
Audit Initiated of FAA's Pilot Training Requirements - infodocket
https://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/37718
======
rkangel
This seems fairly reasonable. One of the criticisms of the Max situation is
that the FAA went along with Boeing's plan that only additional minimal
training was required. Reviewing those standards seems like a good idea.

~~~
redis_mlc
> This seems fairly reasonable.

We'll see.

How the FAA works is they come up with a NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making)
document, circulate it, and receive feedback.

Likely the airline industry will reply with a push back on the 1,500 rule
since they're doomed financially if it continues (US airlines NEVER pay for ab
initio pilot training, unlike Europe and Asia.)

As long as Congress is not involved in more regulatory fiascos like the 1,500
hour rule, I'm good.

~~~
dmix
This big question has to both be whether this has the efficacy to make
legitimate change in the industry and also doesn't squeeze out he competition
who offer a better replacement for the existing industry.

Few people are accepting the fact that Boeing's sweetheart relationship with
FAA is a result of the fact they are largely one of the fee only players in
the game.

There's no competitive pressure for Boeing to change behaviour iwth the
politicians and regulators in their pocket they have little to fear by going
forward with business ss usual.

The fact they are managing to push Boeing to adopt more stringent training is
good. I just hope it doesn't just add to the long list of things excluding any
entrepreneur from honestly competing with him (just look at Virgin Airlines
which was one of the most enjoyable flight experiences getting squeezed out).

Every major regulation in history has had unintended side-effects which
frequently offset the benefits of the original plan (because of course they
were designed for the entrenched mega-coprp interests of today with little
thought of the wider long term effects on the industry).

Thomas Sowell wrote two good books which highlight a hundred examples how
these well-intentioned regulations have contributed to the wealth inequality
and consumer monopolies both [1] and Basic Economics [2].

Its not a simple as anti-regulation or pro-regulation, but getting the right
kind of regulation based on data and with foresight into the unintended
implications.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Poverty-Politics-Thomas-
Sowell...](https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Poverty-Politics-Thomas-
Sowell/dp/046509676X/)

[2] [https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Fifth-Common-
Economy/...](https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Fifth-Common-
Economy/dp/B00PKQMFT8/)

~~~
redis_mlc
The FAA training review may be triggered by the Boeing 737 Max crashes, but I
wasn't specifically talking about Boeing.

The public misunderstands the role between FAA and Boeing.

Boeing is the ODM, so safety is largely delegated to Boeing. That is necessary
because the FAA does not have aircraft designers on staff, and won't, because
aerospace keeps advancing.

What is needed is criminal penalties for what Boeing did regarding the
inaccurate MCAS FAA filings.

Congressional representatives have at times pursued fraud charges against
pilots for various reasons. The problem is that if they do that against
campaign donors, then those briefcases of cash will disappear.

[https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=93206](https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=93206)

To offer something constructive:

1) In American corporate mgmt., discussion and accountability is diffused
across multiple teams. Even attempting to use the word accountability is
perceived as "a problem."

2) That's compounded when you have complex systems that use both hardware and
software. In the case of the 737 MAX, you have external sensors subject to
weather and damage, internal wiring and software. In this case it appears the
software was outsourced. It would take their best Sr. Engineers to trace
through that and say anything definitive. See #1 for why it's not worth it as
an employee.

3) Submitting FAA aerospace compliance documents and outsourcing software
development may simply be incompatible due to change management iterations and
accountability.

So my summary would be that Boeing needs to be re-organized around
accountability instead of penny-pinching. That would require turning a huge
company inside-out. None of the founders are left. The current CEO has that
mandate, but seeing is believing.

~~~
sgift
> That is necessary because the FAA does not have aircraft designers on staff,
> and won't, because aerospace keeps advancing.

I don't understand this part. Could aerospace engineers working at the FAA not
learn about advances?

~~~
michaelt
In UK financial regulation, the traditional problem is: Competent subject-
matter experts at regulators get job offers for ££££ at the companies they're
regulating; and anyone who moves the other way or cycles between the two is at
risk of 'revolving door' corruption, where they use their position as a
regulator to advance the interests of their former employer.

If you're an American aerospace engineer, working for the FAA and specialising
in airliners - where is your next job likely to be?

------
Aloha
It's not unexpected, flaws aside the MAX issues have shown flaws in the way we
train pilots, mostly in re increasing airframe complexity.

