Lawmakers and Unions Defend Burdensome Airline Regulations With Bogus Statistics
The world's largest union of pilots says this requirement is necessary for safety and not unduly burdensome, but its data are misleadingly cherry-picked.

The aviation industry is up in the air: There is a shortage of commercial airline pilots. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering whether to regulate smaller airlines out of existence. And Congress has struggled to pass a bill that would reauthorize the FAA through 2028. (Ahead of an October 1 shutdown, lawmakers agreed to extend the deadline to the end of the year.)
In each case, the argument is over safety: whether current regulations are sufficient, too strict, or not strict enough. Some feel that the rules governing major airlines protect passengers, and that any attempt to soften them would be catastrophic.
Some industry stakeholders, such as the world's largest pilot union, are using spurious statistics to make their case—and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are going along with it.
On February 12, 2009, Colgan Air Flight 3407 from Newark to Buffalo crashed on approach to land. All 49 passengers and crew, plus one person on the ground, were killed. An investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) blamed pilot error.
In response, Congress passed the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010. Most consequentially, the law required pilots to log "at least 1,500 flight hours" in order to qualify for airline transport pilot (ATP) certification and be eligible to fly commercially. Previously, passenger airline pilots needed only 250 hours; most European countries still only require 250 hours as well.
At the time, the industry was skeptical. Smaller airlines worried that requiring so many more hours would cause a shortage of pilots. Roger Cohen, head of the Regional Airline Association, told NPR the new number was "arbitrary."
Just as predicted, the U.S. is now experiencing a pilot shortage. Geoff Murray, Daniel Rye, and Lindsay Grant of the consulting firm Oliver Wyman wrote in October 2023 that they expected the North American airline industry's pilot shortage to grow to 13,300 by 2032. But the authors also noted that "the tight supply has proved to be less dire in Canada. Based on current figures, we expect to see a mild pilot shortage this year, with pilot supply and demand converging in 2024." One factor in Canada's favor, they noted, was "the absence of the US rule that requires pilots to earn a minimum of 1,500 flight hours before being allowed to work for an airline."
That's bad news for passengers, though it's good news for existing pilots: Recent pilot contracts have included a 34 percent raise at Delta and a raise of as much as 46 percent at American Airlines. Clearly, when your services are more in demand, you can command a higher price for your labor.
The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), the world's largest pilot union, has a simple position on the pilot shortage: There is no pilot shortage.
"There are more than enough certificated pilots to meet demand here in the United States," claims the union's website. "The aviation industry is currently producing more pilots capable of immediately stepping into the right seat than there are jobs available to them." It notes that from July 2013 to March 2023, the U.S. generated nearly 64,000 ATP-certificated pilots while airlines only hired about 40,000, thereby generating a surplus of nearly 24,000.
Those numbers "suggest that every single ATP pilot will be an airline pilot, hence supply is greater than demand," counters Murray. "But data indicates that many pilots (about a third) who have ATPs don't fly for the airlines but rather fly the corporate/general aviation sector." In that case, ALPA's surplus shrinks nearly to zero.
Nevertheless, some lawmakers have stuck by the 1,500-hour rule. This summer, the House passed an FAA reauthorization bill that would allow aspiring pilots to count 250 hours of flight simulator training toward their 1,500 hour minimum. (Under current law, they can only count 100 simulator hours.) Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D–Ill.) declared that if the change was allowed, her colleagues would have "blood on your hands." To date, the Senate has not passed an FAA reauthorization.
Similarly, when Republic Airlines asked the FAA for permission to hire pilots with 750 hours from its own flight school (matching an exception granted to former military pilots, who also need only 750 hours), the agency declined, stating that this exception "is not in the public interest and would adversely affect safety."
