Luckily, I live in Australia :)

This is the FAA right, so does it affect the people who are going towards the JAA like me?

Can't wait to do my ATPL's next Year (JAA) I wouldn't personally do another FAA License. I could work over here but I understand you can't fly commercially until 23/21? Not 100% maybe someone can clarify. No offence to any American but I'd rather fly Commercially back in Europe :lol:

The answer is simple. Buy a Piper Cub and fly 40 transcontinental flights. It will take about a year of nonstop flying, but you will have the best stick and rudder skills of any applicant anywhere! hahaha

There are a few airlines with low minimums at the moment hiring. I'm sure there will be a hiring frenzy to beat this August 2013 deadline

There are a few airlines with low minimums at the moment hiring. I'm sure there will be a hiring frenzy to beat this August 2013 deadline

 

Yes and no. As the rule stands right now, if you don't have 1500hrs and an ATP by aug 2013, you are dequaled from 121 line flying. It is up to the company and unions (if applicable) if they will terminate you. Most airlines are adjusting their requirements so they don't get themselves in this mess.

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.

 

Uh, not that many. 2 or 3 max, unless you are sitting around a lot. Does not seem unreasonable to scare the crap out of yourself a few times before you do it in an aircraft that might not be as forgiving as your high-wing Cessna.

 

And keep in mind, you don't necessarily have to instruct the whole time. You could fly small freight, haul checks, ferry aircraft. There are all sorts of ways to build time. I agree with Kyle, hours don't necessarily make the pilot. It is all about professionalism, and that is fully up to you - wether you fly a C-172 or a B747. But I also disagree with Kyle. If you compare the numbers, you get more structured and safety oriented pilots from universities. The courses there are usually structured for airlines and start teaching the core competencies from early on so that they are ingrained.

 

Don't get me wrong, you can also be lucky enough to find a really good FBO with a professional CFI that can provide amazing training, better than a university. But you have to admit, that it is pretty hard to find that. For every good small flying school there is 5 or 10 that only care about making a buck, with CFIs that are only there to build hours and could really care less. It is an unfortunate side effect of the current aviation industry we have.

 

While I don't think requiring 1500 hours will solve our problem directly, I think indirectly, it will have a positive effect. Pilot salaries will obviously have to increase as competition for suitable candidates gets tougher, and that will only help to alleviate a lot of the problems in the industry now, like attracting professionals and eliminating the non-committed.

Luckily, I live in Australia :)

 

It's not easy to land a job FO job here in Australia without a similar amount of multi engined hours either, unless you're lucky and the airlines want pilots quickly.

0 Hour to CFI Certificate: $59,990 USD.

Aeronautical Science Degree: $130,000 USD.

1,250 Flight Hours Afterwards: 4 years and $200,000 USD of someone elses money.

Yearly income of your first puddle-jumper job: $19,875 after taxes.

 

Congress wondering why the new hire pool of pilots is at rock bottom: Priceless.

 

Yeah, they can go ahead and make it financially irresponsible to fund becoming a pilot. I know one thing, though: If I don't make right seat before this thing comes into the game in 2013 I'm going to be set back several years, and I'm certainly not alone in that statement. I've spent over 80 grand for my desire to be an airline pilot, and I don't like the idea of me sitting around for 4 more years in a 172 paying $50,000 for more x-country time out of pocket because Congress had a knee-jerk reaction to a crash that had nothing to do with pilot hours.

 

I don't get why Congress is even voting on issues like this. They created the FAA to oversee and handle issues related to pilot training and certification. That said, how is it reasonable to any of them to look at the current requirements of becoming a pilot (Essentially $100 grand out of pocket for a 20 grand/yr job) and think there won't be repercussions for raising those requirements further.

 

/End furious rant from a guy 1,000 hours away from an ATP.

But I also disagree with Kyle. If you compare the numbers, you get more structured and safety oriented pilots from universities. The courses there are usually structured for airlines and start teaching the core competencies from early on so that they are ingrained.

 

Don't get me wrong, you can also be lucky enough to find a really good FBO with a professional CFI that can provide amazing training, better than a university. But you have to admit, that it is pretty hard to find that. For every good small flying school there is 5 or 10 that only care about making a buck, with CFIs that are only there to build hours and could really care less. It is an unfortunate side effect of the current aviation industry we have.

