ILOT CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR AIR CARRIER OPERATIONS- Public Comment Process

[JonnyKnoxville]

PILOT CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR AIR CARRIER OPERATIONS- Public Comment Process
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Re...00006480a8faeb

Your chance to submit your comments. Here is what I wrote:

As an Airline Pilot, I strongly feel that this proposed rule does not go far enough! A pilot with 1500 hours is a very new pilot with limited experience. The Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) Certificate (which requires 1500 hours) should be an absolute minimum qualification to earn money as a pilot in any pilot position throughout this country without exception. The fact that pilots who only hold a commercial pilot certificate can fly an aircraft for compensation needs to be addressed. There just is not enough training that has taken place for a pilot to take on the added pressures of flying for compensation when their training base and operational knowledge are so limited.

Furthermore, I am outraged to hear that exceptions are being considered to protect the universities and flight schools that have aviation programs. An aviation educational program and it's financial success should not be of a higher concern than that of the flying public's safety! The idea of having programs with training exemptions built into them is just a loophole that would put inexperienced pilots in an airline's flight deck. Just because someone reads books and takes test in a classroom on flying does not mean that he/she is capable of flying an airplane. Even with today's modern flight simulators and advanced training technics, nothing replaces the real-world experience of being trained in the flight deck of a real aircraft.

I strongly feel that these changes must take place to advance aviation safety especially at a time when many highly experienced pilots are starting to retire. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss this issue in greater detail.

 

[jhwk0309]

Excellent job in finding this. Unfortunately your link doesn't work. Try this link: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a8faeb

Once it opens up, look at the request in the .pdf file(or choose the html icon if you want). The government actually lists what feedback they're looking for with respect to specific questions that are being addressed. One question is :

3C. The FAA expects that a new
endorsement would include additional
flight hour requirements. At a
minimum, the FAA requests comments
on how many hours should be required
beyond the minimum hours needed to
qualify for a commercial pilot
certificate. Some have suggested that the
FAA require a minimum of 750 hours
for a commercial pilot to serve as SIC in
part 121 operations. Is this number too​

high, or too low, and why?


Hopefully this helps.

 

[JonnyKnoxville]

Sorry, here it is:

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a8faeb

 

[Mike man]

A pilot with 1500 hours is a very new pilot with limited experience.

How is a pilot with 1500 hours of flying a 150 around and a single engine ATP any better than a CFI with 1000 total time and 4 or 500 hours teaching in a complex twin?

 

[inline]

How is a pilot with 1500 hours of flying a 150 around and a single engine ATP any better than a CFI with 1000 total time and 4 or 500 hours teaching in a complex twin?

Those who can do, those who can't, teach.

 

[snozberry]

I'm really getting tired of people missing the point. An ATP is a time requirement, not an experience or knowledge requirement. Every airline flight that has crashed has had an ATP at the command. So obviously, an ATP won't resolve the issue. How 'bout we start making it possible for companies and the FAA to get rid of people who fail multiple check rides? We have all flown with people who have been at the command of an aircraft who have no business being there. But thanks to the lawyers and the unions, there's nothing that can be done about it. You want to make flying safer? Make it possible to get rid of inept pilots.

 

[Mike man]

Those who can do, those who can't, teach.

That makes no sense what so ever in this situation...snozberry is right, an ATP is just a matter of time, not experience, judgment, decision making, and so on...each and every airline crash has had at the very minimum one ATP that was up front, in the case of a major airline both had (or very likely had) ATP's.

I'm not sure firing everyone who has ever busted a check ride will help either, multiple failures in the same area of operation, CRM or V1 cuts ever 6 months for a few years...probably should get canned.

 

[acpilot]

As an Airline Pilot, I strongly feel that this proposed rule does not go far enough! A pilot with 1500 hours is a very new pilot with limited experience.

A 1,500hr pilot is a "young" pilot, but their level of experience depends entirely on what type of flying they've been doing.

The Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) Certificate (which requires 1500 hours) should be an absolute minimum qualification to earn money as a pilot in any pilot position throughout this country without exception.

Did you think ANY of this out? That has got to be the single worst idea I've heard regarding improving "the industry." What about small 135's? What about CFI's? What about part 91? It would devistate the industry.

The fact that pilots who only hold a commercial pilot certificate can fly an aircraft for compensation needs to be addressed. There just is not enough training that has taken place for a pilot to take on the added pressures of flying for compensation when their training base and operational knowledge are so limited.

Are you saying that all commercial pilots with less than 1,500 hrs are incompetent?

I know a large number of COMMERCIAL (not ATP) pilots that are typed and hand flying the SA-227 (and similar aircraft) single pilot in hard weather. I got my 227 type at 1,500hrs. Are you suggesting that an ATP is somehow "better" that they are simply because of an ATP?

Furthermore, I am outraged to hear that exceptions are being considered to protect the universities and flight schools that have aviation programs. An aviation educational program and it's financial success should not be of a higher concern than that of the flying public's safety! The idea of having programs with training exemptions built into them is just a loophole that would put inexperienced pilots in an airline's flight deck.

There is something to be said for 141 standardization. It's not necessarily "better" than 61, but at least you know what you're getting. You're right that financial considerations should not weight as heavily on the decision as they do, but you can't ignore the financial considerations either.

Just because someone reads books and takes test in a classroom on flying does not mean that he/she is capable of flying an airplane. Even with today's modern flight simulators and advanced training technics, nothing replaces the real-world experience of being trained in the flight deck of a real aircraft.

Absolutely right.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

A guy with 1500 hours and an ATP-MEL, is better than that same guy when he was at 188 hours, with a Commm-MEL and Instr ratings, and 0 hours of actual Comm time.


I posted my response to the NPRM, and I said a bunch of time that the ATP/1500 hours should be required.

When asked if University classroom hours should count, I said that an approved curriculum, with a trained instructor in that curriculum, at EITHER a university OR an FBO, should be able to reduce the hours for an ATP by 10%, down to 1350 hours.

The FAA is looking at either 750 for the ATP, or a Comm/121 license at 750 hours.

I also said that the 121 guy should have 5-20 ACTUAL inst hours in the AIRPLANE, and icing and high altitude handling training in the sim before they are allowed on the 121 airplane.

cliff
NBO