Implicit in such warnings is the idea that the 1,500-hour rule is necessary to ensure flight safety. But there is little evidence that the beefed-up requirements have any bearing on safety—not now, and not when the rule was passed. "The FAA was unable to find a quantifiable relationship between the 1,500-hour requirement and airplane accidents and hence no benefit from the requirement," the agency determined in 2013. In 2010, NTSB Chair Deborah Hersman told a Senate subcommittee, "We've investigated accidents where we've seen very high-time pilots, and we've also investigated accidents where we've seen low-time pilots. We don't have any recommendations about the appropriate number of hours."
Some industry stakeholders credit the 1,500-hour rule with the near-absence of U.S. passenger airline fatalities since the Colgan crash. ALPA and its president, Captain Jason Ambrosi, often claim that since the law was passed, U.S. airline passenger fatalities have dropped 99.8 percent. The number appears on their website, in their press releases, in written Senate testimony, and in news articles that quote Ambrosi. It also showed up in a June letter to Sen. John Thune (R–S.D.), who had supported the provision to allow more simulator hours. ("Why," wrote Ambrosi, "when we have reduced the number of airline passenger fatalities by 99.8 percent since the current pilot training and qualification rules were implemented, would such a roll back even be considered?")
And it was cited on the House floor: During the June debate over the FAA reauthorization bill, Rep. Brian Higgins (R–N.Y.) claimed that "commercial aviation fatalities have decreased by 99.8 percent" since Congress "significantly increased the number of required flight training hours from just 250 to 1,500 hours."
In response to Reason's request for clarification, an ALPA spokesperson pointed to a bar chart on its website. The chart lists annual U.S. airline passenger fatalities since 1990, using the 2010 law as the dividing line. Before 2010, there are multiple years with 50 or more fatalities; there are no deaths in each year from 2011 to 2017 and 2020 to 2021, with tiny single-digit blips in 2018 and 2019.
The first problem with the chart is that the 1,500-hour rule didn't go into effect until July 15, 2013—meaning it had no bearing on the dearth of fatalities in 2011, 2012, and the first half of 2013. (And since the chart makes 2010 the dividing line, it obscures the fact that there were just two commercial airline deaths that year). Further, there are multiple years before 2010 with zero fatalities, including the two years prior to the Colgan crash.
The "99.8 percent" claim is also misleading. It doesn't refer to annual deaths, as that statistic would require at least 500 per year before the law and one per year after in order to show a 99.8 percent decline. Instead, ALPA appears to be comparing the total deaths from 1990–2010 to the total from 2011–2021. Not only does this compare a 20-year period to a 10-year period, but it elides the fact that not every crash is the result of pilot error—and even among those that are, the 1,500-hour rule would often have made no difference.
In fact, the pilots on the Colgan flight that spawned the rule each had more than 1,500 hours of flight time: Captain Marvin Renslow had 3,379 hours logged, while First Officer Rebecca Shaw had 2,244, of which 774 were in planes like the one involved in the crash. According to the NTSB's investigation of the accident, Renslow "experienced training problems throughout his flying career" and showed "continued weaknesses in basic aircraft control and attitude instrument flying." As a result, Renslow "would have been a candidate for remedial training," but "Colgan [Air] was not proactively addressing his training and proficiency issues."
Similarly, ALPA's data includes Alaska Airlines Flight 261 that crashed on January 31, 2000, killing all 88 passengers and crew. But the NTSB determined that crash was caused by mechanical failure. ALPA also includes American Airlines Flight 587, which crashed in Belle Harbor, New York, in 2001, killing 260 people. (ALPA's numbers do not include the September 11 attacks, as NTSB data excludes fatalities resulting from terrorism, suicide, or sabotage.) But while the NTSB did determine that Flight 587 was brought down by pilot error, the officer in question had 4,403 flight hours—nearly three times the current legal requirement.
The 1,500-hour rule would not have kept those negligent pilots out of their cockpits. But it can keep out skilled pilots who could alleviate a shortage.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Remember that day the US Constitution was amended to authorize an FAA?
Yeah; Me neither. F'En [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s].