 

While I don't think requiring 1500 hours will solve our problem directly, I think indirectly, it will have a positive effect. Pilot salaries will obviously have to increase as competition for suitable candidates gets tougher, and that will only help to alleviate a lot of the problems in the industry now, like attracting professionals and eliminating the non-committed.

 

I'd like to see some empirical evidence that pilots out of universities are safer, or even better in any way. That's a very big assumption there. The only difference between me and my university student buddy in terms of flying skill, safety and ability is that she sat in a classroom with aviation classes for four years and has more hours (oh, and a ton of student debt). If you didn't know our educational backgrounds or hours, you would hardly see a difference at all. My case might be what you specifically exempted by "[...] you can also be lucky enough to find a really good FBO [...]," but I still find it very hard to believe there would be a noticeable difference between the two realms. CFIs only there to make a buck aren't limited to a particular realm.

 

I agree with you on the rest, though. Well said. I think it would definitely put pilots in a more powerful position, but it will also mean a lot of those who might be cut out to fly simply can't make it because of the financial burden.

 

 

I've spent over 80 grand for my desire to be an airline pilot, and I don't like the idea of me sitting around for 4 more years in a 172 paying $50,000 for more x-country time out of pocket because Congress had a knee-jerk reaction to a crash that had nothing to do with pilot hours.

 

I don't get why Congress is even voting on issues like this. They created the FAA to oversee and handle issues related to pilot training and certification. That said, how is it reasonable to any of them to look at the current requirements of becoming a pilot (Essentially $100 grand out of pocket for a 20 grand/yr job) and think there won't be repercussions for raising those requirements further.

 

Congress is hopelessly out of touch with reality in just about every way. They're old, mostly rich, and have absolutely no concentration in anything outside of government affairs, politics, and maybe a little law. Other than that, their main interests are primarily themselves, and perhaps golf (insert picture of them holding baby here).

 

What drives me up the wall is that Congress knew this fact quite a while ago when they created the FAA. They created the FAA to be more knowledgeable and specialized in aviation matters than they were (although Mary Schiavo would probably disagree with that statement), and then they undercut them (having very little knowledge of the actual inner workings of the business of aviation) by imposing this ruling.

 

As an example outside of our industry, take CISPA (the new SOPA, essentially):

"In an attempt to address some of the key concerns, the bill's authors, representatives Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger, hosted a conference call specifically geared at digital reporters. The invitation was for "Cyber Media and Cyber Bloggers" (seriously) and took place at 7am Silicon Valley time—thus demonstrating that they are totally in touch with the tech community."

http://www.techdirt....heres-why.shtml

 

The mere fact they still use the word 'cyber' makes me laugh, and the fact that they call them 'cyber bloggers' makes me laugh harder. To me, that shows part of how they haven't the slightest clue. I'm honestly waiting for them to start talking about 5.25" floppies.

 

The sad fact is that we as the American public elected these idiots...

You still must realize that the reason there is a small hiring pool now, is that for the big legcay carriers, there are very few pilots retiring at the mandatory age 65. This year, only about 17 Delta pilots go out because of the 65 rule. The baby-boomers will be starting to go soon, and by 2022, there will be something like 2,000 pilots reaching that 65 rule a year.

 

And stop putting so much scrutiny on the FAA; the FAA is the foremost agency in the world when it comes to aviation, and their laws, their statues, and their regulations make things better. Yes, the requirements are tough, but that's what makes American pilots the best, because of the requriements. Not just anybody can get a pilot's license, or become and airline pilot; it takes skill, determination, and it requires training and experience. I don't see 1,500 hours being a massive number to try and overcome, your first job isn't going to be the captain at a major airline. What the FAA requires from airplanes to be certified, and pilots to be licensed is for the best, and nothing beats what is done in the United States - this is becaus it is hard, and it makes everything safer.

Right, but if you look at is as timeline based, assuming a constant rate of available pilots:

If you make a good portion of that current pool ineligible until another year or two down the road, you're shifting your hiring pool that far out. Granted, some will still be eligible, but creating a huge shifted gap in the hiring pool is less than advisable.

