FAA Releases NPRM for 121 Pilot Mins.

Hmmm, green FOs who don't care about pay won't be able to fill pilot seats on regional airliners. Those CEOs are shaking in their versace loafers.

The FAA is also considering academic credit in lieu of required flight hours or experience.
 
jtrain609 said:
All that endorsement will be is an extra 4 hours of classroom training that you tack on to indoc in order to gain the endorsement.

Paper tiger.
Click to expand...

The FAA believes that, although the flight hours required to qualify for an ATP certificate can benefit pilots, experience is not measured in flight time alone. Other factors, such as certain types of academic training, practical training/experience, and experience in a crew environment, are also important. A pilot’s skills and abilities may also be enhanced by exposure to specific operational conditions, including icing, high altitude operations, and other areas common to part 121 air carrier operations.
Click to expand...
I'd say that experience in a crew environment, and practical training/experience would be hard to sign off in indoc.

Perhaps the academic training might be a 4 hour course (hopefully not though). Hopefully they'll require actual academic classes by an accredited institution for theoretical knowledge.

I doubt it, but that'll be in my comments. Just like cut/dry ATP. Either you have it, or you don't. No wishy washy stuff. If the ATP minimums are what is decided for the industry, even if I don't agree, then ATP on day one.

But, yeah, I'm probably way off base on that one.
 
I don't have a strong issue with the 1500 rule however does anyone believe this will lead to an extreme over supply of CFI's hence one having to find another option to build time as there won't be enough CFI positions?

I know there's already an over supply of CFI's.

Just a thought.
 
Polar742 said:
#3, 1st paragraph is a win.
Click to expand...


#2 is not. It's the ERAU lobbyists that got this in there.

The FAA seeks public comment on the concept of permitting academic credit in lieu of required flight hours or experience1. In particular, we request comments on the following issues:
2A. Are aviation/pilot graduates from accredited aviation university degree
programs likely to have a more solid academic knowledge base than other pilots hired for air carrier operations? Why or why not?
2B. Should the FAA consider crediting specific academic study in lieu of flight hour requirements? If so, what kind of academic study should the FAA accept, and to what extent should academic study (e.g., possession of an aviation degree from an accredited four-year aviation program) substitute for flight hours or types of operating experience?
2C. If the FAA were to credit academic study (e.g., possession of an aviation degree from an accredited four-year aviation program and/or completion of specific courses), should the agency still require a minimum number of flight hours for part 121 air carrier operations? Some have suggested that, regardless of academic training, the FAA should require a minimum of 750 hours for a commercial pilot to serve as SIC in
part 121 operations. Is this number too high, or too low, and why?
 
Polar742 said:
#3, 1st paragraph is a win.
Click to expand...


I just read 3. :eek:

Why in the world would a pilot need an "endorsement" if s/he completed an approved 121 training program? There is a record already. OR is the FAA pimping more Jet U courses, for $5,995?
 
deadstick said:
#2 is not. It's the ERAU lobbyists that got this in there.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's fair to pin that one of ERAU exclusively. They may have lead the charge on it, but I'd bet that the UAA member college's and universities would all feel the same way on it. So don't blame ERAU alone.
 
I think this is a good start, but just requiring an ATP, IMO, will only inflate the value of the certificate. I can only imagine 1000's of commercial pilots out there time building "grinding" as CFI's or what not to get that ATP. A pilot who has an ATP has certainly seen a lot more than a fresh commercial pilot with 250 hours, but should the ATP get the rubber stamp? I don't know...
 
ilove747s said:
I don't have a strong issue with the 1500 rule however does anyone believe this will lead to an extreme over supply of CFI's hence one having to find another option to build time as there won't be enough CFI positions?

I know there's already an over supply of CFI's.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Maybe in the beginning, but as things start to stabilize the herd will thin. Remember this is the "old school" way it was done. I am for this even though I have 1150 hours to go.
 
Disclaimer: I am for the proposed reg.

Let's look at another side of things. Correct me if my logic is flawed, I am open for being educated.

So how would this affect pay? It seems that someone has to go form CFI to 135 then to 121....which part comes first? A major or a regional carrier? I have heard some of you guys who fly for 135 operators say that the pay is better than the regionals but not by much. In that case, who would go from a low paying job to another low paying job before ever making a career out of this flying business? If one could go straight to the majors it wouldn't be a big deal. However, I wouldn't spit at a regional after putting in all that work to still be scraping cash to pay bills. I am for the proposed reg but at some point, one has to realize a career is supposed to be about making a living and not about having fun and doing what you love.
 
