FAA Releases NPRM for 121 Pilot Mins.

I think to get hired you should "meet the mins" but once hired the airline should ATP and type you in the airplane. Once again, I am not sure why they don't as it is. They think you will take your shiny new CL-65 PIC type and peace out on them. Well they still spent the same amount of money training you so if you peace without the type they are still out the same amount of money.

Just my two cents. I think you should "HOLD" an ATP rating to be employed at a 121 carrier.
 
I'm not going to reiterate my opinion here, as I'm sure it's already fairly well known.


What I AM going to say is this is clear validation of Doug's point that a grassroots, bottom-up drive for change can help spur the industry to try and improve itself.

Ideas like this NPRM started here- literally right here- in the pages of the Jetcareers forums. Both myself and similarly minded individuals elsewhere took a basic premise and started writing letters.

I politely ask those who say that the voices in Washington and places of power beyond cannot hear us reconsider their position. It is clear that our voices have been heard.

If you've got a good idea, speak up. It might just be to the benefit of us all.
 
Hacker15e said:
So, I'll throw down an open invitation for any one of those guys to come on out to where I work and I'll put them in the T-38 sim and we'll do some flying.
Click to expand...

So all I need to do is bad mouth a fighter pilot to get that invitation?

So there I was with this Tom Cruise wannabe. Boy did he suck...;)
 
CFIscare said:
So all I need to do is bad mouth a fighter pilot to get that invitation?

So there I was with this Tom Cruise wannabe. Boy did he suck...;)
Click to expand...

I'm actually serious.

For JC peeps that will be in the OKC area, I'm more than happy to do it.

In fact, if guys want to do a JC meet-and-greet at Vance AFB and go play in the T-6 and T-38 sims, we can organize that.
 
It also would appear that the last items on the NPRM would take care of pilots who are less than 1500 hours TT, but already legally hired on a seniority list (considering previous hiring standards / FARs). The endorsement would take care of those pilots until they met one of the other "requirements," or achieved their ATP.
 
surreal1221 said:
It also would appear that the last items on the NPRM would take care of pilots who are less than 1500 hours TT, but already legally hired on a seniority list (considering previous hiring standards / FARs). The endorsement would take care of those pilots until they met one of the other "requirements," or achieved their ATP.
Click to expand...


Agreed. This would allow for a transitional period.

Rather than just snapping the new rule into effect, it'd allow some degree of grace for change in the training and hiring process.
 
I can't believe that no one has proposed x amount of 121 time before upgrade. I know Airlines have their own minimums but can easily lower them. This proposed rule making isn't doing much if it allows a guy with only GA experience to possibly upgrade immediately during times of large growth. There needs to be some sort of firm difference between FO and Captain experience. I really support both pilots being typed as well.

Also if you think that this will raise our pay why was it that 15 years ago guys with 2,000 maybe 3,000 or more hours were starting out as FO's for $15 and hour (give or take a few). Pay didn't go down when minimums went down. This argument is very weak
 
Hacker15e said:
Oh, hell, not this comparison again.

This isn't indicative of these guys being idiots or inexperienced as pilots in any way.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying 500hrs is inexperienced whether you're a fighter jock, or a CFI, and that 500hrs total time doesn't prepare you everything there is. No training is foolproof, and there are some experiences it won't prepare you for. Training makes you reactive to a certain extend, experience makes you flexible and proactive.

At 500hrs, you're still trying to figure out the hows and whys of flying in general. 500hrs is about 21 days in the air, or, if you break it into 8hr blocks about 62.5 business days of training and experience. I don't know of any industry or field, even with the best training ever where you can have more than a preliminary grasp of the subject material in 62.5 days.

The 500hr Viper driver, is in many ways as out of place in the 172 cockpit as the 500hr CFI is in the CRJ cockpit. The viper driver is certainly more prepared than the CFI, but until they get training they are both dangerous

These are simply pilots who have spent their 500 hours doing something completely different. They're using their experience that works perfectly well in the job they do every day -- and that is very different than the procedures required to horse a 172 around the pattern.

