Are the new FAA ATPL proposed rules the saving of GA in Europe?

[AdamFrisch]

Bear with me.

FAA has a proposal that all future FO's/SIC's shall hold an ATPL and 1500hrs. It will probably go through as you can under the guise of "safety" always scare legislators into going your way. It's easier than stealing candy from infants. Now, when that happens, EASA will want to beat that, as they suffer from delusions of righteous grandeur and can't let an upstart like America win over good ole Europe in the perceived safety department. Hence, they will most likely copy this and perhaps even ask for more hours just to win this childish war. Now, for the sake of the point I'm making, assume this is the case and it's legislated and law.

Now, to my point.

In the US there are plenty of opportunities for these 1500hr to be built - CFIing, bush piloting, flying cancelled checks at night in a beat up Aero Commanders, FedEX feeds in a Caravan etc, etc. These jobs don't exist in Europe to the same degree. So, here, people will have to build this time either by renting, buying or trying to tow banners or become FI's. This also means that there will be added pressure to make available opportunities to train outside of an approved training facility etc and find new ways to build these hours.

I'm thinking this could be a good thing for GA - kicking and screaming the EASA will have to allow more leeway here if they want future co-pilots to be able to develop and provide for the airlines (their little darling, their lapdog).

[Justiciar]

Not that I know a huge amount about this area, but is this not going to see the supply of suitable FOs dry up? 1500 hours is a huge hill to climb unless you are very fortunate in job hunting or have a huge bank balance. As I understand it this is a response to a particular air crash where it seems that pilot proficiency may have been an issue.

I suspect that even the EU would balk at introducing a similar rule, given the hugely higher cost of flying in Europe and the relative lack of opportunity to build hours in a flying job. I can't see many European students self funding 1500 hours, which in a spam can would cost them £225,000 +!

[BackPacker]

I agree. At the moment a zero-to-fATPL course at an integrated facility is going to set you back somewhere like 150KEUR. And you end up with what's commonly known as a "frozen ATPL": All ATPL theory done, CPL/ME/IR/MCC, but well short of 1500 hours.

That is currently good enough to occupy the RHS of an airliner, and in that airliner you build the hours until you reach the 1500 hours, and then you "unfreeze" (thaw?) your ATPL. Only then would you be eligible for a LHS job.

Having to self-fund your way to 1500 hours is going to cost somewhere in the region of 250KEUR on top of the 150KEUR you already spent. So 400KEUR in total. It will be extremely challenging to get that financed. In fact, it will be extremely challenging to repay that loan. At the moment FOs are already struggling to pay off the 150KEUR in a reasonable amount of time, and that's with well-paying airlines.

In the US there are plenty of opportunities for these 1500hr to be built - CFIing, bush piloting, flying cancelled checks at night in a beat up Aero Commanders, FedEX feeds in a Caravan etc, etc.

I think you're being overly optimistic here, by calling those opportunities "plenty". Consider the CFI hour building example. You can be an fATPL+FI by approx. 250 hours. And then you need to build 1250 hours instructing. But how many hours do you need instruction during your career? (PPL: 25, IR: 20, CPL: 10, ME: 10. Say 75 hours in total. Heck, let's be generous and say 100 hours.) So for each ATPL that wants to build his 1500 hours by instructing, you have to have at least 12.5 ATPL candidates that build their hours through other ways. Or at least 50 PPL candidates. That's a pyramid scheme that is simply not going to work, even if you leave career instructors out of the calculation.

I have no idea about the US and European market for the other types of flying you mentioned, but my gut feeling is that it is a mere fraction of the commercial airliner world, and will never be able to generate enough hours flown as hour building towards an ATPL, to satisfy the numbers needed.

[englishal]

Actually it is not quite correct to say all FO's / SICs need an ATPL. What the FAA suggest is that all FOs / SICs require an ATP, and hence 1500 hrs minimum total time for Part 121 ops (SCHEDULED operators). So you could still SIC on the Gulfstream V for Hugh Hefner with a CPL, 250 hrs, and a SIC rating for the aeroplane.

