By ANDY PASZTOR
LINK
An air-safety advisory group has lobbed a political hot potato into the lap of FAA chief Randy Babbitt: recommendations undercutting Congressionally-mandated experience requirements for new airline co-pilots.
The group of industry and labor experts concluded that 500 hours of actual flight time, rather than the 1,500-hour minimum recently endorsed by Congress, should be deemed adequate for some newly-hired first officers. The lower experience level, however, would apply only to prospective hires with strong academic credentials and success in enhanced ground-school or training courses focused on making them familiar with airline operations.
Raising minimum co-pilot qualifications -- without running afoul of Congress or drastically reducing the likely pool of future job applicants -- is among the most difficult and hotly-debated issue facing U.S. commercial aviation. Establishing specific flight-time requirements may be the most challenging part of that debate.
Current rules allow co-pilots to get behind the controls of airliners with as few as 190 hours of prior flying experience. Industry groups worry that raising that minimum requirement to a mandatory 1,500 hours , especially all at once, could lead to future pilot shortages without providing the intended boost in safety.
As a result, the advisory group compromised by proposing a flexible, sliding scale that would offer new co-pilots the chance to supplement their flight hours with a college degree, special jet-training courses and other proof of enhanced aeronautical knowledge.
The group also urged that before new co-pilots are allowed to fly passengers, the FAA should require each aviator to demonstrate proficiency in the specific aircraft type he or she will be assigned to fly. Such "type ratings," or licenses for specific models, currently aren't legally required for co-pilots. They are mandatory for all airline captains.
Details of the recommendations, which were delivered to the FAA late last month, haven't been reported before. The agency has declined to comment or release the report, pending high-level FAA deliberations.
But a copy of the 123-page document obtained by The Wall Street Journal emphasizes the importance of giving certain prospective co-pilots flight-time "credits" for academic and other relevant experience. The most credits, according to the report, would be earned "through completion of an accredited flight training program at a 4-year university of college." Under some circumstances, that could translate to airlines hiring co-pilots with a minimum of 500 hours flying experience.
The report also spells out required piloting skills for new hires, ranging from high-altitude aircraft handling to winter weather conditions to safely getting out of stalls or wake turbulence events. The report specifically mentions that new co-pilots need to demonstrate they understand and are able to cope with failures of computerized flight instruments and control systems.
The majority of the members of the advisory group agreed that such a system "ensures sufficient real-world operational experience" before co-pilots begin transporting passengers.
Some of the group's participants vigorously disagreed. The Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations, which represents some 28,000 commercial pilots, filed a minority dissent stressing that a flat 1,500-hour minimum flight-time requirement for new co-pilots is essential.
The National Air Disaster Alliance/Foundation, which represents the families of crash victims and survivors, was another member of the advisory group. It filed a separate, strongly-worded dissent emphasizing that the adjusted 500-hour minimum standard is inadequate. Educational credits, according to the dissent, "simply cannot replace or serve as a substitute for actual flight experience."
Still, people familiar with the details said the majority recommendations are likely to be embraced by the FAA because they have the backing of major industry associations and labor groups. The head of the FAA-created advisory group, for example, was Scott Foose, the top safety official at the Regional Airline Association, which represents most commuter carriers.
Commuter airlines would be affected the most by revised co-pilot qualification and training rules, since they typically hire less-experienced aviators than those who go to work for mainline national or international carriers. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Foose declined to comment.
The recommendations supported by most of the 20 members of the advisory group come in the wake of several high-profile airline incidents and accidents that highlighted lapses in co-pilot skills and judgment. The accidents include the Feb. 2009 crash of a Colgan Air turboprop near Buffalo, N.Y., that resulted in 50 fatalities.
Largely prompted by that accident, FAA safety experts, lawmakers, pilot unions, airline officials and pilot-training organizations have been mulling ways to upgrade the qualifications of new co-pilots. Earlier this year, overwhelming bipartisan support in the House and Senate produced legislation setting 1,500 hours of flight time as the minimum for new co-pilots.
But lawmakers also enacted a provision giving the FAA authority to devise alternate, more-flexible regulations to give newly-hired co-pilots credits for ground-training and certain types of course work.
Another controversial part of the advisory report deals with pay levels for co-pilots, particularly at regional carries. The final report urges the FAA to require all airlines to provide the agency with an annual report detailing flight hours, educational background and pay for co-pilots.
The recommendation follows congressional and public criticism that some co-pilots flying grueling schedules for regional carriers start with a base pay of around $20,000.
The Regional Airlines Association, among others, dissented and requested the FAA to hold off requiring public reports of "sensitive" data about co-pilot pay and benefits. The association stressed that such a requirement would be unfair because the FAA doesn't "track pay and benefits for any other air-carrier employee group."
The dissent also noted that such information would be "proprietary in nature," adding that the advisory group provided no connection between pay and safety.
