1500 rule in possible jeopardy

It appears to require a study be done (likely just a delay tactic) that determines new metrics for determining what makes a safe pilot for the airlines. This could potentially dismantle the 1500 hr rule. I need to look more at that, however.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm all for that. If a scientific study could be done to provide some facts, how is that a bad thing? Right now that rule is nothing but a knee-jerk emotional reaction purely based on the idea that "1,500 is better than 250."

If the study shows that hours are a poor measure of pilot quality, how exactly is that weakening anything? Are they fighting to increase safety, or to protect their biases?

I think they oppose a study because deep down they know that hours aren't an accurate measure of quality/ability. But if a study determined what actually is an accurate measure, and we implemented a rule that took that into account, that would improve safety, not reduce it.

I'm a safety data nerd who fights this battle all the time at the airline level with any number of SOP changes, etc. Someone gets it into their head that X is a problem, and I spend resources studying to see of the data backs that up. If the data show that it isn't a problem, the person who thought it was will fight tooth and nail to keep their opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence. I guess it's human nature, but damn it's annoying.
 
I'm all for that. If a scientific study could be done to provide some facts, how is that a bad thing? Right now that rule is nothing but a knee-jerk emotional reaction purely based on the idea that "1,500 is better than 250."

If the study shows that hours are a poor measure of pilot quality, how exactly is that weakening anything? Are they fighting to increase safety, or to protect their biases?

I think they oppose a study because deep down they know that hours aren't an accurate measure of quality/ability. But if a study determined what actually is an accurate measure, and we implemented a rule that took that into account, that would improve safety, not reduce it.

I'm a safety data nerd who fights this battle all the time at the airline level with any number of SOP changes, etc. Someone gets it into their head that X is a problem, and I spend resources studying to see of the data backs that up. If the data show that it isn't a problem, the person who thought it was will fight tooth and nail to keep their opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence. I guess it's human nature, but damn it's annoying.

My comment was not meant to be taken that I think the 1500 hr rule should stay no matter if it makes the airlines safer. 1500 was chosen so that every pilot has an ATP and is held to the same standards. Then you obviously get credit toward those hours depending on education and source of flight training. I don't think it was quite a knee jerk reaction but I agree that it isn't the most scientific.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
All I know is that because of Public Law 111-216 regional First Officer pay has almost doubled to practically a living wage and I now enjoy 4 commuter hotels a month. Things I have no doubt we would not be enjoying at the regional level without it and one can rest assured that these things would disappear if the law was amended back to the days of wet a commercial.
 
http://www.buffalonews.com/city-reg...ew-battle-over-aviation-safety-rules-20160202

WASHINGTON – The Families of Continental Flight 3407 think they have another fight on their hands, and with the help of federal lawmakers from New York State, they intend to win it.

Legislation is set to be introduced in Congress this week that could be used to gut the aviation safety improvements the Flight 3407 families won in a law passed in 2010. And with that in mind, nearly two dozen members of the families group came to Washington on Tuesday to take a strong stand against any weakening of that aviation safety law.

New York’s two Democratic senators and Western New York’s four House members – two Democrats, two Republicans – agreed to do everything they could to help.

Sens. Charles E. Schumer and Kirsten E Gillibrand said they would use the power that any senator has to block legislation if they need to do it to halt an attempt to weaken aviation safety.

“Any airline, if you try to weaken our work, we’re going to fight you, and we’re going to win,” said Schumer, the key senator behind that aviation safety law.

The Flight 3407 families, meanwhile, said they would continue traveling to Washington – as they have done more than 80 times – to fight to keep the improvements they won in required pilot experience, training and rest between shifts.

“It’s interesting that when we woke up today, it was Groundhog Day,” said John Kausner, of Clarence, whose daughter, Ellyce, was killed in the crash of the regional commuter plane that took 50 lives Feb. 12, 2009, in Clarence Center. “Some things you have to keep doing over and over.”

The families’ latest trip to Washington came nearly seven years after the crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407. They came this time because Rep. William F. Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, plans to introduce legislation this week to reauthorize funding for the Federal Aviation Administration.

