QuoteMica had been under pressure from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University â€" a widely respected aviation school in his district â€" to ease the 1,500-hour requirement. Flight schools say the new requirement ( up from 250) would be so daunting that it would drive away potential students and possibly put some university aviation programs out of business.
But the pressure from the flight schools could not match the pressure from the families of those who died on Continental Connection Flight 3407, which crashed in Clarence Center on Feb. 12, killing 50 people.
Frustrated that Mica and other lawmakers were discussing changes to the legislation to address the aviation schools' concerns, the Flight 3407 families late Wednesday issued a statement lambasting Mica.
"It is extremely disappointing to watch Congressman Mica stand up at the press conference, wave the letters from our family group, take the credit, and then turn around and not represent the position that our group stands for," said Susan Bourque of East Aurora, who lost her sister, 9/11 activist Beverly Eckert, in the crash.
Upon seeing Bourque's statement, Mica issued a statement of his own, saying, "I support" the requirement of 1,500 flight hours.
"Unfortunately, representatives of the Families of Flight 3407 did not have accurate information relating to my position," said Mica, who called Bourque to explain his position.
Afterward, Bourque said: "I was very pleased that he called. .‚.‚. He wanted to make clear that he was in support of the provision."
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved the air safety bill in late July, but the concerns raised by the flight schools have slowed the bill's progress since then.
However, Mica and Rep. Jerry F. Costello, D-Ill., chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, "seemed to reach an agreement in principle" late Wednesday to address those concerns and then move the bill forward, said Jim Berard, a spokesman for the committee.
Details of that agreement are still being worked out, and it remains unclear how the changes can satisfy the flight schools without lowering the (new) limit of 1,500 flight hours for new pilots.
http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/814614.html
Well, let's see if "People over Profit" for once wins out over "Profit above People."
It's still unclear how an "agreement" could have been reached that could make the flight schools happy without lowering the new flight limit.
Something to keep an eye on.
Air Safety Initiatives Run Into Opposition from Republicans
By Sholnn Freeman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Federal efforts to improve U.S. aviation safety after a deadly regional plane crash in February have hit major obstacles, sapping momentum for a reform effort that enjoyed broad political support earlier this year.
A number of aviation safety proposals have been filed in Congress this year in response to the Feb. 12 crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407 outside Buffalo. The crash killed 50 people, making it the deadliest U.S. transportation accident in seven years.
In preliminary hearings and reports, the National Transportation Safety Board has exposed a number of safety issues, including lax pilot hiring practices, problems related to training and fatigue and superficial regulatory oversight by the Federal Aviation Administration.
In three days of hearings in March, the NTSB released cockpit voice transcripts from the accident, and the plane's co-pilot can be heard expressing fears about poor training and her inadequacies as an entry-level pilot. The safety board's revelations were followed by a wave of news conferences, news releases and congressional hearings in which lawmakers demanded action.
Action appears to have been stymied on a number of fronts, however. Objections from U.S. aviation colleges have slowed House legislation intended to improve safety. The schools are fighting a provision that would require all airline pilots to obtain airline transport pilot certificates from the FAA, substantially boosting the flight time of entry-level pilots. Under current regulations, only senior pilots must have the certificates, which require 1,500 hours of flight time.
The flight time requirement is a big problem for the colleges, which tend to graduate pilots who have 250 to 350 hours. Pilots from the schools have been able to move quickly to entry-level jobs at regional airlines as junior pilots. The new rule would force graduates to spend an additional year or more acquiring the required flight hours.
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, the country's largest aviation school, has emerged in recent weeks as a major opponent of the provision. The school's Daytona Beach campus is in the district of Rep. John L. Mica (Fla.), ranking Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which oversees aviation.
Tim Brady, dean of Embry-Riddle's College of Aviation, and other aviation educators said the provision would spur aspiring airline pilots to fulfill the flying time requirement by piloting crop-dusters and towing banners.
Staff members in Mica's office have been working on a compromise with FAA officials and committee Democrats.
Jim Berard, a spokesman for the House transportation committee, said he is confident that the group could reach "an amicable solution." But a compromise could alienate other House Democrats, families of crash victims and pilot union members who back reforms.
