FAA to boost Co-pilot training, avoid ATP rule

[ahsmatt7]

1. The hour requirement for BOTH categories is too low. I would say that 1,000 hours in the focused program with a clearly standardized curriculum in both solid academics in understanding flight theory, systems, IFR procedures, TERPS/PANS-OPS, ATC procedures both FAA and ICAO, regulations, CRM, etc, in an accredited 4 year program that is continually monitored to ensure the accuracy of the programs and academic standards. Military flight training programs would meet this requirement.

2. Non-academic program should be a minimum of 2,000 hours with comprehensive testing required on the above topic areas. These tests would be more in depth than the current ones, including oral exams, and also the requirements for the examiners in both categories would be rigorous to ensure they actually knew this stuff.

Again, this is utterly lacking in GA today. If it were not we would not have inane threads with people claiming lift was "partly Bernoulli and partly Newton" etc.

I don't see the point in doubling the hour req. just because one program is deemed "academic" while another program is not.

If someone wants to fly commercially, every pilot should be trained in the same manner. Just because a professor is teaching about the IFR system doesn't make it a magical experience with a ton more knowledge and wisdom being thrown to the students. If a standardized curriculum is desired. Then EVERY pilot wanting to go the commercial route will need to learn and understand X, Y, Z and ABC.

So that being said here is my req.

1. If a student goes through an aviation college, he/she will need to learn about topics X, Y, Z and ABC and take an overall cumulative test over all the things they have learned since day one. (the test is discussed further down in the thread) This test will be displayed as an endorsement on one's certificate. Along with 1000, hours of actual experience the endorsement will be the only way someone can go the 121 route. Also, a minimum score of 90 must be obtained.

2. If a student does his/her training through a mom and pop flight school or a flight school that doesn't have "university" attached to it, he/she must DO THE EXACT SAME THING AS ABOVE!!!!

No one should have less or more requirements and less standardization just because of where they are learning to fly. There is also no point of doubling the time requirement. Hell those extra 1,000 will most likely make the Part 61 guy/gal hell of a lot more experienced than the university guy.....no matter how much class time the university guy had.

In all honesty, there shouldn't even be two sets of regs regarding flight training. Every applicant no matter where they learn should be req. to learn and demonstrate the EXACT SAME THINGS.



(The all caps is not meant as shouting....its just meant to stand out amongst all the other words)

This test will be partly oral and partly multiple choice. It will test the applicant on EVERYTHING. Not just what "seagull" mentioned, but anything and everything regarding aviation. This test should be made very difficult. The questions shouldn't be the EXACT SAME questions in study guides. They can be the same type but with different numbers and no one should be able to see the test before its administered.

 

[seagull]

Actually, the university programs that have a core flight science program probably already meet the requirement. Part 142's do not. The problem is that the amount of flight time as stated in this thread is too low to integrate the information adequately.

 

[seagull]

I don't see the point in doubling the hour req. jsut because one program is deemed "academic" while another program is not.

If someone wants to fly commercially, every pilot should be trained in the same manner. Just becasue a professor is teaching about the IFR system doesn't make it a magical expereicne with a ton more knowledge and wisdom being thrown to the students. If a standardized curriculum is desired. Then EVERY pilot wanting to go the commercial route will need to learn and understand X, Y, Z and ABC.

So that being said here is my req.

1. If a student goes through an aviation college, he/she will need to learn about topics X, Y, Z and ABC and take an overall cumulative test over all the things they have learned sicne day one. This test will be displayed as an endorsement on one's certificate. Along with 1000, hours of actual experience the endorsement will be the only way someone can go the 121 route. Also, a minimum score of 90 must be obtained.

2. If a student does his/her training through a mom and pop flight school or a flight school that doesn't have "university" attached to it, he/she must DO THE EXACT SAME THING AS ABOVE!!!!

No one should have less or more requirements and less standardization just because of where they are learning to fly. There is also no point of doubling the time requirement. Hell those extra 1,000 will most likely make the Part 61 guy/gal hell of a lot more experienced than the university guy.....no matter how much class time the university guy had.

In all honesty, there shouldn't even be two sets of regs regarding flight training. Every applicant no matter where they learn should be req. to learn and demonstrate the EXACT SAME THINGS.



"The all caps is not meant as shouting....its just meant to stand out amongst all the other words)

I would agree with the knowledge requirement (and, unfortunately, a large percentage of "mom and pop" grad's would not pass it today), but you miss what I wrote before about the issue of being truly saturated in a program. A student at a small school is not as likely to be "living, eating and breathing" it 24/7 as someone in a dedicated program. 4 years of that results in a lot of assimilated knowledge that should be recognized. Again, it is akin to the pilot working in the office being just as, and more often, more proficient that the "line pilot", even though the latter may be flying 80 hours per month vs. the office pilot's 10. I have seen it over and over. I used to think it would be the opposite. It is intuitive that it would be, but it is not. It has to do with the thought process.