The Necessary and Proper clause only allows it's airspace regulation in relation to National Security.
US vs Causby yet another "What Constitution" ruling from the FDR days.
This is the entire Constitution as far as the federal government is concerned:
"Congress shall do everything necessary and proper to regulate commerce and promote the general welfare."
That authorizes anything they want.
Isn't it amazing how they can cut and chop phrases in an introduction/intent phrase and give it their own definition that voids/violates the entire document... Criminal manipulation and deceitful intentions through and through ... Scam artists.
It's science and experts doncha know.
Setting aside the constitutional argument for a second, simply from a healthy society point of view, do you believe that federal regulations and oversight help in making for a safer industry when it comes to air travel?
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart
This Website➤---------------➤ http://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
Move the reply button
We will not bow down to our left handed overlords.
A few things that are guaranteed when there's government oversight are outdated technology, resistance to change, and arbitrary rules written by people who no knowledge of what they're writing about.
Other than that government oversight is great.
So, your answer is air travel would be just as safe as it is now if there were absolutely no government oversight?
I didn't say "absolutely." You trying to steal the mendacity medal from JesseAz?
I think the FAA does a decent job of investigating plane crashes and identifying the cause. However the people who make rules backed with force tend to be idiots, and the state of technology used in air traffic control in this country is embarrassing when compared to the rest of the world.
Good lord. Enough with the initial butt-hurt whining and accusations with your responses. Doesn’t this form of discussion ever get old to you?
Sorry that I didn’t state your exact belief in my question, I was just simply trying to determine where you sit on this issue. And the only thing I had to go on was your statement that said:
“A few things that are guaranteed when there’s government oversight are outdated technology, resistance to change, and arbitrary rules written by people who no knowledge of what they’re writing about.
Other than that government oversight is great.”
From that I gathered you really weren’t a fan of any government oversight. But now you are saying that you are a fan of some government oversight. So, is accident investigation with producing findings with no subsequent ability to enact rules, regulations, and laws the limit on aviation oversight you believe appropriate for the federal government?
I said that the people who write the rules tend to no know what they’re talking about, and that the technology is outdated.
Other than that they do good at identifying causes of crashes, they enforce criminal laws against negligence and such, and provide civil courts for tort law.
I meant what I said. Here’s some things they do poorly, but they’re otherwise useful. I'm not an anarchist.
*shrug*
So they are good at identifying causes of crashes, but not instituting rules and regulations to prevent the causes of crashes? Doesn’t enforcing negligence as a criminal claim against someone require establishing what constitutes negligence? If so, isn’t there a benefit for rules and regulations to be put forth that establishes what actions are deemed to be negligent?
“So they are good at identifying causes of crashes, ”
Yes.
“but not instituting rules and regulations to prevent the causes and crashes?”
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Problem is that when they get it wrong they’re resistant to admitting it, while still using force.
“Doesn’t enforcing negligence as a criminal claim against someone require establishing what constitutes negligence?”
Yes it does.
“If so, isn’t there a benefit for rules and regulations to be put forth that establishes what actions are deemed to be negligent?”
Yes. But why must they come from government? Problem with government rules and regulations is that as long as you follow them you're in the clear, legally. Even if doing so causes harm.
I think determining what is worse mostly has to be done on a case by case basis. I think there are good rules and regulations, but they can have a tendency to go overboard. And I definitely agree that when bad rules and regulations get instituted they are tremendously difficult to get rid of.
I still believe that government oversight on a whole has made air travel very safe, and appropriately so. But the fact it is also quite arguable that airlines are almost defacto institutions of the federal government from all of the rules and regs, bailouts, loans, and regulatory capture, has potential to cause meaningful problems in the future.
It’s the old story of appreciating the government oversight, but needing to make sure that oversight is kept in check. And the reason they have to come from government, is they can't come from anywhere else.
I still believe that government oversight on a whole has made air travel very safe, and appropriately so.
