Federal Government increases the required training for pilots by six fold. No obvious safety reason, will drive up pilots' wages

Was there an obvious problem with pilot safety that needed to be fixed? The Wall Street Journal notes:

Congress's 2010 vote to require 1,500 hours of experience in August 2013 came in the wake of several regional-airline accidents, although none had been due to pilots having fewer than 1,500 hours. . . .

The law came about after the crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407 on February 12, 2009 in which 49 passengers and crew were killed.  The pilot, Captain Marvin Renslow, had 3,379 hours of flight experience.   First Officer Rebecca Lynne Shaw had over 2,200 hours, including 772 flying the type of plane that crashed.  So the particular rule would be irrelevant to that case.  Part of the problem seems to be pilot unions making it very difficult to fire troublesome pilots.  In this case, Renslow had a slew of problems.  From the WSJ:

Capt. Renslow, 47, joined Colgan in September 2005 after graduating from a pilot-training academy, employment records show. He had a history of flunking check rides -- periodic tests of competency that are also required anytime a pilot begins flying a new type of aircraft. Before joining Colgan, he failed three proficiency checks on general aviation aircraft administered by the FAA, according to investigators and the airline. Colgan's spokesman said the company now believes Capt. Renslow failed to fully disclose that poor performance when applying for a job. 

Once at Colgan, he failed in his initial attempt to qualify as a co-pilot on the Beech 1900 aircraft, and also had to redo his check ride to upgrade to captain on the Saab 340 turboprop, according to investigators. Repeated check-ride failures raise red flags, and large carriers rarely keep pilots who require such extensive remedial training, according to numerous industry officials. Colgan's Mr. Williams said Capt. Renslow's last unsatisfactory check ride occurred 16 months before the accident, and he subsequently passed six consecutive competency tests and completed three regular training sessions. . . .

Increased training requirements is simply a way to restrict the number of people who become airline pilots, thus driving up their wages.  The unions also push for classifying any crashes as involving fatigue as another way of restricting the supply of pilot hours and further increasing their hourly wages. Indeed, even in the Colgan Air crash, there has been a strong push to have it classified as due to fatigue.

The costs of this training is huge.  The first 250 hours involve a flight instructor and cost about $200/hour.  The next 1,250 hours don't require an instructor and will run about $150/hour.  That comes to $50,000 plus $187,500 for a total of $237,500.  These are the costs of training on a single engine plane, and the costs of multi-engine aircraft rentals will be higher.  Multi-engine training or training with jet or turboprops might be necessary to become an airline pilot.  The training itself can take a couple of years.  While there is no hourly restriction yet on the number of hours that one can fly in a particular week, fatigue limits how long you can fly and weather conditions will also limit flight time.

What often happens now is that people will get the first 250 hours of training and then become a flight instructor.  It usually takes someone about 400 to 500 hours of flight experience before they are hired by a commuter airline.  The new rule will effectively increase training by 3 to 4 times, but worse it will dramatically raise the costs of people becoming pilots because there is simply no way that all the new entrants can be  instructors for the new required amount of time.  

Currently this 1,500 hour training requirement even applies to military pilots.  Why make the requirement for experienced military pilots three times what it used to be for civilian pilots?  It isn't clear why military pilots need much training at all, but to have it be three times what used to work for civilians when there wasn't even a problem there seems unnecessarily costly.

The FAA is trying to soften the blow. It has proposed a rule that would lower the requirement to 750 hours for military aviators and 1,000 hours for graduates of four-year aviation universities. But the exemption, if it goes through, may come too late, and it isn't expected to help most aviators in training anyway, because they come from other types of flight schools. . . . 

The 1,500-hour mandate "has only discouraged a future generation of prospective pilots to pursue this career," said Mr. Cohen, from the regional airline group. Those who persevere "will try to get the 1,500 hours the fastest and cheapest way possible," he said. "Flying around in empty airspace or towing banners doesn't give you the training you need to fly a complex airplane." . . . 

One pilot for a major airline who I talked to said that the rules are definitely to drive up the wages of pilots.

All the responsibility for any errors here is mine, but I appreciate the comments from Tracy Price and Bill Clayton.

Obama moving to kill Armed Pilots Program?

Fiscal year 2013: Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings Budget of the U.S. Government
Office of Management and Budget (www.Budget.gov)

Obama's 2013 budget looks to cut the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) from $25 million to $12 million. But has almost no cut in the Federal Air Marshal Service. From CNN:

President Barack Obama's budget ax is falling hard on a program that allows pilots to carry handguns in the cockpit as a last line of defense against terrorists.

Obama's proposed 2013 budget cuts in half funds for the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program. The current budget of $25 million a year -- which goes for such things as conducting background checks, training the pilots, and periodic gun proficiency tests and retraining, in addition to administrative costs -- would be cut to $12 million.

