FAA panel proposes that airline co-pilot standards be raised

[SeenItAll]

See this article in the Wall Street Journal about an FAA panel's proposal that all airline co-pilots meet higher training and proficiency standards -- including obtaining a type rating for their aircraft before being permitted to fly with passengers. FAA Panel Urges Enhanced Qualifications for Airline Co-Pilots - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703743504575494392194924962.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs#articleTabs%3Darticle)

[B767PL]

About time.

[A37575]

Comprehensive well written article in Business and Commercial Aviation Sept 2010 entitled "Statistics Point the way to Safety."

Extracts (edited for brevity) pertinent to the proposed FAA rule to lift airline copilot standards:

1. Pilots with less than 4000 hours total time and 300 hours on type are involved with two-thirds of all turbojet/turbofan accidents and incidents.

2. Tyre failures, particularly during takeoff roll were another leading cause of mishaps suffered by business jets.

3. Another main reason for pilot error accidents is that more inexperienced pilots are entering aviation and should get twice per year training to get up to speed.

4. Today's pilots have become too dependent upon cockpit automation, relying too much on the flight guidance systems to control the aircraft during virtually all phases of flight. Technology has produced "Children of the Magenta Line" - pilots who cannot fly without an operable GPS or FMS, along with a full color moving map.

5. Autopilots and flight directors have taken away from airmanship. Over-reliance on ops manuals have taken away decision making.

6. Pilots need to spend more time hand-flying the aircraft, especially in gusting wind conditions and/or when landing on contaminated runways.

7. Hands-on flying and risk assessment is much more important than total time in a log book.
............................................................ .......................................

Speakers at last week's Asia Pacific Aviation Training Symposium at Kuala Lumpur thought otherwise. In fact they accented more emphasis on automation as a means of reducing the loss of control accidents and advocated less training on engine failures and more accent on LOFT, CRM, TEM and en-route diversion planning in the simulator.

It was considered by one speaker that low hour pilots were no problem providing they were expert at automation. This view was certainly at odds with the FAA view on low hour inexperienced pilots in jet transports. The basic premise at the APAT meeting seemed to be that the incredible reliability of modern aircraft systems meant pilot manual flight intervention of a perceived automatic problem has caused eventual loss of control.

[Timothy Claypole]

I think the differeing views say more about the differing training systems of the US vs the rest of the world. Given the self-improvement route is now the mainstay of the US pilot training route you tend to end up with people with low hours, and more importantly, low experience in control of regional jets/turboprops. These pilots may very well have come from a flight instruction background where bad habits develop and go uncorrected. Having 3000 hours is all well and good, but if 2800 of them were spent bashing the circuit at Vero Beach in CAVOK conditions then where's the experience?

[merlinxx]

So they should, if you can't handle/fly it without automation, you shouldn't be flying:ugh:

[GA Button]

I think the reasoning behind both is sound and instead we should get rid of the :mad: who think saving money is more important than promoting safety in airline operations, give training departments within airlines a big fat budget so they can give all of us a chance to practice this stuff on a regular basis. I'll put my soapbox away now.....

[Tmbstory]

A37575:
I agree 100% with points 1 to 7.

It is about time that the Regulators start to face the fact of the lower standards of today.

Automation is also here to stay, some how the manual flying and the automation have to exist in the same industry

Tmb

[protectthehornet]

timothy claypole

after banging around the circuit, albeit not at vero beach, and coming up the hardway, I can tell you that being a CFI made me a much better airline pilot. Students have a way of teaching you how many ways to kill a cat...and you are the cat.

I learned the wind from being a CFI

I learned to size up my fellow pilot as a CFI

And we flew in all sorts of weather...we learned instrument flying the hard way...real NDB approaches...RNAV approaches before GPS...timed VOR approaches. Circling in tough conditions.

Time on the autopilot is the time you shouldn't be allowed to Log. time giving dual as a CFI should be logged at twice the normal rate.

[jcjeant]

Hi,

FAA panel proposes that airline co-pilot standards be raised

Exactly the opposite of Ryanair proposition :)

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Absolutely priceless!

FA proposes that pilots should actually be able to fly.

Where I work, 'flying' is almost outlawed- particularly for pilots!

[ATPMBA]

Heck, I think in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's and part of the 1980's hull losses happend every year OR MORE and no one blinked. Colgon goes down and Part 121 gets turned on its head.

WHY NOW?

[747newguy]

Look at the chain of events...

[p51guy]

I think they blinked then but why did you leave out the last 2 decades? We still have hull losses and people killed because of crashes. Pilot experience is a good thing. 1500 hrs and an ATP is a good start. When I got hired nobody got hired with that low experience. An ATP is a license to learn. 250 hrs is a license to figure out what is going on in a bigger aircraft than they just flew.

Give the captains some help transporting people in airliners. Experience is the only thing that will help the FO help the captain. That is the way it has always been. Automation is nice but it can not be trusted to work. Old school pilots never have their thumb far from the disconnect button. Once disconnected, life is simple, just hand fly it. That is what I always did and it works. Keeps the heart rate normal because you know exactly what the aircraft is going to do.

[411A]

Once disconnected, life is simple, just hand fly it.
I wonder if this is really true for many who are 'children of the magenta line'?:eek:

[BOAC]

A37575:
I agree 100% with points 1 to 7.

It is about time that the Regulators start to face the fact of the lower standards of today.

Automation is also here to stay, some how the manual flying and the automation have to exist in the same industry


In one post you have said it all. There is, unfortunately, a vast divide in our industry between those who blindly worship the software/automation and those who worship the 'old fashioned way'. At the moment the polarisation and defensive 'agression' of both is hindering progress. Anyone who suggests that either position is not the perfect solution is branded as a trouble maker and informed that they just do not understand. If we could just arrive at some common ground I feel we could go a long way to sorting out the problems we are inexorably building into our future.

The whizzy automation is fantastic - a great aid to day to day operation. It is the 'outside the box' operation that requires a different approach. I am sure that a minimum hours requirement will go a long way to help, and a 'Road to Damascus' trip for management, designers, training and insurers is another required event. Until we develop THE perfect automatic system, ie no bugs (or an acceptable level of fatalities from the bugs) we must retain basic flying skills, and we need to remember that not all commercial pilots will have access to the top-of-the-range equipment. Do we want a two-stream pilot force? Of course, the big question is could we then dispense with any concept of 'airmanship' - as it would not be needed?

[4Greens]

Another issue. The disconnect button in some aircraft doesn't diconnect completely. In a sense, it just degrades the amount of automation. This complicates the manual versus automatics issue further

[A37575]

It is about time that the Regulators start to face the fact of the lower standards of today.

One thing for sure and that is the regulators are not going to be of any help in the discussion. Many of those are retired airline pilots behind the CAA desks so caught up with interminable audits of operator's paperwork, that they have no time left for constructive thinking. And even one of them did, chances are his thoughts would be promptly squashed by the next senior manager above him. Don't make waves, is the first thing you are told if you want to move up the food chain in the various CAA's.

Been there a long time ago...and it was soul destroying

[Feather #3]

If you look at the orientation [no pun intended!:rolleyes:] of the conference mentioned by A37575, I find the conclusion hardly surprising.

My favourite memory of the region was a highly respected trainer requiring us to do UA recovery [in the sim] on the autopilot as "people lost control if they hand-flew the recovery."

Unfortunately, this directly contrasted with my experience [up to then] of IRS/autopilot failure directly causing a UA which could ONLY be recovered by hand! I've since had another one which was an a/p fault.

There has to be a balance and at the moment it's biased to the automatics.

G'day ;)

[AirRabbit]

I sure wish that folks would look below the surface of the “1500 hours requirement.” Everyone says “A minimum of 1500 hours isn’t necessarily going to solve all the problems but it’s a good step in the right direction.” Is it? Really? I’m going to completely side step the situation – obvious to me – that 1500 hours is only that … 1500 hours. It says virtually nothing about the quality of that time and absolutely nothing about the training that preceded that number. So, leaving that obvious gap in this particular solution … I want to address another aspect that is just as complex.

When an applicant approaches an airline today, when the seemingly rare “for hire” sign goes in the window, how is that the airline officials determine that the applicant has, in fact, flown the number of hours claimed? Do they check the aircraft tail number, find the owner, obtain the flight log for the airplane, and check it against the pilot’s log book claim? Do they get a copy of the fuel receipts? Just how do they check? Has anyone here heard of logging “P51 time?” No slander intended P51guy. It’s a term that used to reference the Parker T-Ball Jotter, model #51, ballpoint pen. The term was generally intended to imply that the owner of the log book “flew” his ballpoint pen over the pages of his logbook – failing only to fly any airplane before doing so. Anyone who has flown private airplanes or has instructed in light airplanes recently knows just how long it takes to log 1500 hours of time. Of course it can be done. And it can be done by a number of light airplane pilots and instructors. But, just how many sight-seeing organizations, how many automobile parts runs, how many electronic parts deliveries, how many (you-fill-in-the-blank) opportunities are out there? How many opportunities are there to simply “log time?” Yeah, sure, there are flight training organizations spread around the US that use flight instructors – but for every new one that opens, two close. How much does it cost today to get a PPL, CPL, then CFI? How many folks have tens of thousands of dollars just lying around that they don’t know how to spend or don’t need to spend it for something more immediately needed … like food or shelter? And, even if there were hundreds of folks with tens of thousands of dollars burning holes in the collective pockets, just how much instructing time would be available around the country in a given year? How long has it been since you have been to your local General Aviation airport? Were you able to see all the “bee-hive” activity? No? I don’t know about the one near you, but the GA airports near me look more like a cemetery than an airport. Instructors? Sure, they are there. The busiest schools have as many as 15 to 20 instructors on staff. But a good share of them sitting on their hands for most of the day.

There are several estimates out there indicating that starting in about 2 or 3 years – there is going to be an increasing need for airline pilots. I keep hearing some who deny that estimation. They claim that a pilot shortage isn’t possible because of the number of pilots who are on furlough now. The claim is that those furloughed pilots will fill any vacancies for a number of years. I wonder what kind of pill those furloughed pilots are taking that allows them to remain at the age they were when they were furloughed. Getting old happens to everyone … eventually. It’s not rocket science. Pull off enough pages from the calendar and you get older. And it doesn’t make any difference if you’re actively flying or waiting for an opportunity. Don’t take my word for it – just look into the cockpits of the airplanes today – how many wet-behind-ears “newbies” are sitting up front? Sure, there are some, but … Estimates are that between 2013 and 2023 fully ONE-HALF of the airline pilots in the US will retire. There are approximately 120,000 commercial airline pilots today in the US (according to FAA figures). If those figures are even close to being accurate – that means that during the next 10 years there will be a need for 60,000 pilots in the US. That’s over a period of 120 months (12 months a year for 10 years). Again, it’s not rocket science – it’s basic arithmetic; 60,000 divided by 120 equals 500 pilots … per month … each month for 10 years! And that is to maintain the levels there are today. Will the airline industry in the US shrink? If the economy shrinks, the airline industry probably will too. That might alleviate the 500 pilots-per-month requirement – but to what? 400 pilots per month? What happens if the economy grows?

Then, on top of that, we place a requirement on those who would apply to become an airline pilot and say that they may not do so until they have flown a minimum of 1500 hours? Where are these pilots going to be able to fly 1500 hours before they are able to apply for a pilot job with an airline? Are there enough flying jobs to be able to provide 500 (even 400) pilots an opportunity to log time? – how long would it take to log 1500 hours … a year? … a year and a half? And, remember that 500-number is for EVERY month! Can you see a number of these folks running to find their old Parker T-Ball jotter, ballpoint pen? No? How do you see this equation being solved to a more palatable end?

