FAA may reduce required flight time for commercial co-pilots.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: KwaZulu Natal
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA may reduce required flight time for commercial co-pilots.
Minimum flight time requirements for co-pilots has been an issue which crops up regularly on PPRune and normally after the reports of an incident/accident which may directly or indirectly apportion blame to the lack of experience on type of aircraft.
The following link http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjourna...ing-lower.html leaves me to wonder what can we expect in the future with the continual growth of passengers and the number of airframes in our skies.
The following link http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjourna...ing-lower.html leaves me to wonder what can we expect in the future with the continual growth of passengers and the number of airframes in our skies.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having only fairly recently increased the required minimum hours to 1500 for an FO, should the FAA decide to now reduce that requirement, I can only imagine it will come with certain restricting terms and conditions. Possibly allowable on multi crew ops only. That won't be much help to the smaller carriers who are the ones looking for a reduction in the 1500 hour requirement.
I have to wonder at times if "too few hours" is a variable figure that (in the eyes of the reader) equates to "someone with less hours than I have".
A bit like a medical definition of alcoholism: "Anyone who drinks more than their doctor".
A bit like a medical definition of alcoholism: "Anyone who drinks more than their doctor".
The article says they are looking at reducing the TT requirement for military pilots to get their ATP from 750 hours to 500. While the military used to be the prime source of airline pilots I don't believe that is the case anymore. And given the years of commitment once military pilot training is completed and the tempo of US military operations I don't think many pilots are getting out with under 750 hours.
The article is also wrong when it says as recently as 2013 pilots needed 1500 hours to be an airline pilot. In 2013 pilots had to have 1500 hours to get an ATP but you only needed (per the regs) a commercial certificate to sit right seat in an airliner.
The article is also wrong when it says as recently as 2013 pilots needed 1500 hours to be an airline pilot. In 2013 pilots had to have 1500 hours to get an ATP but you only needed (per the regs) a commercial certificate to sit right seat in an airliner.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The hours should not be the issue. It's the quality of those hours that matters. 1,500 hours in a "spam can" teaching PPLs to fly is not the same as 200 hours of quality instruction, a proper IR on a complicated aircraft and a proper type rating course on a jet. The latter is not cheap, ask any airforce (I don't think any airline pays any more), but the quality is there.
If nothing else, it is what the fare paying passenger deserves. But they also deserve to be flown by a properly rested crew, one that is paid enough so they can afford accommodation within a reasonable distance from where they report for duty. They also deserve to be flown by people who don't have to worry about how they are going to afford to buy their family their food or pay for their cars etc. Cheap comes at a price.
If nothing else, it is what the fare paying passenger deserves. But they also deserve to be flown by a properly rested crew, one that is paid enough so they can afford accommodation within a reasonable distance from where they report for duty. They also deserve to be flown by people who don't have to worry about how they are going to afford to buy their family their food or pay for their cars etc. Cheap comes at a price.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree.
The 1500 minimum was no more than a knee-jerk reaction to an accident in which the TT of the crew members had no bearing.
That they had both endured long commutes prior to the start of their duty day is of far greater significance.
We all know that the quality of training received is of paramount importance and the FAA knows this as well.
You are trusting the crew of any aircraft you fly on with your life. It would be nice to know that they're properly trained and have had enough rest prior to the start of their day to perform reliably in difficult conditions.
If this adds crew cost, then so be it. You could double the wages of the pilots at the lower end of the compensation scale with minimal impact on ticket prices. Do the math.
The 1500 minimum was no more than a knee-jerk reaction to an accident in which the TT of the crew members had no bearing.
That they had both endured long commutes prior to the start of their duty day is of far greater significance.
We all know that the quality of training received is of paramount importance and the FAA knows this as well.
You are trusting the crew of any aircraft you fly on with your life. It would be nice to know that they're properly trained and have had enough rest prior to the start of their day to perform reliably in difficult conditions.
If this adds crew cost, then so be it. You could double the wages of the pilots at the lower end of the compensation scale with minimal impact on ticket prices. Do the math.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would a mil pilot have done in a 10+ year enlistment to have gotten only 500 hours ?
Generally, USN aviators typically come through their piloting career with a bare minimum of 1000 hours, with 100 hours/year being the required minimum for currency. USAF, less so. The averages attained across all branches are mostly due to aircraft type flown and deployment status.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mars
Posts: 527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But.....that is 150 hours of poling and scanning and dynamic maneuvering.
