Should an ATP be required for both pilots?

[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!

 

[blesko]

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.

At our company, they do

 

[Superpilot92]

Thats EXACTLY what needs to happen. I emailed my state and local reps about this a couple days ago. Imagine that, requiring pilots to have a *GASP* Airline Transport Pilot rating to fly as an Airline Pilot. Crazy i know The airlines can now just hire anyone they want often without even a sim evaluation just to get a warm body to fill a required seat. Force them to hire people with an ATP, people who have shown they can fly to Airline Transport Pilot standards (i know another gasp) then the airlines will have to raise pay to attract actual qualified pilots. That would also help get rid of alot of the zero to hero pilot factories. This absolutely needs to be what happens.

 

[EdAtTheAirport]

Good deal Superpilot! (I assume you emailed your federal reps, since this is not a "state and local" matter). I wonder how many on this Board understand the window of opportunity that exists this week to help ourselves with a timely letter to Congress, but instead just want to whine here on Flightinfo.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

As usual... it is not just one change... the ills of the industry are multi faceted.. move to require everone to have an ATP is a piece of the puzzle..

 

[F9 Buff]

Seems to me that most on here are just using this Colgan crash to gripe about their own issues with the industry. That Q400 crashed because the Captain stalled it and then tried to recover with the equivalent of hitting the gas at a red light. While the FO didn't do him any favors, if that were her leg, I bet we have a very different story. Simple fact is, training at airlines, particularly regional airlines, is closer to a joke than actual training.

 

[AC560]

What needs to happen is the FAA needs to start giving all the check rides out (91/121/135) no more DPE/Company Check Airmen coupled with certificate revocation for those who continually fail to meet standards. This would greatly reduce incompetent people from getting a certificate in the first place and remove the 23,000hr pilot who is always used in these examples as well.

Everyone is all for these types of things until maybe they could get fired, then well maybe it isn't such a good idea. The reality is though it is laughably easy to get a ATP in the US and damn near impossible to lose it once you have it, and that is the problem (not whether the F/O as an ATP or not).

 

[OUPilot01]

Yep.........and the difference is, guys with ATPs were once commercially rated, yet commercial pilots have not been ATPs.

Hey don't miss understand me. I believe in order to create a better barrier of entry, you should have an ATP and four year degree to work for a regional (never would happen) . I had well over atp mins and two degrees when I started with the regionals, but the guy sitting in training next to me was 19, no college and barely had 500 hours. Makes it easy for them to pay us peanuts when many of the applicants are the quality of a local Mexican restaurant dishwasher.

 

[FR8mastr]

So should a company pay for your private, instrument, commercial, and multi ratings as well?

Absolutely not.

If a pilot is qualified to get an ATP it can be issued during his checkride after initial training.
Now granted the prospective FO would have to fly to ATP standards, That should not be a problem for an airline pilot, especially since the ATP standards were relaxed a some years back.
In the end isnt that the point?

 

[fam62c]

Yes, back when I started I had to have an ATP to get hired at the regional that I worked for, times were tight and the only way to get hired with less experience way to go to a carrier with PFT which I was NOT going to do. I remember when 1500 hours was "low time" and not very competitive in the small airline job market. Before the recession hit the smaller airlines would have considered a 1500 hour applicant with an ATP to have "lots" of experience. Some of these carriers had pilots with only a little more than 1500 hours in the LEFT seat.

I just don't think it's a good thing when anybody off the street with the money can go to a pilot factory and in a year be sitting in the right seat of an airliner with 300 or 400 hours and the first time they fly through a cloud or see ice is with paying customers in the back. Let's not forget that if the CA becomes incapacitated the FO IS the captain for the remainder of that flight. Granted, 1500 hours isn't a lot of time but I think in the beginning you learn something every hour you fly and the first couple thousand hours are probably the most important. One thousand hours or so of flight instructing, banner towing, charter flying, whatever after getting your initial ratings never hurt anyone; you learn from being in command and having to make decisions even if it's doing turns around a point in a Skywawk with a student, doing pipeline patrol, banners, traffic patrol or whatever. I think that new hire FO's should at least have to meet the requirements for the rating ride if they don't actually have the rating.

The public would probably think that given the name of the rating "Airline Transport Pilot" that the folks up in front doing the transporting would both have that qualification. I don't think it will ever happen, the industry will fight it like crazy; a huge supply of pilots fresh out of the "puppy mills" allows them to keep wages low because they don't have to compete with one another for pilots. They don't ever want to see new-hires become a scarce commodity because a surplus of applicants works in their favor. If the industry had it's way they would probably want to lower the requirements so we could use private pilots in the right seat. They would suddenly have access to all kinds of people who always thought that flying a jet would be a fun hobby. I've seen the regionals do this time and time again when the supply of pilots get's thin, rather than raising pay to attract the most qualified applicants they just lower their requirements. They don't care who flys the plane as long as they will work cheap and it's minimally legal.

 

[Caveman]

Seems to me that most on here are just using this Colgan crash to gripe about their own issues with the industry. That Q400 crashed because the Captain stalled it and then tried to recover with the equivalent of hitting the gas at a red light. While the FO didn't do him any favors, if that were her leg, I bet we have a very different story. Simple fact is, training at airlines, particularly regional airlines, is closer to a joke than actual training.

I looked at your profile, so I gotta ask. Have you ever been through airline training at either a regional or a major? I'll wait for your answer before I comment further.