"Any attempt to decrease the qualifications below the level of an airline transport pilot license is watering it down," said Capt. James Ray, media chairman of the U.S. Airline Pilots Association, which represents 5,200 US Airways pilots and has been a strong backer of the bill.
Meanwhile, other efforts to improve aviation safety have foundered. In the Senate, action on aviation safety legislation has taken a back seat as key lawmakers grapple with health-care reform.
Separately, an FAA initiative to extract voluntary commitments from the aviation industry to improve safety has drawn sharp criticism from Democrats. In June, FAA Administrator J. Randolph Babbitt wrote dozens of airlines and eight labor unions asking them to upgrade safety practices and report back to him on their progress.
Rep. Jerry F. Costello (D-Ill.), chairman of the House aviation subcommittee, credited Babbitt with starting a rulemaking process aimed at addressing pilot fatigue this year. But Costello said that the FAA had failed to impose firm deadlines and that data from the voluntary initiative are "raw and incomplete."
The FAA has said 69 of 98 airlines and three of eight aviation unions have responded. Babbitt vowed last week to publicize the names of unresponsive airlines and unions.
"While we haven't heard from everyone at this point," Babbitt said at the hearing, "I will use my bully pulpit going forward."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093003002_pf.html
Yup, why Republicans still believe in "voluntary" regulation boggles the mind.
I wonder how Mica is going to balance one of his top campaign contributer needs ( Embry Riddle) with the safety of passengers.
There is no substitute for "Stick Time"! Airline pilots must be annually certified, and they are, they must also be what is called type certificated for the aircraft in which they are flying. There is a very large difference between single engine land and multiengine jet and rightfully so. More time should be required not less!
Sure enough, John Mica back stabs the Families who lost loved ones on Flight 3407
Chooses to work for his campaign contributors instead!
Oct 4th, John Mica assured the families he would stand with them:
QuoteFrustrated that Mica and other lawmakers were discussing changes to the legislation to address the aviation schools' concerns, the Flight 3407 families late Wednesday issued a statement lambasting Mica.
"It is extremely disappointing to watch Congressman Mica stand up at the press conference, wave the letters from our family group, take the credit, and then turn around and not represent the position that our group stands for," said Susan Bourque of East Aurora, who lost her sister, 9/11 activist Beverly Eckert, in the crash.
Upon seeing Bourque's statement, Mica issued a statement of his own, saying, "I support" the requirement of 1,500 flight hours.
"Unfortunately, representatives of the Families of Flight 3407 did not have accurate information relating to my position," said Mica, who called Bourque to explain his position.
Afterward, Bourque said: "I was very pleased that he called. .‚.‚. He wanted to make clear that he was in support of the provision."
Now, he's done an about face:
QuoteHouse vote set today on training for pilots
But new provision revises flight hours
By Jerry Zremski
News Washington Bureau Chief
Updated: October 14, 2009, 8:55 AM /
WASHINGTON â€" The House is expected to vote today on new airline safety legislation â€" but because of a backroom deal among lawmakers, the measure is not quite as tough as the families of Flight 3407 victims would have liked.
The final version of the bill, unveiled Tuesday, includes an entirely new section aimed at placating collegiate aviation programs. The provision allows an undetermined amount of university class time to be counted toward the 1,500 "flight hours" the bill would require before a pilot could join a passenger airline.
The requirement still would rise sharply from the current 250 hours.
But the behind-the-scenes addition of that new language â€" included at the request of a powerful Florida lawmaker whose district includes a prominent flight school â€" didn't exactly thrill those who lost loved ones in the February crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407 in Clarence Center.
"This is kind of out of the blue," said Susan Bourque, whose sister, Beverly Eckert, was among the 50 people who died in the crash.
Indeed, even some of the bill's co-sponsors â€" such as Rep. Chris Lee, R-Clarence â€" did not know the changes had been made.
"I'm a little mystified," Lee said. "I'm always surprised with the ways of Washington."
Lee and the Flight 3407 families stressed, though, that even with the changes, the bill represents an extraordinarily strong effort to bolster flight safety.
The legislation also would impose stringent training requirements to make sure pilots know how to operate stall recovery systems and would force airlines to develop fatigue risk management systems for pilots.