It doesn't matter how long you fly an airliner for, you would never get the dynamic handling experience of the military and flying long haul you'd need to fly about 1500 sectors (maybe 8000 hrs) each year just to get the stick time.
If we want to actually improve handling skills, which was the aim of the post Colgan missive, the regulators need to mandate what should be done during the hours flown so that each one of them contributes to true experience.
Right now an hour of air combat maneuvering in an F15, an hour banner towing, an hour taxiing and an hour asleep in the bunk equate to the same amount of experience in regulation. That my friends is utter balderdash!
It doesn't matter how long you fly an airliner for, you would never get the dynamic handling experience of the military and flying long haul you'd need to fly about 1500 sectors (maybe 8000 hrs) each year just to get the stick time.
If we want to actually improve handling skills, which was the aim of the post Colgan missive, the regulators need to mandate what should be done during the hours flown so that each one of them contributes to true experience.
Right now an hour of air combat maneuvering in an F15, an hour banner towing, an hour taxiing and an hour asleep in the bunk equate to the same amount of experience in regulation. That my friends is utter balderdash!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All excellent points, Schnowzer. The FAA and airlines know most of them, hence military experience is given more weight in the hourly minimums.
"Surprisingly, the 'best trained' in military aviation tend to have the least amount of cockpit time - fighter pilots."
"All excellent points, Schnowzer. The FAA and airlines know most of them, hence military experience is given more weight in the hourly minimums."
Well...
Skills not only have to be initially developed but properly maintained over the long haul since they don't have an infinite shelf life; humans don't function like that…regardless of who they are. If these "skills" aren't maintained, they merely become interesting history, not skills.
How much of that skill set, to which you refer, fostered over ~1,000 hours is appropriate to air carrier equipment vs fighters ? It doesn't take much inappropriate control input that'd just be normal ops in a fighter to tear pieces off a Part 25 airplane.
How effective will these vaunted skills be when Mav and Iceman have been in their boring airline gig for 10+ years…flying straight & level, limited to 30 degree banks and brief periods of 15/20 degrees of pitch ANU for far more than a brief 1,000 hours ?
Perhaps there's an appropriate skill set between banner towing and flying upside-down, getting vertical and pulling 6 Gs that even we mere mortals could learn…and our employing airlines could successfully reinforce through training over the long haul ?
Just a thought...
"All excellent points, Schnowzer. The FAA and airlines know most of them, hence military experience is given more weight in the hourly minimums."
Well...
Skills not only have to be initially developed but properly maintained over the long haul since they don't have an infinite shelf life; humans don't function like that…regardless of who they are. If these "skills" aren't maintained, they merely become interesting history, not skills.
How much of that skill set, to which you refer, fostered over ~1,000 hours is appropriate to air carrier equipment vs fighters ? It doesn't take much inappropriate control input that'd just be normal ops in a fighter to tear pieces off a Part 25 airplane.
How effective will these vaunted skills be when Mav and Iceman have been in their boring airline gig for 10+ years…flying straight & level, limited to 30 degree banks and brief periods of 15/20 degrees of pitch ANU for far more than a brief 1,000 hours ?
Perhaps there's an appropriate skill set between banner towing and flying upside-down, getting vertical and pulling 6 Gs that even we mere mortals could learn…and our employing airlines could successfully reinforce through training over the long haul ?
Just a thought...
Last edited by bafanguy; 6th Sep 2016 at 21:36.
In the US there are direct entry programs to airforce flight school for both the AF reserve and ANG. Pilot candidates selected for those programs return from flight training with around 250 hours of actual flight time and another 100 to 150 in simulators. Upon return to their units from flight training they are part time and free to seek civilian employment. The rule change is aimed at this group as getting to 750 hours part time takes many years.
Sailvi767,
Yes, someone mentioned that the proposed 500 hour r-ATP for mil pilots would help new reserve/guard folks get in the Part 121 game sooner via a regional. Good point I wouldn't have considered and not an unreasonable premise (most regionals will take a 750 mil r-ATP candidate now). The regionals would gladly avail themselves of the widened candidate pool although they likely couldn't hold them much past 1500 hours TT in the current hiring environment…and more so over the next 10+ years.