They drive around in the Viper fast and high for the most part. When they're close to the airport, they're fast enough that they go to High Key when they lose an engine there. When that fails, then they punch out. That's what they are trained to do and practice doing.
Click to expand...
Yep, they are doing something completely different. That still doesn't mean that the skills transfer very well. Maybe with a little more time in the saddle, a little more experience talking to guys such as yourself, they might realize that "wait, everything doesn't fly like a fighter." Then, they'll be better prepared for the transition. Or, they'll have that much more situational awareness that when they show up to fly the light training, or to get multi certs, they'll be that much farther ahead of an unfamiliar airplane so that they can say, "yeah, ok, what makes since for me to do here based on what I read in the POH last night, ok, lower the nose, and approach speeds are to be flown at..." In my buddy's experience, they seemed to want to walk in the door of the school, and grab the keys to the plane.

Whenever I hear stories like yours -- it seems to be the GA pilots' favorite way of saying "fighter pilots are a bunch of over-rated retards" -- I have to laugh. How about we turn the tables and put your scoffing wonder CFI in a Viper and give him the same scenario and see how well he handles it. My guess is, poorly.
Click to expand...

I don't think they're retards, or overrated for what they're doing. Their job is to kill people and break things, I just don't think that they can jump into another even similar airframe without more experience or more training.

As for the bolded, I agree, I'd die miserably every time in a Viper, that's exactly the point. If I had 1500hrs in similarly shipped highspeed jet singles, then I'd probably find the transition a lot easier.

Different airplanes have to be flown different ways. It takes training and experience to do it. Unless you're Bob Hoover, you don't just jump in any airplane and have the skills to fly it well based off your past experience in a completely different type of airplane.
Click to expand...

Not entirely, similar types of machines can be grouped together, most single engine piston machines fly somewhat similarly. Most cabin class twins have similar characteristics/performance envelopes, etc. My prior experience flying 207s won't prepare me for the Viper that well, but it will prepare me for a caravan, and a caravan will prepare me for other turbine birds, etc. etc.

The fact that a military fighter guy tried to fly his 172 fast on final isn't indicative of them being morons -- it's indicative of the difference between what they have most of their experience in (where you fly a power-on final that is 100 knots faster than in a Cessna) and the proper technique in a 172. They're not morons because they "didn't know what to do" when the power was pulled in a 172 -- they were trying to take their knowledge base of cruising around at 300 knots, their trained reaction to make it to 10,000 feet overhead the field at High Key, and fit that into the altitude/airspeed scenario they were presented. There are no scenarios in a military fighter where an engine failure results in an off-field landing. A Viper dude isn't constantly looking for a field or a road to land in should he lose an engine. There aren't any that are survivable...so that's neither their habit pattern or in their crosscheck.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what I'm saying though? That the best training in the world doesn't prepare these guys for everything?


So, I'll throw down an open invitation for any one of those guys to come on out to where I work and I'll put them in the T-38 sim and we'll do some flying. I guarantee you it won't take long to make any GA CFI look like a complete buffoon at 300 knots. Why? Not because they are a complete buffoon, but because they simply have no experience flying this fast, with this type of airplane.

It's a red-herring argument. It has absolutely no bearing on the hours/experience discussion in this thread.
Click to expand...

I'd love to, and naturally, I'd look like a complete idiot at 300kts, the fastest I've ever been was only 250, and in a straight wing machine. It would be fun though. That's not the point. If I'd been driving around lear 35s for the last few years, I'd be very prepared to fly the t38 sim with less instruction than I would currently require. Not because I'd have more experience, but because my SA bubble would be that much more expanded, and my repertoire of fast turbine experience would be that much more deep.
 
Firebird2XC said:
Agreed. This would allow for a transitional period.

Rather than just snapping the new rule into effect, it'd allow some degree of grace for change in the training and hiring process.
Click to expand...

Yup, can't really punish guys by firing them if you (the company) hired them lawfully and they were succesful in not tossing a plane into the ground.
 
Hacker15e said:
I'm actually serious.

For JC peeps that will be in the OKC area, I'm more than happy to do it.

