FAA to boost Co-pilot training, avoid ATP rule

Has anyone figured out if it is 1500 reduceable to 700. Or is the baseline 700 and you can go down from there? I couldnt figure it out, but after reading it a few times I am leaning towards 1500 reduceable to 700.
 
zmiller4 said:
I can't believe I'm going to side with Jhugz here, but why does there need to be a *defined* career track? In my time at the airlines I flew with some absolutely awesome captains, and there was no correlation whatsoever between their abilities and the "track" they took to their jobs. I flew with fantastic, cautious, diligent guys who went collegiate aviation programs, flew their way up through crap jobs, had changed careers, even PFJ'd. Their capability as captains was almost entirely dependent on their attitude, not their background.

That's my personal opinion--you can learn the stuff required to fly for an airline pretty easily. It's the attitude that counts, and that's certainly something that's not going to be instilled by a collegiate aviation program. You want to make the career path more stringent...put the difficulty in the training programs for the airlines. Make groundschool, the sim, and IOE more difficult, and you'll be weeding out the schmucks from mom and pop schools and ERAU alike.
Click to expand...

I agree that attitude goes a long way.

I am not talking about the abilities of individuals, I'm talking about a course of study to become a professional pilot.

Your opinion is that the skills to fly at an airline are not difficult to learn. I'm not going to agree or disagree, it could go either way. You're saying it's OK to toughen the curriculum at an airline, but it's OK NOT to have a standard curriculum to get there. Sure, the PTS outlines requirements, but there is no standard set of learning modules to get to be a professional pilot. You don't see a disconnect there?

I'm not saying a degree is the ultimate answer, but accredited degrees will go a long way to standardizing modules of learning to get there.

The other thing I see is the amount of training at an airline. I am guessing "professional pilot" is getting translated to "airline pilot". That is not the case. I am talking about commercial pilots. Sure you'll have to build experience (or not depending on the market), but flying single pilot 135, 121 crew, 91k or regular 91 are all professionals.
 
Polar742 said:
Your opinion is that the skills to fly at an airline are not difficult to learn.
Click to expand...

I'd actually argue the opposite...the skills needed to fly at an airline are (or should be) extremely difficult to learn. The knowledge needed--the part that would be taught by an aviation university--is absolutely not difficult to learn.

You're saying it's OK to toughen the curriculum at an airline, but it's OK NOT to have a standard curriculum to get there.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my opinion. It's going to be way easier to enforce airline training standards than to supervise dozens of collegiate programs around the country.
 
Der_Meister said:
I think the biggest part of any rule regarding flight time is, flight time and experience are not equal to one another. Someone with 500hrs might have better experience then someone with 1000hrs. I fully support the 1500hr rule, but I think its a overly simplistic way to look at experience. But alas there is not a good way to equate one persons flight experience vs. another person flight experience.
Click to expand...

I think the ATP requirement is a great idea. It gives people some time to do different kinds of flying. I was a flight instructor, a bush pilot, a part 91 co pilot for a family and a charter co pilot all before getting my ATP and 525 type at the same time. It would be another two years before I became a 135 captain.

I think theory is great but IMHO there is no substitute for experience. An ATP is a qualifier for experience, not perfect but adequate. I think what this discussion has lost sight of is that the Colgan crash made it obvious that a minimum experience qualification was necessary.

I did go to a 141 school but not a degree program. It was my own motivation and drive that got me where I am. I was reading and asking questions about the next step throughout my career. It is not impossible to get to 1500 hrs without working for an airline. I'm proud of what I did and I know it made me a better pilot.
 
zmiller4 said:
That's my personal opinion--you can learn the stuff required to fly for an airline pretty easily.
Click to expand...

Either it's difficult or not.

A guy flying a Gulfstream or Global has the same fundamentals as a guy flying a CRJ or 747. Which is why I advocate it for all professional pilots, not just airline pilots.
 
