FAA unveils recommendations to change 1,500-hour requirement

Well said. I'm also working towards my ATP, but I have a bachelor degree in Finance so I'm required to get to 1,500 hours. I don't believe another 500 hours flying a piston will prepare me significantly more than 1,000 hours.

My question is, would this 250 hour credit apply to me or only to those with a degree in aviation already pursuing the R-ATP?

I think this is heading in the right direction. If the airlines want pilots so bad, let them get approval to provide us additional training for the ATP. I'm ready and waiting.

I have been led to believe the writers of these articles are using the often misunderstood idea of how RATP works, i.e. many people think that if you attend any flight school that is part 141 and/or you have a degree, you're eligible for the 1000 hr RATP. The list of universities with FAA-approved part 141 training programs and letters of authorization in place is limited, such as Utah Valley University, University of North Dakota, Embry-Riddle, et al. It gets even more specific than that, such as the flight training has to be done by the university's flight department (not a local part 61 school, or doing flight training elsewhere while pursuing the school's online degree), as well as specific courses toward a minimum of 60 selected credit hours within the degree's syllabus. And even then, only certain degrees are eligible. My university has a B.S., A.S, A.A.S. in aviation science (pilot ratings required) as well as a B.S. in Aviation Management. Out of these four degree options, only the B.S. and A.A.S in Aviation Science are listed in the LOA.

Therefore I am assuming this "250 hour credit for a degree" is actually referring to getting a bachelor's degree from a university with an LOA part 141 program. In other words, I will be RATP eligible at 1000 but if this proposal ever went through then my eligibility would be reduced to 750 hours.

Well said

More of a comment than a reply. As far as the Instructor that is. I personally know several pilots with different carriers both (majors and regionals) with just an Associates degree. I never finished my education at ERAU was hired without a degree. Ultimately made Captain flying for a major but, one difference I was a flight attendant for 10 year with AA before moving to the front of the airplane. At the time I had 1800 hours and no ATP things have changed. In the recent years I've seen new hires with just 300 hours few made it through initial training the ones that did, it showed in the cockpit always behind the airplane. Glad those days are gone.

The recommendation lays out the rational for providing this credit for collegiate programs and military flying: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/Air_Carrier_Training_ARC.pdf

It also summarizes the criticism and support of both proposed EQP (enhanced qualification program) methods from the different industry groups that weighed in on the recommendation.

Agreed...sitting through lectures and writing papers does not make one a better pilot. The entire Federal government has a bias toward traditional degrees. Much of government is run by those with advanced degrees who can't write a complete sentence or solve a simple algebraic problem but that's another story.

thats why the AF is recalling retirees

The military has ab initio training programs...yes. Unless things have changed the Navy soloes a student in a high performance turbine airplane after twelve training flights. Prior flight experience is not required/expected. More, the Navy student pilot is trained/evaluated over 200 flights in day, night, IFR, formation, navigation, gun pattern, air combat maneuvering, and carrier qualification. I'm probably leaving out some stuff as my information is dated. Not trying to pick a nit here but I don't think the civilian training route compares at all.

nevermind, I didn't realize it was the one linked below