ATP Final Rule Signed

[Autothrust Blue]

ERAU and other 141 schools pushed hard for it. They needed a way to keep students coming the door and selling them a grossly over priced product. I don't see how book work can replace real world experience in the cockpit. The only pilots that should get lower minimums are the military pilots, IMO.

I am sure we haven't heard the last on this rule yet.

I would argue they shouldn't either--"it's an entirely different kind of flying, altogether."

One level of safety, right?

 

[ahsmatt7]

ERAU and other 141 schools pushed hard for it. They needed a way to keep students coming the door and selling them a grossly over priced product. I don't see how book work can replace real world experience in the cockpit. The only pilots that should get lower minimums are the military pilots, IMO.

I am sure we haven't heard the last on this rule yet.

Agree with you in the book work portion.

Anyone who thinks putting their nose in a book will magically make them a Bette pilot without actually experiencing anything is dangerously mislead.

In my first two months of instructing, I have learned more than I have in the last 5 years of flying and ten times more than what I have read in books.

Someone can talk the talk all day long, but if they can't walk the walk, they're about as useless as the dirt on the ground.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

Nobody should get special treatment. I medically couldn't get into the military, why should I be further penalized?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Because they're not penalizing people who weren't military, but recognizing that the military is pretty selective and has top notch training.

Not having the same opportunities as others might make things more difficult for someone, but they aren't doing it out of spite.

 

[grkero]

So are we for sure looking at this scenario being true: If you have 1500 hours and 200 hours cross country, you can get a Restricted ATP? That is how I am reading Table 4 on page 22 on the actual document for this.

That seems like the best thing out of all of this, but then I wonder why they didn't just change the ATP itself to be 1500 hrs, 200 xc, 100 night, 75 inst and call it good? Seems like a waaaaay better option instead of screwing with all this Bachelors, Associates, military, etc.

Too much headache.

 

[desertdog71]

Because they're not penalizing people who weren't military, but recognizing that the military is pretty selective and has top notch training.

Not having the same opportunities as others might make things more difficult for someone, but they aren't doing it out of spite.

I can't argue that. I've been fighting it my whole life, just be nice to catch a break for once.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Screaming_Emu]

Agree with you in the book work portion.

Anyone who thinks putting their nose in a book will magically make them a Bette pilot without actually experiencing anything is dangerously mislead.

In my first two months of instructing, I have learned more than I have in the last 5 years of flying and ten times more than what I have read in books.

Someone can talk the talk all day long, but if they can't walk the walk, they're about as useless as the dirt on the ground.

And anyone who thinks book learning has no merit scares me. You can't tell me that studying a subject in depth for 4 years has zero benefit. If it was all about scaring yourself into learning, a flight instructor's only function would be to make sure the airplane comes back whole.

I really don't understand why people in this country seem to be threatened by education.

 

[desertdog71]

Education does not have to mean being a product of the institution. That's where you get resistance.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[rframe]

I really don't understand why people in this country seem to be threatened by education.

I cannot speak for others, but for me it's not a threat from education... but rather my work experience shows me that just because someone has attended a given institution doesn't mean there was any actual substantial education that occurred.

I mean lets be honest, the ATP accommodations for formal education are 100% about effective lobbying by schools that are going to use it for marketing... that's it.

 

[ahsmatt7]

And anyone who thinks book learning has no merit scares me. You can't tell me that studying a subject in depth for 4 years has zero benefit. If it was all about scaring yourself into learning, a flight instructor's only function would be to make sure the airplane comes back whole.

I really don't understand why people in this country seem to be threatened by education.

Who said education has no merit? I never did. It's also not about scaring yourself into learning either.

To prove my point, a lot of my older students read read and read about cross country flight planning. Yet when they come in and boast about how much they have read, they can't do it. When they go flying with me, they can't do the necessary steps to get us to where we want to go. Why is that? It's because they haven't experienced it yet in real life.

One can read all day long about XY and Z. However if they haven't applied it yet, the first time they experience it is still the first time.

The only difference btwn my students who don't read and the ones who do is that the ones who do, tend to fall back on the fact that they read to try to cover up their mistakes. I am still walking them through a task the same way I'm walking someone through who didn't read on said subject.

