Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

FAA seeks to raise Airline Pilot Standards

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

FAA seeks to raise Airline Pilot Standards

Old 15th Apr 2012, 18:18
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 255
Received 22 Likes on 5 Posts
I'll stick to using the term "FARs" for aviation regs. To me, "CFR" stands for Crash/Fire/Rescue and using it is 1) bad mojo and 2) implies it might be needed.
PukinDog is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2012, 21:32
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Escapee from Ultima Thule
Posts: 4,273
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Common usage within aviation circles is to use 'FAR' so that's what I use. I suspect there are even some who are ignorant of the 'CFR' naming convention.
Tinstaafl is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2012, 22:16
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Stranded
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Even though AirRabbit's whole string of posts is an exercise in ignorance I'll chime in one last time for the sake of spreading valid knowledge:

The 8900.1 is the guiding document for the FAA, it is law to the FAA inspectors as much as the FAR is law to aviators. And yes, FAR is an official designation in the 8900.1 for use in FAA documents:

8900.1 Volume 1, Chapter 1, Paragraph 1-46, Table 1-1 contains all FAA abbreviations, which includes:

"FAR Federal Aviation Regulations"


The abbreviations on that page are in alphabetical order.

And as an aside, the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) are Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), while the FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations) are Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). So technically both are "CFR" by AirRabbit's argument.
Island-Flyer is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2012, 14:23
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
AirRabbit, I'll bet you are using that new fangled "first officer" term for "co-pilot", worst still "flight attendant" for "stews" or "hosties". GF
Ouch! Is it really THAT obvious?

Originally Posted by le Pingouin
AirRabbit, time for you to indicate a reference for your claim that FAR doesn't mean what everyone else here thinks. Thus far Google is as definitive as you've got. Give us an official document that specifically says Federal Aviation Regulations are not to be referred to as FARs.
OK – admittedly, I’m torn. In one of my last posts, I distinctly recall stating to you the following...
Originally Posted by AirRabbit
“Please, sir, if you are comfortable in relying on this kind of verification for your position, be my guest to continue doing so, as I suspect that the FAA police will not show up on your doorstep with an arrest warrant for “improper use of terms.” While I know of only a few in the FAA who regularly continue to use the term “FAR,” and none who adamantly continue to do so, I am not able to concur with your statement that it’s use is “common parlance” within the FAA. However, I do think it best to no longer point out to you what I believe to be an outdated term. Additionally, if it matters, you have my apology for your having to read my efforts to bring this issue to the attention of the other readers on this forum.
But now you misquote me (I’ve never said “FAR” doesn't mean what you and a lot of others think – go back and re-read what I said – conveniently provided above) and then you challenge me to provide you with an “official” document “that specifically says Federal Aviation Regulations are not to be referred to as FARs.”

So ... the dilemma is to continue to stand by my belief that it is probably better to longer point out to you what I believe to be an outdated term – or to, again, provide you with just exactly the kind of information for which you have asked. Probably to my regret, I’ll back up on my belief as to what is probably best and provide you a reference for just exactly what you have asked.

I contacted a colleague of mine at the FAA, an FAA inspector who’s been there for decades, and has been involved in a lot of the rulemaking efforts regarding pilots, airplanes, simulation, and training. The Flight Standards Service includes an Office of Rulemaking. That Office has what is apparently called “Rulemaking Work Instructions;” and before you ask ... no, I don’t have access to an internal document for this FAA Office; this document is apparently not available on the internet; and I’m not in a position to obtain a copy of such an internal document. I was however provided a quote from those instructions. If you care to pursue this further, I would suggest you contact the FAA Flight Standards Office of Rulemaking – and ask your question directly to someone there.
Use of the Term “FAR”
You must not use the term Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) in FAA rulemaking documents. The Office of the Federal Register does not recognize the acronym FAR as a reference to the regulations in 14 CFR. In fact, the term belongs to the Federal Acquisition Regulations, which are used in procurement. Further, it is not proper to use FAR as though it were a legal citation. See the following examples for the proper format for referencing FAA regulations:
First reference: 14 CFR part 91 14 CFR 91.875
Subsequent references: part 91 § 91.875
If you do not want or need to use specific section numbers, or have a general statement without a section reference, write “in the regulations” rather than “in the FAR”.
In most cases, logically minded persons would likely find this to be sufficient to recognize that FAR, while still used by many persons, and is continued to be found in some (many?) FAA documents, is a reference that is not being promulgated in the regulatory references that are being published by the FAA. That is apparently a decision made by the office that publishes ALL US government documents, the Office of the Federal Register.