Wouldn't it kill mom and pop flight schools if all of these students who want to go 121 end up going to academies and the like? Looks like AOPA may have to get in the ring.
 
General Discussion and Request for Information

In this ANPRM, the FAA requests comments and recommendations on the following concepts for the purpose of reviewing current pilot certification regulations. The sequence of these proposals does not reflect any specific FAA preference. When submitting comments on any of these concepts, please refer to the specific question number.

1. Requirement for all pilots employed in part 121 air carrier operations to hold an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate with the appropriate aircraft category, class, and type rating, or meet the aeronautical experience requirements of an ATP certificate.

Section 61.155 describes the aeronautical knowledge required to qualify for an ATP certificate. Section 61.159 describes the aeronautical experience requirements, which specify a minimum of 1,500 flight hours. Currently, a pilot who serves as a Second-in-Command (SIC) pilot crewmember is required to hold an instrument rating and commercial pilot certificate. We request comments and recommendations on the following issues relating to the option of requiring ATP certificates for all pilot crewmembers in part 121 air carrier operations:

1A. Should the FAA require all pilot crewmembers engaged in part 121 air carrier operations to hold an ATP certificate? Why or why not?

1B. If a part 121 air carrier pilot does not hold an ATP certificate, should he or she nevertheless be required to meet the ATP certificate aeronautical knowledge and experience requirements of § 61.159, even if he or she is serving as SIC? Why or why not?

2. Academic Training as a Substitute for Flight Hours Experience.

The FAA seeks public comment on the concept of permitting academic credit in lieu of required flight hours or experience. In particular, we request comments on the following issues:

2A. Are aviation/pilot graduates from accredited aviation university degree programs likely to have a more solid academic knowledge base than other pilots hired for air carrier operations? Why or why not?

2B. Should the FAA consider crediting specific academic study in lieu of flight hour requirements? If so, what kind of academic study should the FAA accept, and to what extent should academic study (e.g., possession of an aviation degree from an accredited four-year aviation program) substitute for flight hours or types of operating experience?

2C. If the FAA were to credit academic study (e.g., possession of an aviation degree from an accredited four-year aviation program and/or completion of specific courses), should the agency still require a minimum number of flight hours for part 121 air carrier operations? Some have suggested that, regardless of academic training, the FAA should require a minimum of 750 hours for a commercial pilot to serve as SIC in part 121 operations. Is this number too high, or too low, and why?

3. Endorsement for Air Carrier Operations

The FAA believes that, although the flight hours required to qualify for an ATP certificate can benefit pilots, experience is not measured in flight time alone. Other factors, such as certain types of academic training, practical training/experience, and experience in a crew environment, are also important. A pilot’s skills and abilities may also be enhanced by exposure to specific operational conditions, including icing, high altitude operations, and other areas common to part 121 air carrier operations.

An endorsement on a commercial pilot certificate may be an option for addressing concerns about the operational experience of newly-hired pilots engaged in air carrier/commercial operations. Under this concept, a commercial pilot would not be able to serve as a required pilot in part 121 air carrier operations without having obtained an endorsement attesting to successful completion of additional training and qualified operating experience.

The FAA is therefore considering the creation of a 14 CFR 61.31 endorsement for a commercial pilot certificate that would require specific ground and flight training, as well as additional experience in specific areas, in order to receive part 121 air carrier operating privileges. The additional training for the endorsement could include operating experience in a crew environment, training and exposure to icing, and flight experience in high altitude operations. The current § 61.31(g) endorsement for additional training for
operating pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes might serve as a model. Additionally, the FAA may consider the type-specific aircraft training endorsement in § 61.31(h) as a model. The FAA believes that an endorsement approach would target specific skill sets needed for part 121 operations, and establish the associated standards for content and quality of training. The FAA notes that the endorsement option would also eliminate the time-based requirements that aviation universities argue is not a reasonable requirement for graduates of their four-year aviation degree programs.

We request comments on the following issues regarding the possibility of establishing an endorsement for SIC privileges in part 121:

3A. Should the FAA propose a new commercial pilot certificate endorsement that would be required for a pilot to serve as a required pilot in part 121 air carrier operations? Why or why not?

3B. If so, what kinds of specific ground and flight training should the endorsement include?

