USA House passes aviation safety bill
 

I think this is a step in the right direction. As long as its enforced , the intention is right. It will be great to see the salaries go up as a result and hopefully will create a "shortage" and most importantly it could indeed improve safety. However ,remembering the gap between 200 hrs and 1500 hrs . How do wannabees now bridge the experience gap ?
They cant all be instructors , allthough creativity and capatilism will in itself resolve this problem. I foresee a lot more jobs created all around. MOre bush flying in Alaska , More GA jobs being created ( albeit at a very low wage). But it could have a very positive effect on the Industry.
Lets wait and see.

I think Governments need to realise the huge responsibilty they have to the genereal public and the industry as a whole. Knowing that the bottom line of airlines is Economically and not safety driven. They all cut corners to save on their bottom line. Another example is the current fuel policies around the world. Allowing airlines to operate on fumes all in the name of enviromental green issues when in fact its all about saving $. Is this really in the better interest of the flying public ? Why allow 3% contingency , commit to destination etc etc. Is it really safe in the big scheme of things.
Well time will tell. Safe flying and good luck to all the wannabees in the USA.

I believe that is what will also happen this side of the pond. Unfortunetaly it will also probably require a fatal accident to drive it.

Thank you for one bit of good news. Airline pilots will now have 1500 hrs to qualify. The New York State accident probably wouldn't have happened if the law applied then. Both of those pilots were underqualified when they got hired. Eventually you gain experience and can be qualified but it should not be with passengers in back.

p51guy, do u know what u r talking about??? When the Buffalo plane crashed, the captain at like 5-6000 hours and the FO had 2-3000, even according to the new bill, those 2 pilots would have been qualified to fly that flight and guess what, they would still have crashed the plane...becoz the cause of accidents was pilot errors caused by pilot fatigue. They need to pass a bill on duty hours and work rules, not minimum required hours on flying passenger carrying airline.

jowong1

agree with you but this is a start to untangle a little of the mess we are in.

Flying can be a lifelong apprenticeship. 10,000 hr Captains can keep learning whilst wannabees should be given the opportunity to fly hands on and learn from any mistakes made before in smaller kites before they fly at 450 TAS with 200 souls on board.

They both were hired with about 250 hrs. The captain had about 3500 hrs and the FO about 1600 hrs. Do you call that qualified?

If they were hired at 1500 hrs then I agree they would be qualified.

If you read the bill, some of the flights schools have already gotten a wavier saying their training is so good they don't need 1500 hours.

I don't see this as having anything to do with being qualified, 1500 hours or not. The pilots were chronically fatigued and sick. Financial pressures made them unable to take a sicky or get a good nights sleep beforehand.

Seems the U.S. once again started attacking the wrong end of the issue. :ugh:

Doing something about ridiculous commuting, fatigue and lack of (for the pilots) affordable rest facilities and not least income would have made sense.

But at the end of the day, this is about politicians being able to say: We did something! :}

See, I told you all:ooh:

PA

Just because you have 1500hrs does not make you 'experienced' It is alot easier to train a 200hr cadet out of a flight school than it is a 1500-2000hr pilot who has flown GA. Its not the hours but the QUALITY of training. Maybe time to make the FAA make a fast track program for students to go from zero to hero like they do in Europe with alot of tough hurdles to jump through so only the best get through. just my two cents, where's my glass of vino.....

RedNex Horse Hooey!

they Gotta know airmanship first when you deal with that many lives to put it bluntly--gotta grow some B*lls first [ladies require a hairy chest]!!!


yes, it is true that 1500 hrs is NOT a magical figure but I know lots of descent instructors that if trained properly they'd make excellent airline pilots even though 'airline stuff' is far from their general perspective they have the spirit--and it would be nice if folks learning how to fly were not so bloody passive:rolleyes: and if regionals didn't pick cadidates for their ass kissing abilties but rather their flying abiliities --plus it would give us aviators some more respect as a race--- no!?

this ruling is just a start---we need to stop breeding sissies for the air period!


