ALPA backing "restricted" ATP? WHY??

[cale42]

Lear,

Great post overall.. a very realistic expectation approach to it, also for mentioning the need for pilot based PAC's to fight the ATA.

Unfortunately I don't see what you want to be reality happening. Here's what I see, ERAU tuition doubles, and first semester everyone get's their private multi. Then they spend 2 days a week putting two private multi students together and putzing around the country on pointless VFR cross countries. Multiplied out over 4 years you have guys graduating at age 21 with their "restricted" ATP and 750 hours, still with not a lick of practical flying experience. I'm not sure that is really an improvement.

If you want some real teeth in the law, lets say 350 of the hours have to be PIC for hire. I'm firmly of the opinion that the most learning comes the first job you get paid to fly. Be it instructing, flying freight, banners, whatever.. it is a whole new ball game when money is on the line. I actually think that requirement should be in place for al ATP certificates, but let's start with the reduced hours ones.

cale

 

[whymeworry?]

MPL.... what a joke. So what's gonna' happen when the commander goes T.U.? Is the MPL holder going to land at night, in the rain, at a challenging field, etc.

This is a recipe for disaster. Hope I'm not a pax on that flight.

 

[Lear70]

Here's what I see, ERAU tuition doubles,

That, alone, will eliminate at least half the applicants, especially when they know what their pay will be the first 2-3 years after they get out of college: $18-22k.

first semester everyone get's their private multi. Then they spend 2 days a week putting two private multi students together and putzing around the country on pointless VFR cross countries.

You won't get a lot of takers on that program. A couple problems.

1. On a VFR cross-country, unless both pilots are instrument-rated pilots and one is under the hood, one is acting as a so-called "safety pilot", only one of them can log PIC at a time. This has gotten a bunch of people busted back to zero hours and violated.

2. Not every FSDO will recognize a "safety pilot" as loggable time. "Sole manipulator of the controls" comes to mind, and I've seen FSDO's disallow flight time like this used for meeting minimum requirements.

Multiplied out over 4 years you have guys graduating at age 21 with their "restricted" ATP and 750 hours, still with not a lick of practical flying experience. I'm not sure that is really an improvement.

Most people don't start college at 17. I did, but I'm the exception. Most start at 18 and turn 19 their first year, they'd be 22 when they graduated college. A fine point but, again, that assumes they stay PERFECTLY on the course track which varies for quite a few people.

If you want some real teeth in the law, lets say 350 of the hours have to be PIC for hire. I'm firmly of the opinion that the most learning comes the first job you get paid to fly. Be it instructing, flying freight, banners, whatever.. it is a whole new ball game when money is on the line. I actually think that requirement should be in place for al ATP certificates, but let's start with the reduced hours ones.

cale

I absolutely agree, but in the face of a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, I'll take what's proposed: 22-23 year olds with 750 hours of time instead of 19 year olds like I flew with who have 275 hours and think they're even REMOTELY qualified (or able) to be in the seat.

One battle at a time...

 

[cale42]

One battle at a time...

That pretty much sums it up right there. Nothing ever gets done in leaps in bounds.. it's always a little bit at a time.

I won't for one second argue this is a step in the right direction.

cale

 

[imacdog]

Can anyone answer how the average pilot working his or her way up is supposed to get 200 multicrew time before they are allowed to hold an ATP?

 

[waveflyer]

What I get concerned about is the affect on civilian pilots- civilians already have huge barriers to entry-and a very long road to an airline career- not disagreeing with the 19yo children of the magenta- but at my carriers our mins didn't drop below 1000-1. I've only learned that nothing replaces talent and preparation- I flew with many 1000/100 wonders who were fantastic- and plenty with 6000 hrs and a major airline furlough who weren't so good-
I actually do think that mins ought be lowered for a qualified school- but I have the same question as the poster above-how does one getthe 200 multi- crew?

I was an economically challenged civilian pilot- my main concern is would I have been able to make it through these requirements financially? Or would the no talent trust fund babies be the only ones again who will make it all the way through the civilian ranks?

If the goal is to limit the supply of pilots- whether or not they have the money to push through those barriers to entry is a pretty poor filter

 

[UALRATT]

This should not be a surprise. ALPA National was down at ERAU a few weeks ago promoting the business of piloting.

