Multi Crew Pilot Licenses

[Matt13C]

It doesn't make any difference, because they'll fill the seats either way. Reduce the hiring mins down to FAR mins and you'll never run out of newhire pilots. Do you have any idea how many RJ program "graduates" that placed like ATP were putting out a couple of years ago? The airlines will always be able to fill the newhire classes. The only way to stop it is to raise the FAR minimums (not going to happen) or impose GA user fees that make it cost-prohibitive to get your ratings (most pilots on this forum scream like little girls when you propose this).


The FAA is actually opposed to that idea, and the NTSB hasn't announced a position. Not sure where you're getting your info. Without the FAA's support, that idea isn't getting through Congress. In fact, it probably wouldn't get through even if the FAA supported it.

It does make a difference. Everyone who supports this keeps talking about some shortage. The only reason there would be a shortage is because we, hopefully one day ill join the ranks of ALPA members and will do my part to better the profession, allow management to keep degrading the profession. Currently management knows that if they dont give a good contract some pilots will walk, but they can go to the streets and get any 250 hr pilot mill to churn out some more. take that away, and not give them the option of doing an MPL and they will be forced to work with the current crop of experienced pilots. It will also force them to raise the bar with pay and QOL because they will now be competing against other airlines for the experienced pilots. That will bring experienced pilots back also. Skiles even reiterated what I said in my post earlier, he said to the panel that he personally knows many highly qualified pilots who left the industry that would love to come back, they just dont because of the terrible salaries.

The way the Oberstar was talking in the last hearing, it sounds like they are set on passing a law that requires more flight time. It may not require the full ATP, but the feeling I got from listening to everyone except Brady, was that they all thought an increase in experience to be an FO was needed. Babbitt wouldn't commit to the ATP requirement, but he did say he feels more is needed, both more time and eduction. That would be a huge victory for the pilot profession, sure it would suck for me since I would need to spend more time getting experience, but it would be well worth it. Dont take that victory away by giving airlines total control over pilot quantity.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

It does make a difference. Everyone who supports this keeps talking about some shortage.

Captain Paul Rice is the ALPA expert on MPL, and he never talks about a pilot shortage when discussing this. He focuses on the current deplorable state of pilot training that is based on rules that are decades old and don't teach anyone what they need to know to actually be useful members of an airliner crew. Flying lazy 8s and chandelles does not prepare someone to fly a CRJ. Time to redesign training to be effective.

The way the Oberstar was talking in the last hearing, it sounds like they are set on passing a law that requires more flight time. It may not require the full ATP, but the feeling I got from listening to everyone except Brady, was that they all thought an increase in experience to be an FO was needed. Babbitt wouldn't commit to the ATP requirement, but he did say he feels more is needed, both more time and eduction. That would be a huge victory for the pilot profession, sure it would suck for me since I would need to spend more time getting experience, but it would be well worth it. Dont take that victory away by giving airlines total control over pilot quantity.

Trust me, there aren't going to be any new laws to address increased flight time or an ATP.

 

[Matt13C]

Captain Paul Rice is the ALPA expert on MPL, and he never talks about a pilot shortage when discussing this. He focuses on the current deplorable state of pilot training that is based on rules that are decades old and don't teach anyone what they need to know to actually be useful members of an airliner crew. Flying lazy 8s and chandelles does not prepare someone to fly a CRJ. Time to redesign training to be effective.



Trust me, there aren't going to be any new laws to address increased flight time or an ATP.

But that is the problem, not everyone steps right into a CRJ with a fresh comm rating. If MPL is implemented what are cargo outfits, smaller regionals like Cape Air or fractionals who fly piston twins going to do? Where will they get their pilots from? Why would someone pay to get a Comm from an FBO or flight school to get a job at a freight company when they will just have to go through it all again at the airline? Why not just go directly to the airline?

Also, flying lazy 8's and chandelles are not supposed to teach you to fly a CRJ, just as they weren't supposed to teach you to fly a DC-3 or a Constellation or whatever an entry level aircraft was back in the day. They teach basic flying skills and decision making. These cant be taught in a sim or in a ground course or flying a heavy jet in a controlled situation, it needs to be learned through experience. Even if you spend your time CFI'ing, your still going to gain experience. Your going to need to recognize problems as they start to arise, a student start to enter a spin, holding too much bank at too low an airspeed, get blown off center line by a big gust, all these are situations where you learn decision making and the proper reaction. Also, when your out there, even if you fly on VFR only days, the unexpected will be encountered, some rain that didnt show up on the weather scope and wasnt forecast, winds shifting, stronger than anticipated head winds requiring new fuel calculations, clouds descending quickly requiring a change in plans?

I know you have much more experience than me in all aspects of the aviation world, I am sure some of my ideas are not possible or realistic due to realities I am unaware of. However, I feel there are options available to the pilot group to improve conditions that are not MPL, I feel that is managements dream come true.

No offense intended, but I hope you are proven wrong and time requirements are changed.

 

[wrxpilot]

Flying lazy 8s and chandelles does not prepare someone to fly a CRJ. Time to redesign training to be effective.

Not sure where you guys come up with this crazy stuff... It's not the "flying lazy 8s and chandelles" that gives a new pilot much needed experience for future pilot jobs. It's the flight instructing itself, which involves multi tasking, CRM, teaching, and stick and rudder skills. The skills of CFII instruction give a new commercial pilot insight on the IFR system and radio phraseology, which again is directly applicable to future jobs. If I hadn't spent a considerable amount of time flight instructing before my first 135 job, I would've been absolutely lost.

Those that think teaching just involves sitting in the right seat of a 172 flying patterns all day either have limited teaching experience or have been away from it so long that they don't remember it well at all.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

But that is the problem, not everyone steps right into a CRJ with a fresh comm rating.

True, but I don't believe that 3000 hours of flight instruction, pipeline patrol, traffic patrol, or anything else along those lines prepares anyone to be an airline pilot, either. Instrument skills are the most important thing for airline flying, and the current part 61 and 141 programs don't even come close to spending enough time on instrument flying.

If MPL is implemented what are cargo outfits, smaller regionals like Cape Air or fractionals who fly piston twins going to do? Where will they get their pilots from? Why would someone pay to get a Comm from an FBO or flight school to get a job at a freight company when they will just have to go through it all again at the airline? Why not just go directly to the airline?

I would imagine that an airline MPL program under ALPA's guidelines would be very similar to a "cadet" style program that places like Cathay use. In other words, standards would be very high for entry, and most people wouldn't get in. Those that still want to be pilots would have to go the old fashioned route and go to work at places like Cape Air to build time and experience before being competitive for airline jobs.

Also, flying lazy 8's and chandelles are not supposed to teach you to fly a CRJ, just as they weren't supposed to teach you to fly a DC-3 or a Constellation or whatever an entry level aircraft was back in the day. They teach basic flying skills and decision making.

I disagree. I think they're a waste of time and teach pilots nothing that will help them in airline flying. If basic flying skills are what you're trying to improve, you're better off with spending more time on visual approaches, short field landings, etc... The current commercial maneuvers are outdated and useless.

Even if you spend your time CFI'ing, your still going to gain experience. Your going to need to recognize problems as they start to arise, a student start to enter a spin, holding too much bank at too low an airspeed, get blown off center line by a big gust, all these are situations where you learn decision making and the proper reaction. Also, when your out there, even if you fly on VFR only days, the unexpected will be encountered, some rain that didnt show up on the weather scope and wasnt forecast, winds shifting, stronger than anticipated head winds requiring new fuel calculations, clouds descending quickly requiring a change in plans?

The time I spent flight instructing did little to prepare me for airline flying or the decision making skills that are required for it. Time spent for several years in the right seat of an airliner did that. I'm a strong proponent of higher minimum upgrade times, as I think that's a far more useful tool in preparing pilots to be Captains. Someone upgrading at ATP minimums is insane. Pinnacle used to have a 3,500 hour minimum for upgrade. I think that should be the bare minimum.

