FAA may reduce required flight time for commercial co-pilots.

[Juliet Sierra Papa]

Minimum flight time requirements for co-pilots has been an issue which crops up regularly on PPRune and normally after the reports of an incident/accident which may directly or indirectly apportion blame to the lack of experience on type of aircraft.
The following link http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/news/2016/09/02/looming-pilot-shortage-has-faa-considering-lower.html leaves me to wonder what can we expect in the future with the continual growth of passengers and the number of airframes in our skies.

[Hotel Tango]

100 hours on FSX and off you go :E

[parabellum]

Having only fairly recently increased the required minimum hours to 1500 for an FO, should the FAA decide to now reduce that requirement, I can only imagine it will come with certain restricting terms and conditions. Possibly allowable on multi crew ops only. That won't be much help to the smaller carriers who are the ones looking for a reduction in the 1500 hour requirement.

[Needle Knocker]

I have to wonder at times if "too few hours" is a variable figure that (in the eyes of the reader) equates to "someone with less hours than I have".

A bit like a medical definition of alcoholism: "Anyone who drinks more than their doctor".

[bafanguy]

Juliet Sierra Papa,

Well, well, well, that news is...interesting...

[MarkerInbound]

The article says they are looking at reducing the TT requirement for military pilots to get their ATP from 750 hours to 500. While the military used to be the prime source of airline pilots I don't believe that is the case anymore. And given the years of commitment once military pilot training is completed and the tempo of US military operations I don't think many pilots are getting out with under 750 hours.

The article is also wrong when it says as recently as 2013 pilots needed 1500 hours to be an airline pilot. In 2013 pilots had to have 1500 hours to get an ATP but you only needed (per the regs) a commercial certificate to sit right seat in an airliner.

[Piltdown Man]

The hours should not be the issue. It's the quality of those hours that matters. 1,500 hours in a "spam can" teaching PPLs to fly is not the same as 200 hours of quality instruction, a proper IR on a complicated aircraft and a proper type rating course on a jet. The latter is not cheap, ask any airforce (I don't think any airline pays any more), but the quality is there.

If nothing else, it is what the fare paying passenger deserves. But they also deserve to be flown by a properly rested crew, one that is paid enough so they can afford accommodation within a reasonable distance from where they report for duty. They also deserve to be flown by people who don't have to worry about how they are going to afford to buy their family their food or pay for their cars etc. Cheap comes at a price.

[fdcg27]

I agree.
The 1500 minimum was no more than a knee-jerk reaction to an accident in which the TT of the crew members had no bearing.
That they had both endured long commutes prior to the start of their duty day is of far greater significance.
We all know that the quality of training received is of paramount importance and the FAA knows this as well.
You are trusting the crew of any aircraft you fly on with your life. It would be nice to know that they're properly trained and have had enough rest prior to the start of their day to perform reliably in difficult conditions.
If this adds crew cost, then so be it. You could double the wages of the pilots at the lower end of the compensation scale with minimal impact on ticket prices. Do the math.

[bafanguy]

Perhaps an unanswerable question but where does the 500 hour number come from ? What would a mil pilot have done in a 10+ year enlistment to have gotten only 500 hours ?

[vapilot2004]

What would a mil pilot have done in a 10+ year enlistment to have gotten only 500 hours ?

Surprisingly, the 'best trained' in military aviation tend to have the least amount of cockpit time - fighter pilots. You might only get 1-2 hours/day and that is not every day. Tanker and transport pilots are the gents (and ladies) that build time more quickly than their fighter counterparts. In 10 years time, I would imagine all categories would easily obtain the existing 750 hour mark, if aviation was pursued from the time service members signed up.

Generally, USN aviators typically come through their piloting career with a bare minimum of 1000 hours, with 100 hours/year being the required minimum for currency. USAF, less so. The averages attained across all branches are mostly due to aircraft type flown and deployment status.

[Schnowzer]

But.....that is 150 hours of poling and scanning and dynamic maneuvering.

It doesn't matter how long you fly an airliner for, you would never get the dynamic handling experience of the military and flying long haul you'd need to fly about 1500 sectors (maybe 8000 hrs) each year just to get the stick time.

If we want to actually improve handling skills, which was the aim of the post Colgan missive, the regulators need to mandate what should be done during the hours flown so that each one of them contributes to true experience.

Right now an hour of air combat maneuvering in an F15, an hour banner towing, an hour taxiing and an hour asleep in the bunk equate to the same amount of experience in regulation. That my friends is utter balderdash!

[vapilot2004]

All excellent points, Schnowzer. The FAA and airlines know most of them, hence military experience is given more weight in the hourly minimums.

[Gusz]

The mighty Dollar ($$$$$$) ALWAYS wins! This proposal has nothing to do with pilot skills.

[bafanguy]

"Surprisingly, the 'best trained' in military aviation tend to have the least amount of cockpit time - fighter pilots."

"All excellent points, Schnowzer. The FAA and airlines know most of them, hence military experience is given more weight in the hourly minimums."

Well...

Skills not only have to be initially developed but properly maintained over the long haul since they don't have an infinite shelf life; humans don't function like that…regardless of who they are. If these "skills" aren't maintained, they merely become interesting history, not skills.

How much of that skill set, to which you refer, fostered over ~1,000 hours is appropriate to air carrier equipment vs fighters ? It doesn't take much inappropriate control input that'd just be normal ops in a fighter to tear pieces off a Part 25 airplane.

How effective will these vaunted skills be when Mav and Iceman have been in their boring airline gig for 10+ years…flying straight & level, limited to 30 degree banks and brief periods of 15/20 degrees of pitch ANU for far more than a brief 1,000 hours ?