I have found that the students who use the reading material more than actual experience to learn to fly are the ones who get screwed in an abnormal situation because they are the ones who default to the textbook answer. They can't realize that situation in flight are often very dynamic and are in most cases far from the cookie cutter world that is the text book. They end up defaulting to the answer of "well the book said...." Or my favorite,"mu instructor said....".


Lets take another example but not from aviation. The university I went to started having issues to where business management majors would go straight into the masters classes without actually experiencing anything in the workforce. The professors noticed that their grades suffered and they couldn't really bring anything into the class discussions because they had no experience to draw from. They only knew what they read from textbooks.

So yes I do see the value in education but it pales in comparison to real experience.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

Education does not have to mean being a product of the institution. That's where you get resistance.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

But it helps. Yes, you can find an old salt at a local FBO who is the best instructor in the world. But its hard to put that on a resume. All educational experiences are not created equal. Institutionalizing it allows the company sifting through resumes to know exactly what kind of training you've gone through and that you demonstrated a reasonable degree of competency.

Again, I don't think this rule is going to magically fix things for the reasons that the people who made it think it will. I am a big fan of its unintended consequences. This isn't an unreasonable barrier to entry into the industry, but it does make things a little more difficult. This will, in my opinion, weed out some people who lack the motivation to put the time in and learn how to be a good pilot. It will also dry up the pilot pool a little bit which will hopefully make airlines have to step up their game to attract applicants. It also gives different paths to the right seat for people of different backgrounds.

Despite being a product of a University aviation program, I agree there are different ways to "get there." I think a pilot's tendency to succeed in a 121 environment has more to do with their attitude than hours in the logbook or educational background. But I also think that being exposed to certain things in a classroom before seeing them in real life has a huge benefit. Yes, there is a lot of experience that comes from getting out and doing, but that learning happens a lot quicker when you've gotten at least the rote level of learning down of whatever it is you just saw.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

Who said education has no merit? I never did. It's also not about scaring yourself into learning either.

To prove my point, a lot of my older students read read and read about cross country flight planning. Yet when they come in and boast about how much they have read, they can't do it. When they go flying with me, they can't do the necessary steps to get us to where we want to go. Why is that? It's because they haven't experienced it yet in real life.

One can read all day long about XY and Z. However if they haven't applied it yet, the first time they experience it is still the first time.

The only difference btwn my students who don't read and the ones who do is that the ones who do, tend to fall back on the fact that they read to try to cover up their mistakes. I am still walking them through a task the same way I'm walking someone through who didn't read on said subject.

I have found that the students who use the reading material more than actual experience to learn to fly are the ones who get screwed in an abnormal situation because they are the ones who default to the textbook answer. They can't realize that situation in flight are often very dynamic and are in most cases far from the cookie cutter world that is the text book. They end up defaulting to the answer of "well the book said...." Or my favorite,"mu instructor said....".


Lets take another example but not from aviation. The university I went to started having issues to where business management majors would go straight into the masters classes without actually experiencing anything in the workforce. The professors noticed that their grades suffered and they couldn't really bring anything into the class discussions because they had no experience to draw from. They only knew what they read from textbooks.

So yes I do see the value in education but it pales in comparison to real experience.

So you have students do zero preparation before they show up to do a lesson?

Book learning and experience are all parts of the levels of learning. Book learning picks you up at the beginning and drops you off somewhere amidst the rote/understanding range. Planning a cross country with your instructor turns it into application. Actually flying one and having to make decisions and change your planning brings you across the finish line at correlation.

I suppose you could bring them in blank slate and talk them through everything from the very beginning, but they're gonna be pretty pissed off at the amount of ground instruction you're charging them for.

If someone reads a book and thinks they know everything on a subject, that is a big fail. But that is more a character flaw than the fact that they picked up a book.

But very rarely in college did I ever not get a chance to apply what I learned, even if only theoretically.

 

[desertdog71]

I have college educated folks that work for me.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[rframe]

If someone reads a book and thinks they know everything on a subject...

No way. That's what Google is for.

 

[ahsmatt7]

So you have students do zero preparation before they show up to do a lesson?

Book learning and experience are all parts of the levels of learning. Book learning picks you up at the beginning and drops you off somewhere amidst the rote/understanding range. Planning a cross country with your instructor turns it into application. Actually flying one and having to make decisions and change your planning brings you across the finish line at correlation.

