FAA Proposal for ATP/1500 Rule

USN88 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Good on you!! no joke. There is something to be said about working your ass off and getting something in return. You are the person that will benefit greatly in life because you understand the value of hard work and sacrifice. I am sure you can agree with me though that it is all based around the individual. Some people go to the schools and think they are gods gift to aviation and have the entitlement mentality while others bust their ass.

The thing that does bother me about the "chuck norris" attitude so many graduates have is that they actually think they are a better person and pilot than us part 61 mom and pop pilots.

I still can't see how their certificates are different than mine.
 
ahsmatt7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, do you feel safety is being improved by blocking high-time pilots (who may be very experienced in other segments of the industry, such as 135) from upgrading? Remember, this rule is about increasing safety, not creating artificial hurdles. If people are viewing this as a way to block career progression without any sort of evidence that it has adversely affected safety, this NPRM needs to be taken off the books immediately.
 
USN88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hey, I am a sand-in-the-boots vet, too. So like you said, if 15% enrolled were vets, where did the 85% get their money from? I think that was the point of the previous posts. Don't get me wrong, there are a few outliers-young people who did their flying on the cheap, and worked hard to earn money. Or, there are the mid life changers who had decent reserves of money built up from their previous jobs to make the switch.
 
dasleben said:
So, do you feel safety is being improved by blocking high-time pilots (who may be very experienced in other segments of the industry, such as 135) from upgrading? Remember, this rule is about increasing safety, not creating artificial hurdles. If people are viewing this as a way to block career progression without any sort of evidence that it has adversely affected safety, this NPRM needs to be taken off the books immediately.
Click to expand...

hmmm... Not the least bit. I think its interesting and a little off that the FAA would do that. However, I can't say that its a bad thing. What have we as a pilot group fought for so adamantly for the past three years?......more experience in the cockpit. With the 1000hr SIC clause.....we are only adding 1st hand 121 experience on top of an already very high amount of experience. Whats wrong with that? How is making someone who is already very experienced obtain more experience in the operation he will be taking command of wrong....in terms of increasing safety?

I do see a huge down side to whatever happens with this rule in the end.

Two groups of people will form.....the ones who complain about the high time required just to get to the right seat and those who complain about being passed over for upgrade because they don't have the required time.

Either way, both groups are still complaining about the same thing.....not having enough time to do what they want to do because the government said so.
 
ahsmatt7 said:
hmmm... Not the least bit. I think its interesting and a little off that the FAA would do that. However, I can't say that its a bad thing. What have we as a pilot group fought for so adamantly for the past three years?......more experience in the cockpit. With the 1000hr SIC clause.....we are only adding 1st hand 121 experience on top of an already very high amount of experience. Whats wrong with that? How is making someone who is already very experienced obtain more experience in the operation he will be taking command of wrong....in terms of increasing safety?

I do see a huge down side to whatever happens with this rule in the end.

Two groups of people will form.....the ones who complain about the high time required just to get to the right seat and those who complain about being passed over for upgrade because they don't have the required time.

Either way, both groups are still complaining about the same thing.....not having enough time to do what they want to do because the government said so.
Click to expand...

Curious about this point, if a person is passed over due to lack of SIC time, not seniority, once they have the SIC time can't they then bid a captain slot? If it is a year max to get the 1000 SIC what would it be, maybe 6 months before they can move up and push the person who leap frogged back down? So people are up in arms over a few months time?
 
ahsmatt7 said:
Either way, both groups are still complaining about the same thing.....not having enough time to do what they want to do because the government said so.
Click to expand...

You don't see a problem with that, if it doesn't really increase safety?

And where the heck is Matt13C flying where it's a "year max" to get 1000 hours? Somewhere I don't care to work! :)
 
dasleben said:
You don't see a problem with that, if it doesn't really increase safety?

And where the heck is Matt13C flying where it's a "year max" to get 1000 hours? Somewhere I don't care to work! :)
Click to expand...

My desk! ha ha Will take me a lot longer to get there than you at this rate. What does the average 121 FO fly in a year? What is the likelyhood he would really be elidgible, seniority wise, for an upgrade? Also, if upgrades are happening that quickly wouldnt it mean only a few additional months sitting right seat until you could make the jump?
 
Matt13C said:
My desk! ha ha Will take me a lot longer to get there than you at this rate. What does the average 121 FO fly in a year? What is the likelyhood he would really be elidgible, seniority wise, for an upgrade? Also, if upgrades are happening that quickly wouldnt it mean only a few additional months sitting right seat until you could make the jump?
Click to expand...