Perhaps there's an appropriate skill set between banner towing and flying upside-down, getting vertical and pulling 6 Gs that even we mere mortals could learn…and our employing airlines could successfully reinforce through training over the long haul ?

Just a thought...

[Sailvi767]

In the US there are direct entry programs to airforce flight school for both the AF reserve and ANG. Pilot candidates selected for those programs return from flight training with around 250 hours of actual flight time and another 100 to 150 in simulators. Upon return to their units from flight training they are part time and free to seek civilian employment. The rule change is aimed at this group as getting to 750 hours part time takes many years.

[bafanguy]

Sailvi767,

Yes, someone mentioned that the proposed 500 hour r-ATP for mil pilots would help new reserve/guard folks get in the Part 121 game sooner via a regional. Good point I wouldn't have considered and not an unreasonable premise (most regionals will take a 750 mil r-ATP candidate now). The regionals would gladly avail themselves of the widened candidate pool although they likely couldn't hold them much past 1500 hours TT in the current hiring environment…and more so over the next 10+ years.

But that premise raised a few questions in my mind. I don't know the answers:

(1) How many folks entering a guard/reserve unit have ZERO flying time vs some previous flying time ?

Seems like I remember reading that competition is fierce for limited slots and some prior flight time is at least "preferred" if not tacitly required. I've got a source asking an ANG commander what he's doing lately in this regard but haven't heard back yet [people have better things to do than answer my idle questions :-)) ]

(2) Does a mil pilot need ALL the currently-required 750 hours to be MIL time to meet r-ATP criteria ?

I would guess that "…total time as a pilot…" means just that but this does come from the FAA, so… and I've seen the statement on another forum that the POI overseeing Piedmont, for example, requires that mil r-ATP candidates have ALL 750 hours as mil time. Stuff like that is bound to happen. The FAR in question a bit is fuzzy:

§ 61.160 Aeronautical experience - airplane category restricted privileges.

(a) Except for a person who has been removed from flying status for lack of proficiency or because of a disciplinary action involving aircraft operations, a U.S. military pilot or former U.S. military pilot may apply for an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating or an airline transport pilot certificate concurrently with an airplane type rating with a minimum of 750 hours of total time as a pilot if the pilot presents...

(3) Would all this mean that many if not most guard/reserve-only pilots really aren't hampered by existing r-ATP restrictions of 750 hours in the final accounting ?

It's a puzzle...

[Aluminium shuffler]

I wouldn't knock the PPL instructor time too much - 1000 hours teaching people "power, attitude, trim" and trying to mind read their understanding and anticipate their next mistake and how far you can let them try to dig themselves out before intervening are pretty good foundations in basic handling, CRM, workload management and dealing with unusual and sometimes extreme situations quickly that seem to be missing from a lot of cockpits nowdays. That said, the 1500 hours rule is an FAA band aid to look like they are doing something while they do nothing. Improve the quality of training and the problem goes away. 1500 hours of plodding about, reinforcing bad habits after bad training is not going to help anyone.

[hikoushi]

CFI time is one of the most valuable things a person can have. You are flying an airplane through someone else who is inadvertently trying to crash it, while trying to make him better at flying than you are. If that isn't "Captain development / CRM practice" then I don't know what is! If you have 15 students, you probably have to figure out 15 different ways to explain the same material. You now know that material 15 times better than someone who has not done this. It "cements" the knowledge in you, as a wise pilot examiner once told me. It also teaches you how to deal with various types of personalities in the cockpit. It teaches you your limits, and when and how to take control of an airplane when someone exceeds them. It teaches you how to "guide" someone who is losing the SA plot to regain it before you HAVE to take control. It expands your "comfort zone" exponentially and teaches you how to be a "pilot monitoring". CRM.

You will learn to have the perfect balance of trust and mistrust by soloing students. You will learn that yes people CAN do it on their own when properly trained (by you) and vetted. This will make you better at not being a micromanaging jerk of a captain one day. It will also help you see QUICKLY when someone ISN'T ready for prime time, and teach you to be direct in putting the kibosh on such people when needed.

Being a instrument instructor teaches you to think 5 moves ahead of the airplane, instead of 2.

Twin instructing teaches you how not to freak out when an engine goes away. Because if you teach in piston twins long enough, eventually your student will feather one and won't be able to unfeather it. And you will make a real single engine approach and landing, through him.

Then one day you will train another instructor, and be utterly humbled by how little you really know compared to what the first 1000 hours of your CFI time led you to BELIEVE that you know. That will shock you into NEVER losing your thirst for knowledge. It will make you orders of magnitude more interested in the continuous pursuit of self-mastery within your own profession, while never giving yourself room to be arrogant. You will learn more from your students by teaching them, than they will learn by being taught. This will be a big deal in multi-crew operations. As a first officer you will be willing to flow with the rhythm of a captain you don't "mesh" with and try something new, rather than get bent out of shape and wasting a trip bleating a story in your own mind about being "told how to fly"; you will also learn as a captain to get out of the way and let your first officers do their jobs without micromanaging them.

Having spent time as as a pilot recruiter I can tell you that there is a BIG difference between an applicant to an airline who did the bare minimum CFI time they could, and someone who did a bunch of varied types of instructing and actually liked it. One got nothing out of it but time; they may have even let their CFI certificate lapse. The other learned true command leadership and CRM, cemented basic knowledge and airmanship into his psyche, and probably developed a cool head in unexpected situations.