Sure it has. And I can't prove that it may have been better had it been more hands-off and stuck to reacting to problems rather than going overboard trying to prevent them.
needing to make sure that oversight is kept in check.
A limiting principle. Every government agency needs one.
Rules emerge from court cases without needing to be handed down from on high.
Hey I even get brought up by the honest full of ideas one true libertarians in threads I'm not a part of merely because he is criticized for a general nonsense remark and refuses to actually put depth to any argument or Ideas! he has.
Goddamn pussy, you’re such a little bitch.
The FAA doesn't even investigate crashes, that's the NTSB.
Correct, Congress didn't trust the FAA to investigate itself, so they created the NTSB as an independent agency.
We obviously need laws against negligence and such. People need to be held responsible when things happen. But that's what government should do anyway.
Are you thinking just civil negligence laws and such, or you agree with criminal laws for negligence as well?
Yes.
Now who defines negligence? Because right now dems are trying to make gun manufactures responsible under negligence through actions of others.
Have you explored the discussion past a few generalities?
When I want a conversation with someone who cannot separate the argument from the person I'll let you know. Shoo now. Run along.
I literally responded to your fucking post retard.
You’re the one who needs to go, you drunken faggot.
On the other hand, if you are capable of discussing ideas instead of the people with them, you're welcome to join in.
Which I literally did.
You could have just said you didn't think past a bumper sticker generality. Admit you can't answer it.
"Have you explored..." is an argument against the person, not the idea.
It's all you do.
That's why conversations in these comments are much more pleasant when you're not in them.
No you dumb cunt, it’s not YOUR discussion. It’s ours, and you’re not welcome. You’re never welcome.
Since you’re too much of a pushy to back up your threats, why don’t you go get blackout drunk? Or are you a dry drunk until next week, when your welfare check arrives?
Pour stupid Sarc.
"air travel would be just as safe as it is now if there were absolutely no government oversight"
It would be safer. Every private standard preforms a better balance between safety and productivity. Banning planes period of course is the safest air travel standard but that hardly takes into account the life's the technology saves.
Sarcasmic points this out so well with, "rules written by people who have no knowledge of what they’re writing about." When liability suits get filed the market (insurance companies) protects itself with reasonable standards. It never needed moronic-gov-gods packing 'guns' to dictate what reasonable standards are.
An absence of government standards doesn't mean no standards at all.
Yet, most people writing the rules and regulations tend to be most in-the-know people on the matter, especially when it comes to aviation. This is the reason that regulatory capture can be such an issue as only people who know what they are talking about and have interests in the matters participate in agencies and agency rule making.
Don't you think leaving everything to juries, insurance companies, plaintiff claims, and an overall civil landscape would be exceptionally cumbersome and slow and result in wildly disparate and contradictory rulings, decisions, processes, and methods while being exceptionally expensive to the average person? Isn't there something to be said for universalizing and streamlining many aspects of air travel that federal involvement accomplishes?
Don’t you think leaving everything to juries, insurance companies, plaintiff claims, and an overall civil landscape would be exceptionally cumbersome and slow and result in wildly disparate and contradictory rulings, decisions, processes, and methods while being exceptionally expensive to the average person?
I suspect that competition would occur and the result would be a few rulebook making companies, all producing a better product than anything government could come up with. Mainly because they would have an incentive to get rid of lousy rules.
If there is something we haven't seen is juries treating civil suits as lottery tickets even for non damage. See 1.5B judgement against Jones.
You aren't thinking past bumper stickers. At some point there needs to be normalization of awards or you get ridiculous awards that will bankrupt companies.
Again. Think past first order effects.
Is self-interested people creating rules to avoid being sued, without the need of government making rules, a thinking past first order effect?
Underwriters Labs is a private agency with a better record than most government agencies.
No. Government doesn't listen to just the people with valid interest on the subject and that's half it's problem. The other half of the problem is they enforce their standards by 'guns' and 'gods' instead of justice and value.
