FAA to boost Co-pilot training, avoid ATP rule

[Bumblebee]

I think we need to log the mistakes we learned from. Every time we thought we knew something we didn't...who cares about all the things that were right...the recovery from the wrongs are probably more important.

 

[caliginousface]

In your post (#170), you describe almost verbatim what UND's curriculum was when I went through.

A lot of what is desired in coursework by the people who have been in the industry for a while in this thread, is already covered in the programs Erby Diddle and the like already offer.

So this the debate then, to standardize universities to the rigor and knowledge level of military aviators. The last remaining debate is lift amongst civ pilots , and finally everyone can be on the same page.

 

[BEEF SUPREME]

It would have required more than that in this case. There are plenty of examples of accidents with very high time pilots, as there are with low time. No question that experience is important. The point here is not that. It is that we need to establish the entry level minimums. Maybe you need to think of this from the other direction.

2,000 hours is low time also, but someone with 2,000 hours and a true academic base is going to be better than someone that does not have that. I don't see how you can even argue otherwise? Can anyone here make a cogent argument that a person with the same amount of flight time is not going to be better if they have ALSO had a rigorous academic background in the field?

So, assuming that is true, then how much straight flight time would be required before somebody WITHOUT that academic background is equivalent to the person WITH the experience?

There is no way to measure the difference.

No doubt both experience and academics are better together.

If the regional airlines are looking for quality then they would pick the candidate with the degree from "I'm a superior aviator university". Even if there was a 1500hr requirement.

However the regionals want a bag of meat in the right seat and they don't care where they come from. Weakening the 1500 hr rule is to save money. Any way they can erode the rule and make it easy for anyone to jump into the cockpit is fair game.

Call it what you want but this comes down to bottom line basics. Money.

 

[seagull]

There is no way to measure the difference.

No doubt both experience and academics are better together.

If the regional airlines are looking for quality then they would pick the candidate with the degree from "I'm a superior aviator university". Even if there was a 1500hr requirement.

However the regionals want a bag of meat in the right seat and they don't care where they come from. Weakening the 1500 hr rule is to save money. Any way they can erode the rule and make it easy for anyone to jump into the cockpit is fair game.

Call it what you want but this comes down to bottom line basics. Money.

Of course it is. ALL risk assessment has to balance finances. We could make flying completely safe by grounding all airplanes. We could just allow no limitations at all. Each one has to be evaluated for ROI, and a risk assessment completed. I am trying to walk people through how that is done, and I know because I have been on teams that did that at the policy level.

What I did here was hypothesis on how this transpired based on how I have seen it done before. It was not just a "shoot from the hip" deal to placate the regionals. It was a thought out process that was vetted. To the people who think FAA just goes along with ATA, I would say that they have not worked on things at the policy level.

 

[jtrain609]

Sorry, I'm a few pages behind, so forgive me if this has already been discussed.

But a professional organization that mirrors, as an example, the ABA, would solve this problem. The ABA tells law schools what the requirements for certification are, and if they aren't followed, then the ABA won't grant accreditation to that school. If they lose accreditation, then the students that graduate from that school can't take the bar in every state except for California. If that happens, the school goes bankrupt, and the problem is solved.

And they can create a very high level of detail. As an example, miss more than 8 classes for a course during a semester? You can't take the exam.

 

[Dugie8]

Sorry, I'm a few pages behind, so forgive me if this has already been discussed.

But a professional organization that mirrors, as an example, the ABA, would solve this problem. The ABA tells law schools what the requirements for certification are, and if they aren't followed, then the ABA won't grant accreditation to that school. If they lose accreditation, then the students that graduate from that school can't take the bar in every state except for California. If that happens, the school goes bankrupt, and the problem is solved.

And they can create a very high level of detail. As an example, miss more than 8 classes for a course during a semester? You can't take the exam.

That already exists. I will use UND since I am familiar with it. Part 141 requires certain things be done as it relates to ground school, flight lessons, etc. UND has to show compliance with all of that through record keeping and those records are audited somewhat regularly. Miss a ground school, you have to make it up with your instructor. Don't go to an airport that is 250 miles from airport center to airport center, you have to redo the flight, etc. All this stuff is what s like to whine about, about UND when it is the regulations that require it, not UND or any other 141 program. Can you imagine the amount of crying and bashing that would go on if a rigorous standardize program was developed. All the flights that had to meet exacting standards in not only performance but distances and tasks required. Oh my god, people's heads would explode.

The standards are there, some places keep up to them, some don't. Some POIs are good, most are bad.

 

[jtrain609]

The ABA has requirements that go beyond, and are separate from each individual state bar associations requirement.

Or said another way, an extra-governmental entity.

 

[aviator147]

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I still can't see how part 141 is so much more better than part 61.

structure...

 

[Dugie8]

The ABA has requirements that go beyond, and are separate from each individual state bar associations requirement.

Or said another way, an extra-governmental entity.

That I could get on board with. As professional pilots we need some sort of guild/association/group that has our interests in mind.

 

[jtrain609]

structure...

Structure can get you killed.

The real trick is knowing how to work within a rigid structure, and knowing when to discard it completely. I've seen guys freeze up when you throw enough nonstandard stuff at them that you can't have a checklist for. Most guys handle things fine, but some guys take structure and won't deviate from it even when they need to.

So structure is good, don't get me wrong, but you need to know how and when to say "The book is going to get is hurt/killed/violated, we need do do X instead."

 

[ahsmatt7]

structure...

structure can hinder one as much as it can help one to succeed.

