I am member of the group who "got the shaft" in the NPRM. Over 1000 TPIC and a turboprop type rating with lots of time flying cargo, no ATP required. I don't think the requirements are bad, at all. While I feel like it probably wouldn't take a year and a half to learn a new part 121 operation, it would take some time. Learning how to be good at your job is beneficial and might save your life later.
FAA Proposal for ATP/1500 Rule
- Thread starter Shiek Yiboudi
- Start date
ahsmatt7
Well-Known Member
I don't see what the big deal is about building 1000 SIC if you want to be a Part 121 Captain. Everyone is all for blocking out anyone who doesn't have an ATP from a Part 121 FO job but when the same people who have been ranting over low timers in the right seat now have to build time to get in the left seat, they complain "Oh jeez look what the FAA did now?". After all, didn't everyone want more "experience" in the cockpit? You wanted it and you got it! Mission successful IMO. Can't have it both ways......
Like you all say....."pay your dues....we all had too!"
Like you all say....."pay your dues....we all had too!"
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Like I said, 1000 SIC can be 4-5 years where I'm at. That doesn't sound like a lot of time when you're flying a ton of legs each month, but time isn't always built quickly outside of scheduled ops.
I think just about all of us over here have 1000 SIC or some other combination of applicable 121/135 time to meet the requirement, but I'm simply being the devil's advocate. I flew 14 hours last month, but those 14 hours were over 8 legs island hopping in Japan in a 767. It's still good experience.
ahsmatt7
Well-Known Member
I totally understand that. That's a valid argument. What about the CFI who works two jobs to put food on the table and flies only about 30-40 hours a month? Say he started at 300 hours....to build up to the ATP mins on total time alone, that would take 2.5-3 and something years. Whats the difference? Both jobs pay equally bad (regional FO and part time CFI)....both pilots want to move to something better. It could take about the same time to build his hours to meet ATP mins as it would take for you to build your req. time.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
If it takes 4 years to get 1,000 hours of experience, then so be it. The minimums shouldn't be lower just because you fly less.
ahsmatt7
Well-Known Member
My point exactly! I myself got "screwed" due to this new soon to be reg. Had an internship, now that the cats out of the bag, no reduced mins. I don't complain and I take it in stride as an opportunity to better myself during my CFI days. It sucks...so be it. However, I come on here to see joy about the rule and to my amazement and amusement, all the guys who belittled all the low time guys and who openly fought for this rule are now trying to put up some double standard.
You made your bed now lay in it.
Besides, the system could use a huge facelift.
Like everyone says..."Pay your dues because I had to get X amount of hours" and "We need more experience in the cockpit."
Der_Meister
Well-Known Member
1500hrs is simple to do as a CFI in a few years, the hard part is the 500XC that is required for ATP. That will be the real sticking point on the ATP for the people in the right seat.
As a CFI for 3 years now but actively instructing for 1, I have amassed about 900hrs and am currently flying about 100+ a month. But Little of that time is XC time.
As a CFI for 3 years now but actively instructing for 1, I have amassed about 900hrs and am currently flying about 100+ a month. But Little of that time is XC time.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Hey, I don't necessarily disagree with you. But again, I don't think there's anyone over here who doesn't meet this requirement. But a scheduled guy saying "Hey, that's only 1.5-2 years! That's not so bad!" doesn't really know much about the non-sked side of the house where there are plenty of widebody captains flying around at all sorts of different carriers with less than 1000 SIC in type*...
*peers out the blinds*
Nope, nobody crashin'!
* Though, I know "in type" isn't a qualifier here.
ahsmatt7
Well-Known Member
You extend the point I was making even further. My calculations are only based on the TT req. Which since one has to build the XC time as well......tack on another two-three-four years for the CFI not able to do 100 hours a month.
So my point again is that if the low timers have to get blocked by a hard time minimum......the high timers shouldn't be trying to find a back door.
skydisaster
Well-Known Member
I don't believe that I have belittled the rule at all. I simply have been working through the process of how the rule will affect all of us. I applaud the FAA for standing up and actually putting forth a rule that will actually put safety ahead of economics in some instances.
It simply means for me, like a lot of people, it may mean that our career paths have to be altered a bit because of the rule change. I have stayed out of the 121 lifestyle my entire career because it was never financially feasible to go there. The next few years in this industry will determine if that will change or not. This rule is simply one piece of the changing 121 environment.
ahsmatt7
Well-Known Member
Agreed 100% It changed my projected career path quite substantially. Offers a good opportunity scope out the 121 sector and try to get some corporate gigs which I have always wanted to go after.
deadstick
Well-Known Member
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
It's not yet in force, either. It's a notice of proposed rulemaking, not a rule.
I wouldn't be surprised if what the end product looks like varies somewhat from the proposed rule.
ahsmatt7
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't doubt it either. That being said. I am preparing for the worst and if it turns out better than its like winning a surprise.It's not yet in force, either. It's a notice of proposed rulemaking, not a rule.
I wouldn't be surprised if what the end product looks like varies somewhat from the proposed rule.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
I'm just waiting for another shoe to drop this week, thanks...tempted to simply run and hide.I wouldn't doubt it either. That being said. I am preparing for the worst and if it turns out better than its like winning a surprise.
ahsmatt7
Well-Known Member
you said it best brother!
Douglas
Old School KSUX
Fella, the point of this rule is to block low timers, not high timers.
ahsmatt7
Well-Known Member
Never said it did, I am all for the rule.....What I did say though was that all those high timers need to stop complaining about having a little hurdle to get over to that left seat.
Like everyone has said in the past....."pay your dues" well I guess there are more dues to be paid.
USN88
Well-Known Member
It always bugs me to hear this. I was at Riddle and about 15% of the AeroSci students were veterans. We shelled out 4 years + of our lives for an almost free ride to Riddle, UND etc. Not everyone that goes there shovels out 100k (more like 250k), many couldn't even afford state college. So we're earned it the old fashioned way.
Just my two cents.
trafficinsight
Well-Known Member
Hey, I don't necessarily disagree with you. But again, I don't think there's anyone over here who doesn't meet this requirement. But a scheduled guy saying "Hey, that's only 1.5-2 years! That's not so bad!" doesn't really know much about the non-sked side of the house where there are plenty of widebody captains flying around at all sorts of different carriers with less than 1000 SIC in type*...
*peers out the blinds*
Nope, nobody crashin'!
* Though, I know "in type" isn't a qualifier here.
You're right, we should ban anyone with 2000 - 5000 hours from 121 cockpits.