Democrats and Republicans on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee worked together on the bill, which the committee approved unanimously July 30, just a day after it was introduced.
But Embry-Riddle University and other universities with aviation programs later complained that the 1,500-flight-hour requirement would cause prospective students to shun them in favor of local flight instructors who offer plenty of hands-on experience.
In response, Rep. John L. Mica of Florida â€" the top Republican on the committee, which oversees aviation, and the congressman from the district that includes Embry-Riddle's campus â€" went to work.
Negotiations with Rep. Jerry F. Costello, an Illinois Democrat and chairman of the aviation subcommittee, produced the compromise, which allows the head of the Federal Aviation Administration to decide how much classroom time can be counted as flight time under the 1,500-hour requirement. The classroom time would have to "enhance safety more" than would additional hours in the cockpit, the insertion says.
FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt and other pilots who testified at a House hearing last month voiced strong support for a 1,500-hour fight-time requirement, which has reduced the concerns of the Flight 3407 families.
"I'm a little bit nervous about this," said Mike Loftus, a former Continental pilot whose daughter, Maddy, died in the crash. "If it were anybody other than Randy Babbitt in that job, I would be worried" that the flight-hours requirement would be genuinely weakened.
Only two weeks ago, Mica called Bourque to reiterate his support for the 1,500-hour flight time requirement.
Neither Justin Harclerode, Mica's spokesman, nor Tim Brady, dean of Embry-Riddle's College of Aviation, returned calls seeking comment on the new language in the bill.
The provision raises a key question about the legislative process: Can senior lawmakers insert language into a bill that has already been approved by the committee?
"In essence, yes," said Jim Berard, a spokesman for the Transportation Committee.
Such last-minute insertions are not unusual. Lee cited that fact, and the flight-safety insertion, as reasons for his push to require that all legislation be made public 72 hours before a final vote.
The new provision conflicts with legislation introduced last week by Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., which does not give the flight schools a break on the 1,500-hour flight time requirement.
"There is no question that we should be raising the training requirements for commercial pilots," Schumer said. "The Senate's version of this legislation goes right to the heart of the problem, and I will work with the conference committee to put the Senate's stronger language in the final bill."
The Flight 3407 families will push for that, said Kuwik, who called the insertion of the new language into the House bill "our introduction to politics."
jzremski@buffnews.com
John Mica,...... your corporate servant at work! Pandering to campaign contributors.
Well Faye.........I don't think adding language to something that has been through committee is right but I do agree with the increase in flight time requirements! No substitute for stick time and no substitute for the experience..........class rooms can not make up for that.
The added 1200 hours will add significant cost to the student trying to get an airline flying job through a civilian education tract. Which will make military pilot training more attractive to both the airline and individual.
Seems to me Mica did his job well. If the previous standard was 250 flight hours and isnow 1500 or slightly less if comparable "classroom" is substituted then this is a significant increase in training requirements. Faye seems to be saying that Embry-Riddle and other civilian aviation schools should not have a say or their concerns are not valid. The families of Flight 3407 have earned a major victory that should benefit the flying public. Mica stabbed no one in the back.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 15, 2009, 09:51:45 AM
Seems to me Mica did his job well. If the previous standard was 250 flight hours and isnow 1500 or slightly less if comparable "classroom" is substituted then this is a significant increase in training requirements. Faye seems to be saying that Embry-Riddle and other civilian aviation schools should not have a say or their concerns are not valid. The families of Flight 3407 have earned a major victory that should benefit the flying public. Mica stabbed no one in the back.
But BT...logic has no place here. Haven't you realized yet that apparently every time Mica draws a breath, God kills a puppy? ;)
Quotecompromise, which allows the head of the Federal Aviation Administration to decide how much classroom time can be counted as flight time under the 1,500-hour requirement.
Well, yeah, who needs laws anyway,............if we can have
ONE person have the power to waive the fight time requirement.How the heck can classroom time be an equivalent substitute for flight time anyway?
All logic is lost,.......it's like going through the motions.
Make-believe laws that have no enforcement potential. All for the benefit of industry at the expense of our safety!!!
It's a total farce.
