Should an ATP be required for both pilots?

[TheInsider]

This is a subject developing in another thread, but I think it deserves its own thread.

I think that if the regs were to change and require an ATP for both PIC and SIC, a couple of issues at the regional level would be addressed.

First of all we have the experience factor. One cannot make an effective arguement against the fact that a 250 hour pilot should not be flying a transport catagory aircraft. Sure the military and some foreign airlines do it, but they have a highly competitive selection process. The first 1500 hours of a pilots career should be spent improving his airmanship as a cfi and 135 light twin pilot. I can't help but think that tragic events would be reduced if pilots spent at least their first 1500 hours teaching stalls in a 152, or flying a baron single pilot through the ice at night.

I am not saying that having an ATP makes one a superpilot. I also know that some will manage to accrue 1500 hours having never earned their CFI or gain any 135 experience. The ATP requirement would just ensure that most of the newly hired pilots will have had a little bit of exposure to the system.

An ATP requirement would also force wages to increase. Imagine if the regionals could no longer hire from the puppy mills. The feed of 250 hour pilots willing to take any job for any wage would be cut off. Those who were not dedicated to aviation would reconsider it as a career if they were not gauranteed that job with just a couple hundred hours.

I see many statements being made that pay needs to increase, and believe me it does. We are never going to see the day that airlines feel sorry for us and increase our pay. The government is never going to set a minimum wage for pilots, this I assure you. The only way to increase the pay is to lower the supply. An ATP requirement is not only reasonable, it is logical.

This would help in regards to experience. What is still lacking is proper training from day one of flight training.

 

[Poahi]

It's an interesting idea from one other standpoint. It will clearly discourage more pilots from getting in to the airline industry. If you factor in how much time it is going to take to earn that extra 1,000 hours of instruction, (plus the fact there will be fewer students to teach), then thousands of pilots aren't going to waste the time and money to become pilots. Figure an extra 2.5 years with virtually no pay. If an instructor had to teach 20 students to earn 500 hours of total time, - to make it to the regionals, they would need 80 to make it to 1,500 hours. Where are these extra 80 going to come from? You going to spend five years at an academy? Then we wil have endless threads on FI whining about how the high minimums don't prevent accidents. For those who are already in the industry, it's great to have more pressure on airlines for better pay to attract those instructors - who wouldn't be for that?

What will happen is that during the next boom cycle in the airline industry, capacity won't keep pace with demand because of lack of crews and ticket prices may rise.

Fewer pilots mean more pressure on regionals to offer better pay and work rules and ultimately the situation will right itself.

 

[rustypigeon]

This would help in regards to experience. What is still lacking is proper training from day one of flight training.

I agree. Hopefully the training would improve since there will be more experienced CFI's out there.

 

[hindsight2020]

What about ab initio? It has worked relatively well so far for the military and the Europeans, what's the problem with implementing it domestically? The only downside I can see is many people wouldn't make the cut and have their dreams of flying a shiny jet dashed. I'm happy with that, after all we dont weep for the kid who bombed the MCAT and didn't get into med school. The probative value of flying my family around by vested competent higher-than-median performers in aggregate is greater than allowing someone a diluted 16K/yr dream.

Any thoughts?

 

[Dornier 335]

complete bs

What about ab initio? It has worked relatively well so far for the military and the Europeans, what's the problem with implementing it domestically? The only downside I can see is many people wouldn't make the cut and have their dreams of flying a shiny jet dashed. I'm happy with that, after all we dont weep for the kid who bombed the MCAT and didn't get into med school. The probative value of flying my family around by vested competent higher-than-median performers in aggregate is greater than allowing someone a diluted 16K/yr dream.

Any thoughts?

Yes, I personally think it is total cr@p! From my experiences with some airlines in Europe, pilots are more book-oriented than plane oriented (pilot skills). They do not have the skills I have seen in the US. Visual approaches? Not in FRA, CDG, BRU, MAN, LHR etc. Everything is so SOP it makes you wonder if the company has actually any confidence in their pilots' flying skills. When I first started to fly over there with my US-way of doing things, most of my co-pilots had to change their diapers. No hand-flying ILS if in IMC, no hand-flying circling, no raw-data ILS if in VMC. Auto-pilot engage at 10,000 feet and disconnect to hand-fly approaches? Shocking!! Can't obviously speak for all of them, but what I have seen is not impressive at all.

Legacy carriers in Europe have aptitude tests that are complete bs. You can actually prep yourself for these, which means that if you have the $$$ you're in. Look at some incidents with legacy carriers and you'd notice a certain lack of piloting skills, eg. LH landing @ HAM over a year ago. I have to admit that the winds can be much trickier in Europe (especially when a travelling low passes through) than I have experienced in my 10 years in the US, but this comes down to excessive auto-pilot flying per SOP. The other thing about ab-initio airlines is that they will not hire any external pilots, have age limits and other restrictions to keep you out.

Bottom line: There has to be a better balance between training and experience for both the US and Europe.

Ab-initio? No, thank you!

 

[waka]

I agree that an ATP and/or more experience doesn't guarantee a more competent or safer pilot as high time pilots have been at fault in accidents too. I also agree that the type or quality of one's flight time is a significant factor. However, on average, the more experienced pilot is the safer pilot and flight time is the best way to measure experience. That is what it boils down to

That said, it would be a double standard to limit this ATP requirement to 121. I believe that an ATP (or at least ATP minimums) should be required of the SIC in any operation in which the PIC is required to have an ATP.

 

[BoilerUP]

It would be a double standard to limit this ATP requirement to 121. I believe that an ATP (or ATP minimums) should be required of the SIC in any operation in which the PIC is required to have an ATP.

Would it really be a double standard to apply the Airline Transport Pilot certificate requirement to airline pilots only?

What other operations require an ATP to act as PIC? Part 91 subpart K (fractional) multi-engine turbine & Part 135 turbojets/aircraft with more than 9 pax seats/any multi-engine commuter operation are the only ones I'm aware of.

Your point, however, about the proposal applying toward all air carrier certificate holders is well taken.

 

[waka]

Would it really be a double standard to apply the Airline Transport Pilot certificate requirement to airline pilots only?

Although airlines is specifically what was on the minds of those that created the ATP, the word "airline" (as you have exampled below) in Airline Transport Pilot is no longer exclusively applicable to airlines. I guess I don't consider 91 subpart K (fractional) multi-engine turbine & Part 135 turbojets/aircraft as airlines per se.

What other operations require an ATP to act as PIC? Part 91 subpart K (fractional) multi-engine turbine & Part 135 turbojets/aircraft with more than 9 pax seats/any multi-engine commuter operation are the only ones I'm aware of.

Your point, however, about the proposal applying toward all air carrier certificate holders is well taken.

The operations you listed are the ones I had in mind

 

[say again]

And how do you require that? Require airlines to hire ATP-rated pilots..........

It's not hard imacdog!! All they need to do is make hiring mins equal to the ATP mins, and stick w/ them. I was hired at ACA w/ 2600 hrs and no ATP (met all requirements), but couldnt afford the couple thosands of dollars to get it.

 

[NoJoy]

As a Captain I have flown with my share of fos with hrs between 300-500. Most actually fly ok, but some require more "coaching" than others. I am glad I have my CFI, and have a few years under my belt teaching, because some weeks I do it non-stop. For me flying with someone who has a CFI and or an ATP is an extra bonus, but it does not happen very often. So I think pilots should be hired with an ATP or meet the qualification. Also being a CFI can be a BIG bonus especially when you make CA.