If you do not respect CFI time I suggest that you go teach for a minimum of 2000 hours, as evenly distributed between PPL, IR, CPL, and multi-engine students as possible. Day, night, IMC, VMC, as many different students of all ages and backgrounds as possible. Teach a few instructors, too, once you've been doing it for a while. Then come back on here and tell me how worthless it is.

[RAT 5]

Hikoushi: Spot on 100%. I'v spent years as airliner trainer & checker, but believe a check should also be a learning experience. F/O's who spent 1 year as SFI said how much it enhanced their command course and opened their eyes. For myself, being an aerobatic SEP student again contributed hugely to reflect on my own instructional technique. Indeed being a student in anything can make you a better instructor in another field.
Being an instructor of a spectrum of students can make you a better operator. It was also wonderful to do learn so much doing checks on line crews. There are some good ideas out there.
The comments about CRM techniques and social mixing/tolerance are also spot on. Not all things can be learnt/taught on an condensed MPL course.

[Sailvi767]

Sailvi767,

Yes, someone mentioned that the proposed 500 hour r-ATP for mil pilots would help new reserve/guard folks get in the Part 121 game sooner via a regional. Good point I wouldn't have considered and not an unreasonable premise (most regionals will take a 750 mil r-ATP candidate now). The regionals would gladly avail themselves of the widened candidate pool although they likely couldn't hold them much past 1500 hours TT in the current hiring environment…and more so over the next 10+ years.

But that premise raised a few questions in my mind. I don't know the answers:

(1) How many folks entering a guard/reserve unit have ZERO flying time vs some previous flying time ?

Seems like I remember reading that competition is fierce for limited slots and some prior flight time is at least "preferred" if not tacitly required. I've got a source asking an ANG commander what he's doing lately in this regard but haven't heard back yet [people have better things to do than answer my idle questions :-)) ]

(2) Does a mil pilot need ALL the currently-required 750 hours to be MIL time to meet r-ATP criteria ?

I would guess that "…total time as a pilot…" means just that but this does come from the FAA, so… and I've seen the statement on another forum that the POI overseeing Piedmont, for example, requires that mil r-ATP candidates have ALL 750 hours as mil time. Stuff like that is bound to happen. The FAR in question a bit is fuzzy:

§ 61.160 Aeronautical experience - airplane category restricted privileges.

(a) Except for a person who has been removed from flying status for lack of proficiency or because of a disciplinary action involving aircraft operations, a U.S. military pilot or former U.S. military pilot may apply for an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating or an airline transport pilot certificate concurrently with an airplane type rating with a minimum of 750 hours of total time as a pilot if the pilot presents...

(3) Would all this mean that many if not most guard/reserve-only pilots really aren't hampered by existing r-ATP restrictions of 750 hours in the final accounting ?

It's a puzzle...

The local guard unit where I live has quite a few new hires scrambling to get to 750 hours. All have multiple offers from regional airlines to start class the day they get to 750. Most have between 40 and 100 hours of civilian time prior to being hired by the guard. The AF like most pilot training agencies has increased the use of simulators and reduced flying. UPT has about 200 hours of actual flying. The C130 training program is now down to about 30 hours of flying. A new pilot could arrive at the squadron with as little as 230 hours and will get only 10 to 15 hours a month with the current poor state of military funding. Civilian time does count toward the 750 hours do many rack up a bunch of 172 time to get to the 750.

[bafanguy]

Sailvi767,

My AFRES contact said this re their affinity for prior flying experience:

"…AFRES uses a complicated formula to pick pilot training applicants. You get the most points from your AFOQT scores and your BATS (computer based aptitude testing where you react to stimuli). He said having pilot certificates and flying time does factor in for points."

And another source said that they credit up to 200 hours prior time in their scoring to hire/not hire a candidate, IIUC.

What I didn't get was what percentage of applicants taken by the reserves/guard actually HAVE any prior time...200 or otherwise.

There are mixed opinions on whether all the 750 hours must be mil time to satisfy § 61.160 Aeronautical experience (and I don't know enough to have a valid opinion about it but "all" civ time counting toward 750 would be logical).

So, if the r-ATP for mil folks is actually lowered to 500 hours (a BIG "if" at this point), an unknown number of people will be helped into the 121 world but I'd guess the number won't turn any tides.

[Derfred]

CFI time is one of the most valuable things a person can have. You are flying an airplane through someone else who is inadvertently trying to crash it, while trying to make him better at flying than you are. If that isn't "Captain development / CRM practice" then I don't know what is! If you have 15 students, you probably have to figure out 15 different ways to explain the same material. You now know that material 15 times better than someone who has not done this. It "cements" the knowledge in you, as a wise pilot examiner once told me. It also teaches you how to deal with various types of personalities in the cockpit. It teaches you your limits, and when and how to take control of an airplane when someone exceeds them. It teaches you how to "guide" someone who is losing the SA plot to regain it before you HAVE to take control. It expands your "comfort zone" exponentially and teaches you how to be a "pilot monitoring". CRM.

You will learn to have the perfect balance of trust and mistrust by soloing students. You will learn that yes people CAN do it on their own when properly trained (by you) and vetted. This will make you better at not being a micromanaging jerk of a captain one day. It will also help you see QUICKLY when someone ISN'T ready for prime time, and teach you to be direct in putting the kibosh on such people when needed.

Being a instrument instructor teaches you to think 5 moves ahead of the airplane, instead of 2.

Twin instructing teaches you how not to freak out when an engine goes away. Because if you teach in piston twins long enough, eventually your student will feather one and won't be able to unfeather it. And you will make a real single engine approach and landing, through him.

