Please tell me you're not going to claim professional pilots lack:
"standards, resume, training,
verification, etc."
http://jdasolutions.aero/blog/faa-nprm-on-pilot-professionalism/
>>> The only difference can be one pilot is getting paid regularly to fly
>>> and the other isn't.
>>
>> No, other differences include employer sponsored flight simulator
>> training, total hours of fly time accumulated, etc.
>
> Oh, so if the flight simulator training isn't sponsored, then it doesn't
> count.
Did I ever say that?
There a goodly number of private flight schools.
In fact airlines will use them for training too.
> And as noted I know of amateur pilots with more flight time than some of
> those professionals you rave about.
Total flight time is one thing.
Total hours in a given air frame is another thing.
> So, again, it seem to be time to again, ask why you think being paid
> makes you a better pilot?
The answer still eludes you?
"standards, resume, training,
verification, etc."
http://jdasolutions.aero/blog/faa-nprm-on-pilot-professionalism/
Here is a summary of the specifics from the Federal Register notice:
Proposed provision Summary of proposed provision
Operations familiarization for new-hire pilots (§ 121.432(d)) •
Operations familiarization must include a minimum of 2 operating cycles.
A new-hire pilot completing operations familiarization must occupy the
flight deck observer seat.
Upgrade training curriculum requirements (§§ 121.420 and 121.426) •
Upgrade ground and flight training requirements have been updated based
on the qualification and experience that all upgrading pilots now have
as a result of the Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements
for Air Carrier Operations rule requirements.
• Leadership and command and mentoring training must be included in the
upgrade curriculum. Leadership and command and mentoring training are
required subjects for upgrade ground training. Leadership and command
training must also be incorporated into flight training through
scenario-based training. (Note: For those air carriers that use an
initial curriculum to qualify pilots to serve as PICs, leadership and
command and mentoring training must be provided as part of that initial
curriculum (§§ 121.419 and 121.424)).
Leadership and command and mentoring ground training for pilots
currently serving as PIC (§ 121.429) • All pilots currently serving as
PIC must complete ground training on leadership and command and
mentoring. • The Administrator may credit previous training completed by
the pilot at that air carrier.
Recurrent PIC leadership and command and mentoring training
(§§ 121.409(b) and 121.427) • PICs must complete recurrent leadership
and command and mentoring ground training every 36 months. • Recurrent
Line-Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) must provide an opportunity for
PICs to demonstrate leadership and command.
Pilot professional development committee (PPDC) (§ 121.17) • Air
carriers must establish and maintain a PPDC to develop, administer, and
oversee formal pilot mentoring programs. The PPDC must consist of at
least one management representative and one pilot representative. The
PPDC must meet on a regular basis. The frequency of such meetings would
be determined by the air carrier, but must occur at least annually.
Pilot recurrent ground training content and programmed hours (§ 121.427)
• Pilot recurrent ground training has been aligned with the pilot
initial ground training requirements for pilots who have completed the
Airline Transport Pilot Certification Training Program (ATP-CTP). As a
result, the existing content and corresponding programmed hours for
recurrent ground training have been reduced.
Part 135 Operators and Part 91 Subpart K Program Managers Complying with
Part 121, Subparts N and O • Part 135 operators and part 91 subpart K
(91K) program managers complying with part 121 subparts N and O would
continue to use the existing upgrade curriculum requirements and the
proposed leadership and command and mentoring training would only apply
to PICs serving in operations that use two or more pilots.
Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) Conforming Changes (Part 121,
subparts N and O and appendices E, F, and H) • Part 121, subparts N and
O and appendices E, F, and H are updated as follows: (1) Reflect the
terminology currently used to identify FSTDs approved for use in part
121 training programs; (2) Remove references to simulation technology
that no longer exists; and (3) Remove requirement for FAA certification
of training and remove pilot experience prerequisites for using a Level
C full flight simulator (FFS) to reflect advances in current FSTD
technology.