It is possible that a "mom and pop" airport kid would have the same as a university student? Of course. Some do live and breath it. If they are also fortunate to have instructors that REALLY know what they are doing and are keeping up with the latest and greatest, then you have that. Unfortunately, the latter is rare (VERY rare, sadly) and, as an airline hiring or as a regulator, you really have no way of knowing if the former is true either. A knowledge test is not enough when you can practice for the test. It is a lot more probable to be true at a recognized university, where you have someone saturated for 4 years. I would not be opposed to raising the university standards along with this, but the truth is that background is likely worth MORE than 1000 hours. I set 1000 as a minimum as you need at least that to have experienced a wide set of circumstances regardless of the track.

 

[Boris Badenov]

It is a lot more probable to be true at a recognized university, where you have someone saturated for 4 years. I would not be opposed to raising the university standards along with this, but the truth is that background is likely worth MORE than 1000 hours. I set 1000 as a minimum as you need at least that to have experienced a wide set of circumstances regardless of the track.

Just so we're clear on this, what personal experiences have you had with 141 schools and students in a professional setting?

 

[BEEF SUPREME]

Don't think so. European and Asian airlines put 300-hour FOs on the right seat of their airliners because of the theory and TRAINING that they have provided them from day 1 . . . I would much rather prefer a low-time FO with a sound academic theoretical background who's been drilled in sims before and knows what to do when emergency situations arise, than a 1500-hour CFI who's been only tooling around in a C-172 and spewing out the very-limited theory that's required for FAA private or commercial licenses these days.

The captain of the Colgan Air airliner had 3379 total hours of experience and the FO had 2200 total hours (both above the "minimum experience qualification" of ATP) yet neither of them took the necessary actions to correct the decay in airspeed and impending stall of their airplane . . . their total-time experience qualifications proved to be irrelevant and their lack of proper corrective action (gained from training and drilling in sims) proved to be crucial in this accident.

I do not agree with this proposed policy because it would shift the burden/cost of providing training from the airlines to the aeronautical universities and therefore to their aspiring airline pilot students, who would have to go deeper into debt if they want to land a right-seat airline job sooner. In the end, what needs to happens is that the regional airline training needs to be beefed-up with more theory, sim time, and training so that taking the actions necessary to correct emergencies or unusual situations in bad weather becomes second nature to regional pilots. Capt. Sullenberger's training and drilling on the sim as both student and instructor did more to allow him to react to an emergency situation with a cool head and proper procedures than any "minimum experience qualification" would ever have . . . after all, how often does a pilot get to practice an actual airplane ditching :laff:

Well i guess at this point we have to agree to disagree. Reading your post brings to mind the 2009 AF stall from the upper 300FL to killing everyone and the very recent 737 Japanese barrel roll. I'm sure those guys had amazing academic backgrounds...

As for what you said about Colgan I only know what I have read up on and what contradicts what you say about training vs. Experience is the transcript from the FDR. When the copilot says "wow I have never seen icing this bad" I still get chills.

Also your not really giving the 1500hr CFI a fighting chance in your example.

I can't speak for everyone but again I will repeat that I had a lot of fun going from a 300hr CFI to getting my ATP. It cost me nothing. Some years i was paid better than a regional FO. During my many different jobs i got to do a lot of fun flying. By the time i made it to 1500tt I had flown lots of different aircraft including: citations, king airs, PC12 and even a grumman albatross. Yes all as a right seat guy with the exception of the PC12 but I learned so much during this time. I was driven. I grabbed the AFMs and dove right in. In all honesty my PC12 class at a 142 school was the perfect example of being more informed than the instructor. Of course I never said a peep, I just wanted to get my first PIC turbine opportunity.

I think it was a good way to get experienced enough to be an asset to those I flew with.

The academics would have helped but were not necessary IMHO.

Oh and sorry if I sounded egotistical in my last few posts but it was not my intention.

 

[seagull]

Just so we're clear on this, what personal experiences have you had with 141 schools and students in a professional setting?

I taught at one for a while. I also have reviewed their training and outcomes at the CAST level.

 

[seagull]

Well i guess at this point we have to agree to disagree. Reading your post brings to mind the 2009 AF stall from the upper 300FL to killing everyone and the very recent 737 Japanese barrel roll. I'm sure those guys had amazing academic backgrounds...