PA

oh yeah I never did feel all that much love and affections for part 141 schools either:rolleyes:

a paper lion they can be:yuk:

A bunch of arrogant smirking Cadet trained by robots

Lester:E

Just before I fell asleep reading the text, I came across this:

GovTrack: H.R. 3371: Text of Legislation, Engrossed in House

SEC. 17. PILOT FATIGUE.
(a) Flight and Duty Time Regulations-
(1) IN GENERAL- In accordance with paragraph (3), the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall issue regulations, based on the best available scientific information--
(A) to specify limitations on the hours of flight and duty time allowed for pilots to address problems relating to pilot fatigue; and
(B) to require part 121 air carriers to develop and implement fatigue risk management plans.
(2) MATTERS TO BE ADDRESSED- In conducting the rulemaking proceeding under this subsection, the Administrator shall consider and review the following:
(A) Time of day of flights in a duty period.
(B) Number of takeoff and landings in a duty period.
(C) Number of time zones crossed in a duty period.
(D) The impact of functioning in multiple time zones or on different daily schedules.
(E) Research conducted on fatigue, sleep, and circadian rhythms.
(F) Sleep and rest requirements recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
(G) International standards regarding flight schedules and duty periods.
(H) Alternative procedures to facilitate alertness in the cockpit.
(I) Scheduling and attendance policies and practices, including sick leave.
(J) The effects of commuting, the means of commuting, and the length of the commute.
(K) Medical screening and treatment.
(L) Rest environments.
(M) Any other matters the Administrator considers appropriate.

Having watched a whole bunch of pilots in my day, I really don't think it is the time that makes the pilot, but how it's spent. I do feel this is a step forward, time will tell.

I always remember that, in the military, the 1000-1500 hour zone was, statistically, the most dangerous.

Purely as the pilot had enough hours to think themselves experienced but not enough experience to get themselves out of the dodgy situations their false bravado got themselves into.

Statistically the 'bulge' in accidents fell between those hour markers.

Good to see we learn from our mistakes!

Forgive my ignorance, may be the the same bill. Just signed a letter requesting that foreign MRO's require the same expectant requirements to perform maintenance on on "N" registered aircraft. Regulation to the percentage of FAA qualified supervision and drug testing etc...

International oversight is a known loophole, not to say that domestic MRO's do not fault and require more supervision, but it is in my experience that many foreign chop shops that save airlines money do so with a profit over product mindset that is not regulated as it should be.

The airline I went to work for required 4,000 hrs and 1,000 jet. I felt very fortunate to get hired. 1500 hrs is not a lot of experience but much better than 250 hrs. Sully is right about the starting pilots not having enough experience because the commuters won't pay enough to attract qualified people.

Fatigue was not cause the tragedy in Buffalo... it was pure incompetance, and lack of regard for SOPs, and situational awareness as it related to current weather conditions, and the effects of adverse weather on their aircraft. The bottom line is that the two of them were out to lunch.

Maybe, but the question is - Why? Why on this specific flight and not on any of the other 100's of flights they had done before? 1500 hours, or 2000 for that matter, does not necessary mean that you are more qualified than a 300 hour pilot. Try to put a newly a320/737 rated bush pilot, with 2000 hrs, on a Amsterdam to London Heathrow sector. Then compare him to an airline cadet scheme pilot a la CTC/CabAir/Oxford who did his/hers training in and around the busy London TMA. Wanna bet who'll do the best job? QUALITY of training and experience is important, not so much QUANTITY.

CP

My money would be with the bush pilot actually, but general point accepted.

I think the cadet versus experience argument is somewhat moot. I speak as someone who started as a cadet, who now flies with cadets, or their modern equivalent.