Perfect example. My really good friend is doing his training 141 style and can only go to airports that are approved. Seems to me he is being sheltered by the school. He knows that there wont be any gotchya's (if so, than very little and probably out of the ordinary) and he has less than an hr of actual.

I myself though, have only 20 hrs less than him, triple the multi time, about 10 hrs actual and when I go to an airport, I only know what to expect from the AF/D. Not from what every student in the past has seen when they go to the said airport.

Part 141 has structure going for it and I can understand that structure is better than no structure. However, PArt 61 offers the student the opportunity to get unrestricted experience and lends the opportunity to have to find things out on your own. (granted with a crappy instructor, Part 61 is really just a bag full of holes with water poring out of it....the water being knowledge)

one normal thing is that with most 61 schools, the airplane are mostly older junk. That means the student has to learn early on how to have plans for plans when it hits the fan. At 141 schools, that may not necessarily be the case if the student has learned and been conditioned to put to much trust in the plane because its new and has fancy equipment.


To sum this whole thread up, I think the whole 141, 61 thing is bogus, make everyone follow a strict set of standards whether they go to a university or do their training at a "mom and pop" flight school.

 

[seagull]

I think the whole 141, 61 thing is bogus, make everyone follow a strict set of standards whether they go to a university or do their training at a "mom and pop" flight school.

Entirely missed the point being discussed.

 

[seagull]

Sorry, I'm a few pages behind, so forgive me if this has already been discussed.

But a professional organization that mirrors, as an example, the ABA, would solve this problem. The ABA tells law schools what the requirements for certification are, and if they aren't followed, then the ABA won't grant accreditation to that school. If they lose accreditation, then the students that graduate from that school can't take the bar in every state except for California. If that happens, the school goes bankrupt, and the problem is solved.

And they can create a very high level of detail. As an example, miss more than 8 classes for a course during a semester? You can't take the exam.

Exactly. It could be an NGO, but more likely a consortium, sort of like the CAST group, which makes the call. That way you have all parties represented and on equal footing.

 

[Ziggyfuzz]

I must say, that as a DE I have seen many applicants from part 61 schools that are much better prepared for a CAMEL ride than those that come from the cookie cutter part 141 schools...not referring to university programs, ERAU has improved quite a bit, and I am a former UND guy and know that they have probably the best program around...

 

[ahsmatt7]

Entirely missed the point being discussed.

how so? I am interjecting my opinion based on everyone's back and forth banter about a structured university programs vs. non structured programs. I will freely and openly admit I missed the whole point of the thread but I dont think I have.

 

[FAYEV]

Sorry, I'm a few pages behind, so forgive me if this has already been discussed.

But a professional organization that mirrors, as an example, the ABA, would solve this problem. The ABA tells law schools what the requirements for certification are, and if they aren't followed, then the ABA won't grant accreditation to that school. If they lose accreditation, then the students that graduate from that school can't take the bar in every state except for California. If that happens, the school goes bankrupt, and the problem is solved.

http://www.aabi.aero/ Is this what you are referring to?

 

[Dugie8]

how so? I am interjecting my opinion based on everyone's back and forth banter about a structured university programs vs. non structured programs. I will freely and openly admit I missed the whole point of the thread but I dont think I have.

This isn't about 61 vs 141 or who is smarter or better coming out of whatever program (no way to show that). It is about the lack of experience and knowledge that has been allowed into the cockpits of airliners. The inevitable is that it will continue, even with the ATP rule going forward as originally planned. Knowing that, how do "we" cover the gap? Simple minded people think flying between the same 15 airports for a couple of thousand hours will suffice, it won't. What SG is suggesting is a structured program that has well thought out academic and flight training based soley on being a professional pilot, i.e. you want to work at Piedmont you have to have graduated from this course of study.

To make something like that work, the FAA needs to set a minimum standard of training and experience/flight time, while some outside agency, like the BAR association, commands even more strict guidelines and requirements.

 

[WalterSobchak]

So do the Colgan CA/FO who went to Pilot Puppy Mill training and Generic Aviation Degree help or hurt those arguing against part 61 training and for a more standardized training? What were the backgrounds of "Club410" or "BigLEXShortField"? I thought they were all "academically trained?" So does that hurt the idea of Pilot Mills or were these accidents just incomprehensibly stupid decisions and lack of awareness by a select few? What is fixable and measurable? Is developing a good foundation before you take a job with pax on board a bad thing or do people want the prize at all cost without running the race?

 

[seagull]

So do the Colgan CA/FO who went to Pilot Puppy Mill training and Generic Aviation Degree help or hurt those arguing against part 61 training and for a more standardized training? What were the backgrounds of "Club410" or "BigLEXShortField"? I thought they were all "academically trained?" So does that hurt the idea of Pilot Mills or were these accidents just incomprehensibly stupid decisions and lack of awareness by a select few? What is fixable and measurable? Is developing a good foundation before you take a job with pax on board a bad thing or do people want the prize at all cost without running the race?

Neither, it's a red herring.

 

[Nat E. Dred]

I'd say the pilots I either hired, did their OE or just flew with online and that had degrees in flight from ERAU, UND, MTSU, OhioU overall did very good job and had a very good grasp on Transport category systems, CRM, high altitude wx, high speed aero, and meteorology than those that did not.

Given my choice of a 2 people with 1500 hours, I'd take the one with the degree to hire. All else equal.

I hear what you're saying, but man would conversation get dull after awhile.