It is absolutely untrue/false/a-lie to pretend if government didn't dictate standards that safety standards wouldn't exist. The entire internet works on free-market standard protocols. There's entire organization (ISO) that are free-market standards. A free-market always fills a need better than 'guns' do. The only asset to humanity 'guns' can possibly provide is to ensure Individual Liberty and Justice for all.
But, isn't the irony at the end of the day that you're simply asking for many levels of disparate bureaucracy to take the place of the federal bureaucracy? Isn't 50 states with all of their district courts and agencies, countless plaintiffs and attorneys, multiple airlines, no standard principles, with thousands of juries, with multiple insurance companies all dictating activities resulting in the same things you hate about federal intervention?
See below. The difference is the insurance companies aren't 'armed' and therefore their violations can be remedied by a *non*-involved/partisan 3rd party called government who's ONLY job is to ensure individual justice.
Insurance companies utilize the courts to enforce the civil torts. Just like regulatory companies.
I think he's saying that he supports rules created by people with skin in the game that aren't backed with force, as opposed to rules created by uninvolved parties backed up with violence.
I’m not sure I follow. Are you asking insurance companies to be the industry regulator? That’s not their role.
Edit based on sarcasmic's clarification:
Okay, I get that concept. But at the end of the day, if force can't be invoked, then the rules themselves are fundamentally worthless, no?
But at the end of the day, if force can’t be invoked, then the rules themselves are fundamentally worthless, no?
The force is the criminal or civil trial after something happens.
The rules are to prevent that from happening. If someone follows the rules and bad things happen, then the rules will quickly be edited. That's not what happens in government.
But if we are back to criminal trials, isn't this the government once again enforcing the rules?
But if we are back to criminal trials, isn’t this the government once again enforcing the rules?
If a private rule-maker says “You must do x” and x causes harm because it’s a bad rule, someone who followed the rule can be taken to court over the damages.
If a government rule-maker says “You must do x” and x causes harm because it’s a bad rule, someone who followed the rule is immune from being sued.
Which do you think causes less harm and holds people more accountable?
But, there's no such thing as a private rule maker. I don't understand the question.
But, there’s no such thing as a private rule maker. I don’t understand the question.
In the world of technology there are all kinds of rules and standards that people voluntarily comply with so what they create will work with what others create.
Rules without government.
Now let’s imagine a world where Internet and other technologies were regulated and had to follow rules written by government. It’s likely we’d still be using 90s technology.
Yes there is no private rule maker for aviation. Only because it or they got crowded out by government.
Example is the EU mandating that all electronics use USB-C. How much innovation will that stifle?
It is exactly their role. To cover damages by evaluating the safety risk versus the $/value balance. The 'risk' cost would be the rule enforcement. A commercial airline or insurance company could not exist when it's liability is more than it's asset.
But that's not a regulatory role, that's simply an insurance calculation. At the end of the day, the insurance company only cares about making money, not instituting a regulatory landscape that can be followed.
Their role is to make a profit. Usually by denying coverage on any clause they can. Using courts to back their decisions.
It only seems that way because you have 'gods' dictating the safety standards. The very F'Ups of politicians dictating the standards is the very loop-holes insurance companies use to deny coverage. If the government was just there to ensure justice insurance companies wouldn't be getting away with denying claims that are reasonably legit.
You've both addressed the problem but are trying to deny it is the problem.
Don't kid yourselves. Insurance companies care VERY much so about safety standards. Point and case in teenage driver premiums.
What people don't seem to understand is that by asking the means of Justice to also be the provider of service; they literally VOID their own means of Justice. It's the same as lobbying to put Walmart in charge of ensuring Justice. Who are you going to turn to when Walmart rips you off? There is no where to ensure justice because you decided to 'arm' Walmart.
But I'm not talking about the government providing airline travel services. I'm still in the realm of government providing the regulatory framework and enforcing such, but private companies providing the airline services.