Authorization bills often are used as vehicles to make policy changes, and the Flight 3407 families said they fear that the airline industry, which has contended that the safety improvements have led to a pilot shortage, will find a way to use the bill to weaken a provision that requires commercial pilots to have 1,500 hours of flight experience before they are hired.

To fight that possibility, Jeffrey B. Skiles – co-pilot of the US Airways jetliner that crash-landed safely in the “Miracle on the Hudson” River between Manhattan and Weehawken, N.J., on Jan. 15, 2009 – joined the families and lawmakers at the news conference.

“This is not the time to forget why we passed this legislation,” Skiles said.

Congress passed those safety improvements after a federal investigation found that the pilots of Flight 3407 mishandled the controls and in essence caused the crash.

That investigation also found that the pilot had not been trained in how to use the equipment that could have righted the plane’s course and that the co-pilot made the flight from Newark, N.J., to Buffalo after a red-eye flight from her home in Seattle.

Skiles said the requirement that co-pilots, just like pilots, have 1,500 hours of flight experience would likely be the main target of any airline industry attempt to weaken the legislation.

In an interview after the news conference, he stressed that requirement wasn’t just about spending time in the cockpit. If the number of hours required is cut, he said, so will requirements that pilots learn to fly at night, across country and in poor weather conditions.

Kevin Kuwik, one of the leading members of the families group, said attempts to weaken the aviation law could come in Shuster’s proposal, in committee or on the floor of the House.

Rep. Chris Collins, R-Clarence, who was serving as Erie County executive on the night of the crash, said he didn’t expect a successful attempt to weaken the safety rules.

“I think we’re fine, but if not, we’ve got somebody backstopping us,” he said, referring to Schumer and Gillibrand.

The Regional Airline Association, which represents smaller airlines such as the now-defunct Colgan Air – which operated Flight 3407 – did not respond to a request for comment on the families’ news conference

Sad that a couple of dozen people with very little collective experience can influence aviation policy to this degree.
 
All I know is that because of Public Law 111-216 regional First Officer pay has almost doubled to practically a living wage and I now enjoy 4 commuter hotels a month. Things I have no doubt we would not be enjoying at the regional level without it and one can rest assured that these things would disappear if the law was amended back to the days of wet a commercial.
And that may have an impact on safety, because you are no longer pressured to fly when you aren't fit to for financial reasons.
 
And that may have an impact on safety, because you are no longer pressured to fly when you aren't fit to for financial reasons.

This^^

Hard to fly a six leg day when all you can think about is how the heck you are going to pay rent, or maybe eat for the next week since your bills squashed your 600 dollar paycheck to fly that shiny jet.

In my opinion, the regionals are just now starting to move in the right direction. This rule reversal will ruin the momentum that the pilots have gained due to high demand for qualified pilots.
 
Anything that we could do to halt these idiots from watering the law? Maybe we should all call our congressmen and tell them to focus on other things, like the economy and what not.

I agree wholeheartedly with the majority: the new ATP requirements are a godsend for pilots who want to fly professionally and feed their families to boot.
 
Sad that a couple of dozen people with very little collective experience can influence aviation policy to this degree.

I probably should clarify that by "couple dozen people" I mean families of victims and legislators.
 
And that may have an impact on safety, because you are no longer pressured to fly when you aren't fit to for financial reasons.

Not for nothing, but aeronautical decision making should be based on factors influencing the flight, not the pilot. Otherwise, you're acting unethically.
 
Flying Saluki said:
Not for nothing, but aeronautical decision making should be based on factors influencing the flight, not the pilot. Otherwise, you're acting unethically.

Just wondering but where do you work?
 
Not for nothing, but aeronautical decision making should be based on factors influencing the flight, not the pilot. Otherwise, you're acting unethically.
"Should be." If bullfrogs had wings... As for acting unethically, every person on the planet "should be" acting ethically, but, well, let's start with politicians.
 
"Scientific studies" can be very slippery. Depends on who does them and who funds them. A LOT.

Not a tin foil nutter. Used to do science myself.

Richman

I have an 8-day block, straight, of days on coming up next week! SCIENCE! :)
 
Back
Top