My colleague’s note, to which the above quote was attached, says, “I know there are a lot of publications out there that still use "FAR" ... but that is because its not critical that we change to CFR in any given time frame and making all those changes would be terribly expensive ... except when it would be necessary to reprint or revise or update (or something similar) - and at that time it would make sense to change from FAR to CFR in those publications.”

As I’ve said now several times ... you (and anyone else here) are free to use whatever terms you desire to use, for whatever reason or reference you desire to use them. As I have also said, I doubt that anyone is going to “cite” you for “illegal use of terms.” In the same manner, I am going to continue to point out errors that I see – in both practice and description – and those who read my comments, as they have been in the past, so they will in the future, be free to believe or not believe my comments ... and that is their choice.

And now, I have but one more question of Mr. Island-Flyer:
Originally Posted by Island-Flyer
Even though AirRabbit's whole string of posts is an exercise in ignorance I'll chime in one last time for the sake of spreading valid knowledge...

And as an aside, the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) are Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), while the FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations) are Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). So technically both are "CFR" by AirRabbit's argument.
Does this mean that you agree with me ... or that you acknowledge the accuracy of what I’ve said ... or that I am, in your view, continuing to exercise ignorance? Not that it is truly necessary, nor am I particularly exercised over what your answer might be ... I'm just curious.
AirRabbit is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2012, 17:23
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
April 30th Deadline...

Regulations.gov

Look it up under:
"Due for comment in the next 15 days"..... then category (left side of page)
"Aerospace and Transportaton".. it will be the first proposal followed by input from others and any changes made.

This is a 51 page "easier to read" document of the proposed rule changes. You may find it interesting that 80% of Part 121 Regional Airline SIC do not have an ATP. More interesting 15% of Major airline SIC do not have an ATP (They don't need one unless they upgrade to PIC and may never have gotten one if their career path took them straight into a major airline right seat, without being a PIC in Part 121 - which of course was possible in years gone by).

So, not only will the Part 121 Regional SIC's get an ATP/Type Rating check ride before next Aug 2013 (subject to them having 1500hours), so will those SIC's sitting at the Majors in the right seat hoping for retirement and knowing or desiring never to upgrade.

Additionally, any existing Regional SIC's who (say, they are on reserve) don't fly much may be jumped in seniority for upgrade, if they a. aren't 23 years old, b. don't have 1000hrs Part 121, or c. have 1500 total time in order to have an ATP/Type Rating checkride before the August 2013 deadline.

Should be interesting to see how this plays out...
maninbah is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2012, 20:36
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Residence - Georgia || Flying Domicile Changes Periodically
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HELP! Am I the only one who feels this way?

I guess with the kinds of regulations and authorizations facing us … I’d still like to find out why it is that the FAA continues to believe that having two different approaches to pilot training is good for the industry. I’ve looked … I’ve read … I’ve examined … however, I continue to come up short on understanding how a set of authorizations to do things differently will yield a better trained crew member. Perhaps if the “differences” were specifically set out so that we could understand just exactly what it is that would be expected of those conducting the training and those receiving the training, instead of relying on some kind of analysis of some sort of nebulous “data” that is supposed to allow us to sense or clairvointly connect with how much better trained a crewmember will be, perhaps the results might be able to be SEEN as “better.”

