Looks Like 1500 Hours May Become the New Hiring Minimum Among Other Things:

[ualdriver]

http://www.flightglobal.com/article...egislation-is-not-necessary-faas-babbitt.html

Babbitt says new safety legislation not necessary and will be moot by the time Congress meets again in September.

 

[waveflyer]

This is about the ATA- they continually make a successful argument that cheap aviation is a boon to the economy.
Hence the reason we need to write emails today- to your congressman - to Babbitt - to Obama- and to the senators on the aviation oversight committee. It's not hard- but if this is allowed to go the 'unnecessary' route- we'll get to live w/ depressed wages for that much longer

 

[pilotyip]

The drift of the thread

Yip-
I'll bite- though I really think you're insecure and scared from a management perspective. How about we make it ' not a joke' and go from there ? Sound good?

Thank you doctor, I feel so much better now. Isn't the direction of this thread to reduce the number of pilots, so the remaining piltos can make more money? That seems to be the main point in all these posts. So why not make it tuffer? 20/20 would a good start wouldn't it?

 

[QOL_is_great:)]

My expereinced is just the opposite.
We are not a great target for the military pilot, but about 30% of our hires are military trained pilots. We like to hire them because of a higher percentage successfully complete training, like one failure of 47 new hires and the civilian side it is like 14 failures out of 119 hires. In addition, no military pilot has needed additional IOE time or had any problem going through upgrade. This includes Helo pilots, which normally on the second sim session, blow their fixed wing non-turbine civilian counter parts out of the water. Side subject, but I can not understand the airlines hiring department prejudice against Helo time, they are fantastic sticks and we are lucky to get them.

I don't understand it either. Or why they don't count it at all and we know which airlines those are. I always wondered how 200 hours of rotor time flown in Korea; some NVG time, along the DMZ doesn't count, but 200 hours in a 172 either in the pattern or towing a banner is does.

I know when I did interviews and screened resumes in a past life that I did weed out pilots and the military pilots always lasted longer in the screening process. Both rotor and fixed wing from all services.

 

[deadstick]

Excellent idea pilotyip.

A four year degree in Aviation Science from an accredited institution should be required for the ATP. Absolutely.

I know English majors who go to med school. I know engineering/science majors who go to law school.

 

[zonker]

Good god, 7200 posts at your age!!!??? This much devotion to downgrading this profession on here is beyond bizarre. From one hip in need of replacement, you'll shoot out the notion that this is an easy job that high school drop outs can do just fine at and then the other hip in need of replacement you shoot out that a typical 70 year is completely competent to handle the rigors of the crappy work conditions you now help create. You are an aviation legend, however not a respectable one.

Well done!

 

[inline]

Here is what ALPA said about that:

Screening

Few, if any, airlines tailor their training programs based on their new hires’ past flying experience. The airline industry has seen significant changes – some of which involve pilot demographics – that have not been reflected in our training practices. For example, there are considerably fewer former military pilots in the airline ranks than in years past. The military services extensively screen their candidates, who are generally required to have a four-year college degree, before being accepted into pilot training. Once accepted, military training provides intense and rigorous classroom academic instruction as well as in-depth flight instruction that takes over one year. Additionally, pilots today coming from non-military backgrounds often do not have the challenging experience of their predecessors on which to build – e.g. flying corporate, night freight, or flight instructing - before being hired at entry-level, or regional air carriers. These demographic changes require a new focus on standardization and professionalism training and even some fundamental flying skills. The previous training programs based on the assumption of more experienced pilot candidates will not be sufficient; “one-size-fits-all” training is ill suited to the task.

The financial commitment of training and the historical time commitment to build experience to qualify to be hired by an airline through the civilian route and the considerable time and sacrifices needed to serve in the military acted as a screening process to eliminate those only marginally interested in becoming an airline pilot. However, with new pilots being hired with as little as 200 hours total flight time (much of which could have been in a simulator) and fewer military pilots seeking airline jobs, this de facto screening process that helped ensure only the highest performing people make it to the airlines is no longer effective. Today, many regional airlines do nothing to discourage their experienced pilots from quitting so as to hire lower-paid replacements.

