ALPA to GA: Screw you

ALPA is an association. Just because someone is a member (their respective pilot group voted them in as representation for the CBA) doesn't mean the individual pilots agree with everything they say in lockstep.



Does James331 represent the attitudes of all GA pilots? :eek:


The letter clearly stated that he was speaking not for himself, but for every individual.

"On behalf of the 52,000 pilots at 31 passenger and cargo airlines represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), I want to make you aware of ALPA’s opposition ..."

If you want to say that he's a liar and shouldn't write letters, I am okay with that.
 
The letter clearly stated that he was speaking not for himself, but for every individual.

"On behalf of the 52,000 pilots at 31 passenger and cargo airlines represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), I want to make you aware of ALPA’s opposition ..."

If you want to say that he's a liar and shouldn't write letters, I am okay with that.

Sounds like an idiot. :dunno:

But remember, lots of people in high positions often try to speak for all of their constituents when in reality they don't.
 
Let me interrupt your little chest thumping session. If you were placed in the cockpit of a 747 or L1011 I will guarantee your first few landings would suck, and you will have a ***** of a time holding altitude first time up. And it would take way more than 2-3 hours for you to get comfortable.

Point? About the same as your post. :rolleyes2:

+1000 on this... I had many a thousands of hours in small jets. Transitioning to larger airplane was a "come to Jesus" moment. Thought I knew it all. Let alone a landing flaire 20 feet higher than normal, is trying to manage way more mass in the descent and slow down. I'm only beginning to master this (trust me, six weeks ago I wasn't even in the master phase).
 
Maybe the opposition has some legitimate points. I don't see why something simpler and less objectionable wasn't tried first.

Like changing the medical requirement for Recreational Pilot to DL.
 
OK, this is about the third class medical going away, correct? ALPA saying that they oppose that is hardly saying "screw you" to GA.
 
OK, this is about the third class medical going away, correct? ALPA saying that they oppose that is hardly saying "screw you" to GA.

Why does the ALPA letter say it would allow pilots with out a medical unfettered access to airspace up to 18,000 ft?


Doesn't the PBOR 2 restrict altitude to 14,000 ft ?
 
ALPA makes clear what they think of the riff-raff that they have to share their airspace with:

http://download.aopa.org/advocacy/ALPA_letter.pdf

The letter wreaks of snobbery. Only someone who learned to fly courtesy of Uncle Sam's silver spoon could be so insensitive and claim to speak for members who rose through the GA system. Such an attitude has long been a hallmark of ALPA, unfortunately.

dtuuri
 
Not me, my son. He is pursuing an aviation career and the 1,500 hr rule to get on with a quality regional is going to cost big bucks. The rule was a knee-jerk reaction from the idiots in Washington. The system wasn't broken. But then it usually isn't when these do-gooders decide a new rule is needed.

How will it cost him big bucks? You get from 250 to 1500hrs BY WORKING as a pilot, as in you get paid.
 
OK, this is about the third class medical going away, correct? ALPA saying that they oppose that is hardly saying "screw you" to GA.

"This legislation has the potential to allow medically unfit pilots unfettered access to the national airspace at altitudes up to 18,000 feet, which also includes commercial airline traffic carrying passengers and cargo."

What do you suppose motivates somebody to write something like that?

Do you think they are trying to invoke an image of a horde of sick old geezers suddenly taking to the skies, there to die at the controls of their planes and crossing the center dividers of airways into oncoming Airbus traffic, causing spectacular crashes with hundreds of deaths? Or do you think they they are being perfectly reasonable in making a claim that medically unfit pilots are somehow a danger to anyone else but themselves and their passengers and possibly people on the ground?

Do you think that maybe ALPA probably has a clue that a lot of private pilots are for the medical requirements to be relaxed? So that any opposing arguments they make had better do more than paint improbable claims of hazards, lest they be seen by some of us (well at least me) as being a group demanding priority claim to the national airspace?
 
I'm new to the airline industry so I don't know THAT many guys yet. I do know lots of guys in the USAF and ANG and I've been pleasantly surprised at the number of GA guys in both the military (as of late) and at Delta. Most guys simply don't know the details if they don't have an airplane or are involved in GA. I think the guys I've flown with that aren't in GA would honestly not care one way or the other if asked - unless there's a case made on a larger scale most people are going to go with "no change" because that's the safe bet if you don't know the background.