Do not have a lot of info yet on the All Nippon event, but the AF one indicates to me that you have very little understanding of that event. A very solid foundation in system knowledge would have been the best thing to prevent that sort of event. A lot more hours droning around, not so much.

 

[mshunter]

Can I translate that to mean that you don't have anything substantive to say on the topic? :dunno:

Nope, I do, just don't want to get involved in a poo flinging, "my way is better than your way" argument. The thread has devolved and creeped away from the OP IMO, thats why I am stepping out, and just watching through the window. There are lots and lots of good things in this thread, as well as lots and lots of bad things. I'm not in a position with enough weight to really have much bearing on who's right and who's wrong however.

 

[Boris Badenov]

Well, the question probably sounded more antagonistic than I meant it to.... I genuinely didn't know. I will say though that while I've flown with guys from a 141 background who were fine pilots, as a group I've found they often lack what? Initiative? Humility? Sometimes both. To be fair...sometimes neither. Just not sure from a line perspective that cradle to grave 'professional training' is the answer to the problems I most often see...

 

[seagull]

Well, the question probably sounded more antagonistic than I meant it to.... I genuinely didn't know. I will say though that while I've flown with guys from a 141 background who were fine pilots, as a group I've found they often lack what? Initiative? Humility? Sometimes both. To be fair...sometimes neither. Just not sure from a line perspective that cradle to grave 'professional training' is the answer to the problems I most often see...

Well, 141 is definitely NOT what I am talking about as any solution. My experience with that is similar to yours.

Keep in mind that I am not talking about programs like 141 or 142, although a program such as I am talking about could potentially have a 141 program imbedded in it. I am talking about a 4 year program where a private ground school is a full semester course, and the same for instrument, commercial, performance, regulation, HF, and then each subsystem, plus several full schools like 727 FE, as a semester course to learn systems, electrical, hydraulics, pneumatics, etc. In addition, basic aerodynamics, stability and control, alternate control strategies high altitude aero, high speed aero, several semesters on meteorology, a semester course on weather avoidance and radar use, an ATC course, International procedures course, etc. There would be lot more also. To my knowledge, none of the current programs do all of this, but if they did, and combined it with 4 years of flying courses, you'd really have something that would enable you to reduce the hours for such a graduate reasonably. Of course, all training and evaluations would be fully documented -- something also lacking in most of GA.

 

[BEEF SUPREME]

Do not have a lot of info yet on the All Nippon event, but the AF one indicates to me that you have very little understanding of that event. A very solid foundation in system knowledge would have been the best thing to prevent that sort of event. A lot more hours droning around, not so much.

Yeah man I don't understand how a perfectly good airplane was flown into the ocean.

Also these pilots on the AF flight came from the background you are advocating no? If so here are some guys with super systems knowledge and it didn't prevent that disaster. I'd like to point out that unless there was a guy who had spent 1500 hours droning around, as you call it, sitting up front of that 330 you just really contradicted yourself.

Does the bus have an AOA gauge?

If so why didn't those guys use it? Do they cover AOA use at these amazing european training facilities?

Also I've tried to mention that building 1500 hours in the "real world" included a lot more than droning around but to each his own I guess.

In fact I just used AOA to climb to FL430 and I've never even taken a high altitude aerodynamics course at college. Gasp!

 

[seagull]

Yeah man I don't understand how a perfectly good airplane was flown into the ocean.

Also these pilots on the AF flight came from the background you are advocating no? If so here are some guys with super systems knowledge and it didn't prevent that disaster. I'd like to point out that unless there was a guy who had spent 1500 hours droning around, as you call it, sitting up front of that 330 you just really contradicted yourself.

Does the bus have an AOA gauge?

If so why didn't those guys use it? Do they cover AOA use at these amazing european training facilities?

Also I've tried to mention that building 1500 hours in the "real world" included a lot more than droning around but to each his own I guess.

In fact I just used AOA to climb to FL430 and I've never even taken a high altitude aerodynamics course at college. Gasp!

Yeah, yeah, it wouldn't have happened to you because (insert rationalization here).

These accidents often look simple to most, and your reaction is what I would classify as "typical pilot". It is not a bad thing, and not a slight on you, but it is, unfortunately, the reason the industry does such a poor job of accident analysis in most cases. In fact, I am often surprised by some with even years of accident investigation experience doing the same thing. I guess it can be a bit like a 1000 hours of just droning around and a thousand with active engagement.