Remember – there is that whole other issue of the quality of the training and the flight time that this discussion doesn’t even address!

[Microburst2002]

What else are going to say in the training industry?

For them it is a far more profitable bussiness to sell more and more training under fashionable achronyms. It it makes more sim time required to acquire a few difficult to measure abilities such as risk assessment, CRM, etc... They will become richer and richer.

If, on the contrary, airlines promote airmanship and change their hiring policies and look for more experienced, more talented pilots (instead of non-experienced and non-talented ones but with a lot of licences, ratings, CRMs and TRs and who on top of that are even going to pay to fly) then, the training industry will sell much much less.

So why should they agree with that FAA thing?

If their view prevails (more likely than FAA's view, I'm afraid) then simulator training will have to be carried out by teams of psicologists as well as TRIs...

Automation can be totally mastered only by those who know well how to handfly. Don't you agree.


Regarding the 1,500 hours requisite. It will create problems. And solve none, I'm afraid.

Flight schools will sell building time like never before.

I think that the whole thing would be solved with a method similar to that of the Air Force, as someone pointed above.

1st: Selection (of talented wannabees)
2nd: Training (fully sponsored, 50/50 or self sponsored according to circumstances)
3rd: Hiring

Then there is no problem with low houred, because you have good raw material with good training. The best captains I know went that way.

Agree totaly with FAA

cheers

[Checkboard]

IF the FAA (or anyone else) is serious - the whole thing is fixed by requiring that every approach in CAVOK conditions is hand flown below 3000 feet AGL.

That simply and quickly ensures that hand skills are practised about 30% of the time (more in some area, less in others, I'll grant.)

These pilots may very well have come from a flight instruction background where bad habits develop and go uncorrected. Having 3000 hours is all well and good, but if 2800 of them were spent bashing the circuit at Vero Beach in CAVOK conditions then where's the experience?
Never been an instructor then, I can see. :hmm: Instructors being those pilots who spend their entire time ensuring that bad habits don't develop, and do go corrected. :rolleyes:

[AirRabbit]

One thing for sure and that is the regulators are not going to be of any help in the discussion. Many of those are retired airline pilots behind the CAA desks so caught up with interminable audits of operator's paperwork, that they have no time left for constructive thinking. And even one of them did, chances are his thoughts would be promptly squashed by the next senior manager above him. Don't make waves, is the first thing you are told if you want to move up the food chain in the various CAA's.

Been there a long time ago...and it was soul destroying

I’ve heard similar stories, but I just cannot believe that there aren’t at least some within the ranks of the regulators who are either not yet blinded by that kind of ridiculous code or are the type to fight it “in-house.”

Therefore -- a general plea to all:

I know that I don’t always agree with everything that everyone else feels is right or wrong with this industry. Just as I’m sure there are those who don’t necessarily agree with me all the time (although, I just cannot understand why they don’t … ) but, what I DO know is that if we are going to see this business become what we all know it can become instead of where many of us feel it is headed, we won’t see the necessary changes by all of us sitting on our hands waiting for someone else to do or say something. If you believe something should be done – more training provided – more specific training – or flying each approach in CAVU conditions below 8000 feet (or you pick an altitude) – whatever it is YOU think is necessary – PLEASE consider calling or writing to your regulatory authority … but not just to the “the authority.” Pick a name – prefereably, someone you know who works there – even more preferably, someone who you know or whose reputation is more like what you believe the regulator should be like. And don’t be content to writing one letter or making one phone call. Pick a dozen such chaps. Write a dozen letters and make a dozen phone calls. Then do it again. And again. And again. Who knows … it may be your next phone call or letter that might get to the person who can make a difference. If you don’t believe it is necessary to do this … fine. Go on about your business – as long as we have a business. But … if you want to see the changes made you KNOW are necessary – please recognize that they won’t happen until someone else sees and understands and agrees with you – and until that someone is high enough in the regulatory authority’s offices … it is likely NOT going to happen! What on earth are you waiting for?

[4dogs]

Folks,

The problem has arisen because the path to glory for 35 year old MBA financial wunderkind is minimum investment, maximum cash flow and treat the people like all other commodities. Oops, what do you mean there is lead time for those pilot commodity things? Bugga!

Too late to invest (don't want to anyway) so let's work out how to remove the restrictions! I know - 200 hour copilots, change the ATPL rules so that they don't have to have any time fending for themselves and let's go...:ugh:

The only problem is that the underinvestment makes low experience pilots the only option if the fleet expansions go as advertised. As much as I hate it, I'm no longer sure that the fight against low experience is worth pursuing any more. I think we need to focus our energy on how to protect them, us and the travelling public by looking at new recurrent and developmental training paradigms that cater for the minimum experience input.

And sadly, the only joy in it will be watching the financial engineering architects of our current dilemma doing their training cost budgets and coming to understand "penny wise, pound foolish"! :E :E :E

Stay Alive,

[Alpine Flyer]

Hours aren't all there is to experience. Most of Europe' airlines have been employing low-hour pilots coming from more or less tightly controlled pilot academies for decades without apparent detrimental results to safety statistics.

Adding a 1500hr entry requirment for airlines will make conditions for those short of these limits even worse and increase the market for "pay 2 fly" programmes or put pressure on wages for commercial operations not falling under the 1500hr rule (the likes of NetJets?)

Having flown a couple 100 hours before being hired by an airline I am glad for all the experiences I had before flying the line, but whether towing gliders, dropping parachutists or moving cancelled checks around the country will provide you with relevant experience or just give you time to develop bad habits will depend a lot on the operation you join. Unfortunately young pilots will lack the experience to distinguish between good and not so good operations.

[jackx123]

Slightly off-topic.

We are acquiring 1 possibly 2 Lear 60 in the next few months and i was wondering if there are any restrictions flying a mixed crew (FAA/JAA) on a certain registrar.:suspect:

[Teddy Robinson]

Without going down the "I didn't get a jet job till I had x 000 hour"

My perceiption from the other seat is : the guys that come through the fast route can in most cases be relied on for normal day/night ops, they are good systems operators, and with every flight learn something about flying.

The self improvers (myself included) have the awareness that makes the team complete, having taught/examined ab-initio students.

The problem comes when one finds oneself dealing with a situation that is offscale in terms of situalional awareness for ones flightdeck partner.

One is suddenly doing it, aware of an impending situation that only experience has taught, albeit with a very capable individual in support, it is the experience driven foresight, the captain in training mentality that has been lost in this case, it is simply not the time to be training !!!

When we come to this level of mutual reliance we need to have a sense of airmanship that PTF or similar cannot give an f/o no matter how good they are.

Flogging the circuit on a nice day in Florida, while the wife and kids enjoy the pool is fine, so long as there is an inbuilt awareness as to what is the end result .. situational awareness, hearing the Lear calling up at 10 miles and adjusting without ATC intervention is part of that awareness.

I am fortunate to fly with people who could be in my seat tomorrow, because of a different and more enlightened culture, my job is to help them get there, as was the case for me... captains passing on the subletys of thought which does not appear in FCOM, in esscence protecting oneself and ones crew against circumstances and secondly, but only just, the legal ramifications of ones actions as interpeted through SOP and the management that has to support that structure.

Relevent experience for the job DOES count .. as a new f/o on a turboprop, with a brand new captain, home base, we had an adc1 fail at minima .. with no reference, flying a balistic path at that altitude, the captain was lost, as most of us would be !

I had had the experience to see the fail and switch as soon as I had visual reference .. we went around, stabilised the situation and the outcome was positive.

I don't say that we avoided an accident, but the P1 was having trouble, (was maxed out) and I did the best that I could to suppport them, that was the culture borne of experience.

That is the type of awareness that experience brings into the scenario when things go bad, and with respect, something that should not be expected of a 200 hour ex Jerez f/o no matter how capable in technical terms.

In most cases they would do the right thing at the right time, if they are fully aware, but to KNOW why they will do it is another matter.

Then again .... there plenty of reports where high hours and a cockpit gradient defeat what we are all trying to achieve.

Is there a perfect answer ? probably not.

I don't judge in this... but invite discussion.

[Centaurus]

PLEASE consider calling or writing to your regulatory authority … but not just to the “the authority.” Pick a name – prefereably, someone you know who works there

A short story re your suggestion. This scribe sent a carefully phrased document to the current head of the Australian regulator. The subject was automation dependancy and it's effect on basic flying skills. Examples were quoted from various agencies including accident reports. A solution was also offered to this well known problem.

The reply was straight forward and concise as one would expect from such an august appointment - never mind it was signed by a minion. It said there was no evidence that automation dependancy was a problem in Australia and that the relevant regulations ensured that basic flying skills were never compromised. In fact, the accent should be on more automation.
Yours faithfully and thank you for your interest etc.

It would be naive to think that the regulator cares what any pilot thinks is a good idea -and from experience, that includes ANY regulator.

[fmgc]

including obtaining a type rating for their aircraft before being permitted to fly with passengers

Can somebody please explain this to me, coming from the UK I am obviously very closeted in my views but I, naively, would have thought that a type rating would have been a legal requirement???

[SNS3Guppy]

Can somebody please explain this to me, coming from the UK I am obviously very closeted in my views but I, naively, would have thought that a type rating would have been a legal requirement???

For FAA certificate holders, a type rating is only required to act as PIC. Not as SIC.

The FAA developed the "SIC Type Rating" as a nod to international requirements, but it's really not a type rating.

[fmgc]

For FAA certificate holders, a type rating is only required to act as PIC. Not as SIC.

So what sort of aeroplane can you fly using this?

[Teddy Robinson]

For FAA certificate holders, a type rating is only required to act as PIC. Not as SIC.

The FAA developed the "SIC Type Rating" as a nod to international requirements, but it's really not a type rating.

what .. so I could just go climb aboard anything as an f/o having done a basic test ? if so that is frightening.

[SNS3Guppy]

what .. so I could just go climb aboard anything as an f/o having done a basic test ? if so that is frightening.

If the regulation frightens you, so be it.

Read it for yourself.

§ 61.55 Second-in-command qualifications.

(a) A person may serve as a second-in-command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second-in-command pilot flight crewmember only if that person holds:

(1) At least a private pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class rating; and

(2) An instrument rating or privilege that applies to the aircraft being flown if the flight is under IFR; and

(3) The appropriate pilot type rating for the aircraft unless the flight will be conducted as domestic flight operations within United States airspace.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may serve as a second-in-command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second-in-command unless that person has within the previous 12 calendar months:

(1) Become familiar with the following information for the specific type aircraft for which second-in-command privileges are requested—

(i) Operational procedures applicable to the powerplant, equipment, and systems.

(ii) Performance specifications and limitations.

(iii) Normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures.

(iv) Flight manual.

(v) Placards and markings.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, performed and logged pilot time in the type of aircraft or in a flight simulator that represents the type of aircraft for which second-in-command privileges are requested, which includes—

(i) Three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop as the sole manipulator of the flight controls;

(ii) Engine-out procedures and maneuvering with an engine out while executing the duties of pilot in command; and

(iii) Crew resource management training.

(c) If a person complies with the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section in the calendar month before or the calendar month after the month in which compliance with this section is required, then that person is considered to have accomplished the training and practice in the month it is due.

