House, Senate pass 1500 rule, Rest rules, and more

[jynxyjoe]

Look at Qantas, who hires at extreme low time, then makes those folks second officers (essentially observers) for a good number of hours, then FO, then after many years as a CA.

Apples are not oranges Wheels.

 

[Lead]

It's the community college of flight schools. :bandit:

:yeahthat: unfortunately, from what I've seen. However, there are a couple exceptions.

 

[Bandit_Driver]

Never saw a real stall? Dude they probably did hundreds as a private, instrument, and commercial student.

Really hundreds? I remember my training well and I only did a handfull of stalls all the way through my commerical. I did a lot more stalls as a CFI than I ever did in my training for my ratings.

That's the point.
It shouldn't be easy. It should be damn hard to EARN your seat in the cockpit.

I CFI'd until I had 1200 hours, and flew freight for some more until I meet ATP mins. That was the way it was always done for the civilian route, and now it will be again.

IMO the experiences of being a CFI and then flying in some other professional capacity (135, banner, etc) give you invaluable experience and helps in the judgement arena.

Why doesn't Europe have airliners stalling out of the sky? They don't teach over there.

It's called Ab Initio training. They run an add in the paper for people that want to fly and already have a college degree. They school the crap out them to very high standard. If you don't 4 pt the ground you are washed out. They then get into the flying and earn their ratings. After earning their ratings they do more sim work in the plane they are going to fly. After that they start off as Second Officers and only fly in cruise and are always with a very senior and experienced Capt.

I witnessed the Ab Initio program first hand. They did have a few mishaps during training due to the fast pace and people were washed out quickly. Also the amount schooling and material they cover for ratings is more than the US.

 

[mooneyguy]

The current SIC check ride at 121 airlines is already to ATP, ie PIC standards. Do you want it to get easier, mooneyguy? I'm not sure what you mean.
You say get stricter but how will you mandate this? When you get hired at an airline, or any company where you go to sim the employer WANTS you to pass. If you don't you cost them maybe $10-20,000. There is always teaching the check ride... Should we get rid of APDs and have every 121 check ride be done with an inspector just to be sure they're not taking it too easy?

No Michael, Of course I would not want to make it easier to get people through! I'm saying IF the airlines have a problem why don't you make THEM fix it. If you cannot pass a 121 checkride maybe you shouldn't be a 121 pilot. 1500 hrs in a 152 is not going to make you an airline pilot! Your going to be a C150 pilot with 1250 more hours in a then before.

As others have said, what is this FIXING? It would NOT have changed the outcome of 3407, or most other airline crashes we have seen in recent history!

you think training is bad here, I know for a fact that pilots (I use that term loosely) are climbing on board airliners in Saudi arabia who paid for their certificates. People who could not fly a 50nm x-c with a highway connecting the two cities. Interestingly planes are not falling out of the skies over their...either. I'll admit however...I'm an outsider looking in. I'm not nor have I ever been a 121 guy...so Obviously I do not know everything, only what I have heard.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

I'm just saying that the 121 training isn't that hard and it's in the airlines interest to make it not too hard. It costs money to wash someone out. As long as air carriers have their own training programs and do the training themselves it probably won't ever be really that hard, it just designed to weed out the complete cabbage heads.

 

[Firebird2XC]

I think it's interesting to note that everybody thinks that because 121 airliners aren't falling out of the sky is entirely due to the skills of the First Officer.

I've had line Captains tell me stories about some of the uber-low time new hires and how they had to essentially give flight training. I had a CHECK AIRMAN tell me that one guy he flew with was so bad that if he'd been incapacitated, everybody would have died. Why? Because the FO couldn't have landed the plane without help or coaching.

I've heard lots of that. 121 cockpits will include a learning curve for the 121 operation in general, yes, but basic fundamentals of flight such as "push the nose down, the jet goes faster" shouldn't be beyond a new hire's understanding. I got called in on Reserve one day because an IOE FO was getting benched for exactly that level of poor airmanship. How do I know? The Check Airman told me.