All of those questions are pretty tough to generalize. When I was at XJT I flew anywhere between 40-80 hours/month. At my current job, I'm flying 10-40 per month, on average. Upgrade time just went from quick to "Haha, sucker" overnight as we parked our DC-10s (same story at XJT with the E135s in 2008).

At any rate, I see no reason to pull up the ladder if the increase in time isn't necessary for safety.
 
dasleben said:
All of those questions are pretty tough to generalize. When I was at XJT I flew anywhere between 40-80 hours/month. At my current job, I'm flying 10-40 per month, on average. Upgrade time just went from quick to "Haha, sucker" overnight as we parked our DC-10s (same story at XJT with the E135s in 2008).

At any rate, I see no reason to pull up the ladder if the increase in time isn't necessary for safety.
Click to expand...

I agree, if there is no increase in safety it is silly. I was just trying to figure out if thre would be a real issue with people being held back or just the possibility with long odds. I mean if a person has your experience say, you are clearly not chasing a quick upgrade. So if you went to a new company wouldnt you be applying to majors or some other place with a long wait anyway, so would it really be an issue? Same with guys flying 135, if they are making decent money and the time can be used to apply to majors or other better paying gigs, does it matter if they cant upgrade in 6 months at some regional if they are never going to work there?
 
dasleben said:
You don't see a problem with that, if it doesn't really increase safety?
Click to expand...
I do see a problem with what you quoted. That's a by product that we as a group don't need. I don't see a problem with the 1000 hr SIC rule just like I don't see a problem with the 1500 hr req. I think it is another way of increasing safety by taking an extremely experienced pilot and adding more experience to his resume. Whats wrong with that? Its not like we are taking the experience out of the pilot. Is it a pain? Yes it is. Is the factor of safety increased? I would say yes but not to same extent that the 1500 req. for FOs increases safety. In both cases, it makes it more of a pain to get to where someone wants to be in the 121 world....whether its an FO or a CA.
 
USN88 said:
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.
Click to expand...


I wore green, too. Aside from being an aviator, no MOS provides you the same experience. I'm not talking "dues," but more experience, more "tools in your toolbox" that you can access as necessary when the fit hits the shan. The ultimate goal here is to improve safety. You don't want to be "that pilot" who runs out of altitude, airspeed, and experience -- all at the same time.

FWIW, I had been a CFI and had my ATP before I went to my first 121 gig in a "lowly" 19-pax turboprop.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Agreed. Unfortunately, though, the universities have considerable lobbying power, so they were bound to get some sort of loophole.
Click to expand...
As do the airlines. Guess who has no lobbying power in this... It's starts with a 1 and ends with a 5
 
deadstick said:
I wore green, too. Aside from being an aviator, no MOS provides you the same experience. I'm not talking "dues," but more experience, more "tools in your toolbox" that you can access as necessary when the fit hits the shan. The ultimate goal here is to improve safety. You don't want to be "that pilot" who runs out of altitude, airspeed, and experience -- all at the same time.

FWIW, I had been a CFI and had my ATP before I went to my first 121 gig in a "lowly" 19-pax turboprop.
Click to expand...

Beech 1900 for the win.

Oh, and by the way, if you had flown that 1900 for a 1000s in a cargo operation, then gone to an airline, you'd have to wait another 1000hrs to upgrade, regardless of seniority.
 
Oh I know....if that operator was still around, I'd happily still be there.

One thing I love about 135, nobody gripes when i add another 300 lbs of fuel. That's something I just don't get...in most 135 ops, it's likely that the PIC is doing EVERYTHING -- fuel/flight planning, weight and balance (what's ACARS?). There aren't true DX centers. So, what's not qualifying? Many places run 2 pilot crews in aircraft that do not require it. So, again, what's the deal?

This is typical FAA. I guess this should not be unexpected.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Uh, yeah, the airlines didn't want this rule change. It's bad for them.
Click to expand...

That's true.

Oh, and for the record, I like this law except for the 1000hrs 121 SIC/PIC deal. That's my only complaint, otherwise, I think it's a dammed good start towards making things safer.
 
Of course. Nobody likes the part that negatively affects them. The people who aren't harmed, the guys who have their time already, think it's a good rule. They have no reason to be biased. I think that says something.

It's a good rule.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Of course. Nobody likes the part that negatively affects them. The people who aren't harmed, the guys who have their time already, think it's a good rule. They have no reason to be biased. I think that says something.

It's a good rule.
Click to expand...

I have my time. I still think it's a ridiculous attempt at pulling up the ladder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top