But sure,.........if a corporate servant came up with this compromise, it must be good for us ::)
Are you saying the schools should not be represented? Do you not think an increase from 250 to 1500 hours is enough? Where did this number (1500) come from? Classroom time may very well mean simulator time which for simulating and practicing procedures in flight emergencies is MUCH more valuable training than cruising around on autopilot.
THINK Faye!
Additionally... if an increase in hours from 250 to 1500 is safer than why not 2500 or 5000 hours? If the comromise had been from 2500 hours to 1500 would you still be on MIcas case?
THINK BT THINK!
We have a congressman here who promises a 1500 fight hour requirement to the Families who've lost loved ones on the Continental flight, and then he turns around and inserts a last minute provision that completely undermines the 1500 flight hour requirement, making the whole legislative exercise for naught.
Flight simulators are expensive. you'd have to have one for each type of aircraft, cause remember you have to be certified for a specific aircraft.
Nothing can really take the place of airflight hours.
Thank goodness we have Schumer in the Senate, who won't stand for such nonsense. So the Senate version will have a REAL 1500 hour flight time requirement!!
Granted many Democrats are Corporatists as well, rather than representing the people, but Republicans like Mica are such loyal lackeys they don't blink an eye, saying one thing to the Families and then single-handedly undermining a good bill.
It completely undermines nothing. Looks to me like the 1500 number was pulled out of thin air without consulting the people who actually train pilots or certify them. A "feel good" number designed to "do something". I have no problem at all with raising the standards... which they clearly have... and by a huge margin. BTW Embry Riddle is hardly a "corporatist"... :D Whatever the hell THAT is...
Oh... and it looks like a democrat was involved in Mica's compromise... :o ::)
QuoteNegotiations with Rep. Jerry F. Costello, an Illinois Democrat and chairman of the aviation subcommittee, produced the compromise, which allows the head of the Federal Aviation Administration to decide how much classroom time can be counted as flight time under the 1,500-hour requirement. The classroom time would have to "enhance safety more" than would additional hours in the cockpit, the insertion says.
http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/827122.html
Quote from: FayeforCure on October 04, 2009, 06:11:33 PM.......................The schools are fighting a provision that would require all airline pilots to obtain airline transport pilot certificates from the FAA, substantially boosting the flight time of entry-level pilots. Under current regulations, only senior pilots must have the certificates, which require 1,500 hours of flight time. ..........http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093003002_pf.html
..........
Some one asked where the 1500 hours flight time came from. Essentially they are now going to require rookie pilots to have the same flight time experience that we've been requiring senior pilots to have. That won't necessarily translate into safer flying if the pilot has 1500 hours in a crop duster to fly a multiengine transport. It smells of knee jerk reaction politics.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 15, 2009, 01:01:28 PM
It completely undermines nothing. Looks to me like the 1500 number was pulled out of thin air without consulting the people who actually train pilots or certify them. A "feel good" number designed to "do something".
Thanks Overstreet, for showing where the 1500 number came from. Mica was adamant to the Families that he supported the 1500 required flight hour number, yet he went straight to work to undermine it when industry complained:
QuoteBut the behind-the-scenes addition of that new language â€" included at the request of a powerful Florida lawmaker whose district includes a prominent flight school â€" didn't exactly thrill those who lost loved ones in the February crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407 in Clarence Center.
John Mica is the typical corporate servant. To heck with the people's safety.
:D Embry Riddle is a corporate "slave master"????? :D You crack me up! As it says in the article... the 1500 hours were a requirement for senior pilots. Perhaps we now need legislation to require senior pilots 5000 hours. The fault lies with a) the airline, and b) with the FAA... you know... a goverment beauracracy.
Pilot training was but one contributing factor in the crash...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124200193256505099.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407#cite_note-49
Mica did his job... and did it well... :)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 15, 2009, 02:25:02 PM
As it says in the article... the 1500 hours were a requirement for senior pilots. Perhaps we now need legislation to require senior pilots 5000 hours. The fault lies with a) the airline, and b) with the FAA... you know... a goverment beauracracy.
Mica did his job... and did it well... :)
Yeah sure, that FAA government bureaucracy has been given authority to waive the 1500 flight hour requiremeny, courtesy of John Mica.
John Mica is a sell-out for corporate needs, rather than protecting the safety of the flying public. Clear and simple.
