Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

There are now a few threads on the new proposal going through congress. Someone posted this link in a different thread, but I thought it was important for everyone to have an easy way to find it and take a look.

For those of you who are worried about about losing your job because you are currently under 1500 hours, this should ease your mind a bit. Section 10 deals with "Flight Crewmember Screening and Qualification."

I bolded, underlined, and italicized the answer to the big question of the last two days. Here is Section 10:

SEC. 10. 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 crewmembers have proper qualifications and experience.

•  
  • (2) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS-

•  
  •  
    • (A) PROSPECTIVE FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS- Rules issued under paragraph (1) shall ensure that prospective flight crewmembers undergo comprehensive pre-employment screening, 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 flight crewmembers--

•  
  •  
    •  
      • (i) have obtained an airline transport pilot license 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).

So it looks like all currently employed pilots below the ATP minumums will be grandfathered in, but I'm unsure about anyone hired post implementation of the bill. In other words, can someone be hired after passage with less than ATP minimums and then obtain ATP within three years?

I read it as nobody will need an ATP until 3 years after the bill passes. I could be wrong though.

This is the way I read it. Also it does have to go through a lot of different commitees before reaching a final vote/law.

Finally this is instructing the FAA to make the rules. The FAA may make the rules such that somebody could be grandfathered in, but new hires will have to meet the requirements.

Just my 2 yen

I definitely think the rule will be grandafathered in for current employees. I think it would make sense for anyone hired post passage to have two years to earn the ATP. That way airlines could still hire, but new hires would be trained up to the higher standard in relatively short order.

It is grandfathered, sort of. Three years is enough time for almost any regional pilot to hit 1500 hours. If someone is stuck on reserve, the company might need to proactively fly them (like consolidation) to get their time.

But you WILL have to get an ATP...you are not grandfathered to fly forever with a commercial. Hopefully your airline will do it on your PC, and not force you to go spend $2-3K out in town.

I just read this bill...it seems like half of it is requiring the FAA to enact new regulations regarding the most important issues. So, Congress is proposing a law which requires another government entity to do something. What if the FAA fails to comply; Is the FAA going to issue a violation to itself?

This would put us right around age 65 retirees wouldn't it?

The FAA has no choice...the proposed law is reasonable in that it sets a framework of requirements and allows the experts at the FAA to fill in the details using NPRM process.

Congress is actually being smart here...

- They know that the FAA will do absolutely nothing at all if allowed to.

- They also know that they (congress) are NOT the technical experts on aviation and do not want to make detailed rules without really knowing what they are talking about.

So far, I am happy with their approach to this. They are holding a gun to the head of the agency which should have solved these problems decades ago.

Also keep in mind that congress is not just another agency...they are the 800 pound gorilla of government, and can do anything they like if it does not violate the constitution. The current congress could probably override a veto if it wanted to.

I don't like the wiggle room left for duty day requirements.