Then one day you will train another instructor, and be utterly humbled by how little you really know compared to what the first 1000 hours of your CFI time led you to BELIEVE that you know. That will shock you into NEVER losing your thirst for knowledge. It will make you orders of magnitude more interested in the continuous pursuit of self-mastery within your own profession, while never giving yourself room to be arrogant. You will learn more from your students by teaching them, than they will learn by being taught. This will be a big deal in multi-crew operations. As a first officer you will be willing to flow with the rhythm of a captain you don't "mesh" with and try something new, rather than get bent out of shape and wasting a trip bleating a story in your own mind about being "told how to fly"; you will also learn as a captain to get out of the way and let your first officers do their jobs without micromanaging them.

Having spent time as as a pilot recruiter I can tell you that there is a BIG difference between an applicant to an airline who did the bare minimum CFI time they could, and someone who did a bunch of varied types of instructing and actually liked it. One got nothing out of it but time; they may have even let their CFI certificate lapse. The other learned true command leadership and CRM, cemented basic knowledge and airmanship into his psyche, and probably developed a cool head in unexpected situations.

If you do not respect CFI time I suggest that you go teach for a minimum of 2000 hours, as evenly distributed between PPL, IR, CPL, and multi-engine students as possible. Day, night, IMC, VMC, as many different students of all ages and backgrounds as possible. Teach a few instructors, too, once you've been doing it for a while. Then come back on here and tell me how worthless it is.

Best post I've read in a long time.

Being the best fighter pilot won't necessarily make you a good multi-crew airline pilot. The skill-set required for each role is quite different. There are some great ex-fighter pilots in my airline, but some real weirdos too.

[Cazalet33]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/09/26/pilot1-large_trans++aoMNi4kgGP0fXgnKocWr3BmfbKO_Y_eBl2_S9pzqqCQ.jpg

Who needs maturity and experience when you've got yoof and hair gel?


Aged just 26, the easyJet pilot is believed to be the youngest in the world to become a commercial airline captain.

On one recent flight, she and her co-pilot had a combined age of just 45.

The recently-promoted Miss McWilliams flew last week from Gatwick to Malta alongside Luke Elsworth, who earlier this year became the UK's youngest pilot at 19 years old.

26 year old Airbus skipper rostered with 19 year old FO. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/26/soaring-to-new-heights---the-26-year-old-easyjet-flight-captain/)

[RAT 5]

This is going to one very steep learning curve for both. Exciting at times; and I'm sure a little nervy too. When I was flying air-taxis & night freight single crew I had a steep learning curve, also. Exciting and sometimes scary. CRM was a conversation with yourself. I had some 2 crew biz jet & twin prop time to fall back on in my decision making. After 6 years of that I had 7 years of airline flying before a pax jet command. That was after excellent training and excellent varied line flying with very competent captains. Years of basic flying, both GA & airline, before the modern new computer game stuff. The 1st year of command was exciting, but rarely nerve racking. The apprenticeship had been comprehensive. Flying was not the problem, you could or you couldn't. Simple. The decision making, both to be reactive and solve problems and also to be proactive and avoid them; that was the biggest difference between LHS & RHS. That takes time and exposure and good demonstrations of what to do and when. The pax climb aboard with total faith that the captain will 'save the day', as does the crew. Solid leadership. Most problems that need captain's intervention & judgement happen on the ground. There are no QRH's for what to do when you have 180 angry pax up your backside. They need strong authority to calm down; preferably strong leadership to keep them calm in the first place. Handling agents are no help. There are no station managers in LoCo's or charters. It's captain's call.
This is not a comment about individuals. I admit it is a generalism, but IMHO if you apply TEM and risk management to captain's experience of a pax commercial jet operating into 'out of the way airfields' I wonder if 3000hrs and <30years old would pass the assessment.
In 1988 I had a discussion with an HR dept of an EU major airline about captain's age. They had B732 captains of 28. Their answer to age was "the captain flies the a/c into only major EU airfields. Any problems outside the a/c will be solved by the station manager. Only flying skills with crew & pax management was required."
It will be a very circular debate with many varied opinions; no right or wrong.

[Pace]

I thought it was the insurance which determined required hours ? Who is better a pilot with 1500 hrs in a Cessna 150 or one with 500 hours turbine?

It shouldn't be quantity but quality

Having said that How does that pilot build quality hours if someone won't give them the chance to do so or cannot?

[bafanguy]

So, no further scuttlebutt re this alleged legislative effort from the OP ?:

Advisory Panel Would Relax Rules for Co-Pilot Experience - WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/advisory-panel-would-relax-rules-for-co-pilot-experience-1472808602)

The wheels of the kakistocracy turn slowly most of the time. :-)

The WSJ article said this. The info is a secret so they can't tell us:

"Certain military pilots with as little as 500 hours of flying experience would be allowed to become commercial co-pilots, according to people familiar with an advisory panel’s recommendations, compared with the mandatory at least 750 hours required today.

The proposal comes from a joint industry-labor group created by the Federal Aviation Administration to help it draft new regulations amid worries by the airline industry that there aren’t enough pilots to keep up with demand. None of the recommendations have been released, and further details are expected to remain confidential until top FAA officials decide how to proceed."

What is this "joint industry-labor group" ? Who's on it ?

[Aluminium shuffler]

More EZY PR bs. If there is a competition for the lowest age flight crew, then RYR beat them with 24 year old Capts with 19 year old FOs together on 737s. But I don't really see what it has to do with anything - they do the same training, are tested to the same standard, and the HR vetting and continuing observation of performance and attitude generally ensures they behave in a suitably mature way. I'm only calling "BS!" because I hate EZY's continuous media trolling and their fictitious claims.

