Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

FAA Proposes to Raise Airline Pilot Qualification Standards

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Did you get a chance to see the actual Data? The study you are most likely referencing was bought and paid for by AABI. You can check it out here....

http://www.aabi.aero/2010 Pilot Source Study_Results V2.pdf

Given who paid for it, and when and why the study was begun, I have a tough time finding it impartial.

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics you know......

What is your insistence on this AABI? He said internal hiring data, not some paid study. And yes he has seen the hiring data.

Put facts down on the table and you guys start flaming away from left field. Tell single pilot 135 guys that statistically they have the hardest time in training the forums are ready to execute you.
 
To clarify, a guy who goes to some 141 school and gets a four-year degree in "aviation" can jump ahead of a guy who studies engineering and builds his time at a 61 school. Is this right? Seems kinda...dumb.

What else would you expect from the government?
 
What is your insistence on this AABI? He said internal hiring data, not some paid study. And yes he has seen the hiring data.

Put facts down on the table and you guys start flaming away from left field. Tell single pilot 135 guys that statistically they have the hardest time in training the forums are ready to execute you.

This study was most certainly a paid study. It was not really internal.
This AABI is who paid for (and assisted in the production of) the "internal" study. You already know that, right? Cause you read the results of the study, right? I'm betting neither of you have seen the actual data. I know I haven't. I have seen the results that those that have a financial stake in the outcome want me to see. Follow the money. Please read this link. You didn't read the last one very carefully, if at all.

Here is more about the study:

http://www.aabi.aero/2010 04 10 Pilot Source Study Summary v02.pdf

I am not arguing that graduates of an aviation training regime from a college program don't have an easier time with training in the 121 world. They do require less retraining. So do flight instructors. Statistically, flight instructing had as big an impact in trainability as having your training done through a college program. I don't know how much more of a difficult time the people from various backgrounds have. Neither do you, unless you have access to the actual data. I am betting it is not much, or airlines would not hire anyone but AABI grads.

I find it ridiculous that the government is going to give the big schools an advantage over FBO's when it comes to being able to work for the airlines. The question the study asked was whether the pilots from AABI schools were more trainable. Not whether or not they were safer. IF the AABI schools students are so much easier to train, let that be their advantage in the hiring process. Giving them 33% off of their hourly requirements is wrong. Unless you are going to extend that courtesy to all flight instructors as well.

1500 hours should be the mins for everyone.......Military, Flight Instructor, ABBI grad or not.

I agree with everything ASA aviator wrote except that structured program guys are better. They may require less training, but that does not make them better pilots.
 
How long has 141 been around anyway? I would imagine 61 was the initial way civilians obtained certs, other than the military.
 
Did you get a chance to see the actual Data? The study you are most likely referencing was bought and paid for by AABI. You can check it out here....

http://www.aabi.aero/2010 Pilot Source Study_Results V2.pdf

Given who paid for it, and when and why the study was begun, I have a tough time finding it impartial.

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics you know......

Look, I'm not saying that part 61 guys are inferior. In my opinion, the 141 guys do better because on average, the 141 guys are 141 because airline is the goal, whereas most 61 guys didn't start with a goal of an airline. I was a 61 guy for my private. I instructed part 141 and part 61. The 141 guys were more driven and more dedicated. My best student was part 61 though. A "natural."
 
Did you get a chance to see the actual Data? The study you are most likely referencing was bought and paid for by AABI. You can check it out here....

http://www.aabi.aero/2010 Pilot Source Study_Results V2.pdf

Given who paid for it, and when and why the study was begun, I have a tough time finding it impartial.

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics you know......

Yep,

Always follow the money...there ye shall find the truth.
 
this is great proposal, now if they can just get it past the bull******************** lobbyist that work for the airlines.

safety is their number one concern.....as long as it dont cost anything.
 
uh ohh the regionals airlines pool of cheap pilots is in jeopardy. They better get there lobbyists' on this right away!
 
in 2000 I had 900 hours at UND and was hired before I graduated... I was the low time guy that got hired then, so not so true about 141 schools sending out 250 hour guys at that time anyways...
 
To clarify, a guy who goes to some 141 school and gets a four-year degree in "aviation" can jump ahead of a guy who studies engineering and builds his time at a 61 school. Is this right? Seems kinda...dumb.

At least it's a step in the right direction.

Yeah that is dumb. An aviation degree should not be some short cut for hours. I am sure UND or Embry Riddle lobbied for that part.

I am way past this number of hours so it does not affect me, but I did mine pt 61, while getting a science degree. An aviation degree does not make anyone a pilot and ERAU should not compare itself to Harvard.
 
Yeah that is dumb. An aviation degree should not be some short cut for hours. I am sure UND or Embry Riddle lobbied for that part.

I am way past this number of hours so it does not affect me, but I did mine pt 61, while getting a science degree. An aviation degree does not make anyone a pilot and ERAU should not compare itself to Harvard.

Sorry...you're just not qualified. You didn't learn about airplanes for four years.
 
I'll bet the buffalo pilots had college degrees. It doesn't mean Dick. Experience counts and you can't discount it. 1500 hrs.
Minimum for 121ops.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom