Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Sign in to follow this  
189Herk

Goldfein advocating FAA 1500 hour rule change???

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

1508 hours, I'd love to be that guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pretty sure I know that guy but there could be quite a few.  Guy I know is an F-22 dude whose apps were in the system and updated regularly pre-1500 hours.  Got the interview invite right after updating to 1500.  Hired shortly thereafter.  Still a reservist and living the dream by all accounts...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, there was a guy on either APC or FB DAL threads who had an interesting issue.  He bid Capt as a very Jr hire and got it.  But then lost the award because he didn't have a 1000 hours (FAA requirement).  My impression was that he had the restricted ATP and got hired with les than a 1000....and still had less than that a few months into DAL.

Or did I completely misread that and you need 1000 121 before upgrade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, sputnik said:

Or did I completely misread that and you need 1000 121 before upgrade?

This.  You need 1,000 hours of 121 time to be a Captain.  I've been at DAL for 2.5 years and still haven't hit 1,000 hours, but I also had an 8 month mil leave in there...and I try to avoid work.

nsplayr -- The 11,500 guy was probably a mil/civ guy. 

VMFA -- DAL no longer does a multiplier on airlineapps, I'm not sure about the others.  When I first applied they did something like a .2/sortie multiplier and it actually showed you the updated numbers, that has since been removed.  You're right though, it's going to take a bit for the tacair guys to get to that 1,500 hours.  I went the to regionals, however I didn't get all that much time...I think just checking the 121 container was enough to propel me into the interview pile (hired ~1,800TT...~850 of that was civilian time).  Otherwise, I was just a standard 4-ship flight lead with a mediocre GPA in Aviation...  The pay sucks, but you'll most likely not spend much time there.  Lots of guys spent < 6 months at a regional.  

Edited by SocialD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a year at a regional after retiring and before I got hired at my career airline.

I highly recommend it for many reasons.  Yes, the pay sucks, but it will be to your benefit in the long run if you're not getting calls from the majors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2017 at 2:34 PM, sputnik said:

Huh, there was a guy on either APC or FB DAL threads who had an interesting issue.  He bid Capt as a very Jr hire and got it.  But then lost the award because he didn't have a 1000 hours (FAA requirement).  My impression was that he had the restricted ATP and got hired with les than a 1000....and still had less than that a few months into DAL.

Or did I completely misread that and you need 1000 121 before upgrade?

I work with the guy in question. Well maybe. The dude I work with was a DL newhire, but high time fighter/trainer guy, no prior airline. As such, didn't have the 121 hours to hold 88A in NYC, even though his seniority could hold it. No biggie, he's dropping 3 year recall to AD in order to get his O-5 TIG. AFRC wouldn't give him a way into an O-5 flying billet, due to Blue falcons sitting on the pot too long and timing older people like him out. He said nah, not going down like that, so back to regAF he goes for 3 years to collect. ROTC, pretty sweet gig.  So, O-5 retirement check and back to DL with added seniority/pay. People have options these days. Def a buyer's market for those who are getting calls.

 

Edited by hindsight2020
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good on him.  

Can't imagine what it would take for me to re-join the Air Force but good to see someone is staying in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gearpig said:

Uh oh....

 

That robot has about 1,000 PIC and roughly 1,500 total time before any of the Majors might take a look at him. He has a long way to go, but his future, unfortunately, looks bright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gearpig said:

Uh oh....

Aurora Flight Sciences’ work on the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)’s Aircrew Labor In-Cockpit Automation System (ALIAS) program has further demonstrated its automated flight capabilities with various successful flight scenarios in a Boeing 737 simulator. These accomplishments build on Aurora’s successful installation and testing of ALIAS components on a Diamond DA42, Cessna 208 Caravan, UH-1 Iroquois, and DHC-2 Beaver aircraft.

Aurora’s ALIAS technology demonstration system is designed to function as a second pilot in a two-crew aircraft, enabling reduced crew operations while ensuring that aircraft performance and mission success are maintained or improved. DARPA’s published vision for ALIAS is “a tailorable, drop-in, removable kit that would promote the addition of high levels of automation into existing aircraft, enabling operation with reduced onboard crew.”

Demonstrated on a Boeing 737-800NG simulator at the U.S. Department of Transportation’s John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, ALIAS showcased its ability to utilize the existing 737 auto-landing system to autonomously land the aircraft safely in the event of pilot incapacitation. Aurora has also demonstrated ALIAS numerous times on aircraft in flight, most recently on the DA42. In the demonstration, ALIAS actualized DA42 cockpit procedures in real time and, overseen by an onboard safety pilot, conducted a fully automated landing at a simulated site at 3,000 ft. in altitude. “Having successfully demonstrated on a variety of aircraft, ALIAS has proven its versatile automated flight capabilities,” said John Wissler, Aurora’s Vice President of Research and Development.

“As we move towards fully automated flight from take-off to landing, we can reliably say that we have developed an automation system that enables significant reduction of crew workload.” Aurora’s ALIAS solution includes the use of in-cockpit machine vision, robotic components to actuate the flight controls, an advanced tablet-based user interface, speech recognition and synthesis, and a knowledge acquisition process that facilitates transition of the automation system to another aircraft within a 30-day period. Aurora is also working on a version of the system without robotic actuation that instead aims to support the pilot by tracking aircraft physical, procedural, and mission states, increasing safety by actively updating pilot situational awareness. 

Hahaha okay, this again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, so a computer flew........another computer.  Great.  Real earth-shattering news....

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that noticed at 1:14 while setting the autobrakes it shoved the yoke forward? But hey it would prob b**** less about its wife than the actual FO. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

What do we need this Aurora thing for. Didn't some retired nav say that a raspberry pi is a better combat pilot than a real person?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do we need this Aurora thing for. Didn't some retired nav say that a raspberry pi is a better combat pilot than a real person?


It would fix the pilot shortage...

Instead of building a new airframe to allow single pilot operations, this robot would allow legacy platforms to be automated.

The idea is to bridge the gap from multi-pilot aircraft to allowing a single pilot on a multi-pilot aircraft. What makes this different from just an advanced autopilot is that it is a drop-in system; just strap it in the copilot seat. The early versions of this had a data feed from the aircraft, but the goal has been to remove that crutch and have the robot get information by reading and intepreting the instruments and looking outside with cameras to fly.

Much like GPS and FMS eventually made the nav obsolete, if this becomes a proven technology, it has the potential to make the copilot/first officer obsolete, and much sooner than waiting for Boeing or Airbus to make a single piloted airliner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK... why exactly is this robot so amazing?  I fly the 737-800NG, and it already has a computer on board that will fly the jet, and even do an auto-land.  Get rid of this robot, and you can keep the F/O's seat installed, and have a flight attendant join you for the trip.  

When you've got a robot that can make complex decisions, let me know.  Until then, continue to crash as many Global Hawks as you like.  

Edited by HuggyU2
  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gearpig said:

People denied there was going to be a pilot shortage until it became painfully obvious.  The same people are going to deny this is a threat.  

That applies to me.  It is not a threat... at least not for the foreseeable future.  If you're an airline pilot in your 40's, you've got nothing to worry about WRT this robot.  

As for the pilot shortage, I still do not believe it is here.  United just hired a friend, and then a month later, changed their minds on his class date and rolled him 6 months.  In fact, few if any new-hire classes until then.  

Shortage?  The only shortage that exists is the one developing in the USAF.  

Edited by HuggyU2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can it routinely and reliably catch human mistakes?  That's what the other guy is really there for. One person is already capable of flying the airplane, turning knobs, and running the radios. I don't think this thing is somehow automatically better than having another set of eyes, ears, and most importantly, gray matter in the cockpit. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That applies to me.  It is not a threat... at least not for the foreseeable future.  If you're an airline pilot in your 40's, you've got nothing to worry about WRT this robot.  
As for the pilot shortage, I still do not believe it is here.  United just hired a friend, and then a month later, changed their minds on his class date and rolled him 6 months.  In fact, few if any new-hire classes until then.  
Shortage?  The only shortage that exists is the one developing in the USAF.  

Summer will do that.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DARPA projects are all really inexpensive, economical solutions, I'm certain.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Prozac said:
Can it routinely and reliably catch human mistakes?  That's what the other guy is really there for. One person is already capable of flying the airplane, turning knobs, and running the radios. I don't think this thing is somehow automatically better than having another set of eyes, ears, and most importantly, gray matter in the cockpit. 

Really cuts down on the effectiveness of CRM, huh. The same CRM which has frequently been cited as a major contributor to aviation safety.

Quote from APA.org: "While no one can assess how many lives have been saved or crashes averted as a result of CRM training, the impact has been significant. LOSA data demonstrate that 98 percent of all flights face one or more threats, with an average of four threats per flight. Errors have also been observed on 82 percent of all flights with an average of 2.8 per flight. Consistent with the outstanding safety record of commercial aviation, the great majority of errors are well managed and inconsequential, due in large measure to effective CRM practices by crews."

Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

Edited by pcola
Added supporting data
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jazzdude said:

It would fix the pilot shortage...

Instead of building a new airframe to allow single pilot operations, this robot would allow legacy platforms to be automated.

The idea is to bridge the gap from multi-pilot aircraft to allowing a single pilot on a multi-pilot aircraft. What makes this different from just an advanced autopilot is that it is a drop-in system; just strap it in the copilot seat. The early versions of this had a data feed from the aircraft, but the goal has been to remove that crutch and have the robot get information by reading and intepreting the instruments and looking outside with cameras to fly.

Much like GPS and FMS eventually made the nav obsolete, if this becomes a proven technology, it has the potential to make the copilot/first officer obsolete, and much sooner than waiting for Boeing or Airbus to make a single piloted airliner.

 

I have no doubt that this technology is great and advancing at an amazing pace.  I agree that a "drop-in" system is significant, in that it could be much more quickly and cheaply entered into service.  It's neat that it can takes commands but how does it do in non-normals?  When will you board a passenger aircraft, look left and see this?  I think it will be a LONG time, but then again, I was wrong once before.   

I'm not saying it's not coming, but here are what I see as greater obstacles to the pace at which this stuff is entered.

1.  Emotion.  Getting the flying public onboard with this is going to be an issue.  Probably not a big deal for the younger generation however, not the same with the older generation.  Hell, I'm technically a millennial and there is no way you would get me in a driverless uber or car anytime soon.  Probably irrational, but I just don't trust it.  I figure that buys this another decade or two.  Then there are the afterthoughts of the German Wings incident when a single pilot was left to his own devices...maybe they'll install a "what are you doing Dave..."    

2.  Labor unions.  Right now, contracts define who can fly a jet for their company.  The Captain and First Officer are clearly defined and even referenced as him (must not have had AF sensitivity training).  So the company is going to have to come to the union and ask for this "give."  While we can argue how great some unions are, one thing is for sure...they love their dues money!  This battle is probably THE ONE thing we could get EVERY pilot and pilot union behind!  Imagine if every union pushed this to a strike and planes stopped flying.  Airlines have become so big that, if just one of the big 3 didn't turn a wheel, it would cause harm to the economy.  Now imagine if DAL/UAL/AAL/AK/JBLU/SWA/UPS/FDX all stopped flying at once!  That would cause mass chaos and probably constitute a national emergency.  

3.  Work Rules.  If you expect pilots to fly single pilot with HAL, then expect to pay out the ass for that remaining pilot.  I would want the Captain AND First Officer pay rates combined and them some.  Hours worked per day would need to come down dramatically (thus causing the need for more pilots).  Right now we do trips where you takeoff with the dawn patrol to the west coast and land ~1000-1100.  Then you go to the hotel for 12 hours, try to sleep during the day, then fly the redeye back to the east coast that night.  No way you could still fly that rotation without another pilot.  On some of our fleets, guys fly some incredibly long days, that cause even two man crew to call in fatigued.  My gut tells me that many more do NOT call fatigued because they know they have another pilot to back them up.  One pilot, even with the aid of HAL, couldn't do the entire trip.  Now that I don't have another pilot to help with some of the administrative tasks, I'll need to report to work earlier...more pay!  These are just a few of the many examples of lost efficiency that will go against any gains by going single pilot.

4.  Automation.  While great, is still far from perfect.  I've had automatic uploads be completely out to lunch.  CPDLC pushes not load properly.  I've had the AP aggressively pitch over to 10-13 degrees nose low, in the weather, at the FAF...this was on a jet that had been on the line less than a month old.  APs that decide when your 15 knots fast and 5 knots from overspeeding, decided that now is the time to ADD power.  As a single seat guy, I walked into the airline gig thinking it was super easy, not sure why you needed two pilots, a few years flying here has changed my mind.  While the job isn't necessarily hard for the experienced and properly trained aviator, I can't tell you how many time we've caught each others errors.  Pilot error being one of the major causes of accidents...how many accidents were avoided because the other pilot trapped an error...unfortunately we'll never know.  To those of you who've never flown in the airlines, I would bet you'd be surprised by the number, if there were a way to compile the data.

5.  FAA Regulation.  The bureaucratic nightmare that is the "snails pace" FAA is a major slow up in the process.  Have you ever tried to get anything done quickly with these guys?  Hell, even when they know it's right, it takes them forever and a day to get shit done.  When the 737 fleet manager wanted to get a minor issue changed, he invited the FAA inspectors to a sim to prove his point.  They agreed with the fleet manager and these guys were the dudes who had to sign it off...it still took years to get the change and even then it was more restrictive than what the fleet manager PROVED was good to go.