Sorry to be dismissive, but you are missing a lot of the dynamics here. I would state with some confidence (and not any pleasure) that given the AF scenario without any fore-knowledge, there are very few pilots flying for ANY airline that would have survived that scenario once the first input was made (and it was likely an input based on ergonomics rather than intent). It was a lot more ugly than most pilots realize.

Oh, and in answer to your other question, no, the 330 (and all the other airline jets that I know of) do NOT have any AoA guages ordinarily We do have it MD-11 HUD display. I can also pull it up in the raw data from the mx system (but that is not normally trained). So, no, they do not train to use something they do not have. I would agree that they should have it, but Boeing, Airbus, Douglas never did.

So, the situation is NO AoA, conflicting airspeeds and altimeters, overspeed warnings and intermittent stall indications (the latter mostly absent), IMC in turbulence plus several other factors. Not nearly so easy as you imply.

 

[genot]

Well, 141 is definitely NOT what I am talking about as any solution. My experience with that is similar to yours.

Keep in mind that I am not talking about programs like 141 or 142, although a program such as I am talking about could potentially have a 141 program imbedded in it. I am talking about a 4 year program where a private ground school is a full semester course, and the same for instrument, commercial, performance, regulation, HF, and then each subsystem, plus several full schools like 727 FE, as a semester course to learn systems, electrical, hydraulics, pneumatics, etc. In addition, basic aerodynamics, stability and control, alternate control strategies high altitude aero, high speed aero, several semesters on meteorology, a semester course on weather avoidance and radar use, an ATC course, International procedures course, etc. There would be lot more also. To my knowledge, none of the current programs do all of this, but if they did, and combined it with 4 years of flying courses, you'd really have something that would enable you to reduce the hours for such a graduate reasonably. Of course, all training and evaluations would be fully documented -- something also lacking in most of GA.

Firstly, my most limiting experience in flight training was 141. Seriously, demanding DV20s hit up jet down winds (because they'll all be flying jets professionally), that's moronic in my mind. Learn to fly what you are currently sitting in.

Secondly, and to enhance the bold in the quote and doing so snipe a leg off of your argument. I'll let you know when a pilot who has taken an ATC course (mentioned as part of your post and the one I'm most in a position to argue) has availed of that knowledge to full effect. A snapshot, sure, but ultimately useless. I just talked to literally less than three hours ago a major following a major on a visual. The following pilot turned his own base, but was obviously clueless as to what the other company does on final. Experience teaches that, not book work. Being 2 miles behind this company with an 80 knot overtake is a position the pilot put themselves in (and duly warned by me) not due to lack of a degree in a subject, but by lack of stick time following this company. Experience makes the difference in one of your legs of argument. I have to believe to a degree it holds true in others also.

 

[Bumblebee]

I'll let you know when a pilot who has taken an ATC course (mentioned as part of your post and the one I'm most in a position to argue) has availed of that knowledge to full effect. A snapshot, sure, but ultimately useless. I just talked to literally less than three hours ago a major following a major on a visual. The following pilot turned his own base, but was obviously clueless as to what the other company does on final. Experience teaches that, not book work.

I didn't know why ATC did some of the stuff they do until I took the ATC course as part of my college education which augmented my accelerated flight training program, and helps me with deeper understanding because of my experience.

The straight book work isn't the point, it is that you have the rote knowledge that then becomes understanding WITH the experience. Without the underlying theoretical understanding, I wouldn't have the same level of understanding even with the experience.

 

[Nick]

Yeah, yeah, it wouldn't have happened to you because (insert rationalization here).

These accidents often look simple to most, and your reaction is what I would classify as "typical pilot". It is not a bad thing, and not a slight on you, but it is, unfortunately, the reason the industry does such a poor job of accident analysis in most cases. In fact, I am often surprised by some with even years of accident investigation experience doing the same thing. I guess it can be a bit like a 1000 hours of just droning around and a thousand with active engagement.

Sorry to be dismissive, but you are missing a lot of the dynamics here. I would state with some confidence (and not any pleasure) that given the AF scenario without any fore-knowledge, there are very few pilots flying for ANY airline that would have survived that scenario once the first input was made (and it was likely an input based on ergonomics rather than intent). It was a lot more ugly than most pilots realize.

Oh, and in answer to your other question, no, the 330 (and all the other airline jets that I know of) do NOT have any AoA guages ordinarily We do have it MD-11 HUD display. I can also pull it up in the raw data from the mx system (but that is not normally trained). So, no, they do not train to use something they do not have. I would agree that they should have it, but Boeing, Airbus, Douglas never did.

So, the situation is NO AoA, conflicting airspeeds and altimeters, overspeed warnings and intermittent stall indications (the latter mostly absent), IMC in turbulence plus several other factors. Not nearly so easy as you imply.