SIC Training and Checking Conforming Changes (Part 121 appendices E and
F) • Part 121 appendices E and F are updated to align with the current
14 CFR 61.71 requirements for SICs to obtain a type rating in a part 121
training program. Initial, conversion, and transition SIC training and
checking must include the few training and checking maneuvers and
procedures formerly designated in appendices E and F as PIC-only.
Other Conforming and Miscellaneous Changes • Pilot transition ground
training has been aligned with the pilot initial ground training for
pilots who have completed the ATP-CTP. • The term used to identify the
training provided to flight engineers qualifying as SICs on the same
airplane type has been changed from “upgrade” to “conversion.”
• Conversion ground training for flight engineers who have completed the
ATP-CTP has been aligned with the pilot initial ground training for
pilots who have completed the ATP-CTP.
• Part 121 appendices E and F and § 121.434 are amended to allow for
pictorial means for the training and checking of preflight visual
inspections of the exterior and interior of the airplane.
>>
>>> So why do you think being paid makes you a better pilot?
>>
>> HOURS flown.
>>
>> Simulator time.
>>
>> Training.
>>
>> That sort of thing.
>
> None of which has anything to do with your being paid to fly as a full
> time job.
Of course it does.
You're being even sillier than Klaus now!
>>>>> pro·fes·sion·al
>>>>> 1. relating to or connected with a profession.
>>>>> "young professional people"
>>>>> synonyms: white-collar, nonmanual
>>>
>>> So a lawyer who is a pilot in his spare time is a "professional pilot"?
>>
>> Not my cite.
>
> Ah, so you agree with it,
No. I agree he's a professional lawyer.
> and then called on it immediately disavow it.
And an amateur pilot...
> Oh, so let's accept that this definition doesn't apply.
Your words, your call.
>>> I think not. As such this definition does not apply to what you
>>> asserted.
>>
>> Not my assertion.
>
> Oh, so you're saying you do support that definition?
Nope.
> So tell me again how a lawyer with just enough training and hours to
> qualify as a pilot should be flying a 747 since they are a
> 'professional' pilot.
You're being recklessly silly with your verbiage.
> Come on dude, you've got to stand up and take a stand or it's going to
> make me think you don't even know what you meant when you claimed that
> only a "professional pilot" can fly a 747.
I never made that claim.
I would prefer a professional pilot fly any 747 I'm in though.
The Harrison Ford's of the world tend to evince some sloppy runway
protocols.
>>>>> "people in professional occupations"
>>>>> 2. (of a person) engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid
>>>>> occupation rather than as a pastime.
>>>
>>> This is the one that would apply.
>>>
>>> as in the use of a "professional pilot"
>>>
>>> So tell me again, why you think being paid makes you a better pilot?
>>
>> This is getting tiresome.
>>
>> #1 - watch the attributions.
>
> Ah, so a lawyer, who has just managed to complete flight school and get
> a pilots license should be flying that 747 over someone with thousands
> of hours of flight time, hundreds of hours of simulator time, tons of
> experience and a working knowledge of the operational procedures and
> layout of hundreds of airports.
You're regurgitating your own rhetoric.
Not playing, thanks.
> Right....after all being a white collar worker clearly means you must be
> a superior pilot, even if it's only a hobby and you can barely fly the
> plane.
Do you regularly get this wrapped up in your own rhetoric?
Not much rational discipline in your thinking for sure.
>> AND:
>>
>>
>> HOURS flown.
>>
>> Simulator time.
>>
>> Training.
>>
>> That sort of thing.
>
> Which has NOTHING to do with being a white collar worker, OR being paid
> to fly planes.
This "white collar worker" obfuscation is your own invention.
It is however irrelevant to any of the points made.
> So, tell me again why you claim an amateur with all these things can't
> fly a 747?
So show me again - where did I make that claim?
Use an exact quotation please.