This is two fold. They are:
1) Getting in front of the MPL license which imo they see as a eventuality if something is not done,
and
2) Trying to get on board with the way the new law will look.

It makes them look proactive and safety conscious.

I like the idea of a 1500 hr atp requirement, but it is a house of cards that will fall and quite miserably in a less than 10 years. The void will be filled by the MPL and as a result will put us in a worse position than we will be in with what they are recommending.
What this recommendation does, is it preserve a realistic bar that can be used and enforced going forward. It funnels pilot applicants in to degrees and course work that works well for the profession or trade if you will, of piloting, it gets applicants to be degreed from accredited universities, and it puts an attainable bar for those that wish this to be their career.

For those of us in the field it seems like a half baked effort that has scummed to big business pressures, but I suggest you look at the big picture.

Like I have said, it funnels pilots in to degrees from accredited universities, and as a result puts that barrier on many of the future applicants in to this career. It "professionalizes" the profession. That my friends is a huge plus. It is the first small step that needs to be taken to truly make this a profession and ALPA a true association. 750 hrs is a teaser and as a result will make this "law" or regulatory change stand the stress test as the retirements kick in. It is sustainable.
As for the last part, making a suggestion that will more than likely become law thwarts the MPL initiative that will more than likely rear its head in the USofA in the next 10 years. This is a stop gap that is will allow low time applicants a road to the 121 world and will not fail at big business pressure as the airlines need thousands of pilots in the late twenty teens and 2020's. Keeping the bar at this moderate level will in effect mitigate the MPL which by all intents and purposes will allow 250 hr pilots in to 121 cockpit. In effect it is a sustainable long term position to raise the bar in this industry

It is not perfect, but it actually is working to solve a few issues on many levels.

Good post!!

 

[Lear70]

Can anyone answer how the average pilot working his or her way up is supposed to get 200 multicrew time before they are allowed to hold an ATP?

I really don't care.

Really.

I did it. Thousands of other pilots I know did it. Upcoming pilots can, too. Don't like it? Go do something else for a living.

200 Multicrew means they have to get a JOB that REQUIRES them to be in the aircraft, not just hopping back and forth in a Cessna/Piper/Cirrus to see your hot girlfriend/boyfriend in grad school upstate. That means a jet that requires an SIC (over 12,500 or in Part 135 operations) or in an aircraft that requires an SIC in lieu of an approved autopilot by Ops Spec.

It will take them that much longer to get through the requirements, give them some REAL WORLD experience to go with it, and add another bar to reach in the pursuit of a flying career. The only downside is operators like GIA would still have a way to function. I can see the ad now:

"Want to get that airline job? 200 Multicrew the only thing standing in your way? Come pay us $75,000 and we'll give you what you need!"

All-in-all, I wish the multicrew requirement were higher, say half that 750 hours required TT. Hope it makes its way into the bill.

 

[Flightdawg]

You guys need to stop before just jumping on the ALPA bashing wagon... Again...

That'd leave them with nothing to do. From what I've seen, those who bash ALPA the most have either never volunteered to work with their own union or they screwed up so badly they were asked to leave their volunteer job.

Here's what I see, ERAU tuition doubles, and first semester everyone get's their private multi. Then they spend 2 days a week putting two private multi students together and putzing around the country on pointless VFR cross countries. Multiplied out over 4 years you have guys graduating at age 21 with their "restricted" ATP and 750 hours

and $300,000 of debt. Sorry, but I don't see it. Several of the 250 hour wonders are in up to $150,000 in debt for their ERAU education. Doubling it won't see the numbers of pilots going through the program increase to pre-2008 levels.

That, alone, will eliminate at least half the applicants, especially when they know what their pay will be the first 2-3 years after they get out of college: $18-22k.

True dat. It's the reason enrollments dropped off 40% a couple years ago.

 

[Flightdawg]

Can anyone answer how the average pilot working his or her way up is supposed to get 200 multicrew time before they are allowed to hold an ATP?

Working cargo carrier or 135.

Now that the airlines won't be hiring those pilots, the fly-by-night light twin cargo carriers will be swamped with applicants. Expect to see some cheap pay-to-fly deals coming from these operators.