(d) A person may receive a second-in-command pilot type rating for an aircraft after satisfactorily completing the second-in-command familiarization training requirements under paragraph (b) of this section in that type of aircraft provided the training was completed within the 12 calendar months before the month of application for the SIC pilot type rating. The person must comply with the following application and pilot certification procedures:

(1) The person who provided the training must sign the applicant's logbook or training record after each lesson in accordance with §61.51(h)(2) of this part. In lieu of the trainer, it is permissible for a qualified management official within the organization to sign the applicant's training records or logbook and make the required endorsement. The qualified management official must hold the position of Chief Pilot, Director of Training, Director of Operations, or another comparable management position within the organization that provided the training and must be in a position to verify the applicant's training records and that the training was given.

(2) The trainer or qualified management official must make an endorsement in the applicant's logbook that states “[Applicant's Name and Pilot Certificate Number] has demonstrated the skill and knowledge required for the safe operation of the [Type of Aircraft], relevant to the duties and responsibilities of a second in command.”

(3) If the applicant's flight experience and/or training records are in an electronic form, the applicant must present a paper copy of those records containing the signature of the trainer or qualified management official to an FAA Flight Standards District Office or Examiner.

(4) The applicant must complete and sign an Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application, FAA Form 8710–1, and present the application to an FAA Flight Standards District Office or to an Examiner.

(5) The person who provided the ground and flight training to the applicant must sign the “Instructor's Recommendation” section of the Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application, FAA Form 8710–1. In lieu of the trainer, it is permissible for a qualified management official within the organization to sign the applicant's FAA Form 8710–1.

(6) The applicant must appear in person at a FAA Flight Standards District Office or to an Examiner with his or her logbook/training records and with the completed and signed FAA Form 8710–1.

(7) There is no practical test required for the issuance of the “SIC Privileges Only” pilot type rating.

(e) A person may receive a second-in-command pilot type rating for the type of aircraft after satisfactorily completing an approved second-in-command training program, proficiency check, or competency check under subpart K of part 91, part 121, part 125, or part 135, as appropriate, in that type of aircraft provided the training was completed within the 12 calendar months before the month of application for the SIC pilot type rating. The person must comply with the following application and pilot certification procedures:

(1) The person who provided the training must sign the applicant's logbook or training record after each lesson in accordance with §61.51(h)(2) of this part. In lieu of the trainer, it is permissible for a qualified management official within the organization to sign the applicant's training records or logbook and make the required endorsement. The qualified management official must hold the position of Chief Pilot, Director of Training, Director of Operations, or another comparable management position within the organization that provided the training and must be in a position to verify the applicant's training records and that the training was given.

(2) The trainer or qualified management official must make an endorsement in the applicant's logbook that states “[Applicant's Name and Pilot Certificate Number] has demonstrated the skill and knowledge required for the safe operation of the [Type of Aircraft], relevant to the duties and responsibilities of a second in command.”

(3) If the applicant's flight experience and/or training records are in an electronic form, the applicant must provide a paper copy of those records containing the signature of the trainer or qualified management official to an FAA Flight Standards District Office, an Examiner, or an Aircrew Program Designee.

(4) The applicant must complete and sign an Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application, FAA Form 8710–1, and present the application to an FAA Flight Standards District Office or to an Examiner or to an authorized Aircrew Program Designee.

(5) The person who provided the ground and flight training to the applicant must sign the “Instructor's Recommendation” section of the Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application, FAA Form 8710–1. In lieu of the trainer, it is permissible for a qualified management official within the organization to sign the applicant's FAA Form 8710–1.

(6) The applicant must appear in person at an FAA Flight Standards District Office or to an Examiner or to an authorized Aircrew Program Designee with his or her logbook/training records and with the completed and signed FAA Form 8710–1.

(7) There is no practical test required for the issuance of the “SIC Privileges Only” pilot type rating.

(f) The familiarization training requirements of paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to a person who is:

(1) Designated and qualified as pilot in command under subpart K of part 91, part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter in that specific type of aircraft;

(2) Designated as the second in command under subpart K of part 91, part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter in that specific type of aircraft;

(3) Designated as the second in command in that specific type of aircraft for the purpose of receiving flight training required by this section, and no passengers or cargo are carried on the aircraft; or

(4) Designated as a safety pilot for purposes required by §91.109(b) of this chapter.

(g) The holder of a commercial or airline transport pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class rating is not required to meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, provided the pilot:

(1) Is conducting a ferry flight, aircraft flight test, or evaluation flight of an aircraft's equipment; and

(2) Is not carrying any person or property on board the aircraft, other than necessary for conduct of the flight.

(h) For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, a person may serve as second in command in that specific type aircraft, provided:

(1) The flight is conducted under day VFR or day IFR; and

(2) No person or property is carried on board the aircraft, other than necessary for conduct of the flight.

(i) The training under paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section and the training, proficiency check, and competency check under paragraph (e) of this section may be accomplished in a flight simulator that is used in accordance with an approved training course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142 of this chapter or under subpart K of part 91, part 121 or part 135 of this chapter.

(j) When an applicant for an initial second-in-command qualification for a particular type of aircraft receives all the training in a flight simulator, that applicant must satisfactorily complete one takeoff and one landing in an aircraft of the same type for which the qualification is sought. This requirement does not apply to an applicant who completes a proficiency check under part 121 or competency check under subpart K, part 91, part 125, or part 135 for the particular type of aircraft.

[AirRabbit]

Actually the quoted FAA regulations, above, are accurate ... but only for non-airline operations. Here is a list of titles (you can research any of them if you care to) that are applicable to the training and operations requirements under the airline operations part of the US rules ... i.e., part 121:

Subpart N—Training Program

§ 121.400 Applicability and terms used.
§ 121.401 Training program: General.
§ 121.402 Training program: Special rules.
§ 121.403 Training program: Curriculum.
§ 121.404 Compliance dates: Crew and dispatcher resource management training.
§ 121.405 Training program and revision: Initial and final approval.
§ 121.406 Credit for previous CRM/DRM training.
§ 121.407 Training program: Approval of airplane simulators and other training devices.
§ 121.409 Training courses using airplane simulators and other training devices.
§ 121.411 Qualifications: Check airmen (airplane) and check airmen (simulator).
§ 121.412 Qualifications: Flight instructors (airplane) and flight instructors (simulator).
§ 121.413 Initial and transition training and checking requirements: Check airmen (airplane), check airmen (simulator).
§ 121.414 Initial and transition training and checking requirements: flight instructors (airplane), flight instructors (simulator).
§ 121.415 Crewmember and dispatcher training requirements.
§ 121.417 Crewmember emergency training.
§ 121.418 Differences training: Crewmembers and dispatchers.
§ 121.419 Pilots and flight engineers: Initial, transition, and upgrade ground training.
§ 121.420 Flight navigators: Initial and transition ground training.
§ 121.421 Flight attendants: Initial and transition ground training.
§ 121.422 Aircraft dispatchers: Initial and transition ground training.
§ 121.424 Pilots: Initial, transition, and upgrade flight training.
§ 121.425 Flight engineers: Initial and transition flight training.
§ 121.426 Flight navigators: Initial and transition flight training.
§ 121.427 Recurrent training.
§ 121.429 [Reserved]


Subpart O—Crewmember Qualifications

§ 121.431 Applicability.
§ 121.432 General.
§ 121.433 Training required.
§ 121.434 Operating experience, operating cycles, and consolidation of knowledge and skills.
§ 121.437 Pilot qualification: Certificates required.
§ 121.438 Pilot operating limitations and pairing requirements.
§ 121.439 Pilot qualification: Recent experience.
§ 121.440 Line checks.
§ 121.441 Proficiency checks.
§ 121.443 Pilot in command qualification: Route and airports.
§ 121.445 Pilot in command airport qualification: Special areas and airports.
§ 121.447 [Reserved]
§ 121.453 Flight engineer qualifications.
§§ 121.455-121.459 [Reserved]

[Shell Management]

The airline industry really needs to move from such outdate, prescriptive regulation based training to more effective competence based training.

Who really believes that the FAA can devise an effective pilot training programme?

[AirRabbit]

The airline industry really needs to move from such outdate, prescriptive regulation based training to more effective competence based training.

Who really believes that the FAA can devise an effective pilot training programme?
It’s not the FAA, or any regulatory authority for that matter, who has that responsibility – as it is correctly placed on those who train and use crewmembers in passenger service. However, with all due respect, each authority DOES have a responsibility to provide the basic regulations that all airlines and airline training programs have to follow – and they will retain that responsibility until the laws of the respective countries are revised.

Additionally, the concept of “competence” based training being a “new” idea, is not all together accurate. There are no pilots that I am aware of who get a license to fly from any regulator after having merely completed their required training. All must pass a proficiency (read: competency) check. If the competence is there, the license is issued, if not it is back to the training house.

Now, I’m fully aware that some (perhaps many) regulators require a specified number of training hours before the proficiency (competency) check is to be administered. However, the FAA has, for quite some time, had in their regulatory structure a caveat that says, and says quite clearly, that completing the “programmed hours” isn’t necessary if the pilot has been determined to be proficient. In fact the direct quote is:
§121.409(c) The programmed hours of flight training set forth in this subpart do not apply if the training program for the airplane type includes—
(1) A course of pilot training in an airplane simulator as provided in §121.424(d); or
(2) A course of flight engineer training in an airplane simulator or other training device as provided in §121.425(c).

[Shell Management]

Delude yoiurself.

[Airspeedintervention]

Outstanding ! Now I might be able to ride in an RJ jumpseat without hearing the word "Dude" used in every sentence.

[AirRabbit]

Delude yoiurself.
Perhaps I've misunderstood your exceptionally short commet. Am I to understand that supposedly you "know," and therefore anyone who offers an alternative is thereby "deluded?" Or perhaps you believe that I've mis-read the FAA regulation posted? And, as for the regulator not knowing how to put together a training proram, perhaps you would be so kind as to lead us to the place where we can see what training programs the regulators are attempingto push down our throats? Without trying to sound terribly argumentative, and with full acknowledgment that competent disagreement with anything I may offer is something I consider at least potentially valuable, why is it that you believe I or anyone else here is "deluded" about such things?

[Gretchenfrage]

Type rating or not, 1500 - 4000h or not, that is not the question, nor the answer.
Reality tells it all.

The MD11 was the first airliner proving to be too difficult to handle manually by too many of it's pilots.
The Big Buses now start showing us that automation is not the salvation either, too many pilots not able to finger their way out of design flaws.

The FAA paper is a good start, but it misses out on thousands of FOs who have already made it to the left seat, with the same lack of skills. Additionally it does not deal with the flaws in automation.
Maybe the lawsuit into AF447 can start changing that.

Still hoping for improvement ....

[doubledolphins]

Er, in the UK all FOs have type ratings. What's the big deal?

[protectthehornet]

doubledolphin

there are other places in the world besides the UK.

FO's in domestic USA service don't need a type rating (past);. Only on some international flights.

[Squawk7777]

The airline industry really needs to move from such outdate, prescriptive regulation based training to more effective competence based training.

Who really believes that the FAA can devise an effective pilot training programme?

Are you suggesting that European training is better than US training? I have flown for both a US and UK operator and seen deficiencies on both sides!

The type rating is nothing more than ink on your license. One still has to pass the required tests to be certified to sit in the right seat.

[fmgc]

The type rating is nothing more than ink on your license. One still has to pass the required tests to be certified to sit in the right seat.

But do you have to in the USA?