I’m not saying that we should leave things the way they are … I’ve seen too many instances where pilots with all the “credentials” in the world (i.e., fat log books, ATP licenses, multiple type ratings, and some with multiple employers … both domestically and internationally) sit next to you in the cockpit until it becomes clearly evident that they can’t find their backside with both hands and written directions! We need to do something … but what? Who is driving this boat? The unions? … there are unions representing airline owners, pilots, flight attendants, dispatchers, mechanics, air traffic controllers, etc., etc. Which of these organizations is the one to follow? Is the boat being driven by the non-aviator psychologists that now have us looking at AQP, CRM, FOQA, ASAP, VDRP, ASIAS, LOFT, LOE, event-driven training, and who knows what else – where each program is the panacea to all problems in aviation? Is the FAA a “name-only” group that exists to allay the concerns and fears of the traveling public? Is the FAA a “feel-good” organization where all the airlines can say that they “meet FAA regulations” when those regulations are written so that almost anything goes? Are WE the only people that have any responsibility to do things the right way … and if so, I have some concerns
1) How will we be able to convince our management that we need better tools and more time to conduct the training that we know is necessary?
2) Will it continue be that to get additional money from our management, we will have to show them ever increasing ways in which we are going to save money on training time? (anyone ever hear about a thing called a “Ponzi scam?”)
3) How long will it be before those who do training on “the cheap,” will walk away with all the ticket sales and everyone else will be forced to shut down?
BTDTB4 is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2012, 21:44
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Residence - Georgia || Flying Domicile Changes Periodically
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just hypothetically curious
If someone were to evaluate your performance as substandard, would you just 'walk away' amiably and say, "Well the system's working"...

or would you consider legal counsel?
I don’t “think,” I know that I would evaluate the criticism to see whether or not the criticizer does or does not have a point. If he does have a point, I would see if there was anything I could do to improve my abilities … and if I concluded that he does NOT have a point, I would certainly ask him/her to be a bit more specific as to why he/she believes my performance is substandard and find out what might be the “real” reason behind the criticism. I’d like to think that legal counsel might be a very last resort. For example … let’s say my performance was NOT substandard, and it was provable, but they wanted me fired anyway. So I go get legal counsel and bring a law suit. The suit is settled by allowing me to stay employed. Do you think that would be a good move on my part or not? I would think not. For a whole laundry list of reasons. The only way legal counsel might be considered worthwhile is if I could get a settlement that would pay me enough money to live on (hopefully live well on) until I found another job. In my experience, most relatively new hired persons are not going to be given such an opportunity.
BTDTB4 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2012, 01:17
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Residence - Georgia || Flying Domicile Changes Periodically
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
...and your point is....
BTDTB4 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2012, 12:14
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Residence - Georgia || Flying Domicile Changes Periodically
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by OK465
...that possibly you should be working for the regulator?
Yeah … right! Like “they” would want me … or more importantly … like I would want “them”! As in the second most quoted line from the movie “Star Wars” …
Help me Obi-Wan. You’re my only hope.”
BTDTB4 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2012, 15:48
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Residence - Georgia || Flying Domicile Changes Periodically
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OK OK465 (geeze, that sounds redundant...) ... I'll give you a couple of points for that one.
BTDTB4 is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2012, 15:23
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: India
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
KNOTS AVIATION

Does any one know bout KNOTS AVIATION.....? I wanna know wheather their package is realistic, and also how genuine are they...? have any one gone through their programme....? please do advise bout this.....
thomas00776 is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2012, 18:21
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cochin VOCI , India
Age: 35
Posts: 1,605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CAPA assumes that 250 hour pilots will pay an extra $125,000 so that they can build time all the way to 1500 hours in order to apply for part 121 carriers


US regional airlines continue to be tested | CAPA

Airlines: 4 Ways Regionals Are Even Worse Off | InvestorPlace
cyrilroy21 is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2012, 14:21
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Residence - Georgia || Flying Domicile Changes Periodically
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What are we trying to achieve?


I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at what the FAA continues to do. Sure ... setting a minimum time for the issuance of any given pilot certificate will ensure that the pilot has logged those hours. But, if there isn’t any indication of what had to have been going on during those hours – all you’ll be able to be sure of is that this pilot has logged those many hours ... and without some kind of airplane logbook verification ... you won’t even know if these are “real” flying hours, or Parker 51 time! Sure, if the requirement for a pilot certificate to fly in an airline cockpit goes from 250 hours (required for most commercial certificates) to 1500 hours (required for an airline transport pilot certificate) the applicant will have to have logged that additional 1250 hours. As anyone would recognize 1250 hours is 1250 hours ... a nice number ... but 1250 hours doing what? Personally, I believe that the answer to that question is at least as important as having those additional hours. I don’t know about the rest of the world, but I know that in the US, both the Air Force and the Navy have done a rather decent job of taking young men and women – many without any knowledge what-so-ever about airplanes – and after very slightly over a year, are able to produce reasonably competent pilots ... and to avoid all the fighter type/single seat issues – I’m looking strictly at the multi-engine airplanes that have multiple pilot crews – where these “brand-new pilots” wind up in the right seat. Are every one of them the new “ace of the base?” I doubt it. Do some of them have problems? I’m sure they do. But, far and away, the vast majority of these young men and women are well-trained and competent to serve as a “co-pilot” on these multi-pilot crews – and they do so with substantially less than 1500 hours!

