Congress tightens requirements for airline pilots

[protectthehornet]

aterpster

reminds me of the FAA inspector who saw a navajo with ''Q" tip props. he thought they were bent and grounded the plane.

oh yeah...oh yeah.

[DFC]

(3) 75 hours of instrument flight time, in actual or simulated instrument conditions, subject to the following:

MarcK,

Rather than go through all of the points I will just use the above example.

In the USA, two qualified pilots can fly together i9n VMC. One pilot flies under the hood simulating instrument conditions and the other sits in the right seat keeping a look out.

Unfortunately, both of these pilots under the US system can log pilot in command time.

So if two pilots get into a C152 and one puts the hood on for 75 hours then they both end up with 75 hours, they swap over and hey presto they both have 75 hours instrument and 150 hours in command.........all done without ever flying anywhere near a cloud!!!

--------

protectthehornet,

I am not talking about people who work as instructors at all. In most of those cases, they will have gained some very valuable skills. I am merely pointing out that a person (not an instructor) in the USA can present a 100% correct logbook with lots of big numbers but actually not only have very little experience but they may not have done anything for lots of those hours.

---------

The airlines that use cheap pilots out of flight school know they are compromising safety but prefer the cheap labor. It bites them a lot but they still do it. Captains can't be expected to become flight instructors because the airline doesn't want to pay for qualified FO's.

Well if it is under the FAA system then you may have a point. After all they probably only have 15 hours instrument training when they get the ATP and most of the hours of PIC flying they claim are also claimed by another pilot.

In Europe it is quite normal for a pilot with 250 hours to be accepted into training with an airline. However, you have to look at what they will have done in that 250 hours even if they do the minimum. I am quite comfortable that in the vast majority of cases provided they perform well on an approved type rating course then they will perform to the required standard on the line training.

At the end of line training, the pilot who came along with a CPL and IR multi engine will now have over 300 hours relevant experience and be signed off at every stage as meeting the requirements.

Therefore the first Captain to fly with them once released will have a fellow crew member that is capable of doing the job.

Most importantly however, is that in Europe, unless pilots gain a minimum of 500 hours multi crew experience they will never be able to attempt the practical test for the grant of an ATPL.

I can tell you for sure that I have flown with pilots straight out of training who were far better at their job than the crusty Captain relegated to the right hand seat due to age.

Finally, sit on the jump seat and watch two experienced Captains fly together and you will see what lots of experience can do.

The pilots in the Buffalo accident were not didstracted by their laptops and a robust debate they lacked training for the conditions they were operating in and 50,000 hours flying in 8/8 blue would never fix that.

Mr P Ilot flies 3000 hours in their C172. They get away with arriving VFR at 200ft below an overcast 300ft and 3K visibility. They fly an ILS to 150ft and they never have to divert / turn back. They reguluarly look out at the wings of their C172 in icing conditions and marvel at it's ability to carry ice.

Is that the pilot you want to fly with in commercial ops?

Give me 10 hours of good flying over 1000 hours of repeated dangerous flying anyday.

[peterporker]

PICUS??????

so........how's that different from PICUS time where the first officer and captain both log PIC time??????

[poina]

Many moons ago when I got my first command on B-727, I spent much time calculating the descent profile as we all played the idle decent-landing config-spool up at 700 ft game.
As the years went by and complacency set in and airplane types changed, my previous precise calculations changed to " looks about right", and it was because I had the experience to recognize gross errors in the flight path.
I still used and mentally computed my TOD on full glass, tell me everything FMC based A/C.
Same at preflight briefing, by looking at TOW, I knew what optimum altitude was, I knew the MD-11, example, burned 8 kilo tons an hour so fuel burn for 6 hrs was 48 tons. Insert any airplane here. Now I have a good idea of landing weight, estimated Vapp. My destination is....yeah nice long runway, planning flap 35, minimum auto-brake....Let's start the briefing.

I'm not tooting my own horn here as this is what 10,000 captains are doing right now as they prepare to launch a shiny little tube at .84 through the sometimes unfriendly skies. I can't count on my fingers and toes how many times I had my ass chewed by the guy in the left seat when he expected something or asked me something I should have known. This is not only his right but his responsibility.

P51 is right when he says it is not the capt's job to train or teach. You are released on the line and as such should be as up to speed as the most senior FO. I found that most all capt's were willing to help and contribute if I asked HUMBLY. So, as the new guy/gal, exercise tact, learn from everyone, and show the guy in the left seat that your mind is well ahead of the pointy end.

[DFC]

so........how's that different from PICUS time where the first officer and captain both log PIC time??????

Because they don't both log PIC time.

Captain logs PIC time

FO in this case logs PICUS time which while recorded in the PIC column is not the same as PIC time.