6.  Politics.  We have lots of pilots located within just a few major districts in the US (ORD/ATL/NYC/DFW/LAX/SEA).  I suspect the labor unions would also be putting out ads spreading fear of "HAL" which would probably get more people to talk with their representatives.  Not to mention more, good paying U.S. jobs lost.  

If this does start to work it's way in the commercial aviation, where do I see it going?  I suspect it will be much like the plan that a RAND study laid out.  Cargo carriers, initially flying from coastal cities to coastal cities across the ocean first.  Then Cargo across the U.S. into sparsely populated areas.  Once it's proven itself to a certain level of safety, only then will the FAA let it come to passenger carriers.  This could easily take DECADES.   

As someone who has 30+ years left until mandatory retirement, this is on my radar scope, but it has a long way to go until I consider it "threat criteria" and ask for a split.  However, it's always a good idea to realize the threat is there and have a game plan to deal with it.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I think automation's real near-term threat to airline jobs is not a reduction of the number of pilots needed per flight, but a simple reduction in demand for flights. We're (supposedly) five or ten years from a point where autonomous cars can drive point-to-point with no need for human oversight. What happens to the consumer demand for an airline ticket when that happens? I'd imagine a lot of people would be more OK with making a ten or twelve hour drive if they could sleep, drink, watch a movie, etc., during that drive. No security lines, bring all the liquids you want, pull over and grab a bite to eat, and you already have a vehicle at your destination. Obviously your NY to LA flights are probably safe, as is anything over water for obvious reasons, but I think driverless cars will effectively kill any airline routes shorter than an eight hour drive, and weaken the ones from eight to twelve hours.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, sforron said:

Honestly, I think automation's real near-term threat to airline jobs is not a reduction of the number of pilots needed per flight, but a simple reduction in demand for flights. We're (supposedly) five or ten years from a point where autonomous cars can drive point-to-point with no need for human oversight. What happens to the consumer demand for an airline ticket when that happens? I'd imagine a lot of people would be more OK with making a ten or twelve hour drive if they could sleep, drink, watch a movie, etc., during that drive. No security lines, bring all the liquids you want, pull over and grab a bite to eat, and you already have a vehicle at your destination. Obviously your NY to LA flights are probably safe, as is anything over water for obvious reasons, but I think driverless cars will effectively kill any airline routes shorter than an eight hour drive, and weaken the ones from eight to twelve hours.

And that bank vacuum tube train thingy that Elon mentioned once that for some reason people took seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sforron said:

I'd imagine a lot of people would be more OK with making a ten or twelve hour drive if they could sleep, drink, watch a movie, etc., during that drive.

From the google machine:

DEN-PHX: 13:52 driving time/862 mi. Assuming 35 mpg, that's almost $60 one way in gas alone

On Frontier (terrible, I know): 1:50 flight time, $87 round trip

That gives you 5+ hours on the ground (an hour either side for security) and over $30 in PHX to grab a Whataburger and some Hop Knots and then fly back to DEN. Time > $ to a lot of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Day Man said:

From the google machine:

DEN-PHX: 13:52 driving time/862 mi. Assuming 35 mpg, that's almost $60 one way in gas alone

On Frontier (terrible, I know): 1:50 flight time, $87 round trip

That gives you 5+ hours on the ground (an hour either side for security) and over $30 in PHX to grab a Whataburger and some Hop Knots and then fly back to DEN. Time > $ to a lot of people.

Yeah, like I said I don't think it will kill the mid-range hauls. But even in your Denver-Phoenix example, if I'm moving a family of four, and some bags, your $87 Frontier flight is now more like $600. Is ten hours of my time worth $500+ in savings? Maybe. A lot of people will say yes, I bet.

And keep in mind the driverless car side of the equation is going to get better over time. The first cars to come out with that feature will look just like a regular car, but ten years after that you're going to have cars with lie-flat beds or couches, designed in large part for comfort over long distances. If I can go to sleep in Denver and wake up in Phoenix (more or less), that seems a lot better than driving to the airport, paying for parking, paying for bags, getting groped by the polyester pants brigade, being at the mercy of wx / mx / labor issues, potentially getting "re-accommodated," having to rent a car at my destination, etc., etc.

As far as the Elon Musk tube idea goes, the in-feasibility of that project is demonstrated by Musk's numbers depending on the state-of-the-art, never-before-tried, underground vacuum tunnel to cost only ~50% more per mile than an asphalt highway. This is when Boston's Big Dig took 25 years and $22 billion digging a 3.5 mile highway tunnel.

Edited by sforron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...