Official ATP rule - rumors?

Subscribe
Search this Thread
First
Page
10 of 49
Last
Go to
Page
6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  20 
Page 10 of 49
Go to
  #91  
Counselor , 11-17-2012 09:59 AM
Line Holder
Counselor
Line Holder
close
  • Joined APC
    Jun 2009
  • Posts:
    97
Quote:
Originally Posted by detpilot
Huh?!?

Filler filler
I think he meant fly a 152 to get the extra 1000 hours, not extra 100 hours. Although that's another 100k to get a 23k a year job.
Reply
  #92  
dgolladay , 11-24-2012 02:46 PM
New Hire
dgolladay
New Hire
close
  • Joined APC
    Sep 2012
  • Posts:
    4
Quote:
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
Section 217 (d) allows credit for specific training that would enhance safety in lieu of the 1500 hours. The consensus seems to be 1,000 hours combined with a college-level training program. ERAU, UND, Purdue sort of program.

I suspect FAA bureaucratic delay will impose 1500 hours until the NPRM is finalized and makes its way thru OMB. Remember, it was OMB that watered down the fatigue rules for cargo carriers.

GF
Just wanted to point out that Purdue has been part 61 for a while and would not be included as of the most recent writing of the NPRM (still says 141 in addition to the aviation degree.) Not being picky, just being "enlightening" with all due respect. Another .02 for the collection jar.
Reply
  #93  
MikeOldham , 11-25-2012 12:33 PM
On Reserve
MikeOldham
On Reserve
close
  • Joined APC
    Nov 2012
  • Position
    EMB-145 FO
  • Posts:
    20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Counselor
I think he meant fly a 152 to get the extra 1000 hours, not extra 100 hours. Although that's another 100k to get a 23k a year job.
No he was referencing the post above about Joe, an FO, theoretically losing his job because he only has 1400 hours.
Reply
  #94  
MikeOldham , 11-25-2012 12:35 PM
On Reserve
MikeOldham
On Reserve
close
  • Joined APC
    Nov 2012
  • Position
    EMB-145 FO
  • Posts:
    20
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandrich
What I can see happening is a further delay of a finalized ruling. All Congress said was that by Aug 2013, all 121 pilots need an ATP. There's nothing that says that the FAA absolutely has to have a change in by that date. They're just doing it as a way around this new requirement (I may be wrong on this?) What if the paperwork hits a speedbump in the White House, and doesn't come out on Aug 1st... Joe Shmoe with his 1400tt gets fired. One month later, a final ruling comes out (1000tt with a degree, whatever it may be), and Joe realizes he could have kept his job the entire time...

While I do agree that this rule will obviously boost the level of experience for a regional FO, I think some credit is due for the KIND of experience. Consider Joe Shmoe above:

Joe- 121 regional FO, 1400tt (900 hours on-the-job, turbine, people in the back experience shooting approaches in crap weather into busy airports)

Billy- instructor at a flight school, 1500tt doing steep turns over farm fields in Cessnas, just got his ATP

Joe gets fired and Billy gets his "dream" job....how does this make things safer? It will have an obvious positive effect 2 years down the road, but what about in the short term? Take someone who's been "in the suck" for at least a year and give his job to someone who's been doing Intro/Discovery flights for the past three... The big picture makes sense to me, but this part doesn't...
So what's up with the idea some people have that CFIs just sit around flying traffic patterns and steep turns!? If anything being a CFI builds a ton of experience being PIC with a copilot that unknowingly is trying to kill you! :)
Reply
  #95  
sandrich , 11-26-2012 06:06 PM
Gets Weekends Off
sandrich
Gets Weekends Off
close
  • Joined APC
    Feb 2011
  • Posts:
    787
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeOldham
So what's up with the idea some people have that CFIs just sit around flying traffic patterns and steep turns!? If anything being a CFI builds a ton of experience being PIC with a copilot that unknowingly is trying to kill you! :)
Nothing at all! I was a CFI myself, and I agree with the intent of this rule. My point was that, in the few months to follow this ATP rule, there will be a few people who have been in the cockpit for a year and may fall short and be regulated out of a job. I completely agree with the statement that CFI builds a ton of experience. But, on Aug 2013, someone who's been flying 121 for possibly over a year with 1400 hours is all of a sudden not safe to be in that seat? This is just entirely my opinion, but if I were a passenger, I'd rather that person up there than someone who just came out of a 'hawk (not to knock on CFIs).
Reply
  #96  
rickair7777's Avatar
rickair7777 , 11-27-2012 07:38 AM
Prime Minister/Moderator
rickair7777
Prime Minister/Moderator
close
  • Joined APC
    Jan 2006
  • Position
    Engines Turn Or People Swim
  • Posts:
    39,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandrich
Nothing at all! I was a CFI myself, and I agree with the intent of this rule. My point was that, in the few months to follow this ATP rule, there will be a few people who have been in the cockpit for a year and may fall short and be regulated out of a job. I completely agree with the statement that CFI builds a ton of experience. But, on Aug 2013, someone who's been flying 121 for possibly over a year with 1400 hours is all of a sudden not safe to be in that seat? This is just entirely my opinion, but if I were a passenger, I'd rather that person up there than someone who just came out of a 'hawk (not to knock on CFIs).
I doubt most airline would fire such a person. More likely they would put them on first call reserve to get their time up. If they miss the deadline they could assign them reserve at a Mx base to do test ferry and flights.

But everybody should have seen this coming far enough down the pike to react accordingly. If you're a low time FO who intentionally bid call-me-last reserve for the last two years....maybe you have it coming.
Reply
  #97  
Fly782 , 11-28-2012 05:05 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Fly782
Gets Weekends Off
close
  • Joined APC
    Nov 2009
  • Position
    AN124 FE
  • Posts:
    1,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandrich
Nothing at all! I was a CFI myself, and I agree with the intent of this rule. My point was that, in the few months to follow this ATP rule, there will be a few people who have been in the cockpit for a year and may fall short and be regulated out of a job. I completely agree with the statement that CFI builds a ton of experience. But, on Aug 2013, someone who's been flying 121 for possibly over a year with 1400 hours is all of a sudden not safe to be in that seat? This is just entirely my opinion, but if I were a passenger, I'd rather that person up there than someone who just came out of a 'hawk (not to knock on CFIs).
Are you the potential 1400 hr pilot trying to justify everything? This is the new rule. An ATP should not be changed
Reply
  #98  
cws1028's Avatar
cws1028 , 12-04-2012 06:04 PM
Line Holder
cws1028
Line Holder
close
  • Joined APC
    Jul 2011
  • Position
    Assistant Button Pusher
  • Posts:
    88
Sorry if I'm a bit behind, but just trying to make sense of all this. From what I was reading in this thread and other sources is that barring some major change, May 17th, the new ATP requirements will go into effect? is this correct? Also, if so, any word from the airlines on if they will be adjusting to make up for this and if so, when they will?
Reply
  #99  
DrangonStar45's Avatar
DrangonStar45 , 12-04-2012 11:28 PM
Line Holder
DrangonStar45
Line Holder
close
  • Joined APC
    Apr 2011
  • Position
    King Air Driver
  • Posts:
    96
Is there any changes to the NPRMs?
Reply
  #100  
Twin Wasp's Avatar
Twin Wasp , 12-05-2012 02:10 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Twin Wasp
Gets Weekends Off
close
  • Joined APC
    Oct 2007
  • Position
    Sr. VP of button pushing
  • Posts:
    2,732
The date is August 2, 2013.
Reply
First
Page
10 of 49
Last
Go to
Page
6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  20 
Page 10 of 49
Go to