The problem, or potential one, comes down to the quality of people you attract to the profession. If the only people you attract into the business are ones whose mummy and daddy are rich enough to send them to pilot school, or who are so desperate to be an airline pilot that they will borrow huge sums, you restrict your potential "gene pool". That is not to say that those people are all bad, but you are missing out on a large number of people who simply can't afford it, or choose another profession.

Sadly, just really, really wanting to do something does not necessarily make you any good at it; sport is a good example. I wonder how military operations would fare, if the only people they had flying their toys had stumped up the money to fly them?

Yes, when I started, I was wet behind the ears, and had to learn a lot very quickly, but presumably, the selection process I'd been through was designed to make sure that I'd at least have a chance of coping. I know, nowadays that the standard of applicants to my airline is lower than it used to be. We, at least get to skim off the top, but there just won't be the same numbers of quality people coming through, if a) airlines don't sponsor, and b) the potential rewards are not there.

Sadly, as aviation is so safe, through years of hard work by so many, it will take many years for any problem to manifest itself. A 20-30 year ticking time bomb, which, even as an ex-cadet, I don't consider myself part of.:oh:

xx621 - Yes, he would do better. In a DeHavilland Beaver, not in a modern flight deck. :ok:

I think nothing will change as long as punters consider a ticket for more than ₤50 an expensive ticket. :ugh: You get what you pay for. This goes for service, safety, leg space etc etc etc......

CP

A 250 cadet in Europe is far a different pilot from that of a 250 hour pilot in the States.

Every one of those 250 hours a cadet accumulates is structured. Structure means discipline... perhaps because of the costs involved, or the course itself.

The academics and testing a cadet completes is far greater in scope than that of a 250 pilot in the US. Is a cadet a better pilot than a 250 hour pilot from the States??? or is a 250 pilot a better pilot than a cadet. They both have their merits.

But at the end of the day... it's the guy in the left seat that will set the tone how the flight will be conducted.


Both pilots have an acceptable expectation that both shall follow the conduct themselves as if a check ride were in process.

Punk, you really lost your credibility with the above statement:=. Punk... you were very fortunate to have you folks fund your flight training. Punk... you are also very priveleged without the worries of repaying loans.

OK self funded guys... post up... do you agree or disagree with the Punk?

It's a shame your vision is blurred:*.

Well, I wanted to be a pilot from the age of 6, so I guess that makes me a better pilot than you? I'm type-rated on the 737-200-900, and the 747-400, so I win again. Ooh, and I'm a captain!

I have no beef with people funding themselves, or their parents. But the fact of the matter is that you are severely restricting your intake, if that is the only section of society that become pilots. In the British Army you used to be able to purchase your commission (and sell it on). They gave that practice up long ago, sometime after the battle of Waterloo.

I worked my ass off to become a pilot, but didn't pay for it - my airline did. Hardly any of the 12 other people on my course would have become airline pilots, if there was no sponsorship; they would have pursued successful careers elsewhere, including military flying. Most of them could punctuate, and use capital letters too.

the trainers
 

One point only lightly touched on is the experience of the instructors. Many pilots are trained by instructors who only became qualified CPLs/QFIs a year or two before their students. The commercial schools even hire newly/recently qualified pilots who were themselves students at the same school.
One of the most important qualities for good instruction is a deep understanding of why we do things the way we do them. A lot of this comes from experience, otherwise it is all monkey see-monkey do which is not the best stance from which to learn a profession which has a tendency to kill you if your awareness and understanding are lacking.
For credability, good habits and high airmanship, it is preferable to be taught by someone who has actually done the job for a while rather than a tyro who only got their license shortly before the student starts training:hmm:.

P51guy.

RS was hired with in excess of 1000 hrs (Q400 mins at colgan at the time) and I think she may have even had 1600 at DOH. Yes MR was lower than 1000 when he got hired, but not by much. In any case, both were well over 2000 TT at teh time of the crash. Other people who have told me about him have said how professional he was to fly with.