Now... whether ALPA will change the "official" stance of the airline pilot's union... that's another story.
 
Sounds like an idiot. :dunno:

But remember, lots of people in high positions often try to speak for all of their constituents when in reality they don't.

Except that he actually does speak for his constituents. That's exactly what a union does, it speaks for its members with a single voice. That's only one of the problems with unions.
 
Except that he actually does speak for his constituents. That's exactly what a union does, it speaks for its members with a single voice. That's only one of the problems with unions.

Spin it any way you want. :rolleyes2:

And only a fool would believe he speaks for every one of the 52,000 members.
 
Spin it any way you want. :rolleyes2:

And only a fool would believe he speaks for every one of the 52,000 members.

The ALPA Chief is certainly speaking for all of his members. He even said so! But that doesn't mean that all of the members agree with him.

Despite that certainty, he is most emphatically speaking for all of his members.
 
I think that many airline pilots look at GA as a sewer they had to cross on their way to the promised land. Many airline pilots never fly anything besides their airliner. I wonder if these folks actually love aviation and the thrill of flying or if they just wanted a decent paying job with a little prestige. If they are true aviators, they would not be satisfied with just taking off, flipping the autopilot on and just sitting back. They would be hand flying something on their time off whether it be a high performance twin, a single engine tail dragger or something in-between. A large percentage of airline pilots I know do nothing but fly their airline. There are exceptions and I would think the majority of those are on the side of GA on this issue.
 
Unfortunately, there are people out there who will never be good pilots no matter how many hours they have. The 1500-hour rule is an attempt to solve the wrong problem.
 
For what it's worth, both of our state senators have signed on, along with a couple of reps, but not my district rep. I just sent her a message. Hopefully something positive comes of it.
 
The problem is, like most unions, ALPA likely doesn't really represent the position of the membership. Living in Memphis area, I know a large number of FedEx pilots, many of whom I share an airport. A couple are very close friends. I also know a number of other carrier pilots as well. None I have spoken to are opposed to this proposal. They are a mix of military and civilian paths to airlines.


Jim R
Collierville, TN

N7155H--1946 Piper J-3 Cub
N3368K--1946 Globe GC-1B Swift
N4WJ--1994 Van's RV-4
 
Spin it any way you want. :rolleyes2:

And only a fool would believe he speaks for every one of the 52,000 members.

You are right that he may not technically speak the opinions of every member, but it's an irrelevant point.

For the sake of actionable stance and perception to the legislators he's influencing, when the head of a union endorses something, he's attaching that position to everyone under him (whether they want it or not).

No one in Congress ever cares about about a specific member's dissent as long as they have the endorsement in an official capacity.
 
And, as we all know, retired airline pilots hate flying little planes and once they retire they will never have the desire to be airborn again. Good thing too since they'll be of the age that most benefits from third class medical reform.
 
Thing is the asshat, on paper at least, DOES speak for all the members, and he has a much louder voice then the random Capt. ILoveGA.

It would be nice if his members set him straight and made him redact that statement, here's me holding my breath :rolleyes2:

I wonder if that idiot actually knows where most airline pilots come from...survey says....GA! It's the foundation of aviation.

Always surprises me when you meet people in the airlines who don't have a passion for aviation, seems silly to me, plenty of other vocations where it's a lot easier to make a few bucks.

Long and short, if he hates GA and aviation so bad, he's welcome to STFU and move to Europe or China.
 
My father is friends with a few airline pilots, and he has heard them comment on several occasions that GA is "real" flying, and they can't wait to go for a ride in a nice little single engine. I would bet many commercial pilots feel similar.
 
My father is friends with a few airline pilots, and he has heard them comment on several occasions that GA is "real" flying, and they can't wait to go for a ride in a nice little single engine. I would bet many commercial pilots feel similar.

Obviously I can't know what airline pilots as a whole feel, but I certainly fly with enough of them on a regular basis to have a good sample size. I'm pretty confident that the vast majority either support GA, or are indifferent enough to not have a strong opinion on the matter. There are the few miserable bastards out there that seem to dislike aviation yet still do the job, but they're few and far between.

I see this ALPA letter as some sort of political favor, with the expectation that their backs will get scratched in return. Just DC politics as usual, with no actual connection to the people being represented.
 
No credible data has been presented that indicates that there is any measurable increase in risk with the elimination of the Class 3 medical. And credible data is theoretically available by examining how often medical incapacitation played a role in the accident and incident history of glider, balloon, sport, or ultralight flights that also involved commercial flights. But no such data has been presented even though such flights have been occurring for decades.

I do not know what motivated that letter from ALPA
[*], but it was relying on a perception of risk, not the actual risk, to maintain a long established restriction on an individual freedom. Perceived risk has no objective utility but many people use it to justify all sorts of restrictions on individual freedoms.


[*] Based on the other content of the letter that seemed to be complaining about this appearing as an amendment to another bill rather than as part of PBOR2, perhaps there was something in PBOR2 that ALPA desired to have pass that was not in the amendment and would therefore not have a chance to occur if PBOR2 became redundant. That is the most generous interpretation I can think of.


I wonder if the airlines really want section 3, and are concerned that if class three medical reform is passed separately, they will loose the backing of the EAA and AOPA and have to lobby for themselves.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't really understand how the change in appeal process would work, but to someone who flies for a living this might be helpful to get the issue into a neutral court of law. For instance, medical certificates can be taken through this new process. Think about all those silly things (kidney stones for instance) that could now be appealed to a neutral court.

Just my two cents.

TJ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I went on AOPA's Legislative Action Center this morning to edit and update my letter to Alabama's congress members. They are already signed on in support of PBOR2, but I wanted them to help spread the word:

"(AOPA boilerplate)...In addition, since ALPA has recently opposed the bill, I would deeply appreciate it if you all reminded your colleagues in Congress that airline pilots have far more to fear from drones and green lasers than a non-existent threat from "dangerous" general aviation pilots. Any class of FAA medical requires pilots to self certify that they are fit to fly on a given day, including class I airline pilots. Those Sport Pilots who are already flying legally and responsibly in commercial airspace do so without medical certification other than their own. Same for drivers on the roads. The ALPA argument fails for lack of merit."
 
Oddly, every ALPA member I've talked to is pretty ****ed at the position (there was even a survey taken at least at some of the carriers which was pretty much 70% in opposition of this statement. However, none of the union members seemed surprised that their union management acted the way they did.
 
I think, without having any numbers to back this up, that you'll find the majority of airline pilots have very little connection with GA. In fact, I'd be very surprised if more than 10% participated in any GA activity at all.
 
Last edited:
I wonder. Would an ALPA member when speaking to a GA pilot fully, and totally endorse the end of the 3rd class med -- and then turn around and tell their union rep the exact opposite?

Hmmmmmmm.
 
I think the amount of airline pilots involved in GA may surprise some of you, out of the last 16 planes I sold(In 2015), 5 where to Airline Pilots. Some of them wanted a personal airplane, a few needed something to teach their kids to fly in.
 
My father is friends with a few airline pilots, and he has heard them comment on several occasions that GA is "real" flying, and they can't wait to go for a ride in a nice little single engine. I would bet many commercial pilots feel similar.

Sadly I have met the flip side more then once. I've spoken to several airline pilots that think GA is a scurge to aviation. However, normally these people are also the ones who hate their job beyond nothing else. Several I spoke to often "stick it" to the airline and passengers just to help take down their company. :mad2:

If you hate your job that much then go do something else.
 
Why does the ALPA letter say it would allow pilots with out a medical unfettered access to airspace up to 18,000 ft?





Doesn't the PBOR 2 restrict altitude to 14,000 ft ?


Senator Inhoff was on EAA radio when up at Oshkosh, and he stated 18,000 ft as well.
 
I wonder if the airlines really want section 3, and are concerned that if class three medical reform is passed separately, they will loose the backing of the EAA and AOPA and have to lobby for themselves.

I went back and looked over section 3 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/571/text) and it definitely looks like ALPA members would have gotten benefit from it. But then I found that Aerospace Medical Association back in April noted ALPA's objection even to PBOR2:
http://www.asma.org/asma/media/AsMA...ical-Certification-Legislation-April-2015.pdf

So it appears ALPA has been opposed to PBOR2 for quite a while - or at least to the relaxation of Class 3 medicals.

By the way, I found the arguments put forth by AsMA interesting and worth closer examinations:

"The FAA’s Medical Analysis Tracking (MANTRA) Program maintains a registry of US pilots fatally injured in aircraft accidents and includes autopsy results for most cases. Data were extracted for 1,084 individuals involved in fatal accidents from January 2011 to April 2014. Subjects included 68 sport pilots flying legally without a medical certificate and 403 pilots flying with an FAA Third Class medical certificate. Moderate to severe medical hazards identified by autopsy were found in 25% of medically certified pilots but in 60% of uncertified pilots."

This is hardly surprising - in fact it is to be expected. The issue isn't whether sport pilots would be as healthy as private pilots when they die in a crash, but whether their state of health was causal to the crash. I'm sure if that claim could be made they would make it. They didn't. What they then state is:

"According to recent studies by Casas and Castro, pilots with FAA Third Class medical certificates have a lower accident rate than sport pilots who have no such certification."

Sport pilots also may attain their certificates with lower number of hours and fly a different class of aircraft than that available to private pilots. Nice try, though, at trying to imply a causal link. An honest scientific approach would have noted the confounding factors.

The following was, in my opinion, almost the best argument they made:

"Based on a study of driving statistics by Hendricks, et al., 1999, approximately 6.4% of driving crashes resulted primarily from driver incapacitations. According to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), this type of bill would affect 39,120 pilots. If the same 6.4% incapacitation rate occurs for pilots under driving license medical standards, up to 2,503 new aircraft accidents would occur."

But then I looked at the linked study, where it defines its categories, and found this: "INCAPACITATION (e.g. fell asleep) - 6.4%"
[EDIT: According to the study results, the 6.4% is the percentage of drivers contributing to causation, not 6.4% of crashes. In fact the original study says that 2% of driver contributed crashes were due to seizures and blackouts; 4.4% were due to falling asleep. Since driver contributed crashes accounted for 59.7%, the final tally for medical incapacitation as causal for accidents amongst drivers was .597*2 = 1.2%. And contrary to the bogus math used by the AsMA, you DO NOT multiply either 6.4% (or 1.2%) by the number of pilots to determine the increase in accidents. You multiply by the number of past accidents. In fact the number of accidents would increase only by 1.2% (or even 6.4% using their numbers.) An increase of about 15 new accidents a year, of which 3 would be fatal. NOT 2,503. That latter results from confused or deliberately deceptive math by the AsMA - their probability units are wrong.]

So they were reaching. Hard. Those kinds of "scientific" arguments probably have worked on a lot of congress people, though. On the pro side for relaxation of medical standards is the realization that risk is impossible to remove - the best one can do is find a balance between risk to others versus the benefits of freedom to act.
 
Last edited:
I wonder. Would an ALPA member when speaking to a GA pilot fully, and totally endorse the end of the 3rd class med -- and then turn around and tell their union rep the exact opposite?

Hmmmmmmm.
This one wouldn't.
 
Let me interrupt your little chest thumping session. If you were placed in the cockpit of a 747 or L1011 I will guarantee your first few landings would suck, and you will have a ***** of a time holding altitude first time up. And it would take way more than 2-3 hours for you to get comfortable.

Reminds me of the first landing in the DC-3 after only flying small GA airplanes. Approaching the runway.....BAM!
Student: "What the heck was that?"
Instructor: "That was the landing gear."

Sight picture is just a wee bit different.
 
Reminds me of the first landing in the DC-3 after only flying small GA airplanes. Approaching the runway.....BAM!
Student: "What the heck was that?"
Instructor: "That was the landing gear."

Sight picture is just a wee bit different.

I flew with one of our alumi who flys 767s for a living a while back. He had a hard time flaring the GA airplane. The first landing he flared "insanely", aka 767, high. :D

Almost as bad as the WWII pilot I flew with. The dude hadn't flown since 1945. He kept trying to fly the aircraft like a Corsair off a carrier. After his first HARD landing he yelled "Did the hook grab?" :rofl:
 
Well, they already screwed over their profession by making it a two-tiered system that pays newcomers poverty-level wages. No surprise that they screwed over General Aviation as well.

It's not two-tiered, it's three. Tier one took their piggy bank and ran many years ago
 
I think the amount of airline pilots involved in GA may surprise some of you, out of the last 16 planes I sold(In 2015), 5 where to Airline Pilots. Some of them wanted a personal airplane, a few needed something to teach their kids to fly in.

Our new partner in the plane flies the E190.
 
Back
Top