My opinion is that this pending rule is certainly not going to provide the kinds of things that our fearless FAAers apparently believe it will provide. Additionally, with this exact same question about pending rules currently being contemplated by the FAA … I’m still trying to find out why it is that the FAA in the US continues to believe that having two different approaches to pilot training under part 121 is good for the industry. We have what is termed “the traditional” program requirements … and we have “AQP” – a regulatory authorization to do just about anything differently than what is prescribed in those “traditional” programs.

I still have the same questions I raised (or attempted to raise) elsewhere in this forum … do we expect the FAA regulations to be “an assistance” to having competence in the pilots that occupy airline cockpits? ... or ... is it essential to follow those rules to have the necessary competence in those pilots? I know the accident rates seem to be on a downward track – at least by some measures – like restricting such looks to part 121 operations, but with the growth in the industry, if we maintain the existing “accident rate,” we’re going to have an increase in the numbers of accidents. It’s simple math … the same percentage of a higher number is a higher number.

If everyone were to train precisely the way the “rules” say we must train … will that prevent incompetence from creeping into the cockpit? Will seeking authorizations to do things differently … i.e., an authorization under AQP (which still requires an FAA approval) … would that complete that connection and prevent incompetence from creeping into the cockpit? Does the FAA publish any “requirements for training” that make any difference at all? If they do … what’s up with having two different sets of “standards?” Why does the FAA publish differing standards in the first place? We are regularly told that a pilot trained under AQP is a more thoroughly trained pilot … and, certainly, they imply such thorough training provides a safer pilot. First, is that true? Second, if that IS true, is it because of the rules (or, more accurately, the authorization to deviate from those rules) or because of the professionals conducting the training – regardless of the rules governing their actions? Third, if it IS true that the rules ARE what makes the difference ... why the heck wouldn’t the regulator require the same training for ALL airline pilots? Am I the only one who gets lost in attempting to understand why we have to do what we are told we have to do when those who tell us what we have to do seem to have little understanding of what it is they want us to do? Otherwise, why have an alternative set of standards?

Each time I ask such questions here ... I get answers like “we’re allowed to focus our training on what those who are having problems really need.” Duh! Isn’t that the purpose of all training? Why do some believe that the “traditional” approach to training prohibits exactly this same kind of recognition and focus? From what I can see, this new “alternative” approach to training is highly dependent on psychologists and what they bring to the mix. I’m not anti-psychologist, per se ... but psychologists that are not aviators and believe they understand how pilots learn and what pilots use when they fly airplanes, and from that conclude that only training conducted in a “line environment” is worth valuable training time ... I tend to take with a grain of salt ... where that “grain” is the size of the “Rock of Gibraltar!” A couple of years ago, I had dinner with a group at one of the WATS conferences in Orlando, Florida. During an after-dinner conversation, I heard an FAA inspector say that he knew of one of the FAA psychologists who had specifically traveled to see, side-by-side, a Level D simulator and a Level 6 FTD, and after careful observation concluded that these devices were “...exactly the same except for the motion system on the Level D device!” One of my colleagues was in attendance as well and asked this guy what his impression was of AQP, CRM, FOQA, ASAP, VDRP, ASIAS, LOFT, LOE, and event-driven training. That inspector danced around the question, saying that he really couldn’t offer his comments, I think implying that his opinion didn’t count, but told all of us that we would have to decide for ourselves what we thought of relying on such processes ... very revealing ... very diplomatic ... and very disappointing.
BTDTB4 is offline  
Old 13th May 2012, 18:13
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Doesn't matter, Chief pilots and HR will continue to end run the FAA through exemptions, loop holes...continue to hire scared little robot marsh mellows that just want a seat in the aircraft.