... and yes, there will always be someone who will find a way to backdoor or loophole the system. Such is the nature of the beast.
... but perhaps now.. it won't be quite such wholesale, all-out, Sallie-Mae financed, kool-aid drinking insanity. Just maybe.

Otherwise, nothing will change. So what then? Nothing lost. Potentially something great gained.

... and the exact nature of the 1500 hour still isn't precisely defined. The FAA has been stuck with determining if there will be potential 'academic exemptions'. That's pure hogwash, yes, but it's the nature of the beast. We're not stuck with those precise exemptions just yet.

My personal favorite of all of this? The fact that the rest rules MUST BE FINISHED in a a YEAR. They've had decades of knowing it wasn't right. Hard science on short haul domestic operations since 1995.
Time for a change. The FAA was too busy pandering to special interests like the ATA and RAA.. so we forced the system.

None of the bullets in this bill was a magic wand that would have prevented the crash of Colgan 3407. They were aimed at correcting general trends, overall attitudes, and propping up a system that is otherwise very much warped and at times barely functional. By doing so, the hope is that a culture can be fostered in which a 3407 repeat is less likely. Colgan 3407 became a poster child for regional airline deficiency not because certain metrics weren't met by the flight crew- but because it showed just how hard the regional environment can be and how slim the margins for error truly are. As Captain Prater said in the Congressional hearings, "We have one level of regulation. We do not have one level of safety." This will help repair the gulf between shoe-string bottom feeder regionals and legacy majors.

Time will tell if they're everything we hope they can be. In the meantime, I'm glad we have them. The friends and families of 50 dead people worked very hard on the behalf of their departed loved ones and ALL OF US STILL OUT THERE FLYING to make sure that 50 deaths were not considered "an acceptable financial operating loss."

Food for thought. Now, on that note, I'm stepping out to celebrate.

Cheers! :beer:

www.3407memorial.com
www.remember3407project.org

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

I remember when I first came off of IOE, I felt seriously behind the plane for like 100 hours at least. About the forth flight the captain turned to me and said "Im so glad that you're a new guy with his head on strIg." I felt shocked since I thought I was doing crap, there were peop,e doing worse than me??? Hah.
I had about 900 hours when I got hired.

 

[mshunter]

The FAA will establish an FAA rulemaking committee that will review and develop regulations enhancing the requirements for an Air Line Transport License that will include flight training, academic training, or operational experience that will prepare a pilot to perform the job of a modern airline pilot.

This is the only thing I am worried about so far. What is ment by academic training?

 

[Firebird2XC]

This is the only thing I am worried about so far. What is ment by academic training?

A loophole for places like ERAU and UND, mostly. One can hope that such a loophole isn't allowed to grow too large. Either way, this will require flight schools marketing airline jobs to change their business plan dramatically.

Long term, this rule will change the way people look at the professional flight training in a big way.

 

[wheelsup]

It's called Ab Initio training. They run an add in the paper for people that want to fly and already have a college degree. They school the crap out them to very high standard. If you don't 4 pt the ground you are washed out. They then get into the flying and earn their ratings. After earning their ratings they do more sim work in the plane they are going to fly. After that they start off as Second Officers and only fly in cruise and are always with a very senior and experienced Capt.

I witnessed the Ab Initio program first hand. They did have a few mishaps during training due to the fast pace and people were washed out quickly. Also the amount schooling and material they cover for ratings is more than the US.

Yet we in the US come up with a different solution that won't really change anything and probably won't improve safety one bit.

:clap:

It's not about the hours it's about the training. Which didn't change. (actually it did, see below)

 

[wheelsup]

Oh and one more thing. If you posses a private, commercial, or ATP level license supposedly you already know how to recover from a stall. Having demonstrated it numerous times over and over again to your instructor, to a DE, and at the airline level to an instructor.