~~~
histriosum
I'm not sure I see these training issues as a problem with the methods and
processes we use to train pilots. Rather, this seems like information which
was kept from pilots in order to avoid costly training altogether. The methods
we use to train pilots have resulted in consistent safety gains even as the
cost to fly for passengers has gone down.

My personal take is that the industry and regulatory incentives which led to
the lack of information to pilots is the problem, not the methods by which we
do train pilots to handle automation.

------
markdown
I live in Fiji and know a few pilots. Fijian pilots have traditionally sat
ATPL exams out of Australia (CASA). To get this ATP License, one needs to pass
7 gruelling theory exams within a 2yr period.

For some pilots this is too difficult, so recently more pilots have been
choosing instead to fly to Hawaii and get an American ATPL. Getting an
American Air Transport Pilot license takes a single o̶p̶e̶n̶ ̶b̶o̶o̶k̶ theory
exam.

The EASA (European) ATPL involves 14 theory exams.

~~~
tjohns
It's a closed book exam, an in-person oral exam, and a high-precision
practical flight evaluation. Plus minimum 1,500 hours of experience.

Along the way they've probably taken at least 3-4 other other
written/oral/practical exams, including private pilot, instrument, commercial,
and multi-engine. And possibly the flight instructor exam as well, since
that's a common way to pay for flight training.

Not to mention aircraft-specific type ratings, and biannual flight reviews
with a check airman.

I think you're selling the requirements a bit short. It's certainly not easy.

~~~
markdown
> in-person oral exam, and a high-precision practical flight evaluation. Plus
> minimum 1,500 hours of experience.

Yeah that's the same everywhere. OK so the exam is closed-book, thanks. I must
have heard wrong. The point still stands though.

------
DarkmSparks
Hopefully this will include the simulators that Boeing outsourced as a profit
centre. Trained by the lowest bidder was never going to end well for them.

------
sitkack
"Fighting Firmware at 25k Feet" or how I learned to root cause distributed
control systems in free fall.

Nothing is mechanical anymore, it is intermediated by an algorithm and servo.
Automation, as done in these flight control "smoothing" systems, reduces
situational awareness.

------
WrtCdEvrydy
Here comes the hammer...

~~~
AWildC182
This sounds a lot like a political deflection rather than a hammer. The
wording suggests an angle towards foreign "international" standards rather
than just domestic. This also subtly passes blame towards pilots and their
training rather than the extremely lax airframe certification standards.

~~~
sokoloff
There’s a non-zero amount of blame that properly lands on the pilots and their
training, IMO.

Failing to acknowledge that would be passing up an _additional_ improvement to
safety in the system.

~~~
AWildC182
It does, but it's not at all related to what they're talking about here, at
least as far as the text describes.

The issue is that large aircraft require an aircraft model specific training
program called a type rating which is rather involved and expensive. Both
Boeing and Airbus have common type ratings across multiple aircraft models and
sub-models to save on training costs for airlines. To do this, they need to
maintain a high degree of controls and systems commonality between the types
and in this case, they fudged these limitations by adding a system which was a
significant departure from the older 737 type and type rating training
programs without requiring additional training on the MAX sub-model.

------
willis936
Season 24 of the bachelor has some serious political effect.

------
erobbins
This strikes me as Boeing lobbyists trying to pay people to create doubt.
"Maybe it's not the plane, maybe the pilots are inferior to AMERICAN pilots,
yeehaw!"

~~~
anon73044
Seems pretty contrary to Boeing fighting tooth and nail to make sure the FAA
didn't require a lengthy amount of training.

"One of the company’s big selling points with customers had been that pilots
certified for an earlier generation of 737 jets only needed a short computer
course to brush up their skills for the Max. Those assurances helped make the
Max Boeing’s best-selling jetliner." >[https://time.com/5762666/boeing-max-
faa-messages-clowns/](https://time.com/5762666/boeing-max-faa-messages-
clowns/)
>[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/business/boeing-737-messa...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/business/boeing-737-messages.html)
>[https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-737-max-employee-
call...](https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-737-max-employee-called-lion-
air-idiots-training-request-2020-1?amp)

~~~
kayfox
I think Boeing is getting smacked in the face by a change in pilot skill
levels and areas that has been happening around the world since the 90's.

Boeing is in a really bad position to specify minimum training requirements,
since any time they ask for more training requirements of their customers, the
customers ask for more money back. So its good that the FAA wants to enhance
training requirements.

Based on some of the things that have happened around these two accidents and
others recently, I think the increased training should encompass more core
skills as well.