BigWaveDave said:
I think theory is great but IMHO there is no substitute for experience. An ATP is a qualifier for experience, not perfect but adequate. I think what this discussion has lost sight of is that the Colgan crash made it obvious that a minimum experience qualification was necessary.
Click to expand...
...not to mention a return to the fundamentals of airmanship and decision-making.
 
Polar742 said:
Agreed.

For some reason, I seem to recall both of these guys were senior pilots at their respective airlines. Both were PICs, a.k.a. "Captains", at their respective carriers, not SICs (which is the position being discussed in this thread. Also, both had STRONG academic backgrounds as well as experience.

I still don't get the strong aversion by many on JC to a formalized academic/theoretical knowledge base in addition to experience to be a professional pilot, be it a military flight track, or civilian university/experience track.

Would you rather have your first "real" job being single pilot PIC or sitting next to a guy like Capt. Haines or Capt. Sullenberger and learning what those guys have to offer. (protip: it's called 'institutional knowledge')
Click to expand...

Totally agreed on both points -

There absolutely SHOULD be in depth academic knowledge in addition to the monkey skills, without a doubt. It's actually quite laughable how low the academic standard is for FAA ratings. That academic knowledge is a supplement -- not a substitute -- for real world experience.

Also totally agree with the 'master and apprentice' angle. This is exactly the way it's done in the military pipeline; many people look to the fact that the military kicks new 200-hour pilots out the door and turns them loose in fighters in a vacuum, and neglect the part where it's done in a very closely supervised role with more experienced/senior mentors watching the entire time. I understand that it's similar in the military heavy world, too, although I don't have direct experience with that.

From what I hear from friends currently flying at the cargo and major airlines, much of that "master and apprentice" culture, with experienced senior Captains helping pass their wisdom on to the FOs, only exists at the majors where those senior guys live (and not at the initial regional level that this FAA ruling covers). Their descriptions of the guys learning the trade as young'uns at the Regionals make it sound a lot more like 'blind leading the blind' instead. It would be fantastic to have guys like Haynes or Sully as regional Captains who are mentoring new FOs with their years of hard-earned wisdom...but I don't think that describes your average Regional Captain these days.
 
Hacker15e said:
Totally agreed on both points -

There absolutely SHOULD be in depth academic knowledge in addition to the monkey skills, without a doubt. It's actually quite laughable how low the academic standard is for FAA ratings. That academic knowledge is a supplement -- not a substitute -- for real world experience.

Also totally agree with the 'master and apprentice' angle. This is exactly the way it's done in the military pipeline; many people look to the fact that the military kicks new 200-hour pilots out the door and turns them loose in fighters in a vacuum, and neglect the part where it's done in a very closely supervised role with more experienced/senior mentors watching the entire time. I understand that it's similar in the military heavy world, too, although I don't have direct experience with that.

From what I hear from friends currently flying at the cargo and major airlines, much of that "master and apprentice" culture, with experienced senior Captains helping pass their wisdom on to the FOs, only exists at the majors where those senior guys live (and not at the initial regional level that this FAA ruling covers). Their descriptions of the guys learning the trade as young'uns at the Regionals make it sound a lot more like 'blind leading the blind' instead. It would be fantastic to have guys like Haynes or Sully as regional Captains who are mentoring new FOs with their years of hard-earned wisdom...but I don't think that describes your average Regional Captain these days.
Click to expand...

Your Regional theory sounds remarkably similar to the civilian training world where at a 141 school the newly minted CFIs lead the students...

Where at a part 61 school you could find a really experienced instructor.

See where I am going with this?
 