[Tom Bangla]

AS, RAT5 makes the valid point about maturity in reacting to and anticipating problems that only extensive experience can bring. That's not to say, of course, that a 20-something capt and a teenage FO wouldn't have the technical capacity to handle unexpected problems competently, but it's likely that many on here of a certain age can think back to times when they would have dealt with an issue differently (better?) purely on the basis of experience.

[RAT 5]

I ask the simple question:

If in 80's (Britannia, Monarch, BA, B.Cal, Air 2000, etc.) 5000hrs/7 years was considered the norm for command threshold (4000 in exceptional circumstances if you had that total all with in the company) what has changed in our industry that by 2000 the threshold had dropped to 3000hrs? That is not a gentle readjustment, but a huge reduction and might be achieved within only 3.5 years. Add to that an F/O with less than 1 years aviation experience. In 80's a 5000hr new captain had a 2000hr+ F/O next door because the recruitment criteria was higher. Cadets were the rarity. It's not just a massive reduction in command upgrade experience, it is a large reduction in total flight deck experience.

[Pace]

RAT 5

Going back crews flew together and with BA it could take many years to achieve the position of Captain
Now Pilots are trained to a standard and in some ways not to think for themselves and rarely fly with the same crew.
The principal being to have cloned crew who can mix and match

That picture has to be a bit of a marketing exercise as its unlikely they will come across each other very much as Captain FO

My son flies for EasyJet first on the 737 and then Airbus at the age of 19 through CTC He was 26/27 when he moved to Captain.
There were inevitable comments from PAX at 19 and his first solo Captain flight had me worried but probably because we all think of our kids as kids

I always see myself as the disaster area MK1 and him the perfected MK2 version but we are both pilots ))

[Spooky 2]

For the record, both TWA and CAL had Boeing 727/707 Capts under the age of 26. CAL even had a Captain that had to wait until his 23rd birthday prior to the start of training on the 727. Both of these airlines, especially TWA had very difficult initial operating experience programs in effect at that time.

[barrow]

Compass airlines with bases in SEA MSP and LAX, operating 65 ERJ 175 aircraft have at least 10 captains that upgraded at 23 years old and are flying the line with 21 year old restricted ATP holders in the right seat. They continue to upgrade pilots that have the required 2,500 hours total with at least 1,000 hours FAR part 121 time. More and more 21 year olds are getting hired at 1,000 hours total at this airline, and making it to the left seat in less than two years on the job.

[Pace]

Things changed a lot post 9/11 and the silver haired worldly wise image of a Captain.
The difference back then was the crew mixed more freely with the passengers

It was normal once in the cruise to invite families and kids up front and for the Captain to often go back and chat with his customers a bit like a chef visiting the restaurant to put a face behind the cooking.

Now crews are faceless to the passengers with the crews locked away, rarely flying together and not often seen so from the passengers perspective the fact they have a Kid flying doesn't show and I talk of Kid as a perception not ability )

[RAT 5]

No-one has answered the question of how/why the basic requirement for command upgrade has slipped from 5000/7 years to 3000hrs/4 years?

[Pace]

Quite simple supply and demand ;) There has been a fall of young people becoming pilots daily due to the ridiculous costs and reluctance of Airlines to assist with initial type ratings
With Captains retiring and the 65 limit which I have never understood with other people being encouraged to work to 67 or beyond those hour movements have been to fill a hole from below

[bafanguy]

So, no further info related to the issue in the original post ? I've seen/heard nothing.

[RAT 5]

So, Pace; standards/qualifications slip because it is inconvenient to maintain them? Or are we now on the era of, "well it hasn't caused any problems, yet, so it must be OK." Is that true? If so, what about knocking another 1 years experience off the threshold? Let's increase the MPA training to include numerous LOFT exercises of common known problem scenarios; then, after a couple of OPC's & LPC's of average + you are ready to leap across and allow the non-stop expansion of LoCo airlines. Captains can be manufactured in an enhanced training system? The level of automation is increasing very fast; the improvement of ATC & airfield infrastructure is rapid. There will be airlines whose network is only between large radar ILS/RNAV served airfields. Punch the numbers in an i-pad, load the FMC, point the shiny tube down the runway, reach a number and haul back, gear up CMD ON, and sit back until autoland at the other end. It really could be microsoft-sim comes to reality. Money will talk.
Glad my days are over and I'll be grounded as a pax before this happens. Never say never in this game.

[bafanguy]

The USAF would like to see civilian/commercial requirements lowered:

"Air Force chief of staff Gen. David Goldfein said Tuesday he’d like to see a federal regulation adjusted that requires private pilots to have 1,500 flight hours before they can fly for a commercial airline, in order to ease pressure on the military’s pilot shortage."


https://www.stripes.com/air-force-chief-seeks-to-lower-commercial-flight-hour-requirement-1.452920

[bafanguy]

Recent statement by ALPA of their position on F/O criteria. Not much if any change AFAIK. Scroll down to pages 9 & 10:



http://www.alpa.org/~/media/ALPA/Files/pdfs/news-events/white-papers/keep-america-flying.pdf?la=en

[ahwalk01]

This is a pretty good deal for those who can take advantage of it

https://mil2atp.com/

[bafanguy]

Looks like they're still talking:

"The Air Force has already discussed with major airlines ways to alleviate the pilot shortage, and more discussions are scheduled for May, according to reports."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-controversy-over-us-pilot-shortage-heats-u-434908/

[bafanguy]

Not enough detail to know just what they're talking about but the first question that pops into my mind is whether the airlines want "part time" pilots.


