Has this been put up by anyone yet? The advance notice of proposed rule making (ANPRM) on new pilot certification requirements for air carrier operations (i.e. an ATP required to work at a Part 121 carrier).

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...0-02643_PI.pdf


I tried pasting the whole thing, but it didn't work very well.

thats exactly what the rules should be imho

Wow I'm impressed! I didn't think the FAA would propose this rule unless the government forced them too! I'm also impressed with the different options that they are thinking about. I still think that an ATP should be required for part 121 ops. but if a few more of those options are incorporated into flight training, like the commercial requirement to have icing and high altitude experience as well as requiring more flight time for the commercial rating, then I think then I think the fast track schools would begin to dissapear which I feel would improve safety somewhat. There are still other things that need to be improved overall but at least this is a start.

This ANPRM is ONLY for the purpose of seeking comments. It does not necessarily mean the FAA is considering putting out a NPRM to actually change 121 minimums to ATP. Actually, I suspect this is their way of getting a bunch of negative comments from the industry so they can take them all to the Senate and say "see, we put out a ANPRM and nobody thinks it's a good idea," thus convincing the Senators to not consider the House bill that passed last year.

All of us who care about this issue ought to bury them in mail.

I would have prefered to see what the thoughts were about the rest requirements. Other than that it seems that there might actually be some changes which is a good step.

Interesting timing of this thread. Earlier today the House Aviation SubCommittee held a hearing for an update from FAA Administrator Babbitt and the Inspector General assigned to the "FAA Call to Action on Airline Safety and Pilot Training."

The AG wasn't too impressed with the lack of movement by Babbitt on the issue. When asked to grade the progress to date, he said it would not be an "A, B, or C." It would be an "incomplete."

Of the unions representing pilots only the following were present; APA, CAPA (VP Jeff Skiles for all member carriers), USAPA, and Teamsters Airline Division.

2. Academic Training as a Substitute for Flight Hours Experience.
The FAA seeks public comment on the concept of permitting academic credit in
lieu of required flight hours or experience1. In particular, we request comments on the
following issues:
2A. Are aviation/pilot graduates from accredited aviation university degree
programs likely to have a more solid academic knowledge base than other pilots hired for
air carrier operations? Why or why not?
2B. Should the FAA consider crediting specific academic study in lieu of flight
hour requirements? If so, what kind of academic study should the FAA accept, and to
what extent should academic study (e.g., possession of an aviation degree from an
accredited four-year aviation program) substitute for flight hours or types of operating
experience?
2C. If the FAA were to credit academic study (e.g., possession of an aviation
degree from an accredited four-year aviation program and/or completion of specific
courses), should the agency still require a minimum number of flight hours for part 121
air carrier operations? Some have suggested that, regardless of academic training, the
FAA should require a minimum of 750 hours for a commercial pilot to serve as SIC in
part 121 operations. Is this number too high, or too low, and why?


This Section is just wrong! I have read dozens of books on golf but still can't hit a straight drive.

If you agree with HR 3371, then go here and vote:


WashingtonWatch.com - H.R. 3371, The Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009
Your vote is important, my vote changed the results 1%. I expect that all the no votes are from students in flight school, and people at The Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009, H.R. 3371

One level of safety....

I can't believe it's 60% against this bill. Idiots.

56% now against. Keep the internet votes coming. I have also written to my congressman about it.