Now, if it seriously takes hundreds and thousands of stall demonstrations to truly learn how to recover from a stall...well I just don't know what to say here. I'm not god's gift to flying or anything but I learned pretty quick you shove the power forward and the nose down.

One thing the bill did touch on, which is directly related to training, is how stall training is done at the airline level. Bravo! That is what we needed changed (seriously, I think it is stupid we train how we do, completely unwires the brain), glad someone had their head on straight for that one. Sheesh.

 

[mooneyguy]

I think it's interesting to note that everybody thinks that because 121 airliners aren't falling out of the sky is entirely due to the skills of the First Officer.

Nothing to do with the skill of the FO. I thought that's why he wasn't in command.

I've had line Captains tell me stories about some of the uber-low time new hires and how they had to essentially give flight training. I had a CHECK AIRMAN tell me that one guy he flew with was so bad that if he'd been incapacitated, everybody would have died. Why? Because the FO couldn't have landed the plane without help or coaching.

I've heard lots of that. 121 cockpits will include a learning curve for the 121 operation in general, yes, but basic fundamentals of flight such as "push the nose down, the jet goes faster" shouldn't be beyond a new hire's understanding. I got called in on Reserve one day because an IOE FO was getting benched for exactly that level of poor airmanship. How do I know? The Check Airman told me.

I'm curious....how did they pass a 121 checkride?

... and the exact nature of the 1500 hour still isn't precisely defined. The FAA has been stuck with determining if there will be potential 'academic exemptions'. That's pure hogwash, yes, but it's the nature of the beast. We're not stuck with those precise exemptions just yet.

So, realistically congress has done nothing but give lip service which is all they really know how to do. Because if the pilot mills get an hour exception because they are such wonderful pilot training institutions of Higher education we still end up with a 250 0-hero, same as before! seems the only difference is the guy who decides to go old skool and do it at mom and pop fbo pays his dues along the way one lesson at a time is the only one who has to continue working himself through the next 1500 hours.

in all seriousness, congratulation for being a part of something that appears to have succeeded.:clap: I'm not trying to rain on your parade, just don't see the same out come as you do.

 

[DCTNstudentpilot1987]

Can someone tell me how the 1500 rule affects the military pilots especially those with mostly if not all F16 time? As the F35 replaces almost everything else gradually over time, they too will have trouble meeting the mandated multi-engine time for ATP. Will F16/F35 military guys be forced to work as an MEI, bid for multi-engine military or do 135 cargo? I didnt see anything in the law for military single engine time substituting for the multi-requirement. Then again I didnt read it that carefully yet.

 

[BobDDuck]

I'm curious....how did they pass a 121 checkride?

Have you ever taken a 121 checkride, especially in a sim? It's one of the most straight forward, easy to game rides you will ever take. As was said before, it costs the airlines more to wash you out than keep you around.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

This bill is one of the greatest legislative achievements in our profession in quite some time. The 1,500 hours and an ATP is the least of it, too. Yes, that's a huge issue, but so is the requirement for all airlines to implement a Safety Management System (SMS), including an AQP training program. The deadline for new flight time/duty time regulations is also monumental.

This is a big piece of legislation for our profession. I hope everyone takes note and realizes how important it is to contribute to ALPA-PAC to improve our profession. Your careers are affected by politicians in DC more than just about any other profession. Never forget it.

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

FWIW, the checkride "latitude" given at colgan is now much less. Mess up, you get 1 training event, and then a recheck. The recheck is a full ride, bust anything and you're gone... fired.

That being said... for those arguing that practicing stalls is no good, did you read the ntsb findings on the training records? Multiple busts... a lot had to do with... stalls. The problem being that he wasn't out doing stalls with students, he was trying to pass GIA training.

I had so much crap happen during my time before the airlines that it really helped me when I got there. I had lost engines, lost equipment, dealt with "Customers" etc.

