Guys, I'm not sure if this is the right spot to post this, but I'm gonna post it here and in a few other spots on the forum. As I'm sure most of you know the FAA is proposing that all first officers in Part 121 operations should hold an ATP certificate, along with having a minimum of 1500 hours. As someone who someday wants to become an airline pilot, this new legislation would almost make it financially impossible for me along with most others. Here's the link to the proposal:

 

http://www.gpo.gov/f...f/2012-4627.pdf

 

You can submit your comments to the FAA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking office up until April 30th. After that date the FAA will no longer consider comments regarding the proposed legislation. If you are able, please comment. Submit your comments at www.regulations.gov. Refer to Docket Number: FAA-2010-0100.

 

Best Regards,

Robert

That's been on the books for quite some time. I'm very much less than pleased about it. The ruling puts off that anyone without an ATP is essentially worthless, even though the ruling came partially from the CJC3407 crash, when the ATP-rated captain was cited in at least one of the probable causes of the accident.

 

Stupid.

Stupid.

Stupid.

 

 

...stupid.

 

 

Then again, we are talking about the US Government here. Typical Congressional undercut of the overseeing agency.

 

 

The upside is that pilots who do press on to get it will be in a smaller pool. It will also likely kick a lot of the shiny-jet-syndrome kids out, too. It isn't all downsides, but it's very, very misguided.

That's been on the books for quite some time. I'm very much less than pleased about it. The ruling puts off that anyone without an ATP is essentially worthless, even though the ruling came partially from the CJC3407 crash, when the ATP-rated captain was cited in at least one of the probable causes of the accident.

 

Stupid.

Stupid.

Stupid.

 

 

...stupid.

 

 

Then again, we are talking about the US Government here. Typical Congressional undercut of the overseeing agency.

 

 

The upside is that pilots who do press on to get it will be in a smaller pool. It will also likely kick a lot of the shiny-jet-syndrome kids out, too. It isn't all downsides, but it's very, very misguided.

 

Exactly!! Couldn't have said it better. haha Not to mention, the increased amount of time it would take to reach that goal. As it is I'm going to school for ATC in order to earn enough money to pay for flight school. Even with the current regs, I would be lucky to become a first officer at the age of 30. With the proposed legislation, I hate to think how many years I would have to be a CFI before getting a job at a regional. And then make $21,000. haha.

After that date the FAA will no longer consider comments regarding the proposed legislation

 

As if they really listen to the comments and act upon them. Its just a waste of time as the decision has already been made

There's some good commentary about it here (and an interesting way to cut the cost, though arguably not as effective as most might want):

http://www.gadling.com/2011/06/30/cockpit-chronicles-landing-an-airline-pilot-job-just-got-harder/

 

The law is mandated to take effect by August of 2013 and was one of the

recommendations

to come from the Colgan Flight 3407 accident in Buffalo, even though both accident pilots had more than 1,500 hours at the time of the crash, with the captain having logged 3,329 hours and the first officer 2,200.

 

Clearly, hours make a good pilot. Right? No, sorry.

I spent enough time at a flight school in Phoenix with pilots still attempting PPL checkrides at 250 hours to know better. And no, I'm not using my typical hyperbole in that statement.

That's been on the books for quite some time. I'm very much less than pleased about it. The ruling puts off that anyone without an ATP is essentially worthless, even though the ruling came partially from the CJC3407 crash, when the ATP-rated captain was cited in at least one of the probable causes of the accident.

 

Stupid.

Stupid.

Stupid.

 

 

...stupid.

 

 

Then again, we are talking about the US Government here. Typical Congressional undercut of the overseeing agency.

 

 

The upside is that pilots who do press on to get it will be in a smaller pool. It will also likely kick a lot of the shiny-jet-syndrome kids out, too. It isn't all downsides, but it's very, very misguided.

 

Do a little research before just saying stupid stupid stupid, might make you sound a little more respectable. There is a current NPRM out there that will hopefully and probably WILL get made into a final rule. The current 1500 rule actually has more of an effect to other areas, such as the economy, then just pilots needing 1500 hours.

 

Here is the link to the NPRM: http://www.faa.gov/r...20-AJ67NPRM.pdf

 

The current rule of 1500 hours really does affect the economy when you take a glance at the studies done by several major aviation Universities. In plain terms, regional airlines will have to park planes because there will be a shortage of pilots also because of the mass retiring at the majors. About 22000 pilots are at the majors right now with about 17000 at the regionals. Even if all the pilots get pushed through, you are still missing 5000 pilots and that not number doesn't include growth or captains that are established at the regionals that have no desire to leave them. There also won't be enough pilots that would be able to meet the 1500 hour requirement to get hired by a regional.

 

The other problem is that to get an ATP its not just 1500 TT you have to have to your name. It is all the other requirements such as cross country time (500 hours). With the NPRM it reduces that time to 325 hours, but that still is a lot when compared to 1000 TT. An internal study at the University of North Dakota shows that it would take about 1300 hours to accumulate 325 hours of cross country time. When your an instructor most of your flights are not cross country time. Several ideas out in the industry are to lower that time even more or adjust what fits the requirements of a cross country like ICAO of just from one airport to another airport.