This bill is a BS knee jerk reaction to pacify the US public. They have not address the two main issues that have led to this tragic event

1. Crew fatigue - Flying pax for 16 hrs followed by more part 91 flying repo's then 8 hrs off before more 121 flying?????? The US system is stupid but most unions will ot address that as it may reduce days off per month which the senior pilots with 18 days off per month will not agree too!
2. FAA training is a joke. Zero to hero in 4 months being advertised by some schools. That is plain retarded. Learn 1000 questions and have a 1 hr flight test per rating. If you are ever bored, watch a video by nasa on youtube about TP icing, showing the tail stalling first requiring recovery action of pull back and flaps up. Could MR have been tired, and mistaken this that was shown to him in training at Colgan? Who knows. He saw the movie in intital training and probably every year in recurrent, so its possible.

You can't even blame colgan for this. They did train to the FAA standard. Problem is that the FAA standard is a little hard to find!

The only thing they have accomplished is the following pyramid situation:

1 flight instructor will need 5 students to qualify for the airlines. Those 5 students becoming instructors will need 5 students each. So out of 31 CPLs only 6 can goto the airlines. Couple that with the latest and greatest by TSA reducing student numbers, and funding being cut left right and center, there will be a real shortage in the near future. Then the airlines will petition congress to drop the bill in a couple of years. So nothing achived there!

As I said. This bill is retarded and is just there to please the public until they decide that they don't have enough pilots.

They need to look towards Europe for better standards such as

1. Removing DPEs from IR, CPL and ATPL and just use staff examiners on salary who are not trying to complete as many check rides in a day to line their pockets
2. Increase requirements in the theoretical knowledge to a way that maybe cuts some candidates who can only use rote to pass exams.
3. Make skills tests a minimum of 2.5 hrs.
4. remove POI's from airlines who are obviously in the back pockets.
5. Stop part 91 flights after 121 fights
6. reduce max hours worked then increase minimum rest periods.
7. get rid of "legal to start legal to finish"
8 Introduce 6 month sim checks for both FO's and CA.

Oh but wait...... that all might cost too much and maybe the old farts at the top of the seniority lists will end up havign to work more than 10 days per month! Ok, scap that and pat yourselves on the back for a job well done!

Don't jump on the graves of the dead, look to the other issues that were REAL issues!

This is key. Comparing the Florida pilot puppy mills to the European cadet programs is like comparing a Richard Simmons exercise video to Marine Corps boot camp.

This is another major difference between the situation with the United States based regionals and the European model. Too often in the States, in fact routinely in some operations, the guy in the left seat is himself a product of a pilot puppy mill and has minimal experience. So it is not so much the low time FO, but the culture that comes from pairing low time FOs with what are, by any standards, very green Captains who have never had seasoned role models. And add to the culture stew weak airline management.

"Maybe, but the question is - Why? Why on this specific flight and not on any of the other 100's of flights they had done before? 1500 hours, or 2000 for that matter, does not necessary mean that you are more qualified than a 300 hour pilot. Try to put a newly a320/737 rated bush pilot, with 2000 hrs, on a Amsterdam to London Heathrow sector. Then compare him to an airline cadet scheme pilot a la CTC/CabAir/Oxford who did his/hers training in and around the busy London TMA. Wanna bet who'll do the best job? QUALITY of training and experience is important, not so much QUANTITY.

CP"

RIGHT ON!

"Quote:
As posted by Punk666. In fact people who had to work hard for the funding would cut more corners and do it cheaper compared to someone who has the funding already..I know that statement is not 100% true but i have seen it with my own eyes.


Punk, you really lost your credibility with the above statement. Punk... you were very fortunate to have you folks fund your flight training. Punk... you are also very priveleged without the worries of repaying loans.

OK self funded guys... post up... do you agree or disagree with the Punk?

It's a shame your vision is blurred."

I disagree with you on this Capt.

