how you can minimize experience.

I was the low time guy in my class and the junior guy too. I had 2300 TT and 1400 multi to get my first turbo prop regional job that paid 13.89 an hour.

Air Asia had a low time and inexperienced co pilot
Air France had a low time and inexperienced co pilot
Trans Asia had a low time and inexperienced co pilot


I think experience might be an issue right now, at least at foreign carriers.

Earn the hours. Learn something. 250 hours is not enough to be responsible for 50 people in the back of an airliner.

An ATP is an instructor rating. Instructing is part of the job. The FAA will renew your instructor certs if your an ATP employed as a Captain in an Airline. Your instructing every F.O. you fly with, grooming them to be the next Captain, teaching by example.

AND 2 of those crashes had CHECK AIRMEN on the flight deck!

The FAA should inform so called analysts that those statistics doesn't distinguish between US and Foreign citizens. I know many US pilot license holders who don't live in the US!

I don't get paid for that. I get paid to manage the operation and mentor the younger pilots.

Sure, an ATP can give instruction, but every second of every trip is a little overboard in my opinion. It's really a firehose effect at this level for an inexperienced and ill-qualified FO. The amount of information needs to be metered and controlled. I'd like to be able to let my guard down over a four day trip and relax a bit and enjoy the trip.

If my airline decided to make me a check airman then I would agree with you. No over-ride, no instruction in my opinion (within reason).

I just flew an international long haul trip with a low time FO. It was too much work in my opinion.

Good point!..I dont see it ever happening..What if there is another
accident as a result of them changing the rule?..Way too much
liability

Not exactly. FAA isn't supposed to renew your instructor certificate based on just being an airline pilot, the POI or inspector is supposed to have direct knowledge of your instructing ability, rather than a random inspector or AST. This has slipped through the cracks from time to time though, so I don't blame anyone that has gotten it.
If you think about it, there is so much more a flight instructor can do, in terms of train a private student, commercial, and they have to stay on top of part 91 and 61 regulations, which is usually something that most ATPs don't. For the ones that ARE active instructors, this is probably not a huge issue, but if you just have it to "have it", that's what the FIRCs are for.

If you are going to your CMO office or you can have the ASI contact your CMO, it probably would be fine, but it's not supposed to be an "automatic renewal", this from the inspector's handbook (8900).

IMO, the whole DPE system is flawed. What does it indicate: On that day, in that aircraft, under those conditions, with that examiner, my private pilot applicant performed (or not) for a three hour period. I did 3000+ hours of primary instructing (gold seal CFI) and had applicants that I figured would pass with flying colors - nope, pink slips. Others that I did all I could for, and hoped for the best - passed without a glitch.

Then you have the financial incentive issue. In the 90's some examiners were making 100K a year just giving checkrides (when a private exam was $125). I don't know what the answer is. But after flying with someone for 40 hours you get a better glimpse at behavior and traits than a quick look see.

ACA had a pretty high failure rate on the CRJ at one point as well. To them it was the space shuttle. They gave us maintenance manuals at indoc. At JetBlue I get a lot of, "you don't need to know that." Which is great, but being old school, I'm still wondering what the answer is sometimes.

There is another thread on this same topic started several days ago I believe.

It boggles my mind why any pilot would be against the higher minimums rule.

Sully is speaking out on behalf of pilots...why would you guys not want that?

Can someone please explain this.

Agree 100%. Scientists and experienced flight instructors (career instructors) wince at the testing methodology used by the FAA to test pilots. A basic knowledge of statistics will tell you that a reasonable level of certainty, say 95%, cannot be achieved with less than about 30 samples taken from a purely random, consistent population. By contrast, the FAA has a pilot candidate taking a single checkride that will supposedly be representative of years of future aircraft operation, based on only one flight. No wonder airplanes crash.

A case study can be found in any college course- an instructor gives multiple closed book exams per semester, 4 or 5 usually, plus a final exam, plus they usually throw in a weighted score for homework grades, and after all that is calculated a final grade is established using a curve scatter because it is known that natural logarithms apply. Even with all that care and effort, students still complain "oh I got a B when I deserved an A". Imagine how random it would be if a final score were assigned using only one exam! At best you would get a ballpark idea such as, this candidate is alive or dead. Worst it is inadequate testing based on one (1) personal opinion on one (1) particular morning or afternoon.