In fact, if guys want to do a JC meet-and-greet at Vance AFB and go play in the T-6 and T-38 sims, we can organize that.
Click to expand...

I would absolutely love to come do that!
 
Hacker15e said:
So, I'll throw down an open invitation for any one of those guys to come on out to where I work and I'll put them in the T-38 sim and we'll do some flying. I guarantee you it won't take long to make any GA CFI look like a complete buffoon at 300 knots. Why? Not because they are a complete buffoon, but because they simply have no experience flying this fast, with this type of airplane.
Click to expand...

I'd love to do that. Hell, you could throw a 135 freight guy with 6000TT in a T-38 sim and he'd probably make a fool of himself. It's a different type of flying altogether. And that requires a different sort of training. Right now, in the civilian world, there is little effort to differentiate between types of operation when it comes to training. That, IMO, needs to change.

ppragman said:
At 500hrs, you're still trying to figure out the hows and whys of flying in general. 500hrs is about 21 days in the air, or, if you break it into 8hr blocks about 62.5 business days of training and experience. I don't know of any industry or field, even with the best training ever where you can have more than a preliminary grasp of the subject material in 62.5 days.
Click to expand...

Putting it that way makes it seem like the only time anyone learns something is when they're in the air, and leaves out all the time spent in ground training, or learning outside of class altogether.
 
ppragman said:
awesome. awesome awesome awesome
Click to expand...

Don't be so quick to cheer. This is a sham, folks. The FAA is trying to divert the lawmakers' attention away from HR 3371, which would make the requirement for an ATP and 1500 hours the law of the land. The FAA doesn't like Congress making laws to tell them what to do, so they are trying to divert attention away from the proposed bill by making the lawmakers think that the FAA will "fix it" themselves with a regulation. The problem, of course, is twofold:

1. Congress could back off, the bill could die, and then after two years of this NPRM floating around in regulatory purgatory, the FAA could kill it and decide to keep the rules the same.

2. Regulations can be changed at a whim by the regulatory authority, but a law can only be changed by Congress. If the FAA changes the rule themselves rather than Congress doing it, then the FAA can change the rule back at the first sign of a "pilot shortage." Not so easy when there is a federal law on the books.


Personally, I hope Congress sees through this sham. It's pretty easy, since Administrator Babbitt has made it very clear that he doesn't support the 1500 hour and ATP requirement. What we really need is HR 3371 to force these FAA nimrods to do the right thing.

surreal1221 said:
I'm disappointed really. More focus needs to be on FT/DT regulations
Click to expand...

The NPRM for FT/DT has been delayed another 90 days because the FAA believes that the ARC's recommendations did not adequately address the problems associated with duty time. On one had, it's disappointing that it's been delayed, but on the other hand, it's encouraging that the FAA seems to be sending the signal that their NPRM is going to be even more restrictive than the ARC's recommendations.
 
Bignellyxx said:
I can't believe that no one has proposed x amount of 121 time before upgrade. I know Airlines have their own minimums but can easily lower them. This proposed rule making isn't doing much if it allows a guy with only GA experience to possibly upgrade immediately during times of large growth. There needs to be some sort of firm difference between FO and Captain experience. I really support both pilots being typed as well.

Also if you think that this will raise our pay why was it that 15 years ago guys with 2,000 maybe 3,000 or more hours were starting out as FO's for $15 and hour (give or take a few). Pay didn't go down when minimums went down. This argument is very weak
Click to expand...

I've proposed it a couple of times on JC and actually once in this thread, but nobody seems to respond to it so I have no clue what the airline people think about it! :)


------
Edit: Heck Hacker, I think I am a dang good applicant to be that GA CFI, I even have past experience in buffoonery. :D
 
Douglas said:
I've proposed it a couple of times on JC and actually once in this thread, but nobody seems to respond to it so I have no clue what the airline people think about it! :)


------
Edit: Heck Hacker, I think I am a dang good applicant to be that GA CFI, I even have past experience in buffoonery. :D
Click to expand...

Too many posts now for me to catch up on the rest. Glad I'm not the only one!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top