Ability to repay the loan and the stresses involved in that process have nothing to do with someone's ability to learn! I have done both: parents funded the initial education – 12th grade; I funded the 'Flight Training'. I don't see myself any better or worst than those who were not as fortunate as I was.

However, in my experience as a student, instructor, charter/cargo/corporate, and airline pilot, I see it all the time where those [who struggled financially to fund their training] pilots truly believe they are ‘better’ than those whose parent’s funded flight training and they are ‘more’ worthy of airline jobs since they are the ones who ‘paid their dues’.

I truly believe it’s nothing but PURE jealousy!

Interesting thing here in the US is a clear divide between those who went to FBO for flight training and those who through a 4-year college regardless of whether parents funded the flight training or not. Those who didn’t go through the 4-year college degree [Flight Programs] clearly have disdain for those who did.

There’s no way one can be treated for ‘low self-esteem’ unless one visits her/his psychologist on a regular basis!

Well I guess that's what makes a horse race.

However, IMHO, to suggest that a pilot who has his training funded is better than a self funded trained pilot is just plane arrogant:=.

Not only did I pay for my flight training, I also had to pay my college tuition.

I funded my college tuition as a CFI and charter pilot.

I do not believe that this is true. I have never come across anyone who had anything but respect for the programs at places like Ohio State, Purdue and North Dakota. And I have been in the business for 32 years, 7 of them spent interviewing and hiring pilots.

Now when it comes to certain operations based in Florida, then yes – there are strongly held opinions.

But the simple truth is that good pilots come from all backgrounds. And so do the weak ones.

"But the simple truth is that good pilots come from all backgrounds. And so do the weak ones."

That is the truest comment on this thread. The other truism is that there must be a higher percentage of good pilots amongst those that went through selection procedures to be sponsored, than those that worked, or paid, their way.:)

oh yeah the highest possible 'British' standards from 'ace the technical pilot interview':yuk:

being a pilot is a role and the pilot is actor. Except he must actually read the needles it not about how many square roots you can take either; it isabout adapting to the role:=

No, I don't think so. The United State’s approach of “license/hire the survivors” has its flaws, but anyone who has spent a thousand hours in a Caravan flying through a Northeastern winter or two has passed through a selection process every bit as demanding as anything a Human Resources Department can cook up.

And the education is very, very real.

Now at the interview the clothing may not be as stylish, and the haircut might be cheap, but the eyes have seen enough ice to know when it is a problem, flown enough real world missed approaches that the next one won't be a shock and are starting to grasp what the radar is showing them. And they have learned to be wary.

This is why Americans value that first 1500/2000 hours or so. On one hand we don't have true cadet programs, but we do have entry level flying opportunities that don't exist in Europe combined with plenty of weather. And this is why, in America, low time FOs in 121 operations are seen as an issue.

742 excellent point not to mention your average CFI having done several thousand circling approaches to low mins is pretty sharp at 1500---your post is what I'm talking about:ok:

in the old days an airmail pilot was considered a veteran after 200hrs ---for a good reason the death rate was 1/4:\

those who want to bypass all of that valuable learning experience or are in so much of a rush to wear a uniform to get paid like crap just to impress others--- is a product of the modern world where knowledge/abilty does not count only the abilty to answer 50 conflict resolution question as if the FD were some muppety corporate office filled with mindless brown nosing idiots--and look what that type of 'high self esteem individual' did on the useless grounfd WRT the economy---you want to impress me with low hours---- become an unlimited aerobatic champion, otherwise save it for someone who believes this nonsense:rolleyes:

Plectron, I don't think anybody wishes they were in your shoes when the other crew memeber is there for the wrong reason. Daddy owns the plane so I'm here. Personnally I feal more for the first new FO that will have to fly with them as they are sure to upgrade at the first opertunity.

With or without HR 3371 (which of course doesn't apply to those countries) those people should have been cut at the sim check stage of any reasonable interview; but hours shouldn't have anything to do with it.

Colgan Comair Pinacle.......:rolleyes: