• NC Software is having a Black Friday Sale Event thru December 4th on Logbook Pro, APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook, Cirrus Elite Binders, and more. Use coupon code BF2020 at checkout to redeem 15% off your purchase. Click here to shop now.
  • NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.

CAPA and ATP requirement

schorion

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Posts
7
Total Time
3000
-Heard thru the grapevine that CAPA is trying to get Congress to Mandate all pilots get an ATP in order to fly commercially. I think this is good, what feedback can you guys give me on this?
 

Whine Lover

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Posts
1,497
Total Time
12000+
It is a knee jerk reaction to appease the flying public after Colgan and nothing more.

An ATP does not a pilot make...Common sense, skill, and judgement do not necessarily come with an ATP.

Captain Renslow had an ATP and yet, the inevitable ocurred.

Much like the TSA, this is just politically motivated window dressing and nothing more in my opinion.


YKMKR
 

Superpilot92

LONGCALL KING
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Posts
3,719
Total Time
Dunno?
This is great news

Imagine that! Require an airline to hire someone with an AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT license before flying for the airlines!! This should absolutely be the Requirement! Or at a minimum, require that all applicants meet ATP minimums when they show for training that way the airlines have to cover the cost of the ATP when those without it go through initial.

The airlines will fight it because If this rule goes through the airlines would have to raise newhire pay in order to actually attract pilots. Low Mins = Low Experience = Low Pay. The airlines have gotten away with hiring low time pilots just to save a buck, Its time to pay for experience.
 

TV9Driver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Posts
362
Total Time
who's?
it is absolutely a good thing for our profession. It has nothing to do with good pilots/bad pilots. It has everything to do with starting to bring up the pay and making this a real profession again and not a part time job. We need to hold the airlines' feet to the fire and not let them off the hook with low pay.
 

Superpilot92

LONGCALL KING
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Posts
3,719
Total Time
Dunno?
It is a knee jerk reaction to appease the flying public after Colgan and nothing more.

An ATP does not a pilot make...Common sense, skill, and judgement do not necessarily come with an ATP.

Captain Renslow had an ATP and yet, the inevitable ocurred.

Much like the TSA, this is just politically motivated window dressing and nothing more in my opinion.


YKMKR

Yes, but another ATP in the right seat might have stopped it. If the airlines had higher standards for newhires then those pilots would have more experience to build on. I believe Renslow was a low time pilot when he started at Colgan therefore his experience level with basic flying skills might have been low to begin with and a couple thousand hours of right seat 121 ops wont really build upon basic flying skills. Thats where like you said, an ATP doesnt make a pilot. Anyone can pass a 121 upgrade type ride, especially when pushed through, but that doesnt mean that pilot has great piloting skills.

Increasing the requirements is good for everyone except those that maybe shouldnt be in those positions to begin with. Add to that multiple checkride failures, a red flag should be raised.
 

spitfire1500

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Posts
836
Total Time
Enough
It is a knee jerk reaction to appease the flying public after Colgan and nothing more.

An ATP does not a pilot make...Common sense, skill, and judgement do not necessarily come with an ATP.

Captain Renslow had an ATP and yet, the inevitable ocurred.

Much like the TSA, this is just politically motivated window dressing and nothing more in my opinion.


YKMKR

Then what the hell..... lets pass a reg allowing airlines to use private pilots in the right seat. ...with your reasoning why not???
 

sstearns2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
596
Total Time
9000
Requiring an ATP just means everyone trying to get into this career and struggling with the enormous cost of training would have to pay for another 5 or 6 hours of twin time and another $300+ checkride.

Why not just require a private and instrument rating? What's the point of the commercial aside from flight school and DEs making money? I use my private and instrument training everyday on line, but the commercial is pointless. If it were real aerobatic/spin recovery training I'd be all for it, but it's just a few VFR maneuvers, most of which are rehashing of private pilot maneuvers, when we work in an IFR world.

They should simply pass a minimum $40 per flight hour pay for all part 121 pilots from the first day of training if they want to attract more experienced pilots to 121.

The CRJ program at Skywest is about 8 weeks including about 50 hours in the simulator and a couple hours in the actual airplane. Do you think it's going to make any difference if the newhires are required to fly some scary old light twin for 2 days before they come to class? No. Do you think it's going to make a difference to the newhires if they have to show up to class another $2000+ in debt? Yes.

Scott
 

NuGuy

Ex-Commuter
Joined
May 30, 2003
Posts
2,375
Total Time
10000
Heyas,

Not only is this a good idea, I've written my congress critters to tell them so.

It doesn't surprise me at all CAPA is for this. They are made up of unions from carriers who either have no regional feed, or in the case of AMR, certainly wish they didn't. This is almost precisely what I predicted would happen when things got tough. A few more steps down the road, and you'll see AirTran and SWA promoting that they do not outsource ANY flying.