I think learning to interact with the people responsible for your paycheck is huge... and lots of people that didn't instruct miss that. I HATE listing to FO's swear in the cockpit, with the door open, and pax sitting up in row 1. I don't care how you feel, but, clean it up. When you get somebody who has been dealing with their customers on a 1 on 1 basis for the last 3 years, they seem to be a little more mature in some areas. Thats not to say i haven't met immature 40 yr olds.. but, typically, people who have done the work thing longer, seem to get it.

Also, gonna say, the people that put 3+years of work into getting to the regional value the job, the profession, and their work more. The 250 hr guys seem to be more concerned with getting theirs, and getting on.

There are always exceptions to the case.

For some reason, I feel like bringing up one of my biggest pet peeves, I *HATE* it when my FO's change a setting that I am responsible for, without telling me. Example, the fasten seatbelt sign. While it may be in your part of the flow, don't just decide to turn it off, or on at your will. I am responsible if anything happens... and for what you know, I may have not changed it for a reason... Big example, in our new parking flow, FO's are told to turn off the fasten seatbelt sign.. but they are not given any guidance. That Seatbelt sign is the signal to our FA's that it is safe to open the main cabin door. This means Brake set, #1 engine secured and off. The FO's hit it in their flow before the engine has been shut down = bad mix. Why I feel like bringing this up, is that, it seems like the "lower" time guys who have now been on the plane for 2-3 years, feel like they "know" everything, and don't check with us. Well, of the 4 FO's that i got right after the new checklists, only 1 didn't turn off the seatbelt sign until checking with me... The guy who had been flying for nearly 15 years... and with a fair amount of time before Colgan. The rest went right for that switch as soon as the P. brake was on.. and I had to catch them.

As you gain time instructing, you start think around what you are doing... and opening up you're awareness level. People with higher time tend to think more about what the switch is going to do, than about just flipping it because the flow says to. You also have to start thinking "keep myself alive" more while you instruct, and that conditions you to naturally look out for hazards and threats.

I think setting higher limits is a start. it will force people to get out and fly before they have 50,74,90+ pax depending on them.

 

[Easton14]

So I'm still trying to understand the language of the whole bill....the 36 months once the act is signed thing-> does this mean the possibility of pilots with less than 1,500 getting hired still exists for the next 3-3.5 yrs?

And then the 1,500 and ATP requirement to be an airline pilot kicks in for all air carriers?

 

[jml2992]

Again you might do them once or twice but after that the students are doing them.

I highly doubt you were demonstrating stalls to each of your students every day of their training.

At no point in my last 4 years as a flight instructor have I ever let trainee complete an entire mission without me at least taking control of the aircraft to demonstrate or at least maintain a level of proficiency for any of the maneuvers required for that particular rating. Mostly, I think I hold myself accountable as the instructor to demonstrate safely (and to the best of my ability) how a task should be completed. I know that there are some guys out there just occupying the right seat until the next job comes along but there should be an active involvement on the part of the Flight Instructor to mentor his students and also be able to honestly critique his own performance. Some of this stall awareness stuff and basic airmanship is really starting to get bypassed in favor of students worrying about programming the GPS and staring at the panel. If you hammer them with the basic (and CORRECT!!!) information first, primacy will do its job every time.

P.S. Congrats FB. This is a big win and I'm glad to see this come to a favorable conclusion. Let's hope this bill is a tool that is used for good and allows folks out there a chance to slowly and safely mature into professional pilots who have a healthy respect for the manageable risks associated with the career and how to conduct themselves in a manner befitting crewmembers of an airline.

 

[aloft]

For all you CFIs, how many hours in icing conditions did you accrue while CFIing, and how many tailplane stall recoveries did you perform in that time?

I'm going to wager that for the vast majority of you, the answers are zero and zero.

The reason 3407 crashed was obviously an improper response to an unexpected wing stall. The reason they suffered a wing stall was a fatigued crew missing the fact that they'd forgotten to put the power back in after the autopilot leveled off from a descent. But that's not the complete story.