But that premise raised a few questions in my mind. I don't know the answers:
(1) How many folks entering a guard/reserve unit have ZERO flying time vs some previous flying time ?
Seems like I remember reading that competition is fierce for limited slots and some prior flight time is at least "preferred" if not tacitly required. I've got a source asking an ANG commander what he's doing lately in this regard but haven't heard back yet [people have better things to do than answer my idle questions :-)) ]
(2) Does a mil pilot need ALL the currently-required 750 hours to be MIL time to meet r-ATP criteria ?
I would guess that "…total time as a pilot…" means just that but this does come from the FAA, so… and I've seen the statement on another forum that the POI overseeing Piedmont, for example, requires that mil r-ATP candidates have ALL 750 hours as mil time. Stuff like that is bound to happen. The FAR in question a bit is fuzzy:
§ 61.160 Aeronautical experience - airplane category restricted privileges.
(a) Except for a person who has been removed from flying status for lack of proficiency or because of a disciplinary action involving aircraft operations, a U.S. military pilot or former U.S. military pilot may apply for an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating or an airline transport pilot certificate concurrently with an airplane type rating with a minimum of 750 hours of total time as a pilot if the pilot presents...
(3) Would all this mean that many if not most guard/reserve-only pilots really aren't hampered by existing r-ATP restrictions of 750 hours in the final accounting ?
It's a puzzle...
Yes, someone mentioned that the proposed 500 hour r-ATP for mil pilots would help new reserve/guard folks get in the Part 121 game sooner via a regional. Good point I wouldn't have considered and not an unreasonable premise (most regionals will take a 750 mil r-ATP candidate now). The regionals would gladly avail themselves of the widened candidate pool although they likely couldn't hold them much past 1500 hours TT in the current hiring environment…and more so over the next 10+ years.
But that premise raised a few questions in my mind. I don't know the answers:
(1) How many folks entering a guard/reserve unit have ZERO flying time vs some previous flying time ?
Seems like I remember reading that competition is fierce for limited slots and some prior flight time is at least "preferred" if not tacitly required. I've got a source asking an ANG commander what he's doing lately in this regard but haven't heard back yet [people have better things to do than answer my idle questions :-)) ]
(2) Does a mil pilot need ALL the currently-required 750 hours to be MIL time to meet r-ATP criteria ?
I would guess that "…total time as a pilot…" means just that but this does come from the FAA, so… and I've seen the statement on another forum that the POI overseeing Piedmont, for example, requires that mil r-ATP candidates have ALL 750 hours as mil time. Stuff like that is bound to happen. The FAR in question a bit is fuzzy:
§ 61.160 Aeronautical experience - airplane category restricted privileges.
(a) Except for a person who has been removed from flying status for lack of proficiency or because of a disciplinary action involving aircraft operations, a U.S. military pilot or former U.S. military pilot may apply for an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating or an airline transport pilot certificate concurrently with an airplane type rating with a minimum of 750 hours of total time as a pilot if the pilot presents...
(3) Would all this mean that many if not most guard/reserve-only pilots really aren't hampered by existing r-ATP restrictions of 750 hours in the final accounting ?
It's a puzzle...
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't knock the PPL instructor time too much - 1000 hours teaching people "power, attitude, trim" and trying to mind read their understanding and anticipate their next mistake and how far you can let them try to dig themselves out before intervening are pretty good foundations in basic handling, CRM, workload management and dealing with unusual and sometimes extreme situations quickly that seem to be missing from a lot of cockpits nowdays. That said, the 1500 hours rule is an FAA band aid to look like they are doing something while they do nothing. Improve the quality of training and the problem goes away. 1500 hours of plodding about, reinforcing bad habits after bad training is not going to help anyone.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: B.F.E.
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CFI time is one of the most valuable things a person can have. You are flying an airplane through someone else who is inadvertently trying to crash it, while trying to make him better at flying than you are. If that isn't "Captain development / CRM practice" then I don't know what is! If you have 15 students, you probably have to figure out 15 different ways to explain the same material. You now know that material 15 times better than someone who has not done this. It "cements" the knowledge in you, as a wise pilot examiner once told me. It also teaches you how to deal with various types of personalities in the cockpit. It teaches you your limits, and when and how to take control of an airplane when someone exceeds them. It teaches you how to "guide" someone who is losing the SA plot to regain it before you HAVE to take control. It expands your "comfort zone" exponentially and teaches you how to be a "pilot monitoring". CRM.
