Originally Posted by Island-Flyer
I have personally and I have seen other check airmen and instructors do the same at various 121 carriers here in the US. They all have heard the same answer:
"Train to the training program minimum hours, it's what we're budgeted for. If the FAA thought we'd need more to be safe they would require that we increase the hours in the training program."
The FAA when asked about it says:
"We only hold the minimum standard, it's up to the operator to go beyond that."
Originally Posted by aterpster
I was on the ALPA Safety/Technical Committee when we went to the Vice-President of Training to attempt to get a second recurrent training sim session.
His response, "Negotiate that in your next collecting bargaining agreement. Otherwise it has a snowballs chance in Hell."
To me, it’s strange to read these kinds of comments as they are apparently written as a form of resolute agreement with something that is undesirable. Given the above, wouldn’t it make sense for you to figure out what it is that is really needed in the industry – is it really up to the owners and managers, and them alone, to determine if there really IS any merit in going above what the regulator has determined to be “the minimums.” The first question, logically, should be … are these REALLY the minimums … are they REALLY satisfactory? Have I misunderstood the real potential for pilots to successfully “bargain” for something beyond what the regulator has determined to be satisfactory? Why is it that the regulator is right? What would you do differently … and why? What do your representatives think? What are they doing in response to what you think? If whoever is currently representing you really isn’t … maybe it’s time for an adjustment. Do you not know, or could you not find out, or is it possible to determine on your own, what things cost? Could you not find out what it would cost the airline owners and managers to get what you want or need? To me it sounds a lot like the regulator IS listening, but listening only to those who are talking to them - the airline owners and managers – who want to save money. Do you think the regulator will not listen to the folks who actually want and need the training? Of course, the facts would have to be determined, the accuracy of any data should be determined and recognized – what ARE the real costs – what ARE the real benefits – is it possible that there might be adjustments to what is ultimately decided if there were some measure to indicate that such an adjustment could or would be appropriate? Are there any other mitigating steps that could be taken without diminishing what you need out of your initial and recurrent training? After considering all of the above … wouldn’t it make sense for you to argue about it, discuss it, write it, re-write it, argue some more, describe it down to the bitter details (including costs and benefits), and eventually decide what it is that YOU want ... what YOU actually need ... and then approach the regulator and tell them what you guys have determined is the “real” minimum? Is it always (ever?) that "father" (i.e., the regulator) "knows best" ?????