LINK
An air-safety advisory group has lobbed a political hot potato into the lap of FAA chief Randy Babbitt: recommendations undercutting Congressionally-mandated experience requirements for new airline co-pilots.
The group of industry and labor experts concluded that 500 hours of actual flight time, rather than the 1,500-hour minimum recently endorsed by Congress, should be deemed adequate for some newly-hired first officers. The lower experience level, however, would apply only to prospective hires with strong academic credentials and success in enhanced ground-school or training courses focused on making them familiar with airline operations.
Raising minimum co-pilot qualifications -- without running afoul of Congress or drastically reducing the likely pool of future job applicants -- is among the most difficult and hotly-debated issue facing U.S. commercial aviation. Establishing specific flight-time requirements may be the most challenging part of that debate.
Current rules allow co-pilots to get behind the controls of airliners with as few as 190 hours of prior flying experience. Industry groups worry that raising that minimum requirement to a mandatory 1,500 hours , especially all at once, could lead to future pilot shortages without providing the intended boost in safety.
As a result, the advisory group compromised by proposing a flexible, sliding scale that would offer new co-pilots the chance to supplement their flight hours with a college degree, special jet-training courses and other proof of enhanced aeronautical knowledge.
The group also urged that before new co-pilots are allowed to fly passengers, the FAA should require each aviator to demonstrate proficiency in the specific aircraft type he or she will be assigned to fly. Such "type ratings," or licenses for specific models, currently aren't legally required for co-pilots. They are mandatory for all airline captains.
Details of the recommendations, which were delivered to the FAA late last month, haven't been reported before. The agency has declined to comment or release the report, pending high-level FAA deliberations.
But a copy of the 123-page document obtained by The Wall Street Journal emphasizes the importance of giving certain prospective co-pilots flight-time "credits" for academic and other relevant experience. The most credits, according to the report, would be earned "through completion of an accredited flight training program at a 4-year university of college." Under some circumstances, that could translate to airlines hiring co-pilots with a minimum of 500 hours flying experience.
The report also spells out required piloting skills for new hires, ranging from high-altitude aircraft handling to winter weather conditions to safely getting out of stalls or wake turbulence events. The report specifically mentions that new co-pilots need to demonstrate they understand and are able to cope with failures of computerized flight instruments and control systems.
The majority of the members of the advisory group agreed that such a system "ensures sufficient real-world operational experience" before co-pilots begin transporting passengers.
Some of the group's participants vigorously disagreed. The Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations, which represents some 28,000 commercial pilots, filed a minority dissent stressing that a flat 1,500-hour minimum flight-time requirement for new co-pilots is essential.
The National Air Disaster Alliance/Foundation, which represents the families of crash victims and survivors, was another member of the advisory group. It filed a separate, strongly-worded dissent emphasizing that the adjusted 500-hour minimum standard is inadequate. Educational credits, according to the dissent, "simply cannot replace or serve as a substitute for actual flight experience."
Still, people familiar with the details said the majority recommendations are likely to be embraced by the FAA because they have the backing of major industry associations and labor groups. The head of the FAA-created advisory group, for example, was Scott Foose, the top safety official at the Regional Airline Association, which represents most commuter carriers.
Commuter airlines would be affected the most by revised co-pilot qualification and training rules, since they typically hire less-experienced aviators than those who go to work for mainline national or international carriers. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Foose declined to comment.
The recommendations supported by most of the 20 members of the advisory group come in the wake of several high-profile airline incidents and accidents that highlighted lapses in co-pilot skills and judgment. The accidents include the Feb. 2009 crash of a Colgan Air turboprop near Buffalo, N.Y., that resulted in 50 fatalities.
Largely prompted by that accident, FAA safety experts, lawmakers, pilot unions, airline officials and pilot-training organizations have been mulling ways to upgrade the qualifications of new co-pilots. Earlier this year, overwhelming bipartisan support in the House and Senate produced legislation setting 1,500 hours of flight time as the minimum for new co-pilots.
But lawmakers also enacted a provision giving the FAA authority to devise alternate, more-flexible regulations to give newly-hired co-pilots credits for ground-training and certain types of course work.
Another controversial part of the advisory report deals with pay levels for co-pilots, particularly at regional carries. The final report urges the FAA to require all airlines to provide the agency with an annual report detailing flight hours, educational background and pay for co-pilots.
The recommendation follows congressional and public criticism that some co-pilots flying grueling schedules for regional carriers start with a base pay of around $20,000.
The Regional Airlines Association, among others, dissented and requested the FAA to hold off requiring public reports of "sensitive" data about co-pilot pay and benefits. The association stressed that such a requirement would be unfair because the FAA doesn't "track pay and benefits for any other air-carrier employee group."
The dissent also noted that such information would be "proprietary in nature," adding that the advisory group provided no connection between pay and safety.