Note also that for PICUS (in Europe) there must be an approved schemem in place at the operator and if the Captain has to step in fro any reason then it can't be logged as PICUS time.

-----------

P51 is right when he says it is not the capt's job to train or teach.

Of course that is the case and after all the line trainers and TRI's get more money for doing so.

However, the Captain should be able to cope with the co-pilot who while competent and capable is at the lower end of the experience scale. Given more experience (note I say eperience and not training) these co-pilots can be very good provided that they fly with the right Captains.

There is also a list of Captains in most organisations that benefit from an experienced Co-pilot (actually require is probably better than "benefit"!!) in order to operate safely. In some cases this is die to low experience and in other cases it is due to too much experience!!

Hours in the logbook do not equal usefull experience.

[NephewBob]

Of course not!

It is not the Captains job (his/hers is clearly defined by regulation) to teach (on a line flight) unless the (mostly younger) 'student' is willing to learn.

This is called transfer of experience, and happens in all walks of life.... Used to be called master & apprentice.

"There are no bad students, only bad teachers"
-Old Chinese saying

"If you do not learn something every day of your life, (especially in the aviation game) you are probably dead."
-Nephew Bob

[parabellum]

There is also a list of Captains in most organisations that benefit from an experienced Co-pilot (actually require is probably better than "benefit"!!) in order to operate safely.

Sorry, but no self respecting airline would have such a list. New captains with less than, say, 100 hours in command or a given number of sectors, may well be marked on the roster not to fly with new, inexperienced First Officers until the captain has passed the required number of hours in command or sectors in command.

If a captain repeatedly demonstrates that he cannot operate safely without an experienced First Officer then the employer is failing in it's responsibility if it doesn't require the captain to retire and is in danger of falling foul of both the regulatory authority and the insurance underwriters.

[p51guy]

Dispatch couldn't let us do catII approaches with less than 100 hrs in left seat. I was on the way to MSP and just completed 100 hrs half way through the flight but I still couldn't land catII because it had not been documented yet. It ended up cat I so got to land our 727 with no diversion. The next flight I could land cat II but MIA doesn't have that.

[protectthehornet]

parabellum

there might not be a list...but there are pilots (captains) who need better copilots to get them through the day...and these are respected airlines.

there are some crappy pilots out there and everyone knows it (who flys there) so...let's change the new rule from 1500 hours to:

only good pilots

[tunawholesalers]

Those that can,do, and those that cant, teach!!!

In my experience as a pilot, id say that applies alot!! The amount of times ive had captains try to teach me non SOP techniques is unbelievable....someone with 200hrs might use that info but someone with 1500hrs is far more likely to dump it. Experience definitely counts.....as does time on type. Ive rescued the odd captain who was new to type after having been signed off as safe. So, RHS experience is an important factor.

[AerocatS2A]

The role of captain as a trainer.

It is true that captains are not there to train in the sense of saying "ok First Officer Bloggs, today we'll have a look at an NDB approach and I'll give you some tips on maintaining a good scan and situational awareness." But to say that captains are not there to train AT ALL ignores the powerful influence that a more experienced person in a leadership position has over the people who work with them.

A captain trains, whether intentionally or not, by example. I spent my two years as an FO soaking up all the little things that different captains I flew with did, some of it was good and some of it was bad and I've done my best to pick up the best from each and along the way my own style of command has evolved (for better or worse.) My point is that the captain has an inevitable influence on the people they fly with, if they have any brains at all they'll want that influence to be positive and they'll set a good example.

I don't think anyone here would suggest that a new FO fresh out of line training was a well rounded pilot in terms of flying the line, the job is not yet complete and there is a lot of experience for them to gain, where and from who do they gain this experience? In the cockpit from the line captains they fly with. You bet your arse captains are trainers, the question is just whether or not you're a good one.

[protectthehornet]

sadly, the way we fly demands that the F/O be quite capable on day one.

we don't take along a ''supernumerary" to take over if the F/O isn't cutting it the first day. What happens to the brand new F/O if the check captain/training captain etc. becomes incapacitated on the very first flight.

a pilot shouldn't be seeing his or her first ICE on an airline flight. He shouldn't see his first approach to minimums on an airline flight. he shouldn't see his first diversion, or hand flown holding pattern on his first airline flight.

All that should come building up to his airline interview.

hey, I just read that it will take 3 years before this ATP business for copilots is in effect!!!!

