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

dirkdigler

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2002
Posts
143
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 27, 2012
Contact: Les Dorr, Jr. or Alison Duquette
Phone: 202-267-3883

FAA Proposes to Raise Airline Pilot Qualification Standards

WASHINGTON – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today proposed to substantially raise the qualification requirements for first officers who fly for U.S. passenger and cargo airlines.

Consistent with a mandate in the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, the proposed rule would require first officers – also known as co-pilots – to hold an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate, requiring 1,500 hours of pilot flight time. Currently, first officers are required to have only a commercial pilot certificate, which requires 250 hours of flight time. The proposal also would require first officers to have an aircraft type rating, which involves additional training and testing specific to the airplanes they fly.

“Safety in all modes of transportation is our number-one priority,” said Secretary LaHood. “This proposed rule reflects our commitment to the safety of the traveling public by making sure our pilots are the most qualified and best trained in the world.”

“Our pilots need to have the right training and the right qualifications so they can be prepared to handle any situation they encounter in the cockpit,” said FAA Acting Administrator Michael Huerta. “I believe this proposed rule will ensure our nation’s pilots have the necessary skills and experience.”

Other highlights of the proposed rule include:

◘ A requirement for a pilot to have a minimum of 1,000 flight hours as a pilot in air carrier operations that require an ATP prior to serving as a captain for a U.S. airline.

◘ Enhanced training requirements for an ATP certificate, including 50 hours of multi-engine flight experience and completion of a new FAA-approved training program.

◘ An allowance for pilots with fewer than 1,500 hours of flight time, but who have an aviation degree or military pilot experience, to obtain a “restricted privileges” ATP certificate. These pilots could serve only as a first officer, not as a captain. Former military pilots with 750 hours of flight time would be able to apply for an ATP certificate with restricted privileges. Graduates of a four-year baccalaureate aviation degree program would be able to obtain an ATP with 1,000 hours of flight time, only if they also obtained a commercial pilot certificate and instrument rating from a pilot school affiliated with the university or college.

The proposal addresses recommendations from an Aviation Rulemaking Committee, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the FAA’s Call to Action to improve airline safety.

The proposed rule can be viewed at: http://archives.gov/federal-register/public-inspection/ The public may comment on the proposal for 60 days after publication on February 29.
 
I think that is good and bad. Good for current regional pilots, since the regionals will have to go after pilots with higher total hours, which may mean pay raises to attract them. Bad news would be that could cut into the razor thin profits that some regionals are making, or contribute to losses. These days it's all about being the most efficient Regional out there to attract business from the Legacies. The pilots that the Regionals might have to go after cargo types (Amflight or caravan drivers), but most of them make in the $30-40K range I think. Doubtful if they will accept less to start at a Regional.

Godspeed!


The OYSter
 
Last edited:
Man Oys you didn't waste any time getting back on the Regional board!!! Welcome back, now behave yo-self! Godspeed!
 
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.
 
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.

Ive seen better 61 pilots compared to 141 (ALLATP,etc.) or Riddle.
 
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.
A 141 school is designed to give you the boot at around 200 hours... So where does this guy get the extra 800?
 
A 141 school is designed to give you the boot at around 200 hours... So where does this guy get the extra 800?

Come on is that a serious question? Instruct, cargo, hitch rides, banner tow, ferry flights, pay, beg, work for it...etc
 
Ive seen better 61 pilots compared to 141 (ALLATP,etc.) or Riddle.

Sure. There are always outliers, but the hiring data is very clear that on AVERAGE, the structured program guys are better.

Before you all start flaming away, I'm not saying that YOU aren't better because YOU did 61. I'm saying that there's several years worth of solid hiring data evaluating the training success of part 141 vs 61, and all things being equal, more 141 guys make it through training than 61.

That data was taken to "the hill" during the deliberations on this rule, and that's where the exemption came from.
 
I dont think that data is wrong...but somewhat skewed. I've done training in both 141 and 61. I personally thought 141 was filled with a lot of waste and bs. However, I think people who are airline bound start out looking for a complete course, start to finish. You find that more often in a 141 program. So, I don't think the training is better as in making a better pilot...just better at getting a pilot zero to hero, so to speak.


But having watched how the FAA handled these new pilot rest rules...I would bet on years and some watered down version.
 
If I read the article accuratly, the FAA is saying it (FAA) took over a decade, 61 accidents, 107 lives, and 28 injuries to come up with a "proposal" for better training.
The "proposal" will then have 60 days for the "public" to suggest changes!
This is what the tax payer gets for their money.
 
Why dont they suggest more sleep for crews??
 
Sure. There are always outliers, but the hiring data is very clear that on AVERAGE, the structured program guys are better.

Before you all start flaming away, I'm not saying that YOU aren't better because YOU did 61. I'm saying that there's several years worth of solid hiring data evaluating the training success of part 141 vs 61, and all things being equal, more 141 guys make it through training than 61.

That data was taken to "the hill" during the deliberations on this rule, and that's where the exemption came from.

Not saying you are wrong, but where did the data come from? I'm laying pretty heavy odds that the studies were bought and paid for by AABI.
 
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.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top