 

[wrxpilot]

I wish we could have a study of everyone advocating this ATP minimum requirement, on how those people got to said ATP minimums. Look at the jobs they did, and then compare to how many of those jobs don't exist today, due to technology. I think it would be an eye-opener

No offense, but guys like you need an eye opening reality check. Until the past few years, having 2,000+ hrs was the MINIMUM before one could even get an interview at a regional airline. Even in the last hiring wave, I had over 800 hrs before I was able to get a p/t job sitting right seat in a king air for a 135 op. I had over 1,000 hrs before my first 121 interview in 2008 (the boom times).

1,500 hrs isn't much time. I have about 1,800 hrs right now, with about 750 multi, 600 turbine and have never had a 121 job. To me, that isn't much time, I'm still a low timer and I have a hell of a lot to learn still. When I think back to 250 hrs, it's amazing how little I knew (though I thought I knew a lot at the time). Nobody should be flying around an airliner without significant real world experience, with a good portion of that being PIC time (that's when you really learn). I think an ATP is a good start in that direction.

 

[zmiller4]

He focuses on the current deplorable state of pilot training that is based on rules that are decades old and don't teach anyone what they need to know to actually be useful members of an airliner crew. Flying lazy 8s and chandelles does not prepare someone to fly a CRJ. Time to redesign training to be effective.

I had a big response typed up, but it's not worth it. Suffice to say that the above could have been taken straight from a JetU/gulfstream brochure, which isn't the direction I think we need to go for increased safety. God forbid someone learn to fly a plane before getting to an airline.

 

[wrxpilot]

I disagree. I think they're a waste of time and teach pilots nothing that will help them in airline flying. If basic flying skills are what you're trying to improve, you're better off with spending more time on visual approaches, short field landings, etc... The current commercial maneuvers are outdated and useless.

Just how much time does the typical flight instructor spend teaching 8s on pylons and chandelles? Maybe 5%? The majority of flight instruction is spent teaching primary students, which covers visual approaches, short field operations, airspeed control, stalls and recovery, unusual attitudes, MCA, PIC decision making, teaching aerodynamics, constantly reviewing FARs, etc.

I don't have any 121 experience, so I will defer to your experience that flight instruction did little to nothing to prepare you for your airline career. That seems very unfortunate, as I know plenty of other 121 pilots that would disagree with you. I did know some people that were just along for the ride as instructors, put very little into it, and probably didn't get much out of it.

My post flight instruction flying has been in 135 charter and part 91 corporate. Flight instruction gave me a huge leap in situational awareness, command decision making skills, stick and rudder skills, and overall confidence from when I was a newbie 250 hrs commercial pilot.

As a jet SIC right now, I'm learning a lot of other useful skills that will aid me as I (hopefully) transition to a PIC role again in the future. Even though I'm at a different stage now, I still rely upon the fundamentals when I turn off all the doo dads, look out the window, and fly a visual approach into an unfamiliar airport.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

No offense, but guys like you need an eye opening reality check. Until the past few years, having 2,000+ hrs was the MINIMUM before one could even get an interview at a regional airline. Even in the last hiring wave, I had over 800 hrs before I was able to get a p/t job sitting right seat in a king air for a 135 op. I had over 1,000 hrs before my first 121 interview in 2008 (the boom times).

1,500 hrs isn't much time. I have about 1,800 hrs right now, with about 750 multi, 600 turbine and have never had a 121 job. To me, that isn't much time, I'm still a low timer and I have a hell of a lot to learn still. When I think back to 250 hrs, it's amazing how little I knew (though I thought I knew a lot at the time). Nobody should be flying around an airliner without significant real world experience, with a good portion of that being PIC time (that's when you really learn). I think an ATP is a good start in that direction.

I understand what your saying, and I realize it to be true. But I know lots of pilots who talk about "I flew checks back in the day" or "I did some traffic watch for x number of hours". A lot of the entry level jobs from 20 years ago are gone. And honestly, if the ATP thing goes live, CFI's are going to become so common, that it won't be a way to build any significant amount of time.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

And honestly, if the ATP thing goes live, CFI's are going to become so common, that it won't be a way to build any significant amount of time.

