Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
Yes. Too bad for them. Unless they're senior to me. Which a few might be.
New 1500 / ATP for 121 Rule, details?
- Thread starter gosleddog
- Start date
Yes. Too bad for them. Unless they're senior to me. Which a few might be.
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
This guy is a famous troll in the Eagle community. Pay him no credence. Maybe he'll go away.
Bumblebee
Commodore
come ON! You KNOW better!!!
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
To answer the OP's question, the new pilot REST RULES go into effect on August 1st, 2011. The ATP/1500 121 FO RULES go into effect on August 1st, 2013.
As for ATP shouting "quick, get your time and get a job! Hurry!", it's the same as when they were shouting "quick, seniority is everything! Run!"... a few years ago.
Some will buy the bill of goods. Some will not. The difference may well be people here like us that help the next generation of newhires make an informed decision.
embraer07
Well-Known Member
Firebird,
What are the new rest rules? I haven't been able to find the specific details on it...only posts talking about how it will require more pilots. Is it just the 9 vs 8 hours of rest and 30 consecutive hours off a week? I remember rumors about how rest would only begin at the hotel...did that make it in?
FWIW: In my interview with Eagle they mentioned that as being one of the primary reasons they are hiring right now.
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
Google it. Or check the FAA website. Basically the new rules haven't been finalized. Ballpark goes like this: Max duty day of 13 hours. Sliding scale to less if the day starts/ends at odd hours. Reduced number of hours per week/month/year you can fly from current standard.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
chrisdahut1
Well-Known Member
The whole European 250 hr cadet is often brought up. Seldom, however, is the incredible mitigating factor: European theoretical training. Before any of these FOs set foot in an airliner, they've completed 14 different exams to get their frozen ATP. I've looked into completing it myself....but was put off by the price tag, as well as the 6 months of full time studying (yes....full time!), required to even acquire the knowledge required to even attempt those 14 exams. While theory alone does not make a good pilot, it at least gives them a leg up over the 250hr newhire here in the U.S with neither experience nor any theoretical background.
Let's compare that to the FAA standard....how many here even took any ground school school course prior to completing the one and only required ATP written exam? How many took the quickie memorize-the-narrowed-down-question-bank day course at ATP and the likes (like myself) and figured "aah, I'll really learn all that theory sometime later!". Anything I've learnt concerning turbine aircraft theory and such has been piecemeal and self taught after getting hired by my first airline over the years. I was absolutely clueless my first day of training at a regional...and this was after having read The Turbine Pilot's Manual back to front several times.
We're severely lacking in theoretical training here. It's mainly expected to be taught in systems at the first airline gig....but more often then not gets quickly glossed over while the ground school instructor tries to fire hose the newhires with the particulars of one aircraft. Until we can fix this issue, we need to expect a higher level of experience from airline new hires than that required for a fresh Commercial.
embraer07
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that is exactly my point. Here in the U.S. we value getting done in the shortest time possible vs quality in most instances. That was always a challenge for me when I was a flight instructor. I never rushed anybody through training, much to the chagrin of some of my students. Certainly the ground school European students have to go through prepares them much better than our students sitting at home watching John and Martha attempt to be witty.
Polar:
Thanks for that link. One question, what does augmented and unaugmented mean in reagrds to flight and duty times?
chrisdahut1
Well-Known Member
Quality is indeed the key! It requires a combination of book knowledge and practical experience. Exactly how much is anyones guess. But I think I can say for certain that the average FAA fresh commercial grad doesn't come close to meeting either standard for airline operarions.
As far as the augmented question goes....augmented means a flight requiring any additional pilot over the standard crew (ie- one captain and one FO) in order to extend a duty day; basically any ops that reuires a relief pilot. augmented crew ops are restricted to international flights under the current rest rules, but that should change to include domestic ops under the new rules.
Didn't mean to steal Polar's response there, but thought I'd kill two birds with one response!