In the same letter to my critters, I pointed out that nearly %100 of the problems related to crew rest, training, safety as well as customer service are the net result of outsourcing.

I also outlined how I thought that buying a ticket on one carrer, but finding out that it's actually another is a form of bait and swtich, and drew the recent Rochester debacle as a current example.

In my summation, I mentioned that by banning code share operations, congress could solve a majority of these problems in one fell swoop. If it flys on the code, it should fly on the certificate. If the contract carriers are as safe and provide a similar level of customer satisfaction, then certainly they should be able to stand on their own, rather than hiding behind the skirts of a major airline.

Our friends at COEX, Mesa, ASA, Comair, Skywest are so anxious to fly bigger, shinier jets, and with that I have no problem. I say release them from the shackles of flying under that pesky DL, UA, AA, or any other code you can think of. I say let them get as many big jets as they want, as long is it's on their own code and livery.

When they're responsible for their own booking, tickets, websites and so on after being weaned from the major airline teat, they might not find life so rosey..

Obviously, Congress isn't going to listen to JUST me, but when the next debacle happens, the idea will be planted in their head. Maybe some of the other ants on the hill may want to bug them, too...

Nu
 
Last edited:

Superpilot92

LONGCALL KING
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Posts
3,719
Total Time
Dunno?
Heyas,

Not only is this a good idea, I've written my congress critters to tell them so.

It doesn't surprise me at all CAPA is for this. They are made up of unions from carriers who either have no regional feed, or in the case of AMR, certainly wish they didn't. This is almost precisely what I predicted would happen when things got tough. A few more steps down the road, and you'll see AirTran and SWA promoting that they do not outsource ANY flying.

In the same letter to my critters, I pointed out that nearly %100 of the problems related to crew rest, training, safety as well as customer service are the net result of outsourcing.

I also outlined how I thought that buying a ticket on one carrer, but finding out that it's actually another is a form of bait and swtich, and drew the recent Rochester debacle as a current example.

In my summation, I mentioned that by banning code share operations, congress could solve a majority of these problems in one fell swoop. If it flys on the code, it should fly on the certificate. If the contract carriers are as safe and provide a similar level of customer satisfaction, then certainly they should be able to stand on their own, rather than hiding behind the skirts of a major airline.

Our friends at COEX, Mesa, ASA, Comair, Skywest are so anxious to fly bigger, shinier jets, and with that I have no problem. I say release them from the shackles of flying under that pesky DL, UA, AA, or any other code you can think of. I say let them get as many big jets as they want, as long is it's on their own code and livery.

When they're responsible for their own booking, tickets, websites and so on after being weaned from the major airline teat, they might not find life so rosey..

Obviously, Congress isn't going to listen to JUST me, but when the next debacle happens, the idea will be planted in their head. Maybe some of the other ants on the hill may want to bug them, too...

Nu


100% ageed!! Well said, I've done the same.
 

AvroGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Posts
297
Total Time
>3000
In my summation, I mentioned that by banning code share operations, congress could solve a majority of these problems in one fell swoop. If it flys on the code, it should fly on the certificate. If the contract carriers are as safe and provide a similar level of customer satisfaction, then certainly they should be able to stand on their own, rather than hiding behind the skirts of a major airline.
Good luck with that one, I think Alaska and American would have issue along with US Airways and United. Not to mention BA, Luftansa, Air India and so on. They all code share to get thier passangers where they want to go. Besides last time I checked Alaska and Luftansa don't fly to OKC but they do under code share.
 

NuGuy

Ex-Commuter
Joined
May 30, 2003
Posts
2,375
Total Time
10000
Good luck with that one, I think Alaska and American would have issue along with US Airways and United. Not to mention BA, Luftansa, Air India and so on. They all code share to get thier passangers where they want to go. Besides last time I checked Alaska and Luftansa don't fly to OKC but they do under code share.

So much the better. Protecting scope isn't just about the smallest jets. Sometimes it's about the top end, too.

Nu
 

dirkdigler

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2002
Posts
143
Total Time
enough
The point of requiring ATP is that the aspiring pilots have met the certain amount of experience level as well as consistency in skills by the virtue of going through multiple levels of trainings and checkrides. While it does not mean that ATP guarantees it by any means, it is a good and fair place to start, I think. Let's be frank here - it was getting pretty ridiculous out there. 200 hr pilots being presumed to be equally qualified as captains after their initial? At least that's the official presumption in airline trainings while everyone knows airlines are just tossing the burden in the captains' laps. I agree that captains should be advocates of showing the rope, however, they should be able to expect certain level of consistent competencies.
 
Top