The AOA indicator is at the very least, an option, on the 777 and I have also seen it on the screens of 737NGs. But again, I think it's a yes-or-no option sort of like V-bars-or-dual-cue.

 

[BEEF SUPREME]

Yeah, yeah, it wouldn't have happened to you because (insert rationalization here).

These accidents often look simple to most, and your reaction is what I would classify as "typical pilot". It is not a bad thing, and not a slight on you, but it is, unfortunately, the reason the industry does such a poor job of accident analysis in most cases. In fact, I am often surprised by some with even years of accident investigation experience doing the same thing. I guess it can be a bit like a 1000 hours of just droning around and a thousand with active engagement.

Sorry to be dismissive, but you are missing a lot of the dynamics here. I would state with some confidence (and not any pleasure) that given the AF scenario without any fore-knowledge, there are very few pilots flying for ANY airline that would have survived that scenario once the first input was made (and it was likely an input based on ergonomics rather than intent). It was a lot more ugly than most pilots realize.

Oh, and in answer to your other question, no, the 330 (and all the other airline jets that I know of) do NOT have any AoA guages ordinarily We do have it MD-11 HUD display. I can also pull it up in the raw data from the mx system (but that is not normally trained). So, no, they do not train to use something they do not have. I would agree that they should have it, but Boeing, Airbus, Douglas never did.

So, the situation is NO AoA, conflicting airspeeds and altimeters, overspeed warnings and intermittent stall indications (the latter mostly absent), IMC in turbulence plus several other factors. Not nearly so easy as you imply.

So again I'll ask. If the superior academics were in the cockpit of the 330 why did they not save the day and put the superior systems knowledge to use? They came from the exact background you were advocating. Two pilots with academic backgrounds who were inexperienced, an FO and a 3rd pilot were flying.

And to be fair...

If there was no AOA gauge I would have died too.

 

[seagull]

The straight book work isn't the point, it is that you have the rote knowledge that then becomes understanding WITH the experience. Without the underlying theoretical understanding, I wouldn't have the same level of understanding even with the experience.

Exactly.

 

[seagull]

The AOA indicator is at the very least, an option, on the 777 and I have also seen it on the screens of 737NGs. But again, I think it's a yes-or-no option sort of like V-bars-or-dual-cue.

Well, everything is a pin setting these days, and the raw data is certainly available. However, do you know of an airline that has it displayed?

 

[seagull]

So again I'll ask. If the superior academics were in the cockpit of the 330 why did they not save the day and put the superior systems knowledge to use? They came from the exact background you were advocating. Two pilots with academic backgrounds who were inexperienced, an FO and a 3rd pilot were flying.

And to be fair...

If there was no AOA gauge I would have died too.

It would have required more than that in this case. There are plenty of examples of accidents with very high time pilots, as there are with low time. No question that experience is important. The point here is not that. It is that we need to establish the entry level minimums. Maybe you need to think of this from the other direction.

2,000 hours is low time also, but someone with 2,000 hours and a true academic base is going to be better than someone that does not have that. I don't see how you can even argue otherwise? Can anyone here make a cogent argument that a person with the same amount of flight time is not going to be better if they have ALSO had a rigorous academic background in the field?

So, assuming that is true, then how much straight flight time would be required before somebody WITHOUT that academic background is equivalent to the person WITH the experience?

 

[Dugie8]

It would have required more than that in this case. There are plenty of examples of accidents with very high time pilots, as there are with low time. No question that experience is important. The point here is not that. It is that we need to establish the entry level minimums. Maybe you need to think of this from the other direction.

2,000 hours is low time also, but someone with 2,000 hours and a true academic base is going to be better than someone that does not have that. I don't see how you can even argue otherwise? Can anyone here make a cogent argument that a person with the same amount of flight time is not going to be better if they have ALSO had a rigorous academic background in the field?

So, assuming that is true, then how much straight flight time would be required before somebody WITHOUT that academic background is equivalent to the person WITH the experience?

People will argue with you until they are blue in the face about the academic part simply because they didn't do it; reference back to my earlier point about egos and such. Pilots want to be able to point to their TT column in their logbook and use it as some kind of social measuring stick, as long as that number is greater than the person's they are talking to, they are higher up their perceived social ladder.

To be clear, I am with you on requiring more rigorous academics, I just don't believe that with today's FAA and the guys/gals that are in the positions to start creating such a program, it is possible. Again too many egos with big numbers in their TT columns and no common sense or ability to see that their line of thinking could be wrong.

In your post (#170), you describe almost verbatim what UND's curriculum was when I went through.