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Is there some rule out there that says once you get your first paying gig <at some theoretical level...apparently at a Regional>, that you are done paying to get flight time to build to minimum requirements?
If they need to add experience to proceed to a different rung on the ladder, it's not suddenly up to their employer to take care of that for them free of charge.
CoffeeIcePapers
Well-Hung Member
Either way, you have to concede that having someone with less than 250 hours PIC in the cockpit of an airliner is ridiculous
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
As I recall, there is also an extension of the maximum flight period in one duty period (9 in 24) depending on your report time, too. The "so what" is that trips like LAX-JFK-LAX could be flown in one day, which is not possible under current rules. For those too lazy to Google, the fatigue NPRM is here. The 1500/ATP ANPRM is here.
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the links! I was wicked tired and was too lazy to dig those up last night. And you're correct, IIRC. The max flight time was extended an hour under certain circumstances if medical science supported it. Personally, I don't mind that- I think it's reasonable. If I fly 9 hours and 6+ legs, I'm going to wicked exhausted around hour 10 of the day. If I fly 9 hours and it's almost entirely en route cruise time, I'm not going to be nearly as tired at the end of the day. I know from anecdotal data of myself and others that the general belief is that more legs equals more fatigue. The science supports that hypothesis.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
I'm not a fan of extending to 9-flight-in-24, simply because after 8 hours strapped to anything (my desk included) I need to get away from the "anything" and do something else...again, rather anecdotally. The point of fatigue reform should be to put pilots in the air (and on duty) less, so that they are fatigued less. But I agree with you on the enroute cruise versus the up-and-down.
I think the rules should take time in the terminal area or takeoffs and landings in a duty period into account in making a determination on whether or not a certificate holder may assign, and a pilot flight crewmember may accept, an assignment. Pilot duties/workload demands are highest from departure to top of climb and then from top of descent to after landing (data courtesy of our friends at the FAA), so any changes to flight and duty time limitations that are actually going to have the desired effects should take into account where the majority of the tasks are in each flight.
Want to schedule someone here to Bangor and back in one day? Okay, probably doable. Some of the schedules I see floating by on Facebook? Not so good...6 legs, starting at 0500 and each one around 1+25 each (some shorter, but the net result is that it adds up to around 8 in 24) with a varying amount of airport appreciation thrown in is probably unhealthy. By that last approach of the evening, you're tired. Maybe not fatigued, but certainly not as sharp as you were when you started that morning.
Regarding the 1500/ATP ANPRM, I'm actually a fan of carrier-specific endorsements or authorizations that they mention, provided that the training is inspected heavily by the FAA. Getting past the somewhat true but oft-too-heavily-trumpeted lament of "there is no substitute to experience," people need to realize that there are things besides experience that count. (See ANPRM, pages 8-10.) 750TT minimum for SIC? I don't know about that - whether or not someone is a good pilot is too difficult to assess based upon what is in their logbook alone.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
No question.
ComplexHiAv8r
Well-Known Member
kellwolf said:
Are you saying what I think you are saying????
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
I say there is a need...however...it's not a requirement.
Those who lack the 250 PIC recently brought up, is largely because they never really ended up signing for an airplane on their own or under their direction (as - for example - as CFI).
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
Too subjective. You'd be surprised how much is left up to the discretion of a CMO office. Personally, I think all airlines should adhere to one set of science-based rest rules. How do you know how effective a training program was with a certain pilot? If we're really going to beat the science drum, we can't have any degree of subjectivity at a program level.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
Sorry, the latter part was in regards to the "you need training specific to the operations of air carrier X, and get a specific endorsement or authorization on your certificate for air carrier X upon graduation from initial" - not in regards to rest.
FOI tells me that there is some science in educational assessment — that is, we can measure that pilots have indeed learned what they were supposed to learn (or not). Any endorsement or authorization program would need to have some form of criteria more specific than that of the additional training endorsements in 14 CFR 61—"air carrier operations" is insufficiently specific, and should involve some real serious checking of outcomes.