You will learn to have the perfect balance of trust and mistrust by soloing students. You will learn that yes people CAN do it on their own when properly trained (by you) and vetted. This will make you better at not being a micromanaging jerk of a captain one day. It will also help you see QUICKLY when someone ISN'T ready for prime time, and teach you to be direct in putting the kibosh on such people when needed.
Being a instrument instructor teaches you to think 5 moves ahead of the airplane, instead of 2.
Twin instructing teaches you how not to freak out when an engine goes away. Because if you teach in piston twins long enough, eventually your student will feather one and won't be able to unfeather it. And you will make a real single engine approach and landing, through him.
Then one day you will train another instructor, and be utterly humbled by how little you really know compared to what the first 1000 hours of your CFI time led you to BELIEVE that you know. That will shock you into NEVER losing your thirst for knowledge. It will make you orders of magnitude more interested in the continuous pursuit of self-mastery within your own profession, while never giving yourself room to be arrogant. You will learn more from your students by teaching them, than they will learn by being taught. This will be a big deal in multi-crew operations. As a first officer you will be willing to flow with the rhythm of a captain you don't "mesh" with and try something new, rather than get bent out of shape and wasting a trip bleating a story in your own mind about being "told how to fly"; you will also learn as a captain to get out of the way and let your first officers do their jobs without micromanaging them.
Having spent time as as a pilot recruiter I can tell you that there is a BIG difference between an applicant to an airline who did the bare minimum CFI time they could, and someone who did a bunch of varied types of instructing and actually liked it. One got nothing out of it but time; they may have even let their CFI certificate lapse. The other learned true command leadership and CRM, cemented basic knowledge and airmanship into his psyche, and probably developed a cool head in unexpected situations.
If you do not respect CFI time I suggest that you go teach for a minimum of 2000 hours, as evenly distributed between PPL, IR, CPL, and multi-engine students as possible. Day, night, IMC, VMC, as many different students of all ages and backgrounds as possible. Teach a few instructors, too, once you've been doing it for a while. Then come back on here and tell me how worthless it is.
You will learn to have the perfect balance of trust and mistrust by soloing students. You will learn that yes people CAN do it on their own when properly trained (by you) and vetted. This will make you better at not being a micromanaging jerk of a captain one day. It will also help you see QUICKLY when someone ISN'T ready for prime time, and teach you to be direct in putting the kibosh on such people when needed.
Being a instrument instructor teaches you to think 5 moves ahead of the airplane, instead of 2.
Twin instructing teaches you how not to freak out when an engine goes away. Because if you teach in piston twins long enough, eventually your student will feather one and won't be able to unfeather it. And you will make a real single engine approach and landing, through him.
Then one day you will train another instructor, and be utterly humbled by how little you really know compared to what the first 1000 hours of your CFI time led you to BELIEVE that you know. That will shock you into NEVER losing your thirst for knowledge. It will make you orders of magnitude more interested in the continuous pursuit of self-mastery within your own profession, while never giving yourself room to be arrogant. You will learn more from your students by teaching them, than they will learn by being taught. This will be a big deal in multi-crew operations. As a first officer you will be willing to flow with the rhythm of a captain you don't "mesh" with and try something new, rather than get bent out of shape and wasting a trip bleating a story in your own mind about being "told how to fly"; you will also learn as a captain to get out of the way and let your first officers do their jobs without micromanaging them.
Having spent time as as a pilot recruiter I can tell you that there is a BIG difference between an applicant to an airline who did the bare minimum CFI time they could, and someone who did a bunch of varied types of instructing and actually liked it. One got nothing out of it but time; they may have even let their CFI certificate lapse. The other learned true command leadership and CRM, cemented basic knowledge and airmanship into his psyche, and probably developed a cool head in unexpected situations.
If you do not respect CFI time I suggest that you go teach for a minimum of 2000 hours, as evenly distributed between PPL, IR, CPL, and multi-engine students as possible. Day, night, IMC, VMC, as many different students of all ages and backgrounds as possible. Teach a few instructors, too, once you've been doing it for a while. Then come back on here and tell me how worthless it is.