"The Air Force is moving ahead with plans to allow its pilots to interrupt military service to fly with airlines."


Air Force, Airlines Move On Pilot Sharing - AVweb flash Article (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Air-Force-Airlines-Move-On-Pilot-Sharing-228752-1.html)

[VinRouge]

How open is the US market to UK nationals looking to come across on a work visa? Or would this be a no-go due to immigration restrictions?

[JetpoweredMigrantWkr]

I think you might have to get a sponsorship from the employer which would grant you the work visa, or gain citizenship somehow.

[bafanguy]

Not enough detail to know just what they're talking about but the first question that pops into my mind is whether the airlines want "part time" pilots.


"The Air Force is moving ahead with plans to allow its pilots to interrupt military service to fly with airlines."


Air Force, Airlines Move On Pilot Sharing - AVweb flash Article (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Air-Force-Airlines-Move-On-Pilot-Sharing-228752-1.html)

The military might be making "...plans to allow its pilots to interrupt military service to fly with airlines." but what are the airlines planning ?


https://www.classaction.org/blog/uniformed-service-pilots-sue-delta-over-anti-military-corporate-culture

[bafanguy]

I haven't seen any statement regarding what conclusions, if any, were reached in this May 18th meeting between the USAF and airline reps re pilot supply:

"On May 18, senior officers met with representatives from major and regional airlines to discuss ways to help each other keep the flow of new pilots healthy."

https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Air-Force-Pilots-Cite-Family-Concerns-229100-1.html

This hot off the presses. I'll guess this isn't going to solve the issue of USAF pilot attrition. There must've been more to the USAF-airlines meeting than this because the statement doesn't appear to involve any airline input:

"Air Force leadership met with airline industry executives in May to discuss ways to make it easier for pilots to serve as reservist military pilots and work for commercial airlines. Subsequently, the service announced nonfinancial initiatives, such as reducing the number of administrative tasks pilots were required to do."


https://www.stripes.com/news/air-force-announces-pilot-bonus-tiers-1.472089

[bafanguy]

The latest statement on the USAF/airline pilot supply issue, appearing yesterday. All the articles I've found on this matter contain statements from the USAF without anything from the airline side of the table. As mentioned in the post above, the USAF brass were meeting with reps of the airlines back on May 18th. Have I missed comments from the airlines involved in these chats with the USAF ?:


https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Pilot-Shortage-Affects-Air-Force-Readiness-229228-1.html

[bafanguy]

RAND Corp. put out a report apparently related to the USAF/airline meetings on pilot supply but doesn't specifically tie it to the May 18th meeting mentioned in the press. The report is just dated 2016.

The airline reps are not quoted directly but the report says they aren't interested in most of the stuff the USAF thought was a good idea (for the USAF). Heck, I could've told them that !

Short report:

Can the Air Force and Airlines Collaborate for Mutual Benefit? An Exploration of Pilot and Maintenance Workforce Options | RAND (http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1412.html)

44 pages to explain the above report:

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1400/RR1412/RAND_RR1412.pdf

[bafanguy]

The USAF wishful thinking continues:

"We have already started collaborating with our airline partners in search of strategic solutions."

"To mitigate a very real risk to our national security, we're going to have to modernize our fleet, work with the civilian aviation industry to seek the best way forward on the pilot shortage without decimating our ranks and utilize technology and maintenance practices existing in the airlines to position the force for the future."

"We have already started collaborating with our airline partners in search of strategic solutions. It's imperative that we find a way forward. In the next four years, 1,600 mobility pilots will be eligible to separate from the service."


Air Mobility Sees Rising Demand Despite Budget Uncertainty | Military.com (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/03/30/air-mobility-sees-rising-demand-despite-budget-uncertainty.html)

[bafanguy]

Latest installment in the story. USAF decides that letting their pilots mainly FLY might make them more inclined to stay in vs dashing off to the airlines. More meetings with the airlines set for September...stay tuned !


Air Force Gets Creative to Tackle Pilot Shortage | Military.com (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/07/30/air-force-gets-creative-to-tackle-pilot-shortage.html)

[vmo340]

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2017/08/14/united-airlines-perceived-pilot-shortage.html

[RAT 5]

Latest installment in the story. USAF decides that letting their pilots mainly FLY might make them more inclined to stay in vs dashing off to the airlines. More meetings with the airlines set for September...stay tuned !


Was it not the case, a few decades ago when governments owned both the national airline and the airforce, that there used to be a career path? Training in the airforce was a bit cheaper, agreed, but the airlines had a ready source of airmen. I was thinking about the airforce leaving university. When I went in there was an 8 year contract option; when I came out that had gone up to 16 years due to training costs and perceived return on investment. However, the expected amount of flying years was about the same. I didn't want to fly a desk for 8 years and didn't want to an un-employed at 38 years old with the then airline seniority system in place. So the airforce was binned. The seniority game, a bit like buying a house, is get your foot on the ladder asap. If there had been a career path via military into an airline I'd have made a different choice. By the 80's, with airlines all in private ownership, and idea of career path was a non-starter; and then the large airlines and their own cadet schools. Now the game is MPA pilots with a nice profit for the airlines employing (or not) cadets. Experience is a penalty; witness SFO's trying to find a job from a defunct airline, and some DEC's.

[bafanguy]

RAT 5,

If I understand your point, what you describe is not what exists per se in the USA. The government has not "owned" the airlines.