 

There are several ideas out there and this is just one of them, this will certainly help everyone if this NPRM is made a final rule.

As if they really listen to the comments and act upon them. Its just a waste of time as the decision has already been made

 

It's worth a try though.

I fail to see the point in your argument. Could you perhaps refine it slightly?

 

If your point is that there are indicators that this NPRM would be bad for the economy of the situation, I agree. Creating even more of a gap between someone and the airlines is not what we need. We need better preventive measures along the way (not just via hours requirements, because those are very, very expensive). I understand that it adjusts the hours requirements (I tend to actually research things before making my points, even though you've accused me of not), but that's again basing pilot safety on hours alone.

 

The research actually suggests that pilots are, on the whole, safer after passing the 300 hour mark (Killing Zone, Paul Craig, 2000). The extra requirements are really Congress and their "advisers" stabbing in the dark to try and draw safety out of hours. Dropping the thresholds of certain requirements is great, but not at the expense of making others nearly impossible for those who didn't spend the $40+K for aviation universities. Speaking of, the aviation universities are trying to argue for credits for their students so that they could meet slightly lower requirements. Again, assuming safety in numbers or "credentials." I know tons of ERAU pilots that I would never fly with, just as I know tons of FBO pilots who I would also never fly with. The idea you get safer pilots out of aviation universities is almost as misguided as the NPRM.

 

You get safer pilots because they've been taught about safety and they have a safety mindset. It's that last part that matters. I can tell people all I want that you should do X and not Y, but they actually have to listen and apply that knowledge. Doesn't matter if I have B.S. Aeronautics, ERAU or CFII, Av-Ed Flight School attached to my name. It's the pilot's application of the skill set and knowledge that's been imparted to them that matters.

 

Again, misguided and stupid.

Heck those requirements are pretty much standard up here in Canada. Its not necessarily Transport Canada requirements but requirements set by the airlines. I am not ure what is so difficult though. You just go get a job flying charter until you get the time requirements or an ATP. But trust me you WANT pilot shortage. If this requirement to have an ATP creates this shortage it is a good thing. During the economic boom a few years ago, king air capt wages jump up 20K because the lack of qualified pilots.

Like I said, it's not all negatives (pilot shortage means demand, and the huge hurdle might drive passive pilots with SJS out), but the idea that more hours = safer pilots and flights is very, very uneducated (then again, it's Congress trying to regulate something they have no education in, so it's not surprising).

I fail to see the point in your argument. Could you perhaps refine it slightly?

 

If your point is that there are indicators that this NPRM would be bad for the economy of the situation, I agree. Creating even more of a gap between someone and the airlines is not what we need. We need better preventive measures along the way (not just via hours requirements, because those are very, very expensive). I understand that it adjusts the hours requirements (I tend to actually research things before making my points, even though you've accused me of not), but that's again basing pilot safety on hours alone.

 

The research actually suggests that pilots are, on the whole, safer after passing the 300 hour mark (Killing Zone, Paul Craig, 2000). The extra requirements are really Congress and their "advisers" stabbing in the dark to try and draw safety out of hours. Dropping the thresholds of certain requirements is great, but not at the expense of making others nearly impossible for those who didn't spend the $40+K for aviation universities. Speaking of, the aviation universities are trying to argue for credits for their students so that they could meet slightly lower requirements. Again, assuming safety in numbers or "credentials." I know tons of ERAU pilots that I would never fly with, just as I know tons of FBO pilots who I would also never fly with. The idea you get safer pilots out of aviation universities is almost as misguided as the NPRM.

 

You get safer pilots because they've been taught about safety and they have a safety mindset. It's that last part that matters. I can tell people all I want that you should do X and not Y, but they actually have to listen and apply that knowledge. Doesn't matter if I have B.S. Aeronautics, ERAU or CFII, Av-Ed Flight School attached to my name. It's the pilot's application of the skill set and knowledge that's been imparted to them that matters.

 

Again, misguided and stupid.

 

To make it a simple as I can:

 

The current rule of 1500 hours is in effect, already passed, signed. The ideal situtation and what I am gathering from your posts is that it should be "reversed", that won't happen. The current NPRM proposes that this rule would be transformed, 1000 hours and less hours for the other requirements. This would include some exceptions and additional training needed. I am stating that the 1500 rule is bad for everyone, and with that I am implying that the NPRM will lessen the effect of the 1500 hour rule.

 

So again if we cant "reverse" the 1500 hour rule, which wont happen, the next best thing is the NPRM, it ultimately reduces the hours required. Think you might be confused between the difference of the NPRM and the written "current" rule. I agree that hours are not a direct sign of safety. You can very well have a multi-thousand hour pilot that doesn't take what he does seriously.