[peterporker]

Yes. In the USA the First Officer undergoes the same training program as a Captain. When I did my initial ATR training as an FO on the ATR for my USA airline I did the same ground school and simulator training as the captain that I was paired with for training. The only difference was that I did all flying from the right seat and the captain did all flying from the left. In the USA the FO has a SIC type rating and the captain holds a PIC type rating and once the FO upgrades to captain they are given a PIC type rating. I have flown professionally in the USA, Europe, and now in Asia. The FO training in the USA was no less stringent than in Europe, and much more difficult and to a much higher standard than in Asia.

[error_401]

Advantage in Europe is that all JAR23(FAR23) JAR25(FAR25) aircraft require a type rating for both crew members. Plus some single pilot aircraft defined by authorities.

It simply makes life easier as you know what training the other guy got before sitting in his seat. Additionally a type rating requires a skill test defining a certain level of training. To get a type rating for multi-pilot aircraft the minimum requirement is CPL/IR with multi engine rating (MEP) and completed initial CRM and MCC (Multi Crew Cooperation) course including SIM sessions.

Sounds familiar to the FAR's? Just a much clearer version to say: Hey guys - want to fly a multipilot aircraft - take a TR - period.

Maybe the solution as some pointed out cautiously is as most of the time somewhere in the middle. Both systems work - both have their flaws - both have advantages.

[Squawk7777]

Advantage in Europe is that all JAR23(FAR23) JAR25(FAR25) aircraft require a type rating for both crew members. Plus some single pilot aircraft defined by authorities.

What exactly is the advantage? Are you suggesting that the US (regional) carriers put their first officer right into the airplane after they get their picture taken? You obviously do not know anything about airline training in the US. It does vary from carrier to carrier, but to suggest that a EU co-pilot is a better trained and capable pilot just because he holds a type rating (which is nothing more but a paperwork exercise) is more than just being ignorant. I was actually quite shocked that the carrier I flew for in the UK has no recurring oral examinations (regarding memory items, a/c systems etc.). The UK/JAA LOFT-type checkride was a walk in the park compared to the recurring checkride I had to go through in the US. Plus, my US carrier demanded certain hand flying maneuvers (circling) which is/was a big no-no at the UK carrier. :ugh:

It simply makes life easier as you know what training the other guy got before sitting in his seat. Additionally a type rating requires a skill test defining a certain level of training. To get a type rating for multi-pilot aircraft the minimum requirement is CPL/IR with multi engine rating (MEP) and completed initial CRM and MCC (Multi Crew Cooperation) course including SIM sessions.

In the days before SIC rating, all 121 co-pilots had (and still have) to pass a (121.439 I believe) checkride, which is the equivalent of your mighty skill test. MCC and CRM are also required by the FAA for part 121. And it is also practiced in the sim usually on a LOFT session. As previously mentioned, the training course outline varies from carrier to carrier but it has to be approved by the FAA.

The highly-praised type-rating is therefore nothing more than paperwork and ink on your license. :rolleyes: F/O's in the US go through the same type of training. Please people stop making comments about the FAA certification/training if you don't know anything about it.

Come to think of it, some EU F/O's have type ratings but not even 1500 hours yet. From an hour requirement's/legal view they couldn't even fly PIC/P1 with a PIC/P1 TR.

Difference between EU and US in co-pilot training? A piece of paper with ink. And there are also good and bad apples on both sides.

[4dogs]

For Centaurus - opportunity knocks (and automation dependency will get a mention!) :cool::):cool:



THE SENATE
SENATE RURAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT
REFERENCES COMMITTEE


6 October 2010


Mr 4Dogs

Via email:



Dear Mr 4Dogs


Inquiry into pilot training and airline safety

I am writing to advise you that on 30 September 2010, the Senate referred the following matter to the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 17 November 2010.

(a) pilot experience requirements and the consequence of any reduction in flight hour requirements on safety;
(b) the United States of America's Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, which requires a minimum of 1500 flight hours before a pilot is able to operate on regular public transport services and whether a similar mandatory requirement should be applied in Australia;
(c) current industry practices to recruit pilots, including pay-for-training schemes and the impact such schemes may have on safety;
(d) retention of experienced pilots;
(e) type rating and recurrent training for pilots;
(f) the capacity of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to appropriately oversee and update safety regulations given the ongoing and rapid development of new technologies and skills shortages in the aviation sector;
(g) the need to provide legislative immunity to pilots and other flight crew who report on safety matters and whether the United States and European approaches would be appropriate in the Australian aviation environment;
(h) reporting of incidents to aviation authorities by pilots, crew and operators and the handling of those reports by the authorities, including the following incidents:
(i) the Jetstar incident at Melbourne airport on 21 June 2007, and
(ii) the Tiger Airways incident, en route from Mackay to Melbourne, on 18 May 2009;
(i) how reporting processes can be strengthened to improve safety and related training, including consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010; and
(j) any other related matters.

The closing date for submissions to the inquiry is 28 October 2010.

The committee invites you or your organisation to make a submission addressing all or some of the issues identified in the bill.

The committee encourages the lodgement of submissions in electronic form. Submissions can be lodged via the Senate online submission system at https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions, by email to [email protected] or by post to:

Committee Secretary
Senate Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia

Please note that submissions become committee documents and are only made public after a formal decision by the committee. Persons making submissions must not release them without the committee's prior approval. Submissions are covered by parliamentary privilege but the unauthorised release of them is not.

Please ensure that any submissions or attachments you wish to remain confidential are clearly marked as such. A covering letter, clearly outlining the specific reasons for requesting confidentiality, should also be attached to the submission. Please contact the Secretariat if you require further advice on any issues with regard to confidentiality.

In the event that the committee determines to hold public hearings for the inquiry, the committee's website will be updated to provide advice on dates and locations.

For further information about the inquiry see Parliament of Australia: Senate: Committees: Rural Affairs and Transport Committee: Pilot training and airline safety (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rat_ctte/pilots_2010/index.htm) or phone 02 6277 3511.

Yours sincerely,



Jeanette Radcliffe
Committee Secretary

[Squawk7777]

Interesting!

the United States of America's Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, which requires a minimum of 1500 flight hours before a pilot is able to operate on regular public transport services and whether a similar mandatory requirement should be applied in Australia;

Not quite correct, the 1500 flight hour requirement can be bypassed by graduating from a special course. The question lingering in the US now is what it will compromise of and what schools will offer it, whether it will be 141 schools or a ERAU, UND etc. exclusive.

[scrubba]

Sqwark,

she's an Inquiry, mate, not an NPRM

hopefully they'll get someone from the US who knows whats going on to set the record straight. nothing may come of it, but a few current issues should see the light of day :)

[protectthehornet]

The focus of improving safety should not be on the individual pilot. Instead, the Operator (airline) should be required to be "Fair Players".

Independent evaluation of flight crews during simulator sessions.

Independent monitoring of flight operations by modern methods...real time streaming of video/audio from cockpit, etc.

Alcohol/drug testing just prior to flight (non invasive).

Insured compensation packages/severence packages, retirement packages for flight crews and other safety critical workers (mechanics etc).

4 sim evaluations/training sessions spaced 90 days apart per year.

"Ghost Riders", cockpit crewmembers that do not identify themselves as ''check'' airman to evaluate crews.

[Centaurus]

For Centaurus - opportunity knocks (and automation dependency will get a mention!)


A question of put up - or shut up. Thinks..never could shut up!!:ok:

[AirRabbit]

Sqwark,
she's an Inquiry, mate, not an NPRM
hopefully they'll get someone from the US who knows whats going on to set the record straight. nothing may come of it, but a few current issues should see the light of day.
Well, not being well versed in the vernacular I’m not sure what is meant by being “an Inquiry.”

I can tell you that the references made in earlier posts are very likely referring to what is known as House Rule (HR) 5900. This particular “Act,” (an “Act” is the official title of the kind of legislative function that this particular document represents) was appended to a document that was voted on and signed into law by the US President that officially extended the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which was originally created to improve airports and airline safety, “and for other purposes.” In short, since the funding and expenditure authority was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, the attached Act is now also a law in the US. It is a relatively short document divided into 2 “Titles.” Title 1 is “Airport and Airway Extension,” and Title 2 is “Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement.”

Here is the content list for Title 2: (The discussion regarding the number of hours and what will satisfy those number of hours is clearly described in paragraph “(d),” below.)
Sec. 201. Definitions.
Sec. 202. Secretary of Transportation responses to safety recommendations.
Sec. 203. FAA pilot records database.
Sec. 204. FAA Task Force on Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training.
Sec. 205. Aviation safety inspectors and operational research analysts.
Sec. 206. Flight crewmember mentoring, professional development, and leadership.
Sec. 207. Flight crewmember pairing and crew resource management techniques.
Sec. 208. Implementation of NTSB flight crewmember training recommendations.
Sec. 209. FAA rulemaking on training programs.
Sec. 210. Disclosure of air carriers operating flights for tickets sold for air transportation.
Sec. 211. Safety inspections of regional air carriers.
Sec. 212. Pilot fatigue.
Sec. 213. Voluntary safety programs.
Sec. 214. ASAP and FOQA implementation plan.
Sec. 215. Safety management systems.
Sec. 216. Flight crewmember screening and qualifications.
Sec. 217. Airline transport pilot certification.

And here is the language of Section 217: (The discussion regarding the number of hours and what will satisfy those number of hours is clearly described in paragraph “(d),” below.)

(a) Rulemaking Proceeding- The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall conduct a rulemaking proceeding to amend part 61 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to modify requirements for the issuance of an airline transport pilot certificate.

(b) Minimum Requirements- To be qualified to receive an airline transport pilot certificate pursuant to subsection (a), an individual shall--
(1) have sufficient flight hours, as determined by the Administrator, to enable a pilot to function effectively in an air carrier operational environment; and
(2) have received flight training, academic training, or operational experience that will prepare a pilot, at a minimum, to--
(A) function effectively in a multipilot environment;
(B) function effectively in adverse weather conditions, including icing conditions;
(C) function effectively during high altitude operations;
(D) adhere to the highest professional standards; and
(E) function effectively in an air carrier operational environment.

(c) Flight Hours-
(1) NUMBERS OF FLIGHT HOURS- The total flight hours required by the Administrator under subsection (b)(1) shall be at least 1,500 flight hours.
(2) FLIGHT HOURS IN DIFFICULT OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS- The total flight hours required by the Administrator under subsection (b)(1) shall include sufficient flight hours, as determined by the Administrator, in difficult operational conditions that may be encountered by an air carrier to enable a pilot to operate safely in such conditions.

(d) Credit Toward Flight Hours- The Administrator may allow specific academic training courses, beyond those required under subsection (b)(2), to be credited toward the total flight hours required under subsection (c). The Administrator may allow such credit based on a determination by the Administrator that allowing a pilot to take specific academic training courses will enhance safety more than requiring the pilot to fully comply with the flight hours requirement.

(e) Recommendations of Expert Panel- In conducting the rulemaking proceeding under this section, the Administrator shall review and consider the assessment and recommendations of the expert panel to review part 121 and part 135 training hours established by section 209(b) of this Act.

(f) Deadline- Not later than 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall issue a final rule under subsection (a).

[Squawk7777]

(d) Credit Toward Flight Hours- The Administrator may allow specific academic training courses, beyond those required under subsection (b)(2), to be credited toward the total flight hours required under subsection (c). The Administrator may allow such credit based on a determination by the Administrator that allowing a pilot to take specific academic training courses will enhance safety more than requiring the pilot to fully comply with the flight hours requirement.

This is the part that I will follow with great interest. Will it be "you can sit right seat of a jet for $100,000" type of a deal?

Thanks for posting.

[ratherbehunting]

The problem with the piloting profession is we are too nice. We should be drumming people out - especially earlier on. Doctors do this as do lawyers.