As I said, thank goodness the Senate bill will have the FIRM and enforceable 1500 flight hour requirement.
Sneaking an industry protective measure in at the last minute after it's already gone through committee is your typical Washington shenanigans,............John Mica was just hoping nobody would notice that he had gutted the bill.
Well here is one constituent who is paying attention, and intent on holding elected officials accountable.
WE, the PEOPLE are the ones who should be protected by government.
He added a small compromise to a bill. Smallllllllll. Lets do the math Faye...
Old requirement... 250 hours
New requirement...250+250+250+250+250+250 minus a few hours to be determined by the FAA and replaced with classroom.
Stop the drama Faye... Compromise is part of politics... if you cannot find some way to get good legislation with out the drama you would not make a very good representative...
Faye, stop polluting the forum. have you ever flown a plane? Do you know the first thing about aeronautics? The flight hour increase is a good thing. It was a tragic loss to the families, but I imagine Embry Riddle should be one of the most expert organizations on flight requirement whose recommendation should be examined. A six fold increase in training seems like over kill to me. Stop using this forum for your personal attacks on Mica.
QuoteFaye, stop polluting the forum. have you ever flown a plane? Do you know the first thing about aeronautics?
I dunno...maybe she took some classes (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,6285.msg102736.html#msg102736)and became our resident aeronautical expert. ;)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 15, 2009, 03:40:08 PM
He added a small compromise to a bill. Smallllllllll. Lets do the math Faye...
Old requirement... 250 hours
New requirement...250+250+250+250+250+250 minus a few hours to be determined by the FAA and replaced with classroom.
What if the FAA decides to waive 1250 hours flight time. There is nothing in the legislation that would prohibit the FAA from doing so. Voila,....... you have meaningless legislation. John Mica effectively gutted the substance of this legislation.
This was a bad backstabbing move on Mica's part, and it would have been a bad move on anyone else's part too, but it was Mica who thumbed his nose at the safety of the flying public.
But then again, all you people want is Congressmen going through the motions without getting anything done.
Most of all no compromise was needed as the bill had already made its way out of committee. Mica weakened the bill after the fact, for no other reason than the pandering to a campaign contributor.
Here ya go Faye... another government agency you are so fond of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administration
QuoteThe Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is an agency of the United States Department of Transportation with authority to regulate and oversee all aspects of civil aviation in the U.S.
QuoteWhat if the FAA decides to waive 1250 hours flight time.
My guess is that they could do it with or without Mica. Face it Faye... this is just another pitiful attempt to attack Mica. I can see the campaign ad now...
Cues up deep voice and dramatic music...Flashing pictures of air disasters..."John Mica is against training pilots... John Mica is against safety of our airlines. Do you REALLY want John Mica in charge of our air safety??"
BTW... do you have proof Embry Riddle contributes to Mica's campaign?? Not that it really matters...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 15, 2009, 04:50:09 PM
Here ya go Faye... another government agency you are so fond of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administration
QuoteThe Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is an agency of the United States Department of Transportation with authority to regulate and oversee all aspects of civil aviation in the U.S.
QuoteWhat if the FAA decides to waive 1250 hours flight time.
My guess is that they could do it with or without Mica. Face it Faye... this is just another pitiful attempt to attack Mica. I can see the campaign ad now...
Cues up deep voice and dramatic music...Flashing pictures of air disasters..."John Mica is against training pilots... John Mica is against safety of our airlines. Do you REALLY want John Mica in charge of our air safety??"
BTW... do you have proof Embry Riddle contributes to Mica's campaign?? Not that it really matters...
Very cute tv commercial!! ;D
On your first point,....... we clearly need civics classes in our schools again:
When the "lawmakers" put in a 1500 flight hour requirement, and the President signs it into law, it would be a violation to allow less than 1500 flight hours to be certified for work. Nothing the FAA could do, but follow the law.
What John Mica did, was give the FAA leeway to waive the requirement altogether. Hence a completely meaningless law if signed in it;s current form. Luckily, the Senate bill will not allow the 1500 flight hour requirement to be waived, and when the House and Senate bills come together, I'm sure Mica's silly insertion will be removed, prior to Obama signing it into law.