But, the military-to-airline track has existed here in a functional way as long as anyone can remember. With the very large age-out numbers now facing the legacy level, the drain on the military group is accentuated and getting more publicity and attention.

I'm a bit amused to read about the USAF (not seen any comment from the USN or USMC) meeting with airline reps to talk about the USAF's pilot supply issues. The airlines don't give a rat's secondary orifice about the USAF's problems.

And the airlines don't want just some or many of the military's pilots...they want every frikkin' one of 'em and if one airline won't hire them, the next one will. Heck, even the military RW pilots are making inroads at the regional level and being groomed for what will likely be a move to the legacy/LCC level for many of them. My sources tell me these folks do quite well with all that.

It's most likely delusional thinking on the military's part to believe the airlines will entertain some part-time or sharing arrangement (they've already got that to a degree with the guard and reserves) with the airlines. While I've yet to see a definitive statement coming from the airlines themselves on these airline-military chats, the RAND study I posted somewhere on here makes it pretty clear the airlines aren't too keen on the ideas coming from the military.

Letting USAF pilots fly more/"desk" less might help a bit but it's not a magic solution.

I guess we'll have to stay tuned. ;-)

[bafanguy]

Latest thoughts from the USAF on stopping the pilot loss:

https://www.aerotime.aero/en/military/19716-us-air-force-announces-initiatives-to-reduce-pilot-shortage

[bafanguy]

Well, you have to give the USAF credit for hangin' in there. ;

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2017/06/04/air-mobility-command-turns-to-airmen-for-ideas-to-fix-its-pilot-retention-problem/

[bafanguy]

They have a plan !:

"For more than a year, top Air Force leaders have been sounding the alarm about the service’s fighter pilot shortfall, and the service has had trouble convincing pilots to pass up lucrative offers from the commercial airline industry."

Yet:

"To qualify, those pilots or WSOs must either be lieutenant colonels or lieutenant colonel selects with at least 17 years Total Active Federal Military Service, or majors who have been passed over for promotion with at least 14 years of service."

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2017/09/07/to-keep-pilots-from-quitting-the-air-force-will-let-some-stay-in-assignments-longer/

[bafanguy]

Bless their hearts...they're really trying but:

uh...oooooooooooooh !

"With 1,600 mobility pilots eligible to separate from the service over the next four years, we need to address this issue and maintain the right number of Airmen in our Air Force cockpits."

What a novel concept ! Letting pilots fly ? Still won't stop the drain:

"We are pursuing an Aviator Track. I'm advocating for an aviator track, where the overwhelming majority of time spent is flying."

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/09/17/oped-family-first-approach-key-addressing-pilot-shortage.html

[Sailvi767]

Perhaps an unanswerable question but where does the 500 hour number come from ? What would a mil pilot have done in a 10+ year enlistment to have gotten only 500 hours ?

Direct entry ANG or AF reserve pilots. They finish flight school and join their units with around 230 hours of flight time.

[bafanguy]

I recently chatted with the DO of a smallish Part 121 freight outfit (which must remain nameless). He'd just hired a one-tour regular USAF C17 pilot who, after ~12 years of active duty, separated with a total of 756 hours; the guy got a r-ATP via the training at the airline. Not sure how common that total flight time is for one-tour pilots.

Not to worry though...DL has their own in-house ATP-CTP program. Poised to hire the 750 hour USAF pilot. To my knowledge, they haven't done it yet but an outfit like DL doesn't spend time & money on something like that unless it's to their own benefit. The program at $5K/student doesn't offer enough money for DL to bother with otherwise.

Interesting times...

[Freehills]

I ask the simple question:

If in 80's (Britannia, Monarch, BA, B.Cal, Air 2000, etc.) 5000hrs/7 years was considered the norm for command threshold (4000 in exceptional circumstances if you had that total all with in the company) what has changed in our industry that by 2000 the threshold had dropped to 3000hrs? That is not a gentle readjustment, but a huge reduction and might be achieved within only 3.5 years. Add to that an F/O with less than 1 years aviation experience. In 80's a 5000hr new captain had a 2000hr+ F/O next door because the recruitment criteria was higher. Cadets were the rarity. It's not just a massive reduction in command upgrade experience, it is a large reduction in total flight deck experience.

FMS, FBW, TCAS, CRM, dinosaurs insisting their Seat Of Pants over-rules SOPs retiring, "children of the magenta line". Accident rates are about 1/3rd of what they were in the 80's.

The other thing that changed is growth. Before EU deregulation in 1992, promotion in european legacy airlines was essentially "old man's shoes" and relatively slow. Large growth in LCC since then created a demand for many more crews, so faster promotions.

[bafanguy]

The latest thoughts: "national pilot training academy" ? Hmmm, perhaps. But the US already has countless university av training programs accredited by and organized under the umbrella of Aviation Accreditation Board International (AABI). That's a de facto "national pilot training academy".

"partially funded by the airlines" ? That'll be the day ! The USAF appears to have a sense of humor.

“What we are asking for is a comprehensive approach by the nation to get at how to produce the number of pilots we need for our country,” Roberson said. “That could be a national pilot training academy that is partially funded by airlines and industry and the military, as well as anybody else who wants to be a part of that. We produce pilots to a certain standard, and then some go into the military first with a guaranteed follow-on, perhaps, to the airlines. We have to build a construct, as a nation, on how we‘re going to get at producing the number of pilots we need long-term.”


https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2017/09/20/the-air-force-is-working-to-max-out-pilot-production-but-it-wont-be-nearly-enough/

[bafanguy]

The latest:

They are still pondering and chatting. Still no comments directly from the airlines (or I've missed them...let me know if I have). No details on the RAA website:

"With the national pilot shortage affecting the Air Force’s fighter and mobility communities as well as commercial partners, the two sides are working together to find compromises to help each other.