Maybe it's always been that way, I don't know, and I am starting not to care. They will keep crashing planes for dumb reasons, people will keep getting killed, and they will keep making excuses for why people die. In the mean time, instead of putting better pilots in the cockpit, they will continue to try to make a better box that does all the flying...the answer of course being that the box flies better then a pilot...except if you have ice, or a jack screw problem, or any other non SOP, non robot response in the checklist, that requires a solution from a pilot...but gosh..that never happens right? So keep stuffing kids in the cockpit, insure each seat for a million bucks, then if there is a crash, tie it up for YEARS like Eastern did...who cares....when it all goes south, loot the company, short the stock go bankrupt. FAA doesn't care, SEC doesn't care..and most importantly the passengers just want a cheap tick anyway...
Sillypeoples is offline  
Old 13th May 2012, 20:30
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by sillypeoples
Doesn't matter, Chief pilots and HR will continue to end run the FAA through exemptions, loop holes...continue to hire scared little robot marsh mellows that just want a seat in the aircraft.

Maybe it's always been that way, I don't know, and I am starting not to care. They will keep crashing planes for dumb reasons, people will keep getting killed, and they will keep making excuses for why people die. In the mean time, instead of putting better pilots in the cockpit, they will continue to try to make a better box that does all the flying...the answer of course being that the box flies better then a pilot...except if you have ice, or a jack screw problem, or any other non SOP, non robot response in the checklist, that requires a solution from a pilot...but gosh..that never happens right? So keep stuffing kids in the cockpit, insure each seat for a million bucks, then if there is a crash, tie it up for YEARS like Eastern did...who cares....when it all goes south, loot the company, short the stock go bankrupt. FAA doesn't care, SEC doesn't care..and most importantly the passengers just want a cheap tick anyway...
Well … that’s an opinion …
AirRabbit is offline  
Old 13th May 2012, 20:42
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Hotels Mainly
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So at the present time FOs can fly a Turboprop with 250 hours TT and NO type rating??? in the US.

Is that correct. If so at what size aircraft do they require a type rating to pilot as an FO, (Dash 8, F100, B737 ???
Soab is offline  
Old 13th May 2012, 23:48
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,923
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
There is no requirement for an F/O to have a type rating under FAA regs. There is a requirement that they have training. In the airline world they have the same class room training as the PIC and only a couple less items in the sim. However the airline has the training records, there would be nothing on the certificate. The FAA created the SIC type just to keep foreign CAAs happy. A pilot can take their airline training records to the FAA and they'll issue a cert with the SIC type without any further training.
MarkerInbound is offline  
Old 14th May 2012, 13:34
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GC Paradise
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
FAA seeks to raise Airline Pilot Standards

It would seem that actually formalizing the requirement for an F/O to have a type rating under FAA regs would be a good start in raising airline pilot standards which is the subject of this thread?
FlexibleResponse is offline  
Old 14th May 2012, 19:40
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,923
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
That is in the proposed rule. So now F/Os will have to do steep turns, do a landing and a go around with the plane out of trim, perform a missed approach from a non ILS approach (along with the miss from a ILS) and if the airplane has more than 2 engines, they'll have to miss out of the OEI approach, lose a second engine and come back and land VFR. And if the FAA think the flaps can fail up, they'll have to do a no flap landing. I had to do a no flap landing for my 727 type last century but the Feds finally figured out the odds of a Boeing having a total flap failure are about nill and they've dropped the requirement in most Boeings.

So are you safer with the F/O holding altitude in 45 degree banked turn? The problem will be having enough Feds or ADPs to give the types. Currently a company check airman can give a F/O check ride but you need a Fed or an air carrier designee to issue the type.
MarkerInbound is offline  
Old 15th May 2012, 14:05
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,189
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes on 6 Posts
It would seem that actually formalizing the requirement for an F/O to have a type rating under FAA regs would be a good start in raising airline pilot standards which is the subject of this thread?
If the first officer is legally second in command then surely he should be certified competent (by being tested in the simulator) on all sequences that the captain is certified competent on. Obviously this is not so in USA!
Centaurus is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.