Should an ATP be required for both pilots?

[WayBack]

Wayback, I'm not sure how you can argue that requiring 121 pilots to have more experience and a higher airman rating will not improve safety. Requiring an airline rating to fly an airliner, gee what a concept.

But you have to think about the guys who really have the ATP mins, vs. the guys who whip their books to reach the ATP mins.
It's been done by most pilots out there, and if you require a kid with glitter in his eye, he's going to find a way to get the time that much faster.
Also, like others said. Make it a ATP ride with a fed at an airline. These flight schools that offer the rating just cram it down your throat, 10 hours later you have a ATP....are you really gaining anything? FAA holds their standards a bit higher than some DE looking for a quick $500

 

[BoilerUP]

What is the difference in a PIC type and an SIC type, the seat and an engine relight? Why not just type everybody, its not like it would cost much more...its just that most regional FO's don't have the time.

There is no total time requirement to get a type rating.

 

[imacdog]

Oh please, what a retarded argument. There will always be those who cheat the system. It doesn't change the fact that the airlines would be forced to hire people who have more experience than 250 hours and a wet commercial ticket. You do seem to have quite a bit of familiarity with pencil whipping a logbook.........

 

[imacdog]

A question for all ATP holders out there that voted no.........

Do you think you were a more experienced, well-rounded pilot when you got your ATP rating versus when you passed your commercial checkride?

 

[acpilot]

Na, that one wouldn't work in practice.

I think you'd be cancelling out a bunch of other quality guys that were brought up through different channels. It is good to be exposed to several different types of aviation-avenues to make you well rounded I supposed, but making CFI/IP time a hard requirement wouldn't work smoothly in practice.

A good way to harder them up is to stick them in the gnarly 135 crazy-town world, among others.

And like someone else said above, the ATP is just a piece of plastic. Not really "proving" a whole lot, in my opinion. My sister could memorize the gleim portion (Ok im exagerating, but you get the point), and a weak pilot could muscle their way through a canned-florida ATP ride in a duchess.

But I cannot argue with making the ATP a req. for operations like 121 FO. Won't absolutely ensure anything at all, but at least a step in the right direction.

But then again, some guy made a good point above, about guys doing thouands of hours of flying only neededing a commercial ticket, then getting the ATP as an add-on with a type, etc. So then you have that situation. So hell, I dunno the answer. Carry on......

I was only half serious with the CFI crack. My point is why just stop with an ATP? If we're adding regulation, let's go for the gold. As many have said before, getting an ATP takes a weekend in an "airworthy" twin and a DE that will play along. An ATP guarantees nothing at all other than the applicant claimed to have accumulated 1,500 hrs. You can buy your way to an ATP if necessary. Why not require a minimum number of verifiable jobs in the aviation industry? There are too many jobs to list, but examples might be banner towing, Single Pilot IFR PIC, CFI-ing, aerial application, traffic watch, jumpers, fire fighting...anything but regional F/O apparently.

If you are going to force operators into hiring experienced pilots, why stop at an ATP? Is that just good enough?

 

[WayBack]

A question for all ATP holders out there that voted no.........

Do you think you were a more experienced, well-rounded pilot when you got your ATP rating versus when you passed your commercial checkride?

No, but I was always flew by ATP standards during my training and time building.
Flying to ATP standards isn't rocket science.

 

[imacdog]

Sure you did, WayBack. We were all born perfect pilots.....

 

[imacdog]

If you are going to force operators into hiring experienced pilots, why stop at an ATP? Is that just good enough?

Asking airlines to hire folks who are appropriately rated for the type of operation they do would be good enough, yes. Requiring a CFI is a retarded statement because it does not matter how one gets to the experience level to pass an ATP ride, only that they do pass an ATP ride. If you think asking a pilot to have an ATP to fly an airliner is excessive then I hope I don't have to ride in the back of one of your flights.

 

[WayBack]

Asking airlines to hire folks who are appropriately rated for the type of operation they do would be good enough, yes. Requiring a CFI is a retarded statement because it does not matter how one gets to the experience level to pass an ATP ride, only that they do pass an ATP ride. If you think asking a pilot to have an ATP to fly an airliner is excessive then I hope I don't have to ride in the back of one of your flights.

I might be reading this wrong, but are you saying all you want them to do is pass the ATP ride?

 

[StarHustler]

In addition to an ATP, why not require at least verifiable employment of two years exercising the privileges of a commercial pilot certificate. Be it as a CFI, flying cargo, sightseeing tours etc... This way there's at least some verifiable history as to the performance of the applicant, an FAR121 carrier shouldn't be anyone's first flying job.

Additionally, the initial ATP rating should only be conducted by an actual FAA examiner (ie. not a DE). Anyone can go down to a puppy-mill flight school, pay their $2500 and walk away an ATP. If the FAA controlled all ATP checkrides directly, and the ride is provided without fee, the certificate gains credibility.

This is actually a very good idea. While I generally abhor goverment intrusion, if the FAA oversaw the granting of the ATP like they do the granting of the CFI certificate, it would help to ensure a better quality ATP rating.