Air forces do this as do respectable (read: NOT FOR PROFIT) aviation colleges. Involuntary dropping...sorry kid, but you just don't have what it takes not to kill yourself and others.

Unfortunately we let the my daddy has 100k to pay for my aviation training types rule and profit centers and greedy airlines let them get away with it. Modern aviation has so many checks and balances that we can get away with it for the most part till the Chinese put another one in the side of a hill somewhere.

1500 hrs in the US is right on, and the US should now be pressuring ICAO countries to do the same...that will be safer for aviation, and better for the piloting profession than stupid things like line up and wait phraseolgy.

[protectthehornet]

1. A co pilot ( or cow pilot as he was called at first) should be a fully qualified pilot, ACTING as second in command. In other words, he should have passed all the tests to be captain. Yet it isn't that way yet.

2. Calling USAIRWAYS flights "CACTUS" on the radio is pretty damn stupid.

3. Line up and wait instead of Position and Hold...take 4 words to do the job of 3...really efficient. And in japan it will sound like: Rine up and wait. Instead of Position and Hord.

[AirRabbit]

This is the part that I will follow with great interest. Will it be "you can sit right seat of a jet for $100,000" type of a deal?
Thanks for posting.
I guess I've been living under a basket - I've seen the references for "PTF" - and have been told it stands for "pay to fly." Now I see your question regarding whether or not the new FAA requirement might become a "you can sit right seat of a jet for $100,000" kind of a deal.

Am I to understand that there are places where someone can operate as a required crew member without having completed the required training courses simply by paying someone a hefty sum of money? Or are we describing someone who has otherwise completed all the relevant training programs, passed all the relevant checks, and is now "competing" for a job on the basis of the size of his wallet (or rather, what's in his wallet)?

The requirement as I read this section of the new rule in the US is that there may be more than one way to achieve the prerequisite number of hours (i.e., 1500 hours) through appropriately approved training programs - which have yet to be described, by the way. I would suspect there might be a number of hours of ground traininng - a number of hours in a flight training device - a number of hours in a simulator - and a number of hours (perhaps) in the actual airplane. If that totals 1500 hours - you've completed that aspect of the law. However and again, the exact requirements have not been developed yet (at least as far as I know) - and as of now there are no requirements regarding what organizations will be able to offer this kind of training - and if any of it (more than likely at least some of it) will have to be provided by the airline for which the person will be operating as a pilot. I would suspect this kind of program will take on at least some (perhaps all of) the aspects of the ICAO-developed MPL programs.

As far as I am aware, in the US there are no "PTF" operations.

[atpcliff]

Hi!

PFT (Pay For Training):
The US has it. You pay for your licenses and training, and pay to sit in the right seat. It is NOT very common, at all. I have found that MANY CAA places do this.

Current US Situation:
You need a Commercial to be an FO. You can have less than 200 hours and get a Commercial, and can be hired by an airline without a Commercial, as long as you have the experience requirements and written test done, so you can get your Commercial when you pass your SIC simulator checkride.

The PIC needs an ATP, which also requires 1500 total time, plus a bunch of other requirements, including passing the written test.

Proposed US Situation:
ALL -121 (airline) pilots will need an ATP. Currently, you need 1500 hours to qualify for the ATP, but a number of additional training items will also be added to qualify for the written/flight-test for the ATP. A lot of posters here are concentrating on the 1500 hours, but passing all the ATP licensing requirements is more important than the hours. If you just have 1500 hours, you will NOT be able to fly an airliner.

Note: Type ratings for the PIC are only required on aircraft above 12,500 lbs. For the small Piper/Cessna-type aicraft, no type rating is required.

Differences from JAA/CAA:
There is NO cruise-captain rating, and no frozen ATPL in the US. You either have an FO type, or a PIC Type. The change will require EVERY First Officer (for a -121 airline) to hold a ATP (similar to an full ATPL).

The CAA license I was most familiar with had 2 Type Ratings: Group 1 and Group 2. Group 1 was PIC, Group 2 SIC. That is quite similar to the current US situation.

On the training differences: The main current differences are the 14 theory exams, vs. one for the FAA ATP, and a difficult Sim/Flight test required by the FAA to get an ATP.

I am training now, and our situation it is not uncommon in US training. After losing our second engine, they tell us the weather is CAVOK, and we are cleared to manuever at any altitude and direction, and land on any runway...just let ATC know what we plan to do.

They turn off the electronic glideslopes and visual glideslopes, and tell us the radar is out (or that the airport we just took off from is closed, and to go somewhere else). We have to figure out which runway (and/or airport) we want based on the reported winds, fly our own pattern, and do the visual. Our authrottles don't work, but we can use our autopilot if we desire, and we can get some internal glidepath references if we set up our boxes properly.

Some of us shut off the autopilot and just use a visual glidepath and 3:1 ratio based on our distance from the airport (which is relatively easy to set up and present on our screens).

PS-Forgot the current FAA Oral Exam that is required for both PIC/SIC in the US. Weight and Balance charts, performance charts, checklists items, limitations, and systems questions, such as: How many/what kind of fire extinguishers are on the aircraft/where are they? When does that light come on? What does this switch do? What are the 9 modes that the outflow valves can be in? If you see a "Flap Drive" message, what does it mean, and what will you have to do?

[Airspeedintervention]

Yes, you may have been living under a rock. Gulfstream Airlines in Florida, Alpine Air in Utah spring to mind just to name two. Look in the back of any American GA magazine and you'll find ads for them. If the current NPRM passes I don't think it will be possible for the PTFs to continue as it will just take far too long for their schemes to work. AirRabbit you seem to be fighting this really hard, what's your solution or do you think there is a problem at all ?

[Squawk7777]

I guess I've been living under a basket - I've seen the references for "PTF" - and have been told it stands for "pay to fly." Now I see your question regarding whether or not the new FAA requirement might become a "you can sit right seat of a jet for $100,000" kind of a deal.

Am I to understand that there are places where someone can operate as a required crew member without having completed the required training courses simply by paying someone a hefty sum of money? Or are we describing someone who has otherwise completed all the relevant training programs, passed all the relevant checks, and is now "competing" for a job on the basis of the size of his wallet (or rather, what's in his wallet)?

The requirement as I read this section of the new rule in the US is that there may be more than one way to achieve the prerequisite number of hours (i.e., 1500 hours) through appropriately approved training programs - which have yet to be described, by the way. I would suspect there might be a number of hours of ground traininng - a number of hours in a flight training device - a number of hours in a simulator - and a number of hours (perhaps) in the actual airplane. If that totals 1500 hours - you've completed that aspect of the law. However and again, the exact requirements have not been developed yet (at least as far as I know) - and as of now there are no requirements regarding what organizations will be able to offer this kind of training - and if any of it (more than likely at least some of it) will have to be provided by the airline for which the person will be operating as a pilot. I would suspect this kind of program will take on at least some (perhaps all of) the aspects of the ICAO-developed MPL programs.

As far as I am aware, in the US there are no "PTF" operations.

No, you need to have your certificates but some "places" want to convince you that buying a type and experience will make you more "attractive" for you first real job.

I was referring to the yet-to-be-designed training courses that can waive the 1500 hour requirement. With lots of cash you can shortcut one career step, instead of building experience by "time building". I hope those new training courses are not going to be some ERAU, UND etc. copy. We had a lot of problems with new hires at my US regional. Basically, they wanted to tell us what to do.

I am not sure if the "approved training scheme" and "non-approved training" scheme still exists in the UK. I had looked at the differences and the financial difference versus flight time training difference was horrendous. But is there a significant difference in quality?

To bring this discussion to a point the question is: Can you replace experience with training? Can you train common sense? Some, but not all. I am still not convinced by ab-initio and MPL training done by some EU operators.

I honestly don't think that the (regional) airline training in the US is bad (At Trans States our washout rate was pretty high). Some operators spoon-feed their new-hires more than others. Some 250 hour pilots are better than others, and some learn/adapt quicker than others.

I'd personally have a CFI as a co-pilot then some low-time "wonder" kid from ERAU, Purdue or UND.

[AirRabbit]

PFT (Pay For Training):
The US has it. You pay for your licenses and training, and pay to sit in the right seat.
I thought that the reference was PTF – meaning “pay to fly.” I also understand the PFT reference, meaning pay for training. I also understand that this PFT philosophy is alive and well in the US. It has been for decades – at least – I had to pay for the training I was to receive in order to be considered for the first flying job I applied for after getting out of the military in the early 1970s. But I’m not aware of any airline in the US that requires someone to pay for the opportunity to serve as an SIC on that airline.

However, even if there are organizations operating this way, I DO know a way to avoid having to go through that particular channel – whether its limited to training or includes the right seat service … its called WALK AWAY! If I told you that I had a really cool 1953 Ford Pickup Truck, with only minor damage to right front fender, but I would sell it to you for $100,000 – would you go take out a mortgage on your house to buy my truck? Then if I told you that you had to pay me $1.50 for each mile you drove that truck, would you agree? If you did either of those things – would that be my fault? If you did either of those things, what kind of “expletive” would you utter the next time you caught your reflection in the bathroom mirror? If you did either of those things – would you be risking your life? If you did either of those things to fly an airplane – would you hope you would have the opportunity to catch your reflection in the bathroom mirror one more time so that you could choose a more significant “expletive?”

Yes, you may have been living under a rock. Gulfstream Airlines in Florida, Alpine Air in Utah spring to mind just to name two. Look in the back of any American GA magazine and you'll find ads for them. If the current NPRM passes I don't think it will be possible for the PTFs to continue as it will just take far too long for their schemes to work. AirRabbit you seem to be fighting this really hard, what's your solution or do you think there is a problem at all ?
Sorry – I didn’t think I was fighting anything. I’m trying to understand the criticisms of the industry I keep reading about and the seeming acceptance of the idea that merely increasing the flight-time requirements for pilot applicants will immediately solve the lack-of-experience problems that many believe are the singular cause for much of the recent consternation realized in the aviation industry.

I’ve been in this business for a good long time; and have seen it and practiced it from just about all the angles possible. If I had it my way – the training that a pilot would receive would allow him/her to become familiar with the way his/her airplane performs and handles throughout the normal operating envelope – AND – that pilot would have had enough opportunity to see, feel, hear, and respond with the airplane at (and at times, outside) the edge of that operating envelope such that he/she would be able to return that airplane to a safe flight condition. In my book this means obtaining an education about aerodynamics and how airflow impacts an airplane – particularly the lifting surfaces – and how that airflow can be modified to be able to maneuver the airplane through the tasks that pilots must master. I am fully aware that someone cannot graduate from high school or college – having studied government or history or math – and show up on the door step of an airline – with the “for hire” add in his/her hand – complete 120 hours of ground school and 10 simulator periods – and from there be expected to be able to function as a competent SIC for an airline. Nor do I think that this scenario can be modified to an acceptable level by inserting in that string of events, a stop at the local FBO to get a private pilot certificate. So, how about getting the CFI certificate so that you can “make money” while you’re flying … to build time? (yes, I’ve been THERE as well) Under the previous rules, that amount of time had to be 250 hours – to qualify to serve as an airline SIC. I have always believed that it is the quality of the training ANY pilot applicant has received (throughout his/her career) and the kind of experience the pilot has – not merely the number in the logbook. And – dare I say it – does anyone ever bother to check the logbook entries against airplane maintenance logs or any other cross check capability? Has anyone ever heard of “P51” time (“P” as in “Parker” T-Ball Jotter … a ball point pen)? Whatever your answers, now, with these new rules in place, that amount of time may require someone to log at least 1,500 hours.

