FAA Proposal for ATP/1500 Rule

z987k said:
This whole rule is pure retarded. It does nothing but water down the previous rule requiring an ATP.
Click to expand...
It really does more... YMO but it is pretty reasonable. Right now you could technically be hired as a "street Captain" with 10 hrs multi, no turbine or air carrier experience. In JAA or EASA world you have to have 500 hrs multi crew to get an ATPL.

I think the key will be the ATP certification details. It will be more than a jetbridge course I think, or at least hope.
 
Some thoughts as I read through the NPRM:

1. If I did not have an ATP already, I would get one ASAP.
2. The type rating requirement for the SIC, sounds like a real type rating since it specifically says in the rule texts that 61.55 cannot be used to meet the provisions of this rule.
3. Not that it was a real possibility, but even at 5500 hours total time, under this rule, I could not be a direct entry captain under 121. I have no 121 experience, and my 91k and 135 experience do not meet the requirements.
4. If there are 121 captains who were hired as direct entry captains without meeting the 1000 hour requirement, they are now ineligible to be PIC under the proposed rule even if they now have thousands of hours 121 PIC.
 
USN88 said:
I think to fall under the 1000hr category you have had to had graduated from an accredited university (Riddle, UND, Purdue) with a aviation-related major and completed your instrument and commercial thru their affiliated training schools.

I'm confused because I did exactly that, but transfer from ERAU's Daytona campus to Worldwide (online classes). The degree is still Aeronautical Science.

But I was reading to new FAR's they are changing and you need something like 325 XC. It's all at the bottom of that document.

Ahhhhhh, so confusing. This is going to be a mess.
Click to expand...
Yes, we know how useful an aviation degree is and how it makes you a much safer pilot.
 
Blackhawk said:
Yes, we know how useful an aviation degree is and how it makes you a much safer pilot.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. But it's what they decided. I do know however, that the President of ERAU was one of the members on the board responsible for figuring out the "credit for aviation degrees."
 
Dunno how the rest of ya'll do it, but I believe our SIC ride is the same as our PIC ride sans a no flap visual landing for captains.

The amount of training required to put "PIC" on that type rating would be minimal.
 
FlyPurdue said:
The rule explicitly defines air carrier operations: 'as an SIC in part 121 operations, a PIC in operations under either §135.243(a)(1) or §91.1053(a)(2)(i), or any combination thereof'


Cheers!
Click to expand...

Thoughts....
So the guys flying Eclipses 135 can move right in...

pg 66: Apparently the SIC trainee pay is $78/hr.

Do all current non-121 PICs who do not meet the new 61.159 training reqs have to get the limitation on their cert?
 
skydisaster said:
Some thoughts as I read through the NPRM:

2. The type rating requirement for the SIC, sounds like a real type rating since it specifically says in the rule texts that 61.55 cannot be used to meet the provisions of this rule.
Click to expand...

After further reading, I think you are correct. :)
 
"A first class medical certificate will remain the requirement for
exercising the privileges of an ATP certificate (restricted or unrestricted)."

So the right seat has to maintain a 1st class then?
 
granlistillo said:
"A first class medical certificate will remain the requirement for
exercising the privileges of an ATP certificate (restricted or unrestricted)."

So the right seat has to maintain a 1st class then?
Click to expand...
You look to be correct. However, I don't see the big deal about holding a first class to be in the right seat. A few more pokes from the doctor wont hurt ya!
 
skydisaster said:
Some thoughts as I read through the NPRM:

1. If I did not have an ATP already, I would get one ASAP.
2. The type rating requirement for the SIC, sounds like a real type rating since it specifically says in the rule texts that 61.55 cannot be used to meet the provisions of this rule.
3. Not that it was a real possibility, but even at 5500 hours total time, under this rule, I could not be a direct entry captain under 121. I have no 121 experience, and my 91k and 135 experience do not meet the requirements.
4. If there are 121 captains who were hired as direct entry captains without meeting the 1000 hour requirement, they are now ineligible to be PIC under the proposed rule even if they now have thousands of hours 121 PIC.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is true because as long as they have 1000 121 PIC or SIC they qualify in AUG
 
Looks like a good proposal. Most experts were predicting that the college program exemption would allow as low as 750 hours, so making it 1,000 is much better. I would certainly prefer no exemption, but I don't think that was ever in the cards.
 
BobDDuck said:
I think so too. The PIC type can only be administered by the FAA or an APD. The SIC type was done by any sim op signed off to sign off new hires.
Click to expand...

The language in this says an "appropriate" type rating, which is going to be the way in for air carriers to petition the FAA to allow current SIC type ratings to be allowed as appropriate.

Now that being said, you're correct about the APD issue and ATP rides, I'm willing to take a bet that it's going to be easier for our respective companies to simply use an established program in upgrade training and a PIC type ride.

Make sense? Or off base?
 
jtrain609 said:
Dunno how the rest of ya'll do it, but I believe our SIC ride is the same as our PIC ride sans a no flap visual landing for captains.

The amount of training required to put "PIC" on that type rating would be minimal.
Click to expand...

The content of the ride isn't really the issue. As Duck points out, it's the requirement for APDs to do the ride. Most airlines only have a handful of APDs for each type. If everyone has to start getting a real type, then the number of APDs will have to go up. That means more APDs having to be trained and paid, and at many airlines, the CBAs require the APDs to be seniority list guys. That'll be an issue for some airlines who use non-seniority list guys to do checking events on newhires. Costs are going up for training for many airlines because of this.
 
I didn't see the actual language. I was just looking at the summary. If it says "appropriate" then I'm sure they can get around it. Over here, they've already said they won't type the FOs. The problem is the only ATP training program they have is part of the captain upgrade program so they are working with the FAA to create a new training program that is ONLY an ATP program. Seems like a lot of work, but they are really afraid of typing FOs and then having them run off to another operation that pays better and doesn't abuse the flight crews as much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top