[aguadalte]

All this talking about having flown with a co-pilot with 200h who was better than another with 1500h...
Some of you still seem not having a clue about what the legislator has to do, to impose a general rule...
"To be a better pilot (with only 200h) than another one with 1500h", is a matter of subjective opinion and one could only imagine the immense pressure of rule interpretations a legislation like that would had to cope with.
The legislator has to have in mind the big picture, against personal points of view. And I think we are all ready to accept that experience (normally translated into flight hours) is one of the most important key aspects of proficiency and safety (and that's the reason why we never miss the registration of our flights in our logbook).
So why not accept the fact that there are really no perfect rules, and that rules are made for the "general aviator", not for the "particular one"?
As I said before, I think that a rule that imposes a minimum number of flight hours for the average pilot to get a job in the airline transport is in fact a good thing, and it has the seed for the recuperation of the dignity of the function. (something that has been definitely eroding in World, especially in the States).
Don't loose it, use it.

[Huck]

What happens to the brand new F/O if the check captain/training captain etc. becomes incapacitated on the very first flight.

It's already happened:

NTSB Advisory
National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594
October 21, 2009

NTSB INVESTIGATING LANDING OF COMMERCIAL JETLINER ON TAXIWAY IN ATLANTA

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the landing of a Delta B-767 on an active taxiway at Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport (ATL).

According to preliminary information received from several sources, on Monday, October 19, 2009, at 6:05 a.m. EDT, a Boeing B767-332ER (N185DN) operating as Delta Air Lines flight 60 from Rio de Janeiro to Atlanta landed on taxiway M at ATL after being cleared to land on runway 27R. No injuries to any of the 182 passengers or 11 crewmembers were reported.

A check airman was on the flight deck along with the captain and first officer. During cruise flight, the check airman became ill and was relocated to the cabin for the remainder of the flight. A medical emergency was declared and the company was notified by the crew. A determination was made to land at the scheduled destination of ATL.

The flight was cleared to land on runway 27R but instead landed on taxiway M, which is situated immediately to the north and parallel to runway 27R. The runway lights for 27R were illuminated; the localizer and approach lights for 27R were not turned on. Taxiway M was active but was clear of aircraft and ground vehicles at the time the aircraft landed. The wind was calm with 10 miles visibility. Night/dark conditions prevailed; twilight conditions began at about 7:20 a.m. EDT and the official sunrise was at 7:46 a.m. EDT.

A team of four from the NTSB, led by David Helson, is investigating the incident.

[aguadalte]

Come'on Huck, where does it say the FO was a low hour...

[Bruce Wayne]

A check airman was on the flight deck along with the captain and first officer. During cruise flight, the check airman became ill

so the check airman becoming ill incapacitated the captain too ?

[parabellum]

there might not be a list...but there are pilots (captains) who need better copilots to get them through the day...and these are respected airlines.

protectthehornet - from the above and your post #97 sounds as though you have flown for some pretty crappy outfits! Maybe I have been lucky as most of the crappy pilots used to get weeded out in training.

As an FO I certainly flew with some captains I didn't particularly like but I never 'saved' any of them, likewise, as captain, I never had to take control from an FO, even the very inexperienced ones, you just watch them like a Hawk!

I agree that in many cases 1500 hours minimum is an excellent idea and I hope it gets adopted in Europe too.

[p51guy]

PTH flew with a couple of very good airlines. I flew with a couple of very good airlines. Once in a while you fly with an FO that slid through the cracks so you don't have much help that sequence. It happens more on crappy airlines but also happens on major airlines on a regular basis. You make the best of it but you don't want to hurt his career.

Having a pilot with thousands of flying hours, military or civilian, and not being able to fly a Boeing airliner is troubling to me. Captains are not hired as instructor pilots but we assume the job when the FO isn't up to speed. 97% are up to speed but it is not our job to train the 3% that can't hack it. They shouldn't have been hired and released to the line by check airmen to start with. We have some weak captains too and they need a competent FO to assist them.

The ATP rule is a good start but going back to the 80's qualifications to be an airline pilot would be better. 4,000 plus with 1,000 turbine time like we did.

[413X3]

So now prospective pilots get to spend 10 years living at poverty level wages instead of 5 if they were lucky. Sounds like a great deal... for everyone who slipped by before.

[MarkerInbound]

forgive me, but don't you have to take the ATP test in a plane with a controllable prop and retractable gear? while you can take some of the test in a fixed gear/fixed prop plane, you have to demonstrate the above retract and controllable prop.

In the US you have to have 10 hours training in a complex airplane to get a COMM certificate. (There's a reason for CE182RGs.) And you have to have a COMM to get an ATP (military excluded.) The other 1490 hours can be in a CE152.

Back more than a few years ago my ATP written was about to expire. Did a SEL ATP checkride and was running around for a while with an ATP SEL COMM MEL DC3 till I could do a multi checkride with someone who could give the ATP MEL.