 

As I mentioned, in that gap there will still be some who are eligible, but at that time if the airlines need bodies, they'll fill the positions with bodies and may be less choosy about pilot qualifications, provided he or she is at the FAA mins. That could have the exact opposite effect of what the ruling was set out to combat: "safety." (quotes intentionally posed in the figurative sense)

what do the congress know about aviation anyway? My new motto towards them, the opposite to pro is con, so whats the opposite to congress?

what do the congress know about aviation anyway? My new motto towards them, the opposite to pro is con, so whats the opposite to congress?

 

The U.S. Congress knows absolutely nothing about aviation. Unfortunately, if Congress is looked at as a con, the airlines and the FAA cannot be looked at as a pro. Some of the policies the FAA adopts are utter bogus. For example, I was once denied my 2nd class medical because I took medicine for ADHD as a child. Supposedly, the condition and medication are both disqualifying.(I did finally get it after 6hrs of psychiatric testing and months of waiting.) This is ironic since most pilots and air traffic controllers probably actually have ADHD. :Just Kidding: Now, in Europe or Canada, I could get my medical certificate easily while even being on the medication. Unfortunately, in this day in age, governmental agencies and groups are busy creating new policies which make it increasingly difficult to even start a career in aviation. To sum up my point, nobody is perfect. As long as humans are flying the plane, accidents will happen. The solution shouldn't be to automatically up the minimum requirements every time something happens. The solution should come by new strategies to try and relieve pilot stress and fatigue. These guys carry tens, if not hundreds, of passengers into the sky and we pay them very little to do so, not to mention having them work to exhaustion. It seems to me that raising the minimum hours and making it harder to get a first officer job, would increase the amount of stress and fatigue current pilots face, possibly leading to an actual increase in the number of incidents.

 

Robert

The U.S. Congress knows absolutely nothing about aviation. Unfortunately, if Congress is looked at as a con, the airlines and the FAA cannot be looked at as a pro.

The point was that the opposite of pro is con. If you make the same prefix change to Congress, you get progress. Play on words. If you got that already, sorry for pointing out the obvious.

 

Some of the policies the FAA adopts are utter bogus. For example, I was once denied my 2nd class medical because I took medicine for ADHD as a child. Supposedly, the condition and medication are both disqualifying.(I did finally get it after 6hrs of psychiatric testing and months of waiting.) This is ironic since most pilots and air traffic controllers probably actually have ADHD. :Just Kidding:

 

The same thing happened to my roommate, but to be honest, I wouldn't want anyone with any type of mental disorder up front. There are all kinds of "random" (meaning you wouldn't think of it as a disqualification, but it is) disqualifying factors out there. One of them is consistent migraines. Again, you'd think that's kind of asinine, but if you've ever had one before, you'd know they're debilitating, and we don't want our pilots out of commission frequently when it counts (migraine frequency has been linked to stress - instrument approaches add stress to flight, and so on).

 

My mental disorder comment is not to say you have a mental handicap, or that you're slow, or anything, but issues with the brain are complex issues, and none of them are actually fully understood. How one disorder of the mind affects one can affect another entirely differently. How I react to stress in flight is different from how the next guy reacts. The problem with ADHD, is that they're worried someone with it may not notice key events in a flight because they are not paying attention to the important issues. To the FAA the disorder itself is one thing. The fact that drugs were needed means that at one point, it must have been so bad to require them (in theory), and disorders of the mind are assumed to be somewhat permanent, thus the required psych evals to prove that the issue has since passed.

 

I'm still not sold on the whole issue of ADHD, though. It's either overdiagnosed, or is more of an excuse than anything. I don't mean offense by that, but if you think about it, I can take the same "ADHD" individual and sit him or her down in front of a personal stimulus (for me it's flying, for Timmy it's Modern Warfare, and for Bob next door it's collecting stamps) and they'll sit there attentive for hours. It's not the attention that's deficit, it's the mental control. Stick me in front of a college textbook and force me to read? You'll be [darned] sure I'm going to get a little deficit on attention. It's normal, yet somehow people decided that it's abnormal, and developed drugs for it.

 

I know I may have stepped on some toes there, but take it at the face value only. It's only my view of the world. If you don't like it, you may choose to dismiss my opinion as rubbish, or choose to get offended by it. I hope you choose the former.