I think that separation is fundamentally important to a successful capitalistic society.
Depends on if the "government providing" is 'gun' enforced or just recommendation. The 'guns' shouldn't be involved unless they are used to ensure justice.
What's justice in your mind? Is preventing companies from defrauding customers or risking the lives of passengers a form of ensuring justice?
Justice is definitely preventing fraud.
Justice is not risk balancing.
Willful deception and/or neglect that results in harm can be.
The problem and difference is ensuring justice is based on an actual violation not just dreamed up "what-if" violations that never occurred.
The bad thing about government rules is that when they are wrong, in a court of law they are right. So if someone follows government rules and causes harm, they will not be held accountable. If someone breaks government rules without causing harm, they're in a world of shit.
What if there were competing standards to avoid harm, and people were only held accountable when they caused harm?
Oh sure. When government goes wrong, it can be terrible. But when it goes right, society can greatly benefit. Moreover, when it goes wrong, that seems to be an indicator of something in government needing to be fixed, rather than throwing out the idea of government altogether.
Moreover, when it goes wrong, that seems to be an indicator of something in government needing to be fixed,
Or maybe that that's not a job for government.
rather than throwing out the idea of government altogether.
Saying something shouldn't be done by government isn't the same as saying it shouldn't be done at all, or that there shouldn't be any government.
But I don’t know what you are saying isn’t the job of government. If they enact poor rules and regulations, then that needs to be changed by means of government, whether through elections or some other method. If it’s something that government shouldn’t be involved in, the solution is actually the same.
But I don’t know what you are saying isn’t the job of government.
Punishing people for harm that might be caused by not following the rules.
If they enact poor rules and regulations, then that needs to be changed by means of government, whether through elections or some other method. If it’s something that government shouldn’t be involved in, the solution is actually the same.
Except that it can't. Laws maybe, but the regulatory state is completely insulated from voters. That's what a century of Progressivism gets you.
But your answer can't be eliminating the regulatory state altogether, can it?
But your answer can’t be eliminating the regulatory state altogether, can it?
Why not? I think businesses might do a much better job of self-regulating if they worried about causing harm instead of following government rules.
But history is rife with people causing harm privately even in the face of both private and governmental action? So, how can taking away one form of consequential action cause compliance to go up?
And doesn't regulatory framework help me in my everyday? How am I able to research every item and service in my life to make sure I'm not getting hosed? I can't research the location of every fruit I buy or test every drug someone offers me to know if it's safe. Isn't it helpful to have a regulatory framework operating on behalf of the public to ensure things are safe?
I can’t research the location of every fruit I buy or test every drug someone offers me to know if it’s safe. Isn’t it helpful to have a regulatory framework operating on behalf of the public to ensure things are safe?
I think you are falling for the "if government didn't do it, who would?" line of thinking.
And a hundred years ago I could sympathize. But now in the information age? You don't need government to rate things for you.
So, how can taking away one form of consequential action cause compliance to go up?
I thought we were talking about the just role of coercion, not the end result. That's a different conversation.
Government has one tool: coercion. That's it.
So at its core the question of whether or not government should get involved in something is whether or not it is a problem solved better with coercion than with cooperation.
Agreed.
And there are things that are better solved with coercion. As I said I'm not an anarchist.
Here's a great book on the subject!
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52387584-cooperation-and-coercion
As discussed corporations through the judicial circuit.
Youre arguing for a system that will be so corrupted by a system of judicial awards from juries that are insane. The dumb warning labels libertarians make fun of will be everywhere. And it still won't matter. As juries think corporations have endless monetary supply. Coffee suits will abound.
We have examples of what you are asking for in OBGYN suits where any birth defects was blamed on the doctor causing malpractice insurance to sky rocket making being an obstetrician very costly. Same with anesthetic doctors. Causing prices to rise throughout the industry.
But I'm sure you think that's a good thing.