Do I think there is a problem? Of course I do. But we probably are not going to agree on the identification of that problem. I am of the opinion that the US airline pilot population is going to undergo a dramatic change beginning in approximately 2 to 3 years. What is the nature of that change? Retirement. A pilot cannot fly for an airline after age 65; it used to be age 60, but now its 65. Starting about 2012/2013, and for the following 10 years, airline pilots are going to be reaching that “magic” age like water flowing over Niagara Falls. Specific estimates vary but most agree that during that period fully one-HALF of the airline pilots in the US will retire. As there are currently about 120,000 airline pilots in the US, that means 60,000 airline pilots will retire during that period … and, unless the industry is going to contract to that degree, those 60,000 pilots will have to be replaced in that same time frame – 10 years. Do the math – 60,000 pilots in 10 years (or 120 months) means, on average, the airlines in the US will have to hire 500 pilots a month – each month for 10 years.

How is that going to affect, or be affected by, the new requirement to have 1,500 hours logged prior to being interviewed at an airline? Are we going to make the Parker T-Ball Jotter an instrument of “infamy?”

My preference for a "solution" would be to institute an MEL-Like training program authorization that airlines could choose as a way to bring brand new pilots into the fold - oversee their training from the first day through the last day, when they begin to fly in the right seat of the airline's aircraft. The US military as been using a similar process for several decades - and it seems to work very satisfactorily for them. Sure - there are issues involving applicant screening and the overall cost. But, do we just throw up our hands and say "that's too difficult?" I certainly hope not. There are reasonalbe alternatives and viable strategies for each of these obstacles that, in my opinion, merit further review and consideration.

[atpcliff]

Hi!

Airrabbit: U R right on. There is a sea change coming for Aviation, and especially for the US, and most US pilots don't see it, because they don't ready pprune/aren't aware of the recruiting situation at EK/QR/India/China, etc.

This year the new Flight/Duty/Rest rules will come out, and virtually all -121 airlines will need to hire more pilots. The "regionals" will be especially hard hit, as many of them don't have contract rules, and push the FAA rules to (and past) the limit. This change, by itself, will mean many more RJ/Tprop pilots will be needed if the schedule is to be maintained.

The ATP/1500 hour requirement will be in effect in less than 3 years, just when the Age 65 guys start to retire again. The economy will, in all probability, be much better than it is now. The overseas airlines/countries will be desiring MANY more pilots than are currently flying there. It will be a tsunami, and HR departments across the US will be shocked, as will most of the US pilots.

In the early 1960s, major airlines, like UAL, hired High School Students (pre-university) who only had Private Pilot Licenses, and then provided all the training needed to get them into their jets. Something like this/MPL will be needed in the US.

Note: Currently, 250 hours are required to get an FAA Commercial (needed to be a-121 airline FO) at any mom and pop airport. However, at Embry Riddle/University of North Dakota (the two biggest air universities in the US), and other -141 flight training organizations, can get their guys a Commercial with only about 188 hours of flight time, due to other credits (sim, special courses, etc., etc.). I anticipate that the ATP/1500 hour may be reduced by 100-200 hours thru the same means that the Commercial requirements are now reduced. However, there is new, mandated training that is being added to the ATP, so in some ways it will be more difficult to get.

Latest Hiring US: Southwest is merging with AirTran, and they both will begin hiring soon (SWA hasn't hired much at all for about 3 years). FedEx will soon be hiring. UPS cancelled the rest of their furloughs. World will be hiring soon. American is starting to recall. Continental recalled all their guys, and UAL/CAL will both be hiring when the merger is figured out. USAir is hiring...etc., etc.

All of this will be good for overseas job seekers, as less Americans will be available, so there will be more pressure for better T&Cs worldwide...

[atpcliff]

Hi!

DoubleDolphins: Er, in the UK all FOs have type ratings. What's the big deal?

The big deal, if the UK switched to the new US situation, is that both the Capt AND the FO would need a full ATPL (NOT frozen) in the aicraft they fly for their airline. That IS correct, and brand new FO at EVERY UK airline would need a full ATPL before they sat in the right seat.

In the US, the current minimum hourly requirement is 1500 hours for the ATP. Previously (like in 2008), the smaller US -121 airlines (Mesa, Pinnacle, etc.) were hiring pilots with less than 250 total hours directly into the right seat, with NO MPL type of training, just a straight commercial required.

[Airspeedintervention]

AirRabbit,

I mostly agree with you. I will say that when I sat on a regionals hiring board I DID look VERY closely at applicants logs. And having come from both a Military and Civilian background (due to being a military RW Pilot) I was very aware of what looked and sounded plausible and what was pure fiction (P51 time). Of course WELL designed simulator checks can also verify this quite rapidly.

I do not agree with your numbers concerning retirements. I think you are a bit on the high side. And at any rate the retirements will not occur in an average linear fashion but rather in dribs and drabs. And while I cannot speak for any other airline at least at my carrier (Continental) I know that the manpower planning guys are very intently looking at this.


Additionally (and many will think this statement to be heresy) with the advancements in automation and remote piloting I do see a time in the not too distant future when the Cargo airlines will go to a single pilot type of operation. This coming no doubt after a very protracted and ugly fight but coming none the less as it will make far too much sense to the bean counters and the general populace will not be smart enough to be worried as to how many pilots are flying their boxes and mail.

I agree very much that a Lufthansa style training academy needs to be instituted to meet the coming needs but my question is - by whom ? Should it be University based like an Embry Riddle or should each individual airline maintain their own ? Or should it be run and overseen entirely by the FAA as they do with air traffic controllers ? Or worse yet run by ALPA under the guise of an apprenticeship by it's governing trade guild ? More importantly how do we legislate this training academy into existance ? Because that's ultimately what it's going to take. Just because a couple of old burnt out airline pilots think it's a good idea has never been enough before.

[AirRabbit]

I do not agree with your numbers concerning retirements. I think you are a bit on the high side. And at any rate the retirements will not occur in an average linear fashion but rather in dribs and drabs. And while I cannot speak for any other airline at least at my carrier (Continental) I know that the manpower planning guys are very intently looking at this.
I can understand why my “guesstimate” that 50% of the current airline pilots will retire between now and 2023 might raise some eyebrows and likely create bit of consternation. However, for what it’s worth, here is a link to a presentation made at the 2009 World Aviation Training Symposium (WATS) conference …
WATS Pilot Proceedings | Halldale (http://halldale.com/wats-2009/wats-pilot-proceedings)
If the link doesn’t allow a direct “click” connection – copy this and paste it into your browser. Once the page loads, go to the first presentation in session 4. It’s a 49.6MB PowerPoint presentation that you might find interesting.

Also, while it may come to pass - and I know there is a lot of activity - both from potential suppliers and the FAA (in the form of airspace utilization and monitoring concerns) - regarding Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Unmanned Aerial Systems) and garnering a lot of attention (in fact, its one of the few times I can recall the US regulatory authority trying to get out in front of a technological advancement before it hits everyone in the face - good on 'em for that anyway), I'm just not convinced that, whatever level that operation may achieve in the near future, it will have a huge impact on the number of pilots needed for US airline operations - up or down.

[Finn47]

Just found this piece of news here:

Airlines oppose law increasing pilot flight hours - pottsmerc.com (http://pottsmerc.com/articles/2010/10/16/news/doc4cba76ce32084879820164.txt)

The key issue is money, according to officials familiar with the panel's deliberations. Airlines worry that if the FAA raises the threshold for co-pilots — also called first officers — from the current minimum of 250 hours, airlines will be forced to raise pilot salaries and benefits to attract more experienced fliers, the officials said.What a disaster: Airlines will have to raise pilots´ salaries :}:hmm:

[Oakape]

Well, there is a surprise! Airline management only concerned with money, rather than safety.:mad:

[Teddy Robinson]

derogation of responsibility perhaps ? or should we call that abdication of responsibility ... one of my pet hates. First airline I worked for sniffed at my 4000 hours and the chief pilot made my time in the sim hell .... now Mr Cohen says ... that is all replacable by a computer course and nothing to do with money ... don't make me laugh! yeh CBT for LCY on a nasty day ... what fecki@g planet do these people live on ?, he wants a min hours desperate captain and a zero hour PTF F/O on all sectors ..... just for safetys sake ...:yuk:

[p51guy]

I'd personally have a CFI as a co-pilot then some low-time "wonder" kid from ERAU, Purdue or UND.

I agree 100%

[p51guy]

How can some kid with 250 hrs help you if you have a problem? You are on your own. You need experience not just a cram course to make you know what is happening. Believe me, you learn a lot instructing, I did 3,000 hrs of it. You can't learn that in a 250 hr course.

[protectthehornet]

some of the worst pilots I've ever flown with were from embry riddle. nope...no way to make a pilot faster and cheaper...and retain real quality.

[SKS777FLYER]

P51Guy writesHow can some kid with 250 hrs help you if you have a problem? You are on your own. You need experience not just a cram course to make you know what is happening. Believe me, you learn a lot instructing, I did 3,000 hrs of it. You can't learn that in a 250 hr course.

Sometimes, judgement isn't honed with vast experience, Take AA 1429 Little Rock crash... Very experienced Captain, (CKA and a Chief Pilot) in a rush to get to Little Rock ahead of viloent Tstrms. Yes his fairly (Airline in-experienced) co-pilot could help him very little. End result, Captain pushing up daisies, FO much more experienced pilot, still on the line.
Or the hapless low-time DC10 FO who expressed his soon to be initiated go-around landing DFW early morning in Tstrm induced gusty x-winds after allnight flight from HNL. The very experienced DC10 Captain (ex-military jock)......."no, no, no, I've got it you in-experienced FO." Captain then takes control, lands and gets blown off the runway.
While I agree with the subject matter of mandating higher quality/more experience, having the hours doesn't always mean more useful experience or judgement.
Another example, FO. Pilot flying AA965, MIA-CLO, Dec 1995. FO was once, maybe even twice USAF Instructor Pilot of the Year in F4 Phantoms prior to being hired at AMR.

[Teddy Robinson]

we .. as seasoned professionals are looking to the powers that be to provide us with a gold standard .. a captain in training rather than a wannabe with money. Don't get me wrong, some of them are excellent material for training .. just that when you really need someone in the loop when things go slightly pear ... they are not there .... they cannot be, because they did not see the problem coming, despite an explanation as to why it was probably coming because they lacked the experience to comprehend. That is no reflection on their potential, just the expediaent that placed them in the right seat of a plane full of pax, instead of the left seat of a PA38 learning new ways to kill both occupants from someone you briefed .. this becomes something you talk about on the ground post event as you fill in the MOR ..

[protectthehornet]

copilot: a fully qualified pilot acting as second in command of an airplane requring two or more pilots.

key concept: fully qualified.

'nuff said.

[AirRabbit]

What I believe we need is an approach that is different from the existing models that keep being referenced. The US military has very successfully taken “no nothing” applicants ... kids mostly ... and turned them into respectable aviators in just a touch over a year and a touch over 220 hours of flying. Does the military wash out some of its original applicants? Sure. Why? Those applicants don’t measure up to the standards that are set. The key is to establish a system with verifiable standards that must be met for one in training to proceed.

I believe that we are not going to have much to argue over when the need arises to hire a set number of pilots in a set number of days/weeks/months. You all know what we are likely to get if we have to go that route. Sure some of those folks are going to be OK … but, how many will slip through the cracks and be right there in the FO chair on the proverbial dark and stormy night? Wouldn’t it be better to take the steps NOW to ensure that we have a mechanism in place that will give all of us the best opportunity to have a competent aviator sitting in that other seat?