The thousands of armed pilots, who greatly outnumber the better-known federal air marshals, volunteer for the job, train at federal academies and are deputized to use their weapons in the cockpit. They call themselves the "single most cost-effective counter-terrorism measure" the government has taken.

The federal government spends about $15 a flight for FFDOs, as armed pilots are called, compared to $3,000 per flight for federal air marshals, said Mike Karn, vice president of the Federal Flight Deck Officers Association. Those numbers are based on costs of the respective programs divided by the number of flights covered by armed pilots and air marshals.

As recently as last March, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano voiced support for the program, agreeing with Rep. Chip Cravaack, R-Minnesota, a former airline pilot and FFDO, that it was a vital part of the country's layer defenses.

But in the budget documents released Monday, administration officials said security measures put in place since 2001, such as locked cockpit doors and 100% screening of airline passengers, "have greatly lowered the chances of unauthorized cockpit access."

The proposed budget also cuts Federal Air Marshal Service funds almost 4%, to $927 million. It is unclear whether that cut will result in fewer air marshals. The number of air marshals is classified. . . .

My understanding is that there are currently about 10,000 to 12,000 FFDOs out of about 60,000 commercial pilots flying large planes and 90,000 flying all size commercial passenger planes.

Representative Cravaack Grills Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano

Rep. Cravaack: Is your intention that this program be phased out?
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano: I think that as the budget request shows it is our intention to reduce it, yes. But we have not predicted its demise.

Thanks to Tracy Price for the links.

Pilot discharged for accidental gun discharge

The final outcome of the pilot who accidentally discharged his handgun when he was re-installing the trigger lock on his gun is discussed here:

A US Airways pilot who said he accidentally discharged a pistol in the cockpit during a flight has been fired.

The pilot, Capt. James Langenhahn, 55, of Franklin Park, reportedly told avaiation officials that his .40-caliber pistol accidentally discharged March 22.

The shot was fired while Capt. Langenhahn was stowing weapon as the jet prepared to land in Charlotte, N.C. Damage was limited to a bullet hole in the left side of the fuselage.

Scott Theuer, spokesman for the newly validated US Airlines Pilots Association, said the union had heard about the pending firing.

"We will fight it vigorously," Mr. Theuer said.

The incident is the first to be reported since 2002 when pilots were permitted to be armed. Those who carry firearms have been trained through the Federal Deck Officer program.

The incredibly dumb TSA rule that requires a trigger lock be put on loaded guns is what is to blame. There is a reason why trigger lock makers warn people not to instill trigger locks on loaded guns.

Airline Pilots Security Alliance releases press release on accidental shooting

Their press release is available here:

Airline pilots and federal flight deck officers (FFDO) say ill-conceived TSA weapons handling rules were to blame for the accidental discharge of a pilot’s firearm in the cockpit of a US Airways jet last weekend.

Federal officers familiar with the investigation say they repeatedly warned TSA officials that an unprecedented TSA requirement that pilots take off and lock up their guns before leaving the cockpit is manifestly unsafe and would result in accidents.

“The pilot was trying to lock his gun and remove the holster in an airplane going 300 miles per hour in preparation for landing and the padlock depressed the trigger,” said a federal flight deck officer who declined to be identified. “TSA knew this could happen but didn’t get rid of the requirement.” . . . .

Putting a lock on a trigger involves this exact type of risk unless you are also going to require the pilots to load and unload the gun once they get on the plane. Indeed, it is precisely because of this concern that trigger lock makers warn people not to put these locks on a loaded gun.

Accidental Discharge in US Airways Airliner Cockpit, no damage

This is the first time that I have found of this type of discharge. I have had at least one pilot today tell me about the problems with the gun locks required on the guns. According to those that I have talked to, the gun discharged when the lock was being put on the gun. Are these guys supposed to unload the gun before they re-lock their gun. Here is one story here:

A gun carried by a US Airways pilot accidentally discharged during a flight from Denver to Charlotte on Saturday, according to airline and federal officials.

No one was injured, and the aircraft was not in any danger during the flight, officials said. It landed at Charlotte/Douglas International Airport around 11:51 a.m. Saturday.

The pilot, who wasn't identified, was allowed to carry the firearm as part of the Federal Flight Deck Officer program run by the Transportation Security Administration, officials said. The program was created after the 9-11 terrorist attacks and allows eligible crew members to use a firearm to defend against an act of criminal violence or air piracy, according to the TSA's Web site. Those eligible include pilots, flight engineers or navigators.

The pilot involved in Saturday's incident last qualified for the TSA program in November. . . .

Here is crimefilenews' take.