3C. The FAA expects that a new endorsement would include additional flight hour requirements. At a minimum, the FAA requests comments on how many hours should be required beyond the minimum hours needed to qualify for a commercial pilot certificate. Some have suggested that the FAA require a minimum of 750 hours for a commercial pilot to serve as SIC in part 121 operations. Is this number too high, or too low, and why?

3D. The FAA is considering proposing to require operating experience in a crew environment, in icing conditions, and at high altitude operations. What additional types of operating experience should an endorsement require?

3E. Should the FAA credit academic training (e.g., a university-awarded aviation degree) toward such an endorsement and, if so, how might the credit be awarded against flight time or operating experience? We are especially interested in comments on how to balance credit for academic training against the need for practical operating experience in certain meteorological conditions (e.g., icing), in high-altitude operations, and in the multi-crew environment.

4. New additional authorization on an existing pilot certificate.

The FAA may also consider proposing a new authorization on a commercial pilot certificate for any pilot employed as a required flight crewmember for part 121 operations. This new authorization would be limited to a specific part 121 operator, and would be issued only after the pilot successfully completed that part 121 operator’s approved training and qualification program. The pilot would surrender this authorization upon leaving the employ of the specific part 121 operator. The purpose of such an authorization would be to ensure that each air carrier has provided its pilot employees with the training and qualifications specific to its operating environment (e.g., aircraft, routes, meteorological conditions). The FAA seeks comments on the following
question:

4A. Would a carrier-specific additional authorization on an existing pilot certificate improve the safety of part 121 operations? Why or why not?

4B. Should the authorization apply only to a pilot who holds a commercial certificate, or should it also apply to the holder of an ATP certificate?

4C. Should such an authorization require a minimum number of flight hours? If so, how many hours should be required?

5.Other actions.

The FAA is seeking comment on whether existing monitoring, evaluation, information collection requirements, and enforcement associated with current pilot performance could be modified to achieve improved pilot performance.

5A. Can existing monitoring, evaluation, information collection requirements, and enforcement associated with pilot performance be modified to improve pilot performance?

5B. If so, what specific modifications should be considered?
Click to expand...
 
Murdoughnut said:
Wouldn't it kill mom and pop flight schools if all of these students who want to go 121 end up going to academies and the like? Looks like AOPA may have to get in the ring.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what the airline industry has been working on for years. Kill as much GA and "Mom & Pop" flightschools as possible. The matter of the fact: We won't end up with better pilots, not now and not in two years. The pay will not go up. This rule has nothing to do with old school, old school was in fact based on common senses and values, neither of which this industry has left... :) The herd will not thin. 2+ years of economic downturn have not affected the bottomless supply of SJS players, why would the FAA?

I seriously doubt anyone within GA is looking that far ahead right now to evaluate how this will affect us. The rats tail is a few years long, before some other desperate act will be performed. Thats all it is, press & desperate need for "Look! We've done sumthin".
 
Murdoughnut said:
Wouldn't it kill mom and pop flight schools if all of these students who want to go 121 end up going to academies and the like? Looks like AOPA may have to get in the ring.
Click to expand...

With this financial fallout no one will be able to afford academies. Well, except for the rich (parents) punks, but that will never change.
 
I do not think that this will kill the mom and pop flight school. Most of the people that are going to those schools have no intention of ever going past their private let alone flying in the 121 world. At least thats my experience as an instructor.

I think there needs to be a higher time then 250hr to get in the right seat of an RJ, but I'm not sure that an ATP is needed. All that is going to do is make CFI's instruct that much longer. They still won't be gaining the knowledge and experiences that they need. 135 jobs right now are few and far between. Plus this does not address the main issue for the Colgan accident, which was crew fatigue.
 
DL31082 said:
I do not think that this will kill the mom and pop flight school. Most of the people that are going to those schools have no intention of ever going past their private let alone flying in the 121 world. At least thats my experience as an instructor.

I think there needs to be a higher time then 250hr to get in the right seat of an RJ, but I'm not sure that an ATP is needed. All that is going to do is make CFI's instruct that much longer. They still won't be gaining the knowledge and experiences that they need. 135 jobs right now are few and far between. Plus this does not address the main issue for the Colgan accident, which was crew fatigue.
Click to expand...

I would suggest 1000 hours as a good number. I think that would force individuals to instruct or fly cargo instead of direct from an academy. 1500 seems a little high to me..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top