No personal attacks until the last sentence. I'll give you credit for trying. It's the first I've seen. Maybe you're drunk.
I'm not responding to the content of your post because it's rambling and without a point.
Congrats on almost not being a dick.
Sure pussy, Jesse is the one who’s drunk.
And it has a far less of a chance of being terrible/wrong when it is focused only on what it's practical purpose is; ensuring Individual Liberty and Justice for all.
Instead of trying to 'gun' *control* every last detail about who, how and where every person takes a sh*t. You've nailed this down to the very definition difference between a free-nation and a dictatorship.
That deserves a repeat........
The bad thing about government rules is that when they are wrong, in a court of law they are right. So if someone follows government rules and causes harm, they will not be held accountable. If someone breaks government rules without causing harm, they’re in a world of shit.
What if there were competing standards to avoid harm, and people were only held accountable when they caused harm?
Adding the say of insurance companies would likely make it more costly.
I'M AMAZED THAT NO ONE ON THIS SITE RECOGNIZES UNION JOB PROTECTION--sorry....
First of all FAA regulation are written with a lot of input from the commercial sector and there are a fair number of experts on the FAA staff. Most of the ones I've seen are fairly general and have multiple ways to satisfy them and the FAA is open to new ways if you can convince them. And most of the bigger manufacturers have people who job it is to make sure the FAA requirements are met. Paid by the company but basically work for the FAA. Most of what they do is making sure things are done according to the process laid out and are to the correct dimensions. Because the results of a mistake can be catastrophic, there is a lot of formality in aviation, things are done to a checklist to make sure things aren't missed. Are they? Yes but a lot less than if people were just winging it.
Could the FAA be replaced by some commercial consortium. Yes but it would look and act a lot like the FAA.
"Could the FAA be replaced by some commercial consortium. Yes but it would look and act a lot like the FAA."
Exactly and the big difference would be 'gun' forces/dictation wouldn't be corrupting that equation.
While from a strict textualist view, you are 100%, it could be argued that air travel is the modern equivalent of the post roads and Congress has the authority over interstate commerce.
And I believe this is how broadly speaking the regs are interpreted, as Southwest was able to opperate within Texas exclusively without federal oversite.
On February 12, 2009, Colgan Air Flight 3407 from Newark to Buffalo crashed on approach to land. All 49 passengers and crew, plus one person on the ground, were killed. An investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) blamed pilot error.
Did you even bother to read the report, Lancaster, or did you just phone in your article this morning? One of the biggest takeaways in that report was the role of fatigue and lack of company (Colgan Air) policy to address it. The captain was wasn't quite up to snuff when it came to flying and flight procedures. The NTSB also found fault with Colgan Air policies and training. Nowhere in there is a recommendation for a number of hours listed or requested by the NTSB.
The question isn't whether Lancaster read the report but whether Congress did. The article's next line reads "n response, Congress passed the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010."
Are you seriously going to argue that the 2010 law wasn't in response to that accident? The Congressional Record and a whole lot of congressional press releases would disagree with you.
The whole point of the article was that a bad thing happened so Congress passed a rule that a) wouldn't have made the slightest difference to that bad thing and b) is, entirely predictably, having other adverse consequences. So, did you even bother to read the article or did you phone in your comment this morning?
"Rep. Brian Higgins (R–N.Y.)"
Higgins is a Democrat (and from Buffalo).
The COLLUSION between our CORRUPT LAWMAKERS and EVEN MORE CORRUPT UNIONS has never been more EVIDENT. Each organization washes the hands of the other!
Do lawmakers and unions ever have any other kind if statistics?
Just as predicted, the U.S. is now experiencing a QUALIFIED pilot shortage.
FIFY
Whatever the standards should be--and I certainly want some, either set by a government agency or by an airline--we can have unlimited pilots if we loosen them enough. Or if we prioritize DEI in the sky.