If we disregard how a person gains 1500 hours … and just accept someone with that specific base-line number, I feel we’ll be getting the raw end of the deal more often than getting the diamond-in-the-rough. Someone – more likely a series of “someones” – will be saddled with the necessity of flying his/her side of the cockpit while watching intently what that person in the other seat is doing or not doing. With the fact that the equipment we have today, it is likely that we won’t have to be dependent on the ability of that other pilot to an extent that we can’t handle … but this is one of those situations where the wrong circumstance, the wrong decision, the momentary lack of awareness that we all suffer periodically, can end in a tragedy … a la Colgan.

Can we dismount from the position of arguing incessantly about 500, 1000, 1500 hours and start focusing on the necessity to have a set of standards that, once met, will provide a competent pilot – whatever that takes? In that event, the person that would have made a competent FO and, for whatever reason, isn’t needed at that time, may go off and fly checks or tow banners or instruct … log additional time and be even better. And, in those circumstances that dictate that this graduate was needed right then – at the end of that competently designed training curriculum – we would have a perfectly adequate pilot in that FO chair … just like we see in the military today. However, if we put all our “eggs” in the 1500-hour basket, not caring how that guy was trained – just focus on the fact that he’s survived for that many hours (and, one would do well to wonder how accurate the log book entries may be….) isn’t necessarily the panacea! Sure, the same likelihood exists – the equipment is not just good – it’s VERY good. The facilities are also quite good. Airplanes aren’t falling out of the sky every day. There is a very good likelihood that this guy or gal and his flying partner, will survive until he/she becomes an adequate crew member. But, personally, I don’t like the odds of putting my life and the wellbeing of my family on the “Pass Line” and gamble that “Craps” isn’t the point being rolled out of the “hand of fate.”

[White Knight]

COPILOT:
copilot: a fully qualified pilot acting as second in command of an airplane requring two or more pilots.

key concept: fully qualified.

'nuff said.

This time I'll agree with you 100%...

[protectthehornet]

thanks white knight.

and for our fine air force pilots...250 hours etc...most are flying planes with ejection seats or parachute availability...they also have people giving them orders to accomplish a mission. (baby sitters in other words)...this is not to demean the fine pilots of the air force or other military branch.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Can we dismount from the position of arguing incessantly about 500, 1000, 1500 hours and start focusing on the necessity to have a set of standards that, once met, will provide a competent pilot – whatever that takes?

We have gotten to where we are now because of the difficulty of defining "competant". I think if you ask the president of the airline, you will get a very different definition of "competant" than if you ask the line Captain with a lowtime FO who just finished a sector in Crap Wx with an enroute systems problem...... As soon as you say "train to competancy" the standard becomes subjective and will inevitably get watered down to save money. The one thing about a hard 1500 hour requirement is you either meet it or not. No "suggestion" from management to make training more efficent, no amount of "special arrangements" with "prefered" training providers etc etc, will lower the entry bar.

From a purely pragmatic view I think it will increase the quality of new hire part 121 FO's if only because the hardest hours to get are the first ones and the only guys/gals left will be the ones who really want it. All the posers spending daddy's cash so they can graduate from flight school and go straight to the airlines without getting their hands dirty will get discouraged and quit.

The other advantage is it will almost certainly reduce the pool of elligable new hire regional airline candidates. If the only sucess of this legislation is to end 16,000 dollar FO wages than IMO it will have been a great success

[p51guy]

Air Force pilot also don't carry 200 + paying passengers to fly with fully competent FO's in the right seat. Paying passengers expect both pilots to be fully qualified as they should. 250 hrs doesn't qualify, sorry. 1500 hrs and an ATP gives you a much better chance of a qualified FO. Hopefully they will be able to pass a sim check prior to being hired which 250 hr pilots would have to struggle through with poor results. This is a good change for FAA requirements.

[AirRabbit]

…and for our fine air force pilots...250 hours etc...most are flying planes with ejection seats or parachute availability...they also have people giving them orders to accomplish a mission. (baby sitters in other words)...this is not to demean the fine pilots of the air force or other military branch.
Aw … come on … you and I both know that this statement is more than just a little bit over-the-top. Sure, there are a lot of Air Force pilots flying airplanes with ejection seats and parachutes … but, you know quite well that there are many (many, many) airplanes operated by the Air Force (as well as Army, Navy, Marine, and Coast Guard) that carry passengers (or other persons performing duties on board) that do not have the availability of ejection seats OR parachutes. AND, you well know, THAT was not the point I was making. I suspect that it is possible that the military MAY have changed since my time, but there is no way that it has changed to the extent that pilots are merely human versions of on-board computers, doing what, and only what, they are told to do by some MYTHICAL “baby sitter” transmitting orders.
Air Force pilot also don't carry 200 + paying passengers to fly with fully competent FO's in the right seat. Paying passengers expect both pilots to be fully qualified as they should. 250 hrs doesn't qualify, sorry. 1500 hrs and an ATP gives you a much better chance of a qualified FO. Hopefully they will be able to pass a sim check prior to being hired which 250 hr pilots would have to struggle through with poor results. This is a good change for FAA requirements.
Same thing, sir … you cannot believe that this statement is not more than just a little over-the-top. We all recognize that the mission of the military is not to carry passengers from point “A” to point “B” – but there isn’t anyone, any where, who is ignorant enough to believe that the military does not carry passengers from some other point “A” to some other point “B” – just EXACTLY like commercial airline operations. Does that mean that the military is any less concerned about the competency of the pilots operating those aircraft? If it is true that the training US military pilots receive prior to their occupying the right seat in any one of the aircraft that carry passengers or other persons performing duties on board, you are indicting military commanders as regularly exposing those people to unsafe conditions and thereby making EACH of them guilty of careless and reckless behavior, endangering the lives of those persons, and thereby making EACH of them liable for legal prosecution. Each current or former military pilot I know is fully aware of the competency required to graduate from their respective branch’s pilot training program. As such, it is apparent to me, and would be equally apparent to any other current or former military pilot who may read this, that you are not a current or former military pilot – or you are a military pilot that somehow managed to slip through the process when you shouldn’t have, and your credibility on this particular subject has just tanked.

We have gotten to where we are now because of the difficulty of defining "competant". I think if you ask the president of the airline, you will get a very different definition of "competant" than if you ask the line Captain with a lowtime FO who just finished a sector in Crap Wx with an enroute systems problem...... As soon as you say "train to competancy" the standard becomes subjective and will inevitably get watered down to save money. The one thing about a hard 1500 hour requirement is you either meet it or not. No "suggestion" from management to make training more efficent, no amount of "special arrangements" with "prefered" training providers etc etc, will lower the entry bar.

From a purely pragmatic view I think it will increase the quality of new hire part 121 FO's if only because the hardest hours to get are the first ones and the only guys/gals left will be the ones who really want it. All the posers spending daddy's cash so they can graduate from flight school and go straight to the airlines without getting their hands dirty will get discouraged and quit.

The other advantage is it will almost certainly reduce the pool of elligable new hire regional airline candidates. If the only sucess of this legislation is to end 16,000 dollar FO wages than IMO it will have been a great success.
In the most general of terms, I would agree with your statement that defining “competent” has been at the base of addressing a good share of the problems that currently exist in the aviation industry. Of course, airline managers are interested in managing a company that is profitable. Except for those profits, those managers wouldn’t have a job. And, I’m not going to argue that in many cases, those managers are willing to (and have) cut any (some would say “all”) costs to increase that profit margin. It has never been recognized by any airline manager that the “training department” is an income generating department within the airline. Training does not generate income. Just like purchasing an airplane doesn’t generate income … repairing a broken airplane doesn’t generate income … paying for fuel doesn’t generate income … in fact, there is only ONE thing that actually generates income in the airline business … and that is ticket sales. Everything else … that is EVERYthing else … merely allows you the opportunity to be able to provide the service for which that ticket was sold. That’s it.

Now, airline managers can get really indiscriminate with how to disburse the income generated by those ticket sales … they can pay everyone an exorbitant salary … they can provide all employees the most generous of health insurance programs … they can provide palatial working conditions … they can pay senior managers a lot and FOs a pittance … and the list can go on and on. But … eventually, reality sets in and the money runs out. So, where to make the prudent expenditure of the money that is available to them becomes a significant issue. Of course there are some basic expenditures … you can’t sell a ticket on an airplane from one city to another without having an airplane on which that seat is located. You have to pay for the fuel to operate the airplane. There are fees for landing and for gate rental and ticket counter space and baggage handling services and catering services and routine maintenance on the airplane and the equipment used to maintain the airplanes and … and … and … Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) there is a range through which almost all of those expenditures may be allocated. Training is an expenditure – and one can choose to spend the most or the least. But there is one thing – and really only ONE thing that cannot be adjusted with respect to that training … that happens to be what the regulations require. If the regulation is written in some convoluted, multiply-interpretive ways, the lesser amounts can be expended … but SOMEthing has to be expended or the regulatory authority won’t approve the programs.

Therefore, it should be the goal of anyone interested in seeking that adequate training – training that provides competence in the pilot – MUST BE written into the regulations – and those regulations have to be written in basic language; language that easy to understand; language that is limited in the ways it can be interpreted. Yeah, I know. More rules and regulations. No one wants to have to deal with more rules and regulations. But, in this case, there is really no alternative. Rules are not necessarily bad things. First, if they are written to ensure what we all want to see – they would be beneficial to each of us. Second, if we all have RULES, no one would be allowed to have anything less than what is required – a leveling of the playing field. THIS is what I am advocating. We NEED to have rules that yield competent pilots. There should be NO alternative to that competency requirement. If the airline management complains about the necessity of spending the necessary funds to achieve that level of competency, the regulatory authority should politely, but firmly, advise them that they cannot afford to be an airline. Please note – I’m not making a plea for regulatory requirements for salaries of airline employees – and I’m fully aware of the predatory practice of paying FO a pittance of a salary – at least for the first several years of employment. That’s a business decision into which I believe the regulatory authorities should have no input.

If the regulatory requirements are sufficiently written – sufficiently understood – and then enforced, there would be no issue of incompetent persons getting through on “daddy’s” bank account.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Air Rabbit

How good is good enough? An airline flight is the safest mode of travel allready so there is a powerfull argument that the existing training is in fact "good enough". Now we pilots know better but the question is not a facile one. Most of what gets covered in training is low to extremely low probability , but high to very high consequence events.

I aggree with the thrust of your arguments but the difficulty of actually effecting change in such a maliable problem space is significant. Demanding 1500 hrs is an easy way to show demonsterable change. Hopefully it will also serve as a catalyst to force a broader reexamination of pilot training.

[AirRabbit]

I would expect that everyone will recognize that it takes some finite period of time to acquire the skills necessary to pilot an airplane. Depending on the method taken, civilian or military, it could take a person between 3 and 13 months to get a CPL with an IR (potentially a CFI) and somewhere around 250 hours of logged flight time going the civilian route. The quality of the schools offering this training run the gamut of “wonderful” to “not-so-much.” The military route would take approximately 53 weeks to get through Undergraduate Pilot Training and then another 3 to 6 months to qualify on the specific airplane the military has assigned; this would put about the same amount of flight time in your military records – approximately 250 hours. Not much difference between the time involved.

If the pilot has gone the civilian route there is a reasonable chance that the pilot in question may have the necessary qualifications to adequately serve as a viable FO in airline operations. If the pilot has gone the military route (and you can feel free to believe that I am prejudiced on this point – it is true, I am prejudiced) it is my opinion that any given graduate would make a quite viable FO in airline operations at that point – of course, the military is going to get their “pound of flesh” in the form of 5 to 6 years of active duty military time.