I have a really simple solution.......don't fly! Take rail! End of discussion!
:D No doubt... why allow leeway to...
an agency of the United States Department of Transportation with authority to regulate and oversee all aspects of civil aviation in the U.S.How silly! :D
Additionally... Appaerntly this is all a big to do about nothing.
QuoteLuckily, the Senate bill will not allow the 1500 flight hour requirement to be waived, and when the House and Senate bills come together, I'm sure Mica's silly insertion will be removed, prior to Obama signing it into law.
Proving again... Faye... that ALL this is... is a petty little attempt to run a negative campaign ad on MetroJax...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 15, 2009, 05:07:28 PM
:D No doubt... why allow leeway to... an agency of the United States Department of Transportation with authority to regulate and oversee all aspects of civil aviation in the U.S.
They only have as much authority as is given to them by law.
If the law does not allow them to waive the 1500 flight hour requirement, the FAA will not be able to waive it.
That is what worried John Mica sufficiently, to insert language to give FAA full authority to waive any new flight hour requirement.
Forums are to provide readers with info. If you don't like my info, don't read it.
Traditional media is often not effective in uncovering these kind of shenanigans and I'm sure the flying public would want to know.
It is Drama and a campaign ad... pure and simple. Where is your venom towards... Rep. Jerry F. Costello, an Illinois Democrat who negotiated the compromise? He is the Chairman of the committee. HE is the one you should be angry with...
You know... cue music... deep voice... pictures......"Rep. Jerry F. Costello is against training pilots... Rep. Jerry F. Costello is against safety of our airlines. Do you REALLY want Rep. Jerry F. Costello in charge of our air safety??"
Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 15, 2009, 05:18:29 PM
It is Drama and a campaign ad... pure and simple. Where is your venom towards... Rep. Jerry F. Costello, an Illinois Democrat who negotiated the compromise? He is the Chairman of the committee. HE is the one you should be angry with...
Costello did not insert this poison pill language into the bill. For all we know he did not agree with this misnomer of a "compromise," where absolutely no so-called compromise was necessary. Remember the bill had already passed committee.
So this is wrong then??
QuoteNegotiations with Rep. Jerry F. Costello, an Illinois Democrat and chairman of the aviation subcommittee, produced the compromise, which allows the head of the Federal Aviation Administration to decide how much classroom time can be counted as flight time under the 1,500-hour requirement. The classroom time would have to "enhance safety more" than would additional hours in the cockpit, the insertion says.
http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/827122.html
Quote from: CS Foltz on October 15, 2009, 05:04:38 PM
I have a really simple solution.......don't fly! Take rail! End of discussion!
I agree. Don't fly within the US. Ride the train instead!!
Do your share in reducing your carbon footprint.
I want a flying car >_>
I like the idea of 1500 flight time hours. This will make it harder for underqualified people to not beable to fly. Will also make it harder for those without alot of cash, to become a pilot unless you go through the military.
Which in all honesty that kind of disapline would be good anyway for pilots.
Sportmotor.......military is not the only way to learn to fly! Civilian pilots can do just fine with the proper training and alll ATP pilots go through annual training and type certification. Key is to get that far and that takes stick time along with a heap load work. There are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are no old bold pilots!
Quote from: Sportmotor on October 15, 2009, 07:10:52 PM
I like the idea of 1500 flight time hours. This will make it harder for underqualified people to not beable to fly. Will also make it harder for those without alot of cash, to become a pilot unless you go through the military.
Which in all honesty that kind of disapline would be good anyway for pilots.
Yeah, a firm 1,500 flight time requirement is what the Families wanted, and it also ensures proper and fair enforcement. The way it was changed by John Mica, creates a major loophole for
arbitrary enforcement:
QuoteA gain for air safety
House alters pilot-training measure but it still deserves prompt passage
October 18, 2009,
The flight safety bill that landed in the House of Representatives didn’t look quite like the one that took off from that body’s Transportation and Infrastructure Committee several weeks ago.
But the measure is still a major improvement in the rules for the training and hiring of airline pilots nationwide, and the changes are no reason to stop the bill from becoming law. The billâ€"passed Wednesday by a vote of 409 to 11â€" should still give the loved ones of those who died in the February crash of Flight 3407 some satisfaction that the government has significantly improved rules that were revealed as tragically inadequate only after the death of 50 people that night in Clarence Center.
