Should an ATP be required for both pilots?

[blesko]

Sure.
But the airline pays for it. The average Joe can go to any ATP flight school and get theirs in a weekend, as long as they pay $2500. But places like these tend to pass the applicant whether they can fly the airplane or not.

Cant issue the ATP in an inital checkride. The ATP is a PIC checkride, thus it must be issued in a PIC basis, not an SIC "type"

 

[deadstick]

What's the big deal about an ATP? You can get one in a 172, afterall!


No pay for rating, eh? How many schools pay for the CFI with no contract? If you are instrument proficient enough to apply for a 121 job, save up (no McD's, movies, or new iTunes for awhile) and take the ride. The guy in the NYT dropped $100k. The DPE charged $350, the plane was about $300 (not in a 172), the written was $100, and the prep book was $19.95. That's not even 1%!

As a great, Soouthen poet once said, "Get 'er dun!"

It's a license, and it doesn't expire. If you look outside of 121, I have talked to many people (who hire pilots) who have this opinion: "If an applicant has the hours and not an ATP, why don't they have the license?" Call it professional development.

 

[BOOZENEWS]

This debate will break to guys with ATPs saying yes you should, and guys with out them saying no you shouldn't.

Not with me. 320 TT and I believe an ATP should be required.

 

[DX Rick]

Cant issue the ATP in an inital checkride. The ATP is a PIC checkride, thus it must be issued in a PIC basis, not an SIC "type"

While the gubberment and FAA are changing all these new rules and requirements, they can change this as well.

 

[Fearless Tower]

But the big question is.....how many people with 1500TT are willing to work for 20-25K a year?

 

[DX Rick]

But the big question is.....how many people with 1500TT are willing to work for 20-25K a year?

People think that raising the requirements will cause the pay to go up. You couldn't be anymore wrong.

 

[MALSR]

I also think FO's should go to the sim every 6 months like captains. Its idiotic to think FOs do stall recovery only once a year, have an engine failure once a year, fly a non-precision approach once a year, etc.

 

[acpilot]

So, you REQUIRE an ATP:

-PFT skyrockets
-Low-timers will work for free (not just nearly free) to build time
-Loopholes are employed (Scheduled 135)

On the up side, more pilots will be exposed to "real flying" in the 135/91 environment and that may payoff in the end.

 

[imacdog]

People think that raising the requirements will cause the pay to go up. You couldn't be anymore wrong.

Depending on supply and demand you may be right; if the carrier can get ATP-qualified candidates at their current pay rates then there will be no need to raise wages to attract pilots. However, we should look beyond pay and recognize that as professionals, we need to start holding ourselves to higher standards, and requiring airline pilots to hold airline transport certificates may be a good first step towards restoring our image and give our passengers a step in the right direction with regards to safety.

 

[Volasl]

During the shortage close to two years ago pay did go up at some places temporarily. Remember many regionals were offering a signing bonus. Many were offering more than just first year pay. I know several MECs went crazy over it.

 

[BoilerUP]

There's no reason airline pilots aren't issued full type ratings during their initial checkride; the "cost" argument is bunk as the standards are the same and pretty much the only differences between a PIC and SIC check are a no flap landing and circling approach. If an ATP becomes mandatory for flying 121 (and I don't think that's unreasonable) then there's even less excuse for airlines to not fully type new pilots.

I also think that AQP should become the mandatory training standard for 121, so that "training" is emphaised much more than "checking".

With that said, I was hired by Air Wisconsin with 1050tt, 50 of which was jet SIC. I also had 500+ hours of Level C/D simulator time, the vast majority of which was obtained while working for a major 121 airline training department. At the risk of sounding arrogant, CRJ training was a breeze for me due to my background and I was just as competent and safe a line pilot as somebody going through training with four times my total flight hours. Two years later when I obtained my ATP, my mechanical flying skills were not any better than they were when I was hired by ARW.

HOWEVER...I had two summers and two winters worth of experience under my belt, and that experience very likely made me a better and more knowledgeable pilot.

IMO, if an ATP becomes mandatory for flying 121 I think the minimum experience for Part 135 non-passenger operations (ie freight) needs to be reduced to 750 hours, in order to give pilots a better avenue of achieving the experience that will make them better, more knowledgeable, more experienced airline crewmembers.

 

[SEVEN]

Should an ATP be required for both pilots?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:uzi:250 Hour FO's:smash:

 

[LJ45]

yes, great Idea !!!

 

[Dornier 335]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:uzi:250 Hour FO's:smash:

The thing is though, the ATP doesn't necessarily say anything about the pilot's skill. I have known some low-timers with real good flying qualities/hand flying and some higher-time ones that were ... let's say avarage. I see the problem with the flight schools. Most of them produce mediocre pilots at best, with exceptions of course. But good training is the most important thing. Look across the pond at Lufthansa. They have trained their own pilots for a long time, and new pilots enter a flight deck with less hours than the avarage low-time f/o. Before this mutes into an ab-initio vs. experience thread, make sure you take a look at the LH A340/330 or B744 f/o. He might have less time than your RJ f/o...

 

[EdAtTheAirport]

My letter to Congressman an both Senators is written. It's being snail mailed for extra oomph. I urged doubling the time for ATP to 3,000 hrs, and FOs should meet 135 PIC mins of 1200 hours.

Writing on flightinfo will do NOTHING!