The problem is simpler than that, the pilot and copilot in the flight both exceeded the 1500h requirement. The pilot was just a disaster and had been jumping from airline to airline to keep ahead of losing his wings.
It is a stupid requirement that would not have prevented the accident it was written in response to. But tracking bad actors hard, so they just slapped an irrelevant additional requirement on instead.
Here-here
"Nevertheless, some lawmakers have stuck by the 1,500-hour rule. This summer, the House passed an FAA reauthorization bill that would allow aspiring pilots to count 250 hours of flight simulator training toward their 1,500 hour minimum. (Under current law, they can only count 100 simulator hours.) "
That is ridiculous.
Flight Sim time is , on a per hour basis, better than the real thing.
Think about it - if you take off from LA and fly to DC you might get 6 hours flight time. If they flight is a great one you did practically nothing.
When you are doing flight simulator time they will be throwing different scenarios at you and not have you sitting on autopilot for 5 hours doing flight checks now and then. They will test you for various flight conditions (snow, ice, rain, wind, wind-sheer, down drafts, engine problems, etc).
Properly done simulator time is way more valuable than real seat time, especially if in real seat time you don't encounter many anomalies.
Imagine thinking that two people with 1,000 hours of time on the road are equally qualified to drive. Then you find out that driver A has some road course training, lots of city driving, emergency drivers training, or even drove a vehicle towing a trailer. They also drove in town, urban areas and in the mountains on narrow roads.
Then, driver B, also with 1,000 hours, lives in a busy city, thus spends 40% of their time in the seat not even moving and when they do they might see 25 mph depending on the traffic and did all that in a Mini-Cooper or Prius.
Or Two ER doctors. One works in a large city in a high crime area and the other works in a rural area with a low population density. The city doc will see wrecks, stabbings, gunshot wounds, fights, heart attack and other health problems many times per night.
Rural Doctor might get someone in now and then with a problem that requires focused chaos but most of their time will be idle, doing paperwork or dealing with people with basic injuries or illness that are in the ER because they don't have insurance.
Bpgus statistics. How about this one from the article, that American Airline Pilots just got a 40% raise. That is deceptive: they are getting 40% over 4 yrs, or 10% a year, and given inflation, that will only be 5-7% a year.
Can AA afford it? AA is poised to make a 15 billion profit in 2023, which is up about 5% from the previous year. So giving pilots a 10% raise this next year Crew costs of a flight are about 30% so a pilot's share of that might be 1/3-1/4, or about 10% of the flight cost. Raising that 10% by 10% raises the cost of the flight by 1%....
Good for you. If pilots were paid their worth, they would not need backdoor methods to create scarcity of supply. The data are not the real issue: it's labor unions. Reason never saw a union it didn't hate. The writers and editors at Reason should read Michael Lind's "Hell to Pay" and Mark Reiff's "In the Name of Liberty."
Not a single word concerning the pilots who died suddenly due to the mandated clot shots, and the overall safety risk increase resulting from such imposed non-science. (Search Lt. Col. Theresa Long Army flight surgeon says pilots risk ‘sudden cardiac death’ from COVID vaccine side effect)
Frontier Airlines is a remarkable airline that truly understands the essence of air travel. From the moment I stepped foot on their aircraft, I was greeted with a warm and friendly smile from the cabin crew, setting the tone for a pleasant journey ahead. The overall experience was nothing short of exceptional, with their efficient check-in process and seamless boarding procedures and you can also find customer service contact on https://frontier-airlines.pissedconsumer.com/customer-service.html . The professionalism and attentiveness of the flight attendants were truly commendable. They were always available to assist with any requests and went above and beyond to ensure the utmost comfort of every passenger. The in-flight meals were delicious and served with utmost care, adding a touch of luxury to the overall experience. Frontier Airlines' commitment to punctuality was evident throughout the journey. The flights departed and arrived on time, allowing for a stress-free travel experience. The pilots' expertise and smooth landings further added to the overall sense of security and confidence in the airline.