Flight experience and pilot capabilities cannot be measured by mere flight hours. Airlines used to have an extensive screening process that included psychology tests, academic knowledge tests, simulator flying skill evaluations and medical conditioning exams. As the number of pilot applicants declines and airlines become more desperate to fill the positions, these screening processes have been reduced and some elements completely eliminated.

Airlines need to reestablish thorough screening processes, or their equivalent, to ensure that the applicants they hire will be able to maintain an equivalent or better level of safety, professionalism and performance than their predecessors. Flight schools need to implement extensive screening processes for students pursuing a professional pilot career. Regulators need to provide the oversight to ensure that these screening tools are implemented effectively by the airlines and flight training organizations, as well as modify pilot qualification regulations to include much more rigorous education and testing requirements in order to provide a screening process that begins prior to initial pilot certification and continues at the airlines.

Need for Stronger Academic Emphasis

The Joint Aviation Authority (JAA), now the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and FAA pilot licensing requirements are both ICAO-compliant. The single biggest difference between EASA and FAA is knowledge requirements. The FAA theoretical knowledge is simply not as demanding as EASA, which has 14 written exams versus one by the FAA, which is a multiple-choice exam. The EASA exams require the student to be tested for 30-40 hours. By stark contrast, the FAA publishes its exam questions with answers provided so a student can purchase them, study the questions, and pass its single exam. Examination questions are not available for EASA exams in such a manner.

The least demanding Federal Aviation Regulations which govern commercial pilot license requirements (i.e., §61.125 and §61.155) specify the aeronautical knowledge requirements for commercial and airline transport pilot ratings. These rules were written decades ago, when there was no expectation that they would be used as minimum standards to train pilots to take jobs as airline first officers. The requirements emphasize weather and navigation, including interaction with air traffic control. There is some mention of aircraft aerodynamics and human factors, including aeronautical decision making and judgment as well as crew resource management. The regulations allow self-study and many such training courses emphasize passing the test rather than learning the material. We do not feel these requirements are adequate to prepare a professional airline pilot. The ground instruction of these subjects needs to be strengthened with required formal classroom academic instruction and more extensive testing and examination.

The EASA-approved training course for a commercial airline pilot tends to be rather structured and rigorous. FAA should develop and implement a corollary ground school and testing process in FAR Part 121 for all pilots who seek commercial airline careers. Testing akin to the quality of the Certified Public Accountant (CPA) exams or bar exam for attorneys would benefit aviation by serving as a screening tool to ensure that, in the future, only the most knowledgeable and dedicated pilots join the ranks of airline pilots.

The European commercial pilots do not have a better safety record than U.S. pilots despite their "rigorous" exams and training.

 

[inline]

The FAA ATP exam is a joke. I bought a book, read through it 2 or 3 times and scored a 98%.

The Canadian ATP in contrast actually involved study time. I did that 15 years ago, 2 exams, it took a week of straight study time (unemployed at the time) for each of the 2 exams. I think the exams themselves each took about 2 or 3 hours to write.

Canadian commercial pilots have no better safety record than their U.S. counterparts despite their in depth exams.

 

[Nevets]

I encourage everyone to write their congressmen about this. This is the one time you can do something about what you get paid 5 years from now.

Take 5 minutes and WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN TODAY- tell them who you are and that you want increased standards. Be heard! Think we finally have some motivation for them to listen

This is about the ATA- they continually make a successful argument that cheap aviation is a boon to the economy.
Hence the reason we need to write emails today- to your congressman - to Babbitt - to Obama- and to the senators on the aviation oversight committee. It's not hard- but if this is allowed to go the 'unnecessary' route- we'll get to live w/ depressed wages for that much longer

ALPA Email Campaign

The European commercial pilots do not have a better safety record than U.S. pilots despite their "rigorous" exams and training.

What is the leading cause of pilot error accidents in Europe compared to US pilots?

 

[FLYLOW22]

The medical and legal field limits it's supply by controlling the requirements to pass the bar, etc.

Why can't pilots do the same for our field?