I actually think there is a hidden unintended consequence of the proposed ATP requirement. If this goes into affect (again, I doubt it), then the cost of attaining the requisite experience to be an airline pilot will have gone up, because everyone will be required to get their ATP in addition to the certs and ratings that they already have to get. In addition, as you point out, we will be flooded with CFIs, because no one will have anywhere else to go to build the required 1500 hours before they can get their ATP. With these two issues, what you'll see is far fewer people interested in pursuing an airline career. Good for bargaining leverage, right? Well, maybe not if your goal is to kill the MPL. Airlines will still need to fill their seats, and they'll do it by going to congress and begging for relief. What will they propose? Why, MPL of course! But without all of that pesky ALPA language that makes the program palatable. The new regulations would require an ATP, unless you go through an MPL course.

If you guys think you can stop airlines from filling their cockpit seats, then you're dreaming. Commerce comes first to the lawmakers, and they're not going to allow the airlines to be placed in a situation where they can't find pilots. If you impose an ATP requirement on them, then they'll find a way out.

 

[Matt13C]

I understand what your saying, and I realize it to be true. But I know lots of pilots who talk about "I flew checks back in the day" or "I did some traffic watch for x number of hours". A lot of the entry level jobs from 20 years ago are gone. And honestly, if the ATP thing goes live, CFI's are going to become so common, that it won't be a way to build any significant amount of time.

I think if the ATP thing were to happen it would be good. Being a pilot should NOT be something anyone with 90 days and 60k can do, it should be something that takes time.

How many people do you think would be doctors if you could go to school for 6 months and come out with an MD? What do you think would happen to doctors salaries? What do you think would happen to the quality of doctors? Same thing hold true with aviation.

It shouldn't be easy. Make it hard. Make it so people just chasing the possibility of a big paycheck are driven away. Let them go find a housing bubble or a tech bubble to play in, stay out of aviation.

 

[USMCmech]

Flying lazy 8s and chandelles does not prepare someone to fly a CRJ.

How would you know?


Sorry man, but you walked into that one. You have very little experiance with anything outside of 121 flying, and your position reflects this. Those of us who actually did spend 1000 hours "wasting" time going around the pattern with students, realize how much we had to learn.

As far as the whole, "if everybody has to be a CFI, then who will they teach?" argument. 50-75% of students come from overseas, and that will not change anytime soon.

Recent history has shown us that the airlines will rush marginal pilots through their training programs. So why do you assume that they would foot the bill for the kind of top notch training that MPL is predicated on.

 

[adreamer]

Even though I'm at a different stage now, I still rely upon the fundamentals when I turn off all the doo dads, look out the window, and fly a visual approach into an unfamiliar airport.

:yeahthat:

in my ongoing and short 121 flyings, I have seen and heard the followings:

1. does not know what to say on the radio in un-controlled field.
2. Never flown VOR approachs before. :insane:
3. Checklist and FAA . (not giving specific on internet)

and more.

MPL - most likely would happens, in my opinion

1. more strict selection process
2. training contract with airlines.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

How would you know?


Sorry man, but you walked into that one. You have very little experiance with anything outside of 121 flying, and your position reflects this. Those of us who actually did spend 1000 hours "wasting" time going around the pattern with students, realize how much we had to learn.

I would wager that I was teaching students lazy 8s and chandelles before you ever flew your first hour.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I think if the ATP thing were to happen it would be good. Being a pilot should NOT be something anyone with 90 days and 60k can do, it should be something that takes time.

How many people do you think would be doctors if you could go to school for 6 months and come out with an MD? What do you think would happen to doctors salaries? What do you think would happen to the quality of doctors? Same thing hold true with aviation.

It shouldn't be easy. Make it hard. Make it so people just chasing the possibility of a big paycheck are driven away. Let them go find a housing bubble or a tech bubble to play in, stay out of aviation.

Ahh, so the truth comes out. This isn't about experience, but some ill-conceived notion that this will raise airline pilot pay. Now I see how this game works. Get yours, pull the ladder up behind you.

If you guys think you can stop airlines from filling their cockpit seats, then you're dreaming. Commerce comes first to the lawmakers, and they're not going to allow the airlines to be placed in a situation where they can't find pilots. If you impose an ATP requirement on them, then they'll find a way out.