Hacker15e said:
From what I hear from friends currently flying at the cargo and major airlines, much of that "master and apprentice" culture, with experienced senior Captains helping pass their wisdom on to the FOs, only exists at the majors where those senior guys live (and not at the initial regional level that this FAA ruling covers). Their descriptions of the guys learning the trade as young'uns at the Regionals make it sound a lot more like 'blind leading the blind' instead. It would be fantastic to have guys like Haynes or Sully as regional Captains who are mentoring new FOs with their years of hard-earned wisdom...but I don't think that describes your average Regional Captain these days.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that's the attitude of the "major" guys towards the regional guys, at least when I was at a regional 4 years ago. We were always 2nd class to them.

For the longest time, there wasn't much growth at the commuters, so you had fairly senior guys flying with new folks. I was probably in the last phase of that at my airline prior to the explosive growth. There was a period where that was the case during the late 90's until 2001. Then there was a small break there for a few years until the 2005 boom took off. As things ebb and flow with hiring cycles, institutional knowledge waxes and wanes. Sure there were times where it was "blind leading the blind", but if you look back through airline history, you see lots of periods like that. They are far more the exception than the rule.

Of course the best solution is to have everyone on one list, so you start flying a 1900 as FO at Airline X and you retire off the A380 at Airline X. And eliminate the Airline X operated by commuter Y. Some folks would have to swallow some pride.
 
In the thread about the crash at Reno everyone was saying that they should not shut down the air races because everyone knew that these races were risky. Flying in the race is a risk accepted by the pilots, and watching the race was a risk that was accepted by the spectators. My question is, when do we apply that logic to professional aviation? Commercial aviation here in the US is already one of, if not the safest methods of transportation in existance. There has to be a point of diminishing returns, so when do we say that it is safe enough and that everyone involved just needs to accept the risks involved? Don't get me wrong, I kind of like the idea of the 1500 hour rule, I just don't think it is going to make a statistiacly significant affect in accident rates.
 
Polar742 said:
Either it's difficult or not.
Click to expand...

Let me clarify...the academic side of aviating is easy. The intangibles--physical and mental skills that come with experience--are not. I don't think that going to ERAU or UND necessarily gives you those (in fact, I know it based on folks from those institutions I've worked with).

A guy flying a Gulfstream or Global has the same fundamentals as a guy flying a CRJ or 747. Which is why I advocate it for all professional pilots, not just airline pilots.
Click to expand...

I want to make sure I get this right...you're advocating an undergraduate degree in aeronautics for all professional pilots?
 
zmiller4 said:
Let me clarify...the academic side of aviating is easy. The intangibles--physical and mental skills that come with experience--are not. I don't think that going to ERAU or UND necessarily gives you those (in fact, I know it based on folks from those institutions I've worked with).
Click to expand...

Experience is obviously not gained through academic study. I don't think I equated it as a replacement.

I want to make sure I get this right...you're advocating an undergraduate degree in aeronautics for all professional pilots?
Click to expand...

I advocate a common curriculum and set modules of study. If there is another comprehensive method besides a degree (like, say, military flight training) I'm all for it. If you can think of another effective system, I'm all ears. I use the accredited degree as a baseline since it seems to work for other professionals.
 
zmiller4 said:
Set by whom?
Click to expand...

As long as it's standard, covers the areas where there are significant gaps in our (our referring to the entire system of licensing steps), I'm good with it. Again, the accreditation that's used in colleges so your degree (in Geology is it?) is recognized universally as completing that course of study to at a recognized institution.
 
Polar742 said:
As long as it's standard, covers the areas where there are significant gaps in our (our referring to the entire system of licensing steps), I'm good with it. Again, the accreditation that's used in colleges so your degree (in Geology is it?) is recognized universally as completing that course of study to at a recognized institution.
Click to expand...

The accreditation of my university doesn't really mean anything...it's the reputation it's built for itself (and what I hope to not singlehandedly destroy through crappy TA'ing and research) that actually means something. I'm not sure how that translates into the airlines.