Last edited by hikoushi; 10th Sep 2016 at 08:51.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hikoushi: Spot on 100%. I'v spent years as airliner trainer & checker, but believe a check should also be a learning experience. F/O's who spent 1 year as SFI said how much it enhanced their command course and opened their eyes. For myself, being an aerobatic SEP student again contributed hugely to reflect on my own instructional technique. Indeed being a student in anything can make you a better instructor in another field.
Being an instructor of a spectrum of students can make you a better operator. It was also wonderful to do learn so much doing checks on line crews. There are some good ideas out there.
The comments about CRM techniques and social mixing/tolerance are also spot on. Not all things can be learnt/taught on an condensed MPL course.
Being an instructor of a spectrum of students can make you a better operator. It was also wonderful to do learn so much doing checks on line crews. There are some good ideas out there.
The comments about CRM techniques and social mixing/tolerance are also spot on. Not all things can be learnt/taught on an condensed MPL course.
Sailvi767,
Yes, someone mentioned that the proposed 500 hour r-ATP for mil pilots would help new reserve/guard folks get in the Part 121 game sooner via a regional. Good point I wouldn't have considered and not an unreasonable premise (most regionals will take a 750 mil r-ATP candidate now). The regionals would gladly avail themselves of the widened candidate pool although they likely couldn't hold them much past 1500 hours TT in the current hiring environment…and more so over the next 10+ years.
But that premise raised a few questions in my mind. I don't know the answers:
(1) How many folks entering a guard/reserve unit have ZERO flying time vs some previous flying time ?
Seems like I remember reading that competition is fierce for limited slots and some prior flight time is at least "preferred" if not tacitly required. I've got a source asking an ANG commander what he's doing lately in this regard but haven't heard back yet [people have better things to do than answer my idle questions :-)) ]
(2) Does a mil pilot need ALL the currently-required 750 hours to be MIL time to meet r-ATP criteria ?
I would guess that "…total time as a pilot…" means just that but this does come from the FAA, so… and I've seen the statement on another forum that the POI overseeing Piedmont, for example, requires that mil r-ATP candidates have ALL 750 hours as mil time. Stuff like that is bound to happen. The FAR in question a bit is fuzzy:
§ 61.160 Aeronautical experience - airplane category restricted privileges.
(a) Except for a person who has been removed from flying status for lack of proficiency or because of a disciplinary action involving aircraft operations, a U.S. military pilot or former U.S. military pilot may apply for an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating or an airline transport pilot certificate concurrently with an airplane type rating with a minimum of 750 hours of total time as a pilot if the pilot presents...
(3) Would all this mean that many if not most guard/reserve-only pilots really aren't hampered by existing r-ATP restrictions of 750 hours in the final accounting ?
It's a puzzle...
Yes, someone mentioned that the proposed 500 hour r-ATP for mil pilots would help new reserve/guard folks get in the Part 121 game sooner via a regional. Good point I wouldn't have considered and not an unreasonable premise (most regionals will take a 750 mil r-ATP candidate now). The regionals would gladly avail themselves of the widened candidate pool although they likely couldn't hold them much past 1500 hours TT in the current hiring environment…and more so over the next 10+ years.
But that premise raised a few questions in my mind. I don't know the answers:
(1) How many folks entering a guard/reserve unit have ZERO flying time vs some previous flying time ?
Seems like I remember reading that competition is fierce for limited slots and some prior flight time is at least "preferred" if not tacitly required. I've got a source asking an ANG commander what he's doing lately in this regard but haven't heard back yet [people have better things to do than answer my idle questions :-)) ]
(2) Does a mil pilot need ALL the currently-required 750 hours to be MIL time to meet r-ATP criteria ?
I would guess that "…total time as a pilot…" means just that but this does come from the FAA, so… and I've seen the statement on another forum that the POI overseeing Piedmont, for example, requires that mil r-ATP candidates have ALL 750 hours as mil time. Stuff like that is bound to happen. The FAR in question a bit is fuzzy:
§ 61.160 Aeronautical experience - airplane category restricted privileges.
(a) Except for a person who has been removed from flying status for lack of proficiency or because of a disciplinary action involving aircraft operations, a U.S. military pilot or former U.S. military pilot may apply for an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating or an airline transport pilot certificate concurrently with an airplane type rating with a minimum of 750 hours of total time as a pilot if the pilot presents...
(3) Would all this mean that many if not most guard/reserve-only pilots really aren't hampered by existing r-ATP restrictions of 750 hours in the final accounting ?
It's a puzzle...