Should an ATP be required for both pilots?

[ubpilot]

I think the flight time is much more important than the ATP.

 

[acpilot]

I think the flight time is much more important than the ATP.

I think the kind of flight time is much more important than sheer quantity and an ATP.

 

[Speedtape]

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.

Well stated, and I agree on most points.

However, Industry Managements will never allow it to happen, because it would increase their costs in many different ways. In addition, there are precedent setting examples that would undermine any efforts in the political world. Safety costs money, and in all things they will spend no more than they are required by FAR and other government regulations to achieve those benchmarks--which may be low in some areas.

 

[glasspilot]

What would be the downside of having pax flying pilots required to have an ATP just out of curiosity?

I think the pax would be worse than most of the pilots at flying.

I think the downside would be way more crashes and too few seats in the cockpits. A plus would be a huge cabin for a couple of pilots to relax in.

 

[BrickTop]

ATP standards won't fix the problem. Pilots will only spend additional time as instructors and acquire their ATP before applying to regionals. They will still be willing to work for pennies after years of instructing. The entire training and experience pathway needs to be changed that prohibits pilots without high experience from becoming employed at regional airlines. 2500TT and Turbine aircraft requirements by the FAA for 121 employment will lead the way to more experienced applicants and higher salaries. Until there are numerous accidents linking experience and pay to fatalities, don't expect any changes.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

250 TT is fine. What do you think insurance is for?

 

[livin'thesim]

Requiring turbine experience to fly at a regional would create a classic catch-22. Where would new pilots acquire meaningful turbine experience? A PROFICIENT 1500hr zero-turbine time pilot is safer in the right seat of a 1900 than in the left seat of a King Air.

Rather than placing the emphasis on time alone, the emphasis should be placed on having regional new hire be able to pass a PIC-type check.

An 1800 hour pilot with lots of single pilot freighter time has proven that they have the skills to step up to regional aircraft safely, even if they were flying piston aircraft, because they have proven that they can manage an aircraft alone in the IFR system. Making them have some token amount of turbine time simply ensures that "pay for time" deals will flourish, and pilots who can afford to buy time get the jobs.

Such token ride-along time proves nothing about the pilot's skill, and is questionable as a means of providing actual experience.

I'd rather have a zero-turbine pilot who has lots of actual.

 

[acpilot]

Requiring turbine experience to fly at a regional would create a classic catch-22. Where would new pilots acquire meaningful turbine experience? A PROFICIENT 1500hr zero-turbine time pilot is safer in the right seat of a 1900 than in the left seat of a King Air.

Rather than placing the emphasis on time alone, the emphasis should be placed on having regional new hire be able to pass a PIC-type check.

An 1800 hour pilot with lots of single pilot freighter time has proven that they have the skills to step up to regional aircraft safely, even if they were flying piston aircraft, because they have proven that they can manage an aircraft alone in the IFR system. Making them have some token amount of turbine time simply ensures that "pay for time" deals will flourish, and pilots who can afford to buy time get the jobs.

Such token ride-along time proves nothing about the pilot's skill, and is questionable as a means of providing actual experience.

I'd rather have a zero-turbine pilot who has lots of actual.

Exactly!

 

[NoJoy]

Instead of having the applicant have an ATP, they should be required to meet the ATP mins and have their written done. Then ALL new pilots at the given regional should be typed in that particuliar aircraft that they are going to fly. This will save some of the applicants some $ on getting an ATP and the airline will have all of its pilots typed. When it comes to upgrade, a few sim sessions and a PC will take care the CA ride, saving the company $ on multiple sim sessions, unless extra training is required. Most fractionals type their pilots and their customers know this, so why can't the airlines? This would increase the safety margin.

 

[rustypigeon]

Requiring turbine experience to fly at a regional would create a classic catch-22. Where would new pilots acquire meaningful turbine experience? A PROFICIENT 1500hr zero-turbine time pilot is safer in the right seat of a 1900 than in the left seat of a King Air.

An 1800 hour pilot with lots of single pilot freighter time has proven that they have the skills to step up to regional aircraft safely, even if they were flying piston aircraft, because they have proven that they can manage an aircraft alone in the IFR system.

Exactly. The most demanding civilian time out there is single pilot piston twin time. If they require it to be turbine time guys would just be ridding along in a king air working the radios and logging it.

I would much rather see a guy who has proven himself in a piston twin with a few 135 checkrides and a couple seasons under his belt.