I haven't been through an academic aviation curriculum, but what I saw from students who were taking classes at "accredited" schools, I was *not* impressed.
 
zmiller4 said:
The accreditation of my university doesn't really mean anything...it's the reputation it's built for itself (and what I hope to not singlehandedly destroy through crappy TA'ing and research) that actually means something. I'm not sure how that translates into the airlines.

I haven't been through an academic aviation curriculum, but what I saw from students who were taking classes at "accredited" schools, I was *not* impressed.
Click to expand...

Nor am I, at least not impressed by programs. I've worked and flown with guys from Western, UND, Riddle, Purdue, Illinois and a number of other large collegiate flight programs, and I saw the same disparity between those those guys as I have in any other group of pilots.

Now a standardized set of academic standards that, say, mirror what the Europeans do as far as academic training goes? Sweetness. But the hodgepodge of aviation programs in collegiate aviation that exists today? There's no curriculum standardization or certification, and you'll get different results for different schools. If somebody wants to step up and create such a program, then it'd be hard to argue against it. But until that time, we have collegiate programs that are no different than part 61 Mom and Pop schools; some are great, and some suck, and some produce good pilots, and some produce not so good pilots.

But let's not fool ourselves, whether there should be or not, there is no current industry standard.
 
jtrain609 said:
Nor am I, at least not impressed by programs. I've worked and flown with guys from Western, UND, Riddle, Purdue, Illinois and a number of other large collegiate flight programs, and I saw the same disparity between those those guys as I have in any other group of pilots.

Now a standardized set of academic standards that, say, mirror what the Europeans do as far as academic training goes? Sweetness. But the hodgepodge of aviation programs in collegiate aviation that exists today? There's no curriculum standardization or certification, and you'll get different results for different schools. If somebody wants to step up and create such a program, then it'd be hard to argue against it. But until that time, we have collegiate programs that are no different than part 61 Mom and Pop schools; some are great, and some suck, and some produce good pilots, and some produce not so good pilots.

But let's not fool ourselves, whether there should be or not, there is no current industry standard.
Click to expand...

Overall, I have to agree with this sentiment. However, having worked at the level where these types of policies are thought out, there is a logical basis for arguing that a person who has had a formal education in the academics would be able to be as safe as someone who has not had those academics but has more flight time. Sadly, general aviation academic knowledge is incredibly lacking (witness the threads on understanding aerodynamics that we have had in the tech section). It is a reasonable assumption that the formal academic programs at accredited universities would add some value. However, the problem is that we need to ensure that they are doing that, and I am not sure that all of them are. They could be, and should be, of course. A part 61 school with seasoned instructors adds value in some regards, but the ideal situation is you have those instructors with the type of standardized quality control that you get in the military. There is a potential here, but again, I just do not see it happening in the collegiate programs or part 61. So, with that situation, the odds are a bit higher that the collegiate programs do have it, and that is the way they formulated this regulation. Bad assumptions? Maybe.
 
seagull said:
Overall, I have to agree with this sentiment. However, having worked at the level where these types of policies are thought out, there is a logical basis for arguing that a person who has had a formal education in the academics would be able to be as safe as someone who has not had those academics but has more flight time. Sadly, general aviation academic knowledge is incredibly lacking (witness the threads on understanding aerodynamics that we have had in the tech section). It is a reasonable assumption that the formal academic programs at accredited universities would add some value. However, the problem is that we need to ensure that they are doing that, and I am not sure that all of them are. They could be, and should be, of course. A part 61 school with seasoned instructors adds value in some regards, but the ideal situation is you have those instructors with the type of standardized quality control that you get in the military. There is a potential here, but again, I just do not see it happening in the collegiate programs or part 61. So, with that situation, the odds are a bit higher that the collegiate programs do have it, and that is the way they formulated this regulation. Bad assumptions? Maybe.
Click to expand...

How would you solve the issue, if you were king?
 
I don't agree with some of the FAA view. Book knowledge helps but in no way can replace experience.

The FAA is also looking into the ICAO Multi-crew license too...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top