Ultimately, its going to come down to either MPL or the ATP. So, for me, the lesser of two evils is the MPL. It sounds like it has some practicality to it, rather than some arbitrary number of hours attached to getting a rating.

 

[USMCmech]

I would wager that I was teaching students lazy 8s and chandelles before you ever flew your first hour.

1994?

I didn't take a shortcut, and have been eating, drinking, and breathing airplanes for 25 years. I admit that I've taken the slow boat to the cockpit, but I've realized that many things are much more important than a seniority number at a major.

 

[Matt13C]

I actually think there is a hidden unintended consequence of the proposed ATP requirement. If this goes into affect (again, I doubt it), then the cost of attaining the requisite experience to be an airline pilot will have gone up, because everyone will be required to get their ATP in addition to the certs and ratings that they already have to get. In addition, as you point out, we will be flooded with CFIs, because no one will have anywhere else to go to build the required 1500 hours before they can get their ATP. With these two issues, what you'll see is far fewer people interested in pursuing an airline career. Good for bargaining leverage, right? Well, maybe not if your goal is to kill the MPL. Airlines will still need to fill their seats, and they'll do it by going to congress and begging for relief. What will they propose? Why, MPL of course! But without all of that pesky ALPA language that makes the program palatable. The new regulations would require an ATP, unless you go through an MPL course.

If you guys think you can stop airlines from filling their cockpit seats, then you're dreaming. Commerce comes first to the lawmakers, and they're not going to allow the airlines to be placed in a situation where they can't find pilots. If you impose an ATP requirement on them, then they'll find a way out.

Not if ALPA does its job they wont! Your job is to protect pilots from management, not feed pilots to them slowly and hope nobody notices.

Congress and the FAA recognize the need for experience. Dont let them forget! Use your resources to drive that point home, remind them of 3407 anytime they want to implement an MPL program. Give them alternatives, which there are plenty.

I would love to see statisitcs on load averages during an economic boom. How many jets take off half full for the same destination in rapid succession? If that bottom feeder start up cant get pilots to fly their half full jet they cease to exist, those passengers jump into the empty space on the established airline and they fly a full jet to the same destination with well compensated pilots. Everyone still gets to their destination, everyone is happy.

 

[Matt13C]

Ahh, so the truth comes out. This isn't about experience, but some ill-conceived notion that this will raise airline pilot pay. Now I see how this game works. Get yours, pull the ladder up behind you.



Ultimately, its going to come down to either MPL or the ATP. So, for me, the lesser of two evils is the MPL. It sounds like it has some practicality to it, rather than some arbitrary number of hours attached to getting a rating.

I am at the bottom of the ladder, a whopping 140 hours. I am throwing the ladder up and going to build a mound of experience up until I can reach it.

 

[ppragman]

Ahh, so the truth comes out. This isn't about experience, but some ill-conceived notion that this will raise airline pilot pay. Now I see how this game works. Get yours, pull the ladder up behind you.



Ultimately, its going to come down to either MPL or the ATP. So, for me, the lesser of two evils is the MPL. It sounds like it has some practicality to it, rather than some arbitrary number of hours attached to getting a rating.

Says the sub 500TT guy. Not to play "whose bigger!" but yeah, I didn't realize until I broke 1000TT how much of an idiot I'd been sub 1000TT, and didn't realize until I broke 2000TT how much of an idiot I'd been at times along the way up again. More experience is always better. You do fewer stupid things the more experience you get.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I am at the bottom of the ladder, a whopping 140 hours. I am throwing the ladder up and going to build a mound of experience up until I can reach it.

Wow. Even better. Make it so that your investment into your education gets so large, that being a doctor/lawyer would make more financial sense. I know you think you'll be able to get a ton of hours in the future by CFI'ing. That isn't going to happen. As it is now, there are many markets that are supersaturated with CFI's, some willing to fly for free. So, when we have 10x as many CFI's out there, its going to be next to impossible to get a student. And the number of career students is going to drop, once they see how much of an investment is going to be required.