Deal made on hours of training for co-pilots

CFIscare

CFIscare

Well-Known Member
http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/03/13/986439/deal-made-on-hours-of-training.html

I like it, but I'm not really sure what to make of this...

Under the Schumer compromise, the FAA will have to set an 800-hour flight requirement for copilots by the end of next year. Some of that experience would have to be in multiple-pilot environments and adverse weather including icing, as well as in other specific conditions.
Click to expand...

I would need to know what exactly this means before I make a judgment on it.
 
The 800 hours is fine, but I too want to see what they mean by the other stuff before I pass judgement on this one. I'm a mite suspicious of any legal requirement to fly into adverse weather.
 
"Under a deal brokered by Sen. Charles E. Schumer and announced Friday, new co-pilots would have to have 800 hours of flight experience in specific, rigorous conditions, up from the current 250 hours of general experience."
Click to expand...

I take it that the writer goofed and what they mean is 800 hours TT for working as an FO for a 121-airline. Right?
 
killbilly said:
I take it that the writer goofed and what they mean is 800 hours TT for working as an FO for a 121-airline. Right?
Click to expand...

I would assume so. It is the news.

I wonder how many congress men and women riddle payed off for this one.
 
jhugz said:
I wonder how many congress men and women riddle payed off for this one.
Click to expand...

Not enough, evidently, since this clearly isn't their Plan A.

Besides, the universities don't have all that much financial clout. If you wanted to pick a target for ire (which I really don't think is merited until we see all the details of this, but that's another matter), I'd look toward the RAA.
 
jhugz said:
I would assume so. It is the news.

I wonder how many congress men and women riddle payed off for this one.
Click to expand...

Riddle probably would have went for the 1500 mark, if they got their waiver for "attending and studying aviation topics deal". Would have made them a ton more money.
 
so they want multi-pilot operations and icing experience?

multi pilot being instruction
icing being 135????

if not i don't know how you would ever get that experience (not looking for the airlines myself, but it will make it a lot harder to get into 135 like i want too)
 
Some of that experience would have to be in multiple-pilot environments and adverse weather including icing, as well as in other specific conditions
Click to expand...

How would you log that? I guess I need to take the 172 up more during the winter time because of this new icing requirement.
 
I read this as that Congress is not willing to put up with more delays and excuses from the FAA on this experience and training requirement.

If this passes then the FAA has until the end of next year to have this 800 hour rule and requirements in place. If the FAA drags its feet (runs out of time, has a bad year, etc) and does not have this rule in place then the requirement automatically goes to 1500 hours for first officers.

It would appear that Congress has figured out how the FAA has been operating and has now boxed them into a corner.

Congress is sending the FAA a strong signal. Hopefully the FAA will receive that signal. Keep in mind that the workrules are also in play now and if the FAA comes back without new workrules, they are not going to make Congress very happy and should expect to be boxed into the other corner.

Should be an interesting next few months.
 
How do they expect pilots to accrue this "adverse weather and mult-crew" experience? Is Riddle (or whoever) going to get a King Air and charge have students sit in the right seat and fly through icing?
 
:clap: yaaaay! but in my opinion....... bring it down to 250 hours + 1 year of jumpseating in a part 121 aircraft and scenario based training.
 
SIUav8er said:
How do they expect pilots to accrue this "adverse weather and mult-crew" experience? Is Riddle (or whoever) going to get a King Air and charge have students sit in the right seat and fly through icing?
Click to expand...

Would that surprise you at all?
 
What is taking the FAA so long to write these new rules? I am sure there are certain steps that must be taken before a new rule is implemented, but havent these issues been around since before the Colgan crash? Listening to the hearings it sounds like people have been pushing for new rules based on sleep science and increased training standards for a while now. Shouldnt the process have already been started? On top of that, why were they able to change the Hudson corridor rules so quickly?
 
SIUav8er said:
How do they expect pilots to accrue this "adverse weather and mult-crew" experience? Is Riddle (or whoever) going to get a King Air and charge have students sit in the right seat and fly through icing?
Click to expand...

Who knows what these folks are thinking, but it sounds like a setup for a rather extensive CRM program to meet the multi crew experience requirement.

I also would expect to see some required training on FAA approved simulators for the adverse weather (minimums, icing, etc) experience.
 
Matt13C said:
What is taking the FAA so long to write these new rules? I am sure there are certain steps that must be taken before a new rule is implemented, but havent these issues been around since before the Colgan crash? Listening to the hearings it sounds like people have been pushing for new rules based on sleep science and increased training standards for a while now. Shouldnt the process have already been started? On top of that, why were they able to change the Hudson corridor rules so quickly?
Click to expand...

Come on Matt, this is the way the FAA has operated for decades. They stall, delay, promise and then sweep it under the rug. In the end nothing happened. It's all about how much influence the airline industry has had over the FAA.
 
Wow. That sound you hear is the 135 pay-for-right-seat places having an orgasm. I'm looking forward to the Flight Express/Riddle Bridge Program. Hope they pay extra for having to put the right seat back in the airplane. "Shut up and don't touch anything, here's a flashlight, you can watch the ice accrue on the wing". :D
 
jspeed87 said:
:clap: yaaaay! but in my opinion....... bring it down to 250 hours + 1 year of jumpseating in a part 121 aircraft and scenario based training.
Click to expand...

Why so instead of being paid your first year on the job you actually have to pay to sit in the jumpseat and gain "experience"? Thats pretty much what Gulfstream was doing. "Here, sit and watch but DONT TOUCH!"

JOEFRIDAY2 said:
Come on Matt, this is the way the FAA has operated for decades. They stall, delay, promise and then sweep it under the rug. In the end nothing happened. It's all about how much influence the airline industry has had over the FAA.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I am sort of new to all this. Not currently in the profession, working my way towards it. Only knowledge I have is from the couple years of working towards my ratings.
 
Blip16 said:
so they want multi-pilot operations and icing experience?

multi pilot being instruction
icing being 135????

if not i don't know how you would ever get that experience (not looking for the airlines myself, but it will make it a lot harder to get into 135 like i want too)
Click to expand...

And there I was all these years trying to avoid icing conditions.

Silly me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top