Everhart met with the Regional Airline Association’s board of directors Tuesday to discuss the way forward.

One suggestion is to open a national pilot training academy, where civilian and military pilots can do most of their training in simulators.

Everhart, who has accumulated more than 4,500 flight hours, said 80 percent of his C-17 training was done in a simulator.

'I believe it’s higher quality,' he said, adding that pilots can best train for emergency situations in a simulator.

Civilian pilots need to reach 1,500 flying hours, but simulators don’t count toward that. Establishing an academy would change how the airline industry accounts for simulator training and experience."



https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2017/09/27/4-star-new-study-to-determine-if-mobility-aircraft-are-properly-distributed/?aft-trending

[bafanguy]

The latest nonsense salvo:

Recall 1,000 retired USAF pilots to DO WHAT ! Fly ? Sit in a cubicle and shuffle papers while the younger guys go fly ? This is a meaningless story. But then, it's USA Today...so...

“President Trump signed an executive order Friday allowing the Air Force to recall as many as 1,000 retired pilots to active duty to address a shortage in combat fliers, the White House and Pentagon announced.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/10/20/air-force-recall-many-1-000-retired-pilots-address-serious-shortage/785344001/

But, there's even more insight:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/10/20/airlines-could-face-more-staffing-challeng-force-plan-recall-1-000-pilots-could-hurt-airline-staffin/785583001/

[bafanguy]

This may shed a bit more light on the subject but it's still not 100% clear how they intend to use the 1,000. The story leans toward flying desks vs airplanes ?

This was the first version of the recall program:

"Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson in July approved the Voluntary Retired Return to Active Duty Program, which sought 25 retired pilots to return to active duty to fill rated staff positions and help alleviate manning shortages within the pilot community."

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2017/10/21/air-force-could-recall-up-to-1000-retired-pilots-amid-shortage-retention-crisis/

[bafanguy]

Latest installment in the saga.

Gotta hand it to 'em...they're hangin' in there and shakin' the bushes hard:

“The Air Force’s pilot shortage largely stems from the commercial airline industry poaching pilots who serve in the military.”

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2017/10/31/air-force-expands-program-allowing-guard-reserve-pilots-to-fly-on-active-duty/

[bafanguy]

The latest recommendation for changing the 1500 hour rules:

" The FAA this week unveiled an Aviation Rulemaking Committee's long-awaited recommendations to modify the 1,500-hour training requirement for first officers."

AviationNews.net (http://www.aviationnews.net/index.cfm?do=headline&news_ID=269199)

The FAA document. it's only 88 pages so I'm sure you'll read it ;) :

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/Air_Carrier_Training_ARC.pdf

[bafanguy]

The latest on the travails of the USAF and pilot retention:

“The Air Force’s pilot shortage largely stems from a massive hiring wave in the commercial airline industry, which sees the military as fertile recruiting ground.”

"Air Mobility Command — which fears it is on the cusp of its own critical shortfall of pilots — is putting together a program to allow pilots to serve in an aviation-only career path." [well, let's not go off the deep end here :eek:]

“However, the expanded retention bonuses haven’t turned the tide. The 'take rate' — the percentage of eligible pilots accepting retention bonuses — continues to decline, though at a slower rate, according to Air Force data.”

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2017/11/07/losing-battle-cash-incentives-wont-be-enough-to-tackle-air-force-pilot-crisis/

[bafanguy]

Not much detail in the article but this is the first statement I've seen re how the pilot drain is affecting the USN and USMC. Not sure what "special steps" are:

“The Navy and Marine Corps also are taking special steps to retain more experienced pilots but, so far, those service branches haven’t seen the exodus of mid-career pilots battering the Air Force, particularly its fighter aircraft community.”

https://www.stripes.com/airline-hiring-lifestyle-issues-deepen-air-force-pilot-shortage-1.498140

[A Squared]

The latest nonsense salvo:

Recall 1,000 retired USAF pilots to DO WHAT ! Fly ? Sit in a cubicle and shuffle papers while the younger guys go fly ? This is a meaningless story. But then, it's USA Today...so...

“President Trump signed an executive order Friday allowing the Air Force to recall as many as 1,000 retired pilots to active duty to address a shortage in combat fliers, the White House and Pentagon announced.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/10/20/air-force-recall-many-1-000-retired-pilots-address-serious-shortage/785344001/

But, there's even more insight:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/10/20/airlines-could-face-more-staffing-challeng-force-plan-recall-1-000-pilots-could-hurt-airline-staffin/785583001/

Uh-huh, I bet that will do wonders toward making the the AF more attractive to potential candidates: Take a bunch of folks who were completely fed up with the Airforce and had left, and force them back into the service to perform unpleasant tasks that nobody else wants to do. I'm sure that folks considering entering the Air Force will see view that as a bonus.

Sure, I know that part of the deal when you enter the Military is the possibility of recall. Clawing back guys who have already left is something that ought to be reserved for when WWIII breaks out and we're really in dire straits, not for trying to alleviate an administrative failing which is of the Air Force's own making, and has been developing for years with no meaningful action to correct.

[bafanguy]

AxA,

I think the USAF later said that while they'd been granted the authority to call back 1000, they didn't intend to do that.

This is similar to their earlier threat to use a "stop-loss" order to prevent pilots from separating. Also quickly recanted. :=