For a Q400 captain in the middle of icing conditions serious enough for his FO to comment on them, I suspect he had mentally prepared himself for a tailplane-icing-induced tail stall, not a wing stall. And as I'm sure all you CFIs taught a number of times approaching zero, what's the correct action for a tailplane stall? Hint: it sure isn't "push the yoke forward to unload the wing".

Unlike wing stalls and their tell-tale signs, you get no advance warning of a tailplane stall. What you get is, well, I'll leave that for the all-knowing CFIs here to answer. Suffice to say, the dude was prepared for a departure of a different, far-more-likely nature, so I find it difficult to take him to task for misinterpreting what was actually happening.

Bottom line, I think it's time everybody stopped flogging a couple of pilots who aren't around any longer to defend themselves. It's in poor taste.

 

[jhugz]

For all you CFIs, how many hours in icing conditions did you accrue while CFIing, and how many tailplane stall recoveries did you perform in that time?

Quite a bit of time in icing in small piston pounders that weren't FIKI. Sometimes it wasn't forecasted, sometimes we just had outs and went. I also have a quiet a bit of experience relative to my TT of flights in IMC shooting approaches to minimums using NEXRAD and ATC as tools for avoidance of heavy precip in some of the busiest and most complex airspace in the country. Does this qualify to sit in the right seat of a jet? IDK. I would like to think it does over someone who flew pipeline patrol, tugged banners or gliders, or dropped meat missiles for the past 1000 hours.

You just don't get it. You don't have your CFI and don't understand how much you learn in those 1000+ hours of dual given. It amazes me looking back at the type of pilot I was when I started CFI'ing and the quality of those previous hours.

It sets a good foundation, tied in with a thousand hours of flying rubber dog poo around in crap weather day in and day out in a SEL turbine or MEL piston pounder then maybe you would be qualified to act as a SIC in a 50 seat jet w/o being to large of a burden on your captain.

How much tailplane stall experience do you have? How do you go out and train for that other then read about it in books and watch the NASA icing video.

I'm going to wager that for the vast majority of you, the answers are zero and zero.

Wrong, but keep assuming so. Kinda like the same way I assume all CAP pilots don't have a clue what they're doing and are just playing Air Force dress up.

The reason 3407 crashed was obviously an improper response to an unexpected wing stall. The reason they suffered a wing stall was a fatigued crew missing the fact that they'd forgotten to put the power back in after the autopilot leveled off from a descent. But that's not the complete story.

Really what's the rest of the story since you where in the cockpit w/ them?

For a Q400 captain in the middle of icing conditions serious enough for his FO to comment on them, I suspect he had mentally prepared himself for a tailplane-icing-induced tail stall, not a wing stall. And as I'm sure all you CFIs taught a number of times approaching zero, what's the correct action for a tailplane stall? Hint: it sure isn't "push the yoke forward to unload the wing".

Why would you assume anything? Especially a tail plane stall? This makes no sense at all.

Unlike wing stalls and their tell-tale signs, you get no advance warning of a tailplane stall. What you get is, well, I'll leave that for the all-knowing CFIs here to answer. Suffice to say, the dude was prepared for a departure of a different, far-more-likely nature, so I find it difficult to take him to task for misinterpreting what was actually happening.

He would have never gotten the shaker or pusher if it was a tail plane stall. I guess GIA doesn't teach that when they're trying to mill you through a 121 training program or regular stalls for that matter. Anywho, the CFI who is sitting in the classroom day in and day out explaining Aerodynamics and teaching these items to kids that don't know the difference between a whole in the ground and...well you get the picture. They have a better chance of having a correlative level of knowledge on the subject.

Bottom line, I think it's time everybody stopped flogging a couple of pilots who aren't around any longer to defend themselves. It's in poor taste.

If we don't learn from these mistakes that killed many, then their deaths are in vane. We absolutely should analyze every bit of information in hopes that we can prevent this mistake from happening again.

Some of these posts over the past couple of days are just mind boggling. Maybe I need to take a JC timeout for a couple of days but I've just been irritated the past couple of days on this site and the stupidity that is being posted.