I suppose you could bring them in blank slate and talk them through everything from the very beginning, but they're gonna be pretty pissed off at the amount of ground instruction you're charging them for.

If someone reads a book and thinks they know everything on a subject, that is a big fail. But that is more a character flaw than the fact that they picked up a book.

But very rarely in college did I ever not get a chance to apply what I learned, even if only theoretically.

I agree with you but my point is about what I'm seeing first hand. The students who discount experience are the ones who scare me and make me wonder what they really got out of reading a textbook.

The textbook is a powerful device if used correctly....meaning not as the only way to learn.

I have one student who reads before hand and comes prepared and in most cases can talk through a manuever and can use what he read to apply a task in the airplane. On the other hand, I have a student who doesn't carry what he read into the airplane.

I obviously have to approach each student in very different ways, but the second proves my point.....to an extent.

Cognition without behavior is worth very little. While behavior without cognition is pure ignorance.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

I agree with you but my point is about what I'm seeing first hand. The students who discount experience are the ones who scare me and make me wonder what they really got out of reading a textbook.

The textbook is a powerful device if used correctly....meaning not as the only way to learn.

I have one student who reads before hand and comes prepared and in most cases can talk through a manuever and can use what he read to apply a task in the airplane. On the other hand, I have a student who doesn't carry what he read into the airplane.

I obviously have to approach each student in very different ways, but the second proves my point.....to an extent.

Cognition without behavior is worth very little. While behavior without cognition is pure ignorance.

Mostly agree. Which is why I think its good that pilots licenses aren't issued solely based upon reading a book. I'm also glad the carveout for 141 is 1,000 hours. I really do think everyone should instruct for a while because there really is a lot that can be learned from it. I really enjoyed it too.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

No way. That's what Google wikipedia is for.

Fixed it for you!

 

[ahsmatt7]

Mostly agree. Which is why I think its good that pilots licenses aren't issued solely based upon reading a book. I'm also glad the carveout for 141 is 1,000 hours. I really do think everyone should instruct for a while because there really is a lot that can be learned from it. I really enjoyed it too.

Even though I did all my training under part 61, I can totally understand the carve out for 141. In my experience, in part 61, I see a lot of young students and pilots in terms of experience, discount cognition. That being said, they come off as ignorant because they have no idea why they are doing what they are doing. I fell victim to it early in my training and had to play catch up while time building for my commercial.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

Even though I did all my training under part 61, I can totally understand the carve out for 141. In my experience, in part 61, I see a lot of young students and pilots in terms of experience, discount cognition. That being said, they come off as ignorant because they have no idea why they are doing what they are doing. I fell victim to it early in my training and had to play catch up while time building for my commercial.

I have no problem with part 61, I just think that its a bit of a mixed bag what you get depending on your school/instructor. Its the same way with 141, but at least you can pull up a syllabus that shows exactly what you did and when.

I think one of the best unintended consequences of the university program is that it actually takes a long time. I think a lot of this stuff takes a bit of time to kind of digest. I can't remember how many times I'd be walking across campus thinking about something when all of a sudden the light bulb came on.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

If he was a PIC it could. Number of pax, EOD, etc.

I've only spent 20 minutes looking over the big document (so I obviously can't be intimately familiar with it yet) but I don't see where they changed anything for 135 PIC requirements. 135.243 (a)(1) was already in place and keeping him from being PIC in a 10 or more passenger turbine aircraft. That's not something new.

 

[Calvin and Hobbs Meter]

I've only spent 20 minutes looking over the big document (so I obviously can't be intimately familiar with it yet) but I don't see where they changed anything for 135 PIC requirements. 135.243 (a)(1) was already in place and keeping him from being PIC in a 10 or more passenger turbine aircraft. That's not something new.

There is no change to pt. 135 except for a couple very small "nuances" that really don't affect 135 or 91 k anyways. After July 2014 all ATP applicants will be required to first complete an ATP "Certification Training Program" (ground and sim training) before they can take the written exam, as well as the new requirement that any applicant must have 50 hours of multi for the ATP multi-cert (kind of silly, but I have met people who had the ATP-multi with < 50 hours of multi time).