[BackPacker]

But again, how many jobs like that are available, and how many hours does that deliver, collectively, annually? Would that be enough to supply the airlines with sufficient FOs with 1500 hours, or will the hour building costs significantly go up?

[mad_jock]

it won't happen in Europe or if it does there will be a waiver for MPL and intergrated like the old system.

If fact certain parties might push for it as well to try and kill off the modular route.

[Justiciar]

Maybe the US operators will all re-register their aircraft in the EU and employ European Pilots ;)

[peterh337]

This sounds like a c0ckup by some low level FAA employee.

No way will the USA entertain a minimum of 1500hrs for every airliner RHS. As others say, the FO supply would dry up pretty quick. They would have to start drawing on very experienced (="old") private pilots but most of those won't work for the derisory FO starting pay.

Anyway, what is the value of logbook-packing 1500hrs in a C150, flying to and fro between two airports, to build hours? And even the experience of a very experienced private pilot will not be relevant to big jet ops.

[englishal]

What this would also do is destroy companies like "Eagle Jet"....Where one essentially pays $50,000 for 500 (or so) hrs of FO time on say a 737. The airline gets a good deal - cheap FO, the FO gets a good deal - hours and experience, and EJ get a good deal - dosh.

Actually you could argue that this type of training is far better than 500 hrs flying around in a C150 looking for a hamburger for the airline wanabe.

Really if someone wants to be employable in the airlines, the best way is to do your tickets, build up to say 1000 hrs as a FI, then finish with 500 of multicrew jet time. You are then a far more rounded airline pilot than someone who walks out of Oxford with 250 hrs in a PA28 and pays to do a A320 type rating then sends their CV to a million companies.

[mad_jock]

They walk out of oxford with 170 hours. Every single one of those hours is supervised and they are signed out as student pilots for any solo work.

If they go directly on to be FI's it can be that their first flight ever without the backup of an instructor checking them and making go/no go choice is when they first take a student up.

it can also be the time when they first land with more than a 10 knt cross wind I believe.

[AdamFrisch]

This is my whole point - EASA don't care if the cost of the education goes up, they only care about "safety". They couldn't care less if the education went up with 250K more to get 1500hrs, as those are costs you have to carry. They've certainly never cared about costs when it comes to training before, or else they would have allowed us to have a similar system to the FAA. They certainly haven't cared that costs are prohibitive for GA in general, or else they wouldn't have made us comply with all this madness.

They will say "We can't appear to be less safety minded than the FAA as we lose face then and our whole schtick about JAR license being a better education and more thorough will collapse".

They won't say "Gee, this will make it really expensive for the poor students (who our hearts pound for) - let's keep it like it is and let kids w 250 hours fly 777's".

Basically, if this goes through in FAA land, it will mean airlines will have to pay more to FO's, or else there will be no FO's. Airlines on the brink or that play dodgy, will go bankrupt. It also means, that a US carrier will inevitably be safer than European ones, something that could be used to their advantage.

It could be a game changer.

[Justiciar]

It also means, that a US carrier will inevitably be safer than European ones

I don't see anything in the proposals which makes things safer. Chugging about in a PA28 for 1500 hours is not going to make you safer than someone who has flown half those hours in the right hand seat. Whatever the cause of the incident that has lead to this I suspect the answer is more to do with how workload in the cabin is managed than with how many hours a FO has under his belt before he first takes that seat.

I can't see that this will ever work. Europe may not care about the cost of training and that is true as long as students are prepared to take loans to pay the cost. Once the cost of that training gets beyond the ability or willingness of the student to borrow and the wilingness of the bank to lend then they will take notice or there will be a lot of aircraft sitting on the ground. I can't believe that the combined weight of national carriers in Europe would allow that to happen (and it is not a proposal anyway) nor can I see the big US airlines putting up with it. If it goes through it would substantially increase US airline costs as salaries would inevitably rise with a reduced pool of suitably experienced pilots. Would congress stand by and allow Europe to gain a commercial advantage? I doubt it.

This has all the hallmarks of a bureaucrat's invention without any thought or consultation.