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

What's it gonna take?

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

Cpt Splash

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2003
Posts
134
FAA Faces Challenges in Implementing New Airline Safety Regulations
Woodrow Bellamy III
FAA is facing budgetary challenges and industry opposition to fully implementing provisions of the 2010 Airline Safety and FAA Extension Act, according to a report released by the Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General.

The Airline Safety act requires FAA to improve commercial airline safety standards by advancing voluntary safety programs, improving pilot rest requirements and providing better processes for carriers to manage safety risks. The act’s passage was prompted by a 2009 crash of Colgan Air flight 3407 that killed 50 people. An investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined the crash was caused by the pilot’s incorrect response to critical safety systems, which caused an aerodynamic stall.

Among the provisions in the act is a requirement to develop an electronic pilot records database, but the agency faces challenges in retaining and standardizing historical records and transitioning from current requirements, according to the report.

In its report, the Inspector General found that FAA is “experiencing lengthy delays and considerable industry opposition” to issuing finalized rules that would lead to the above-mentioned safety improvements.

Furthermore, the report found that the agency has not provided “sufficient” assistance to smaller carriers in implementing the new safety standards. About 12 percent of small carriers have implemented the digital flight data recording programs required by the act, in comparison to more than 90 percent of larger carriers that have flight data recording programs to monitor aircraft performance.

The office considers smaller carriers to be those operating with less than 15 aircraft in their fleet.

“FAA has not provided the level of education, outreach, and guidance needed for air carriers to implement new safety programs, such as mentoring, leadership, and professional development committees,” the report said.

Additionally, the agency is behind schedule in issuing a rule requiring pilots to have 1,500 hours of flight training in order to obtain an Airline Transport Pilot certificate. That would be a significant increase over the current requirement of a minimum of 250 hours to obtain a commercial pilot license.

OIG issued a total of five recommendations in its report, proposing that FAA fully implement the provisions in the act that would establish a joint FAA/industry program for air carriers to report safety violations without risk of penalty, and a program for routine collection of digital flight data; and to focus on extending these programs to smaller air carriers. The office also recommended the heightened pilot licensing qualifications stated in the act and to implement the electronic pilot records database.

The office has submitted its recommendations to FAA, and said the agency has provided substantial responses. More
 
So what I get from this article is that the new rest rules that are slated for the end of the year and the ATP requirements for all new hires on a 121 cert. is not gonna happen.
 
The rest rules are a good thing, but the ATP rule is just the knee jerk reaction of people who don't know anything about aviation. Hours do not equal experience or competence.
 
The rest rules are a good thing, but the ATP rule is just the knee jerk reaction of people who don't know anything about aviation. Hours do not equal experience or competence.

According to that article it says they are having trouble implementing the rule of 1500 hrs of flight training to get an ATP? First off its 1500 of flight experience not training and that always has been the minimum to obtain an ATP. Freaking moron who wrote the article does not understand what the new rule is to begin with.

@ASA, Did you mean hours do not equal competence? Because it certainly does mean experience.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't mean experience or competence. How much experience do I have if I fly 1500 hours of VFR pipeline patrol, or 1500 hours of banner towing? Surely that isn't the same experience as someone with 1500 hours who has been flying in the 121 environment in all kinds of weather talking to ATC.

Until you put qualifiers and categories of flight time together, the hours don't mean anything. What matters is the type of flying being done, and the training to get there. Much like the military, someone with 500 hours and specific and targeting training for the 121 world can be much better prepared than someone with 1500 hours of buzzing around towing banners.

But, it doesn't matter what the facts are. Congress passed a law based on the emotions of dead people's families, not facts. Facts are too inconvenient, and crying families are always good politics.
 
It doesn't mean experience or competence. How much experience do I have if I fly 1500 hours of VFR pipeline patrol, or 1500 hours of banner towing? Surely that isn't the same experience as someone with 1500 hours who has been flying in the 121 environment in all kinds of weather talking to ATC.

Until you put qualifiers and categories of flight time together, the hours don't mean anything. What matters is the type of flying being done, and the training to get there. Much like the military, someone with 500 hours and specific and targeting training for the 121 world can be much better prepared than someone with 1500 hours of buzzing around towing banners.

But, it doesn't matter what the facts are. Congress passed a law based on the emotions of dead people's families, not facts. Facts are too inconvenient, and crying families are always good politics.

True true but in this particular case the captain had an ATP, 121 experience and was type rated on the Q. Which undermines the reason for Congress to pass such requirement and proves that hours, experience do not mean he or she is competent regardless of background. IMO.
 
True true but in this particular case the captain had an ATP, 121 experience and was type rated on the Q. Which undermines the reason for Congress to pass such requirement and proves that hours, experience do not mean he or she is competent regardless of background. IMO.

I agree completely. I think the energy could be better spent on training standards rather than arbitrary numbers. Oh well...
 
Anybody know the FOs numbers in that crash? It takes two to fly and unfortunately two to crash.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top