Be that as it may, if we are merely comparing the viability of the graduates of these two differing routes to be in a position to present one’s self as a viable candidate for a vacant FO position for an airline – I am of the opinion that the odds are significantly greater that the military graduate would be considered viable than would the civilian graduate. Not only that, of two graduates (one from each source) it wouldn’t surprise me to see that the military trained person would be “head-and-shoulders” better than the person completing the civilian route. Why? Because of my personal knowledge of how that person was trained – knowing what subjects were taught, the level of integration between ground schools and flight training lesions; the level of pilot performance that is deemed to be “satisfactory” in each area – and the level of self-understanding and the accuracy self-assessment that each graduate can demonstrate. Yes – I do know the variances of civilian pilot training schools … and yes, there are some civilian pilot schools that can, and often do, produce reasonably acceptable pilots – although in a typical graduating class of … say 20 pilots … only about 5 (or 25%) would be what I would equate to the level I would be interested in interviewing for prospective positions within “my” airline. On the other hand, of a typical military graduating class … say of 40 graduates … there would likely be only 1 or 2 (or 2½% to 5%) that I would NOT place in the same “competence” category – and I only say that because of mere mathematical, statistical logic. In reality, it would be highly unlikely to have any graduate who would not be such a viable candidate.

Because there isn’t any record (of which I am aware) of what screening process a typical pilot training school uses to select their students, I cannot say whether or not the 15 other graduates of that civilian class of 20 would have been successful in getting through the military screening to have been admitted to the pilot training program in the military. If they would have been successful in getting through that screening process (and I personally don’t believe that would have happened), then the difference would have to be the quality of the training that was, or would have been, made available. Were this the case, it would have to be resulting from one or more of several factors – not the least of which is the competence and dedication of the instructors – but also includes those attributes of those who develop and over-see the administration of the instruction, practice, and evaluation processes – as well as the level of fidelity and reliability of the training equipment and the sequence and scheduling of the training program itself – and the determination and dedication of the individual students, themselves. All of these factors are regularly reviewed from a standardization perspective, records are reviewed, standardization evaluations are administered to the instructor/evaluation staff and the facilities and equipment has specific performance and maintenance regimens that must be met.

This is a round-about way of describing the 2 major issues that a typical pilot training school is not likely to have available in any anticipation of that school producing a “viable” airline applicant; 1) an exceptionally good screening process; and 2) an exceptionally good pilot training program.

If either of these factors are not made a part of the program I have been describing, then I would freely admit that seeking airline FO candidates with a CPL/IR and a minimum of 1500 hours of logged flight time would be a better choice – not A LOT better choice, but a better choice – than hiring someone with a CPL and IR rating with 200 – 250 hours of flight time.

I happen to believe that the necessity of hiring a whole bunch of new pilots, starting within the next 2 to 3 years – and extending for 12 – 20 years into the future is a situation that is simply awaiting the correct number of calendar pages to be ripped from the wall. By almost any measure one can name the number of new pilots needed in the US between 2013 and 2023 is between 45,000 and 60,000 pilots. I’ve posted some of the details of these numbers previously – but once again … this means that somewhere between 100 and 125 pilots will be needed every week throughout that 10-year period. Go back and re-read that last sentence … between 100 and 125 pilots every WEEK throughout that 10-year period. Said somewhat differently, that is between 400 and 500 pilots each month for that period. I am describing pilot requirements for the US airline market – not the world’s. IF (a very big word at times!) IF the choice is made to hire pilots with a minimum of 1500 hours of flight time – that means that each of those 100-125 pilots each week (400-500 pilots each month) will have to have had jobs that will allow them to have flown for that 1500 hours before they apply for the available airline job. You tell me … are there sufficient number of flying jobs available that will allow that number of new pilots to gain that number of “experience” hours that frequently over that period of time? I think not. If I’m correct – where are we going to get the number of pilots to do the job? From the corporate world? Perhaps to some degree … but certainly not at the needed numbers. From foreign airline sources? Perhaps to some degree … but certainly not at the needed numbers. From the military? Perhaps to some degree … but, and again, certainly not at the needed numbers. I should hasten to point out that the rest of the world is also going to be in need of pilots as well – and the three (3) regions (Europe, Asia/Pacific, Rest-of-the-World) will all be in need of numbers far in excess of what will be need in the US.

The calendar pages are being ripped from the wall – one page each month – and, like the man on TV used to say … “Time marches on.” What are we going to do to meet the aviation community needs for piloting jobs between now and 20 years from now? It’s not just a rhetorical question – it’s a question of reality and of substance. It’s going to have an answer – whether or not it’s the right answer is going to be up to us.

[4dogs]

Air Rabbit,

Accurate, incisive, clearly heartfelt and truly excellent!

Stay Alive,

[PROBEUSMC]

I flew in the US for 20 years (8 years military, 12 Major airline). The last couple years I made a jump to the "contract pilot" world. It has been a huge eye opener, and allowed me to see a lot of what is going on in the world of aviation, at least in regards to pilot training.

Flying in the US at a big airline, the average FO was hired when he was in his early 30's, whether he was civilian or military. Most of the civilians had 7 prior jobs, with 4-10,000 hours. My time as a Captain there was very easy, now that I look back on it. Maybe a couple of times a year I would give an airspeed call, but I never took the controls from another pilot. Ever. Not even close. 15 years ago even the regional airlines were able to hire experienced pilots. Not for much longer, and even a couple of years ago Mesa and several others were hiring 250 hour pilots.

Fast forward 2 years to Asia. Most Asian carriers either run cadet programs, or simply hire 250 hour pilots and put them in the right seat of a 37 or scarebus. 3 years later they are Captains, with 2200-3500 hours. A year later they are TRI/TRE's. The system we work in, and it is a system, can absorb a certain number of low time pilots. A lot perhaps, maybe 50%, and still maintain an adequate level of safety. Lufthansa, JAL, and a few others also run cadet programs and have excellent safety records. But when your entire airline is trained and staffed by low time pilots, the system no longer works. The safety records of these airlines speak for themselves.

Pilot training is expensive, and the payday at the end of the rainbow no longer attracts enough pilots. Also, most countries don't have enough feeder aviation to grow pilots. Aviation has gone from zilch to Boeing in most countries of the world.

I have had the opportunity this last 2 years to fly with pilots from all over the world, with various levels of experience. Even a lot of low time Euro and South American FO's, who went from 250 hours to A320's. I flew with them when they had 1500-3000 hours. They came from small carriers. Almost all of them were good pilots. At the same time, I also flew with FO's from Asia, Europe, South America, and North America with the same level of experience I flew with in the states. There is simply no comparison. More experience is better. They are like flying with another Captain next to me.

If you look at the individual accidents in the last 20 years or so, probably over 80% of accidents are by small airlines, mostly in less affluent countries, but also a lot in small airlines in rich countries. When to take into account they probably only make up 5 % of commercial aviation, the accident rate is horrendous. On the other side of it, most major airlines have a phenomenal safety record this past 20 years. Many have had only 1 bad accident, and that was usually a plane ending up off the runway, and the passengers were fine.

The last 6 fatal accidents in the US were with commuter airlines, and the pilots were on average far less experienced than their counterparts at the majors. Those 6 accidents were either 100% pilot error, or pilot error was a huge contributor after a minor malfunction. They are among the worst, and most preventable, accident reports I have ever read. It took these accidents for our government to step in.

ICAO actually is going the other way. They are pushing the "Multi crew pilot license". You think 250 hours is too little, how about 125? Plus 125 in a simulator. I believe it is already approved.

In 18 months at my last job, I took the controls from the other pilot 6 times, and I should have done so another 15 times at least.

Wikipedia is a great resource for aviation Safety. Type in the airline, and they will tell everything, including individual accidents, number of accidents, etc. Want to know if Airbus or Boeing is safer? Type in 777 or A330. Look at the number built, and the number crashed, including short reports of how and who crashed them. Phenomenal.

The US still has an adequate supply of pilots for the near future. They are one of the few countries on earth so lucky. We will run out eventually, and I hope the powers that be have a plan. If not, I think I will take the train when I retire.

[n20junkie]

I have flown both military and civilian.

You CANNOT compare a new military pilot that attended training for up to 2 years FULL TIME to someone that did the civilian route where you. Do maybe a two hour lesson 3 times a week and flew a 172 around in good weather to bulk up enough time to get a CPL.

My fixed wing training was civilian, and it was scary how lax the training standards are when compared to a military training environment.

250 hours civilian DOES NOT!! Equal 250 military

[n20junkie]

Double tap

[Shell Management]

MIlitary standards are actually pretty poor. Very little actual hands on flying and very little use of simulators, coupled with an unjust culture that encourages keeping the QFI happy rather than education.:yuk:

[johns7022]

When the airlines start hiring again, and they get 50,000 resumes....they

Hire pilots with an ATP, College Degree, and First Class Medical
Jet Type, 5000 Hours PIC

You know...like in the old days....

[p51guy]

Now that is exactly how it was in the 70's and it worked quite well then. I ended up flying over 70 types of aircraft and several type ratings to be lucky enough to get an airline job. And I was one of the lucky guys.

[The Ancient Geek]

Yebbut
Why bother with all of that hassle and expense to get a boring automated airline job in the USA when you can have a LOT more fun driving a Caravan or a Twotter around Africa.

[sb_sfo]

Just 1 revision to your post- JAL closed its Napa cadet facility this month, and closed MWH last year.

[protectthehornet]

and while you are at it... get rid of ''quota'' systems and let the pilots hire the pilots. human resources can do the paperwork and background checks...even give everyone a psychiatric exam.

and, let the pilots hire the flight attendants too.

[p51guy]

But then all the flight attendants would look like the ones we had in the 70's. They were so inexperienced, young, single and vulnerable. Wasn't it great?

[protectthehornet]

right on...but we got a really nice crop circa 1985-89....went to hell in the 90's...come to think of it so did the pilots!

[johns7022]

That's a good point: When did we go from older experienced pilots with young flight attendants to old flight attendants and young pilots?

[WhatsaLizad?]

That's a good point: When did we go from older experienced pilots with young flight attendants to old flight attendants and young pilots?

It's my fault. When I was 8 years old, I found an old Middle Eastern lamp which also happened to contain a evil Genie. He offered me a wish that he gauranteed would be fulfilled in the future.

I was too shocked when he popped out of the lamp to think clearly, so I bluttered out "I want to be an airline pilot and fly with those Stewardresses" as I pointed to the late 1960's poster on the wall with 25 year old babes in their uniforms.

The evil @#stard granted my wish. I am flying with the the same Stewardresses in that poster. :ugh:

[lilflyboy262]

The Ancient Geek, when was the last time you flew in africa?...
It seems all nice and exciting from the outside. But its about 75% boredom/frustration, 20% sheer terror, and about 5% magic.

[The Ancient Geek]

Sounds about right for the swamps, the Mara was a lot better but DRC was only for the brave. When you get tired of Maun try Kenya, it will not have changed a lot.

[p51guy]

We don't have any young pilots or flight attendants any more. Noone has been hired in 10 years. The 21 year old hard bodies might come back some day when a new hire class happens some time in the future. Meanwhile 50 seems like the average age for pilots and flight attendants. Us old guys timed it right starting 40 years ago.

['I' in the sky]

Maybe someone should tell Congress that it was the FAA who legalised the logging of safety pilot time as useful PIC.