Senators Tammy Duckworth and Kyrsten Sinema have been at odds over a proposal to reduce the number of required in-flight training hours for pilots. Sinema’s amendment would allow pilots to meet training requirements by substituting hours spent in a flight simulator for actual flight time. Duckworth, who lost both of her legs to a rocket attack while piloting a Black Hawk helicopter in Iraq, has warned that the proposal would result in “blood on your hands” and that reducing the 1,500-hour rule for pilot training would lead to accidents caused by inadequately trained flight crews. The amendment is being opposed by pilot and flight attendant unions, who argue that any change to the rule must have sign-off from pilots. Sinema has received significant donations from the airline industry, raising over $150,000 from the sector over the past two election cycles.
Sinema’s amendment has also been criticized for undermining the aviation safety regime put in place after the 2009 crash of Flight 3407 outside Buffalo, New York, which left 50 dead. The Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 introduced sweeping reforms to protect airline customers and crew, including increased pilot training hour requirements, revised flight-simulator training guidelines, changes to pilot fatigue rules, and a rigorous system for screening pilot backgrounds. The Air Line Pilots Association has warned that Sinema’s amendment could cause extreme danger to pilots and passengers and undermine the current aviation safety regime.
The Regional Airline Association has lobbied to scale back pilot training requirements and testified before Congress in April to support the same changes in the amendment backed by Sinema. The group argues that fear and emotion are being injected into the conversation and that incorporating advancements in pilot training methods, curriculum, and technology into the 1,500-flight-hour framework has been prevented for over a decade. However, the lack of specifics in the amendment has raised concerns that it could result in subpar training, including types of emergency training.
The flight attendants union has also voiced concern over the proposed changes, stating that they do not support the amendment. While they are not uniformly opposed to allowing rigorous flight simulation to take an expanded role in training, they argue that it must be genuinely rigorous and under terms that ensure safety. The fact that US aviation has experienced its safest decade since the 1,500-hour rule was put in place suggests that any revision to the rule must be carefully considered to ensure that safety is not compromised.
In conclusion, the proposal to reduce the number of required in-flight training hours for pilots has sparked controversy and opposition from pilot and flight attendant unions, who argue that any change to the rule must have sign-off from pilots. The amendment backed by Sinema has been criticized for undermining the aviation safety regime put in place after the 2009 crash of Flight 3407, which left 50 dead. While the Regional Airline Association argues that incorporating advancements in pilot training methods, curriculum, and technology into the 1,500-flight-hour framework has been prevented for over a decade, the lack of specifics in the amendment has raised concerns that it could result in subpar training and compromise safety. Any revision to the rule must be carefully considered to ensure that safety is not compromised.