As approved by the committee, and backed by members of Congress who represent Western New York, a key provision of the bill was to require 1,500 hours of flight experience, as opposed to the current 250, before anyone can be hired to pilot aircraft of any size for any passenger-carrying airline.
As amended by some key members of Congress, to the surprise of the families and the representatives who have taken up their cause, the bill would allow the Federal Aviation Administration to allow flight schools to meet the new requirement with a combination of flight time and classroom hours. It would allow the FAA to make the call as to whether, as offered by any particular school, the classroom instruction would “enhance safety more†than a strict adherence to a requirement for 1,500 hours actually in the cockpit.
The push for change came from a congressmanâ€"John L. Micaâ€"who is at once the top Republican on the subcommittee that oversees aviation and the representative from a Florida district that happens to house one of the nation’s top flight schoolsâ€"Embry-Riddle University.
The argument made by Embry-Riddle and other schools, and adopted by the amended bill, was that a flat flight-time rule would push prospective pilots away from the big schools and toward smallerâ€"one is tempted to say fly-bynightâ€" schools that allegedly don’t train their pilots as thoroughly but do afford their students more stick time.
The bill still has to get through the Senate, where New York’s Charles E. Schumer said he still favors the straight 1,500-hour flight-time requirement. He’s right, but not right enough to block the bill from passing if compromise on that point is what it will take. The training requirement is a huge improvement either way, as are rules that would make the airlines deal with more specific training and pilot fatigue issues.
The fact is that, whether the final bill uses the House or the Senate language, enforcement will still be up to the FAA. It will still fall to that executive agency, with a boss appointed by the president and a budget approved by Congress, to make sure flight training follows both the letter and the spirit of the law.
That means that the work of Congress won’t be done when this bill, in whatever version, is passed. It will still be the job of our representatives to watch the watchdogs, make sure that the regulated don’t have too much sway over the regulators and that the will of the people be done.
If the watered down version becomes law, it's kind of like having a speed limit, that gets enforced selectively, depending on what part of town you are from or any other arbitrary reason.
Well I agree with the concept of more stick time..............there is no classroom substitute for a hands on environment. Aircraft operations, safely done, is as easy as driving ones vehicle until you have weather issue's occur or a mechanical glitch that takes place then you need to know just what to do. No substitute for stick time is a plain and simple line of thought! Emery Riddle is a world class school, I used a structures engineer to validate a corner chair for a Citation being exported to Italy from there. Very professional and things worked out just fine.
Think the fact Mica is involved has anything to do with this post LOL!!
Fayes drama is misplaced... Democrat Jerry Costello should get the most credit...
QuoteNegotiations with Rep. Jerry F. Costello, an Illinois Democrat and chairman of the aviation subcommittee, produced the compromise, which allows the head of the Federal Aviation Administration to decide how much classroom time can be counted as flight time under the 1,500-hour requirement. The classroom time would have to "enhance safety more" than would additional hours in the cockpit, the insertion says.
http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/827122.html
Quote from: CS Foltz on October 15, 2009, 08:00:02 PM
Sportmotor.......military is not the only way to learn to fly! Civilian pilots can do just fine with the proper training and alll ATP pilots go through annual training and type certification. Key is to get that far and that takes stick time along with a heap load work. There are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are no old bold pilots!
All true. However the main advantage for the military pilot is that Uncle Sam pays for the flight hours. Civilians have to find other ways to pay for it or pull the cost out of pocket.
One way has always been to teach private pilot lessons. Think of it the pilot has 1500 hours, but it is in a Cessna 150 teaching VFR daylight good weather flying. Is the 1500 hours assuring quality experience or just more of it?
Good question overstreet! I do agree by the way regarding military flight experience......nice when Uncle Sam picks up the tab...........but a civilian pilot can do the same, it just takes longer! Big difference between a Cessna 150 and a Cessna 500 series..........not only engine type, prop to jet, but IFR on top of VFR and multi engine work also! Takes work no matter how one goes at it but I agree with the concept of additional hours on the stick end of things....class room is all fine and dandy but actual time at the controls means a lot!