 

If we have to have rule, I hope its the NPRM not the current rule. Now with aviation university, you take classes that help better round you as a pilot at least in terms of knowledge that you don't get from your local 61 school. Long range nav, aircraft systems, gas turbine classes, the lists goes on. Now I am sure your getting the sense that I attend a aviation school and in fact your are correct. Although I am doing a business major while adding on flight courses to my semester, and no I do not go to ERAU. The industry speaks for themselves about ERAU pilots, they get preached every day they go to the "harvard of the skies" especially when you go on a campus tour. So of course they are going to have egos its nature. I am not bias towards any university or part 141 vs 61. You will end up in the same place in the long run, but if it comforts you to have flying involved in your daily schedule as a college student versus having to schedules flight around school schedules then part 141 is better. Also I did get my private outside of 141 and thoroughly enjoyed that experience and I learned how the real world does it versus some of the bubbles of protection you see at universities. Its just how things are.

Thanks for the clarification Sam. You are correct in that I'm arguing that the ideal situation is one without the onerous hours requirements. I wish they had really addressed one of the larger issues that was brought to light during that 3407 accident - scheduling - instead of trying to find better pilots using the "simple" hours fix. The FAA did similar recently when they had all kinds of conferences and think tanks trying to combat runway incursions. Despite all kinds of interesting infrastructure ideas, what was their answer? Update the phraseology in the 7110.65 for controllers to use "Runway 28, taxi via..." and "line up and wait." Why? It's essentially free. It's not necessarily more effective, but it's a change, which means they did something to try to fix it.

 

I understand that there's little use arguing against a set decision, because like you said, it's not likely they're going to remove it. That doesn't mean I can't call them out for a very stupid decision. Your point of the reduction of those requirements is welcomed news.

 

As far as the aviation university comments go, I was just making a general statement since I'd mentioned them. I wasn't trying to take a stab at you. I understand they do give you the opportunity for extra knowledge to round out a pilot. That bit makes sense, but again, to say universities should have an exception is going a little too far in my eyes. I just took a stab at ERAU because, just as you said, they've got their noses up a bit as a university. That's not to say all of their students are snobs. Just as I said, I know plenty on the other side of the fence who "know it all." Actually, of my two favorite people to have with me in a plane, one of them went to some podunk flight school in BFN, Maryland, and the other one went to ERAU (DAB). While both are safe, I'd almost say the safety that was hammered into my ERAU friend created a borderline neurosis, but hey, she's still safe about things.

Glad to see it all got cleared up.

Its just going to be the case where more government regulation has unintended consequences to the negative and probably will do nothing to keep these accidents from happening. This is a flight training issue not a time issue. That Colgan pilot had bad training, not a lack of experience. Also some are cut out to fly and others just are not but the CFI, examiner, inspector,check airman is too scarred to be honest with them about it, nobody wants to fire anyone. he did fail a bunch of checkrides right? In my opinion that Colgan captain had a primary instructor that was either afraid of stalls or just did not care about his student. Many are just out to build time and could give a hoot about good training. It is sad to say that many 141 pilot mills put out many unqualified pilots all the way through CFII. No amount of FAA regulation will change this. In my 13 years as an almost full time CFI rarely have I ever worked with, around or heard of CFI's really getting out there and actually training their students in grass roots old school stick and rudder flying. Going out and doing spins, falling leaf stalls, proper use of rudder during the stall... Heck most CFI's who's students I have flown with do not even use the rudders and elevator trim! This seems to be an industry wide acceptance.

 

Too many of these part 141 and 61 schools spit out pilots with very little correlative level of learning and basic stick and rudder skills. The orientation is airlines from the beginning, not the airplane. The orientation is building time and not the student. There have been many accidents like Colgan air 3407 in smaller airplanes where you just go; how the heck did they do that!

 

Like the airbus crash over the Atlantic. No one in that cockpit had any stick and rudder skills. So until people within the aviation industry go through a paradigm shift back to how pilots used to be trained these things will continue to happen and no amount of government regulation will do anything to increase safety and will do everything to destroy the market. The thought crosses my mind as well that it increases my standard of living with a Regional airline if I so choose with better pay, quicker upgrades, longevity, etc. But before we think about that to much we have to realize how a regional airline can even exist on the thinnest of profit margins and to many of these regulations might very well abolish the regional airline industry or make it so the airlines are untouchable for employment for all but the military and the connected like they used to be.

 

The regionals exist today because of deregulation, lets not get so exited about regulation in the name of perceived safety that we destroy that. Biting the hand that feeds.

Well, as you start out, getting to 1,500 hours while getting paid, i.e. "Alaska Time" is quite easy. Alaskan operators need pilots all the time, and flying a 206, 207, 185 or something along those lines gets your time up quickly, you save up your money, and since those aircraft are under 12,500lbs gross, they do not require an ATP for PIC (since only one pilot is onboard those things); thus, you obtain time, money, and experience as a PIC on your path to become an ATP.