Should an ATP be required for both pilots?

[Skywest Pylot]

Yup... reducable to 750 hours. Nothing says safety like $$$$$$.

You gotta be kidding me!!!! 750 hours will NEVER = an ATP in my book.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

From what I read in the HOUSE bill, there was no mention of hourly reductions. It said something like the FAA would decide on the hourly reductions.

I have also read in a number of posts that the Senate version of the bill does not have the 'Embry-Riddle' escape clause in in.

House says ATP req. will go into effect 36 mos after bill signed, and everyone -121 at that point will need atp. Do NOT know if it applies to -121 Supplemental, but it should, and the whole FAA mess allowing parts -135, -125, -91 Subpart F, -91 Subpart K, and Part 91 to fly commerically is a MESS!

cliff
nbo

 

[rfa]

Well, the reality is..
I have known a few pilots who did not complete UPT and ended up going through Airline Training Schools and into the cockpits of commercial airliners, but not the other way around..
Failing out of Gulfstream or ComAir Academy and making it into a military cockpit!

Mil pilots have 4 yr degrees and then do a 2 yr training program before completing and getting put out on the line. And even then, they are the lowest level of qualication and fly with instructors and senior pilots.

Even the most junior copilot on a C-5, -17 or -130 is at least 24-25 years old, has a 4 year degree and probably 400-500 hours before he (or she) is out there flying line missions as regular first pilots with regular aircraft commanders.

Way different than what you may find in a 121 Regional cockpit.
An ATP needs to be required to crew a 121 operated aircraft~

motch

I've seen some pretty bad military pilots.

 

[Lynxman]

I think if you were to sample between x amount of mil. pilots and civ. pilots that your going to find a pretty even number between good and bad. What it may really boil down to is types of flyng. Hand flying difficult approaches in bad weather may show mil. pilots are better. Or maybe extreme CRM situations may show an civ. airline pilot will be better. It's going to be a toss up as to who is good and its going to boil down to the individual. It's impossible to say who is going to make the better pilot.

 

[RedDogC130]

Hand flying difficult approaches in bad weather may show mil. pilots are better. Or maybe extreme CRM situations may show an civ. airline pilot will be better. .

Well since I have been on both sides of the fence at the same time I would say you have it backwards.

And my view is everyone should have an ATP...it stands for AIRLINE transport pilot....the title should match who uses it.....if you work for an airline you need to have it period. I flew freight to build my time to get where I wanted to go. I do not feel comfortable with someone with less than ATP min hours flying me or my family around.

 

[ultrarunner]

ATP for 121 ops...

And my view is everyone should have an ATP...it stands for AIRLINE transport pilot....the title should match who uses it.....

I agree RedDog.

Think of it this way. If 121 operators can't be held to the ATP standard for hiring, they can then drop down to the next lowest level that meets the FAA requirement. And that's a Commercial/Instrument/ME, and folks can get that with, what, 250 hours total time???

This was a long time coming...and I'll be glad to see it pass.

As a bonus, some of the pilot-mill rip-off outfits will go bye-bye...also a good thing! Imagine a world with no Gulfstream Academy! Ahhhhh....that'll be a happy day!

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

They can hire guys without a Commercial. You can get a commercial with as low as about 188 hours total time.

cliff
NBO

 

[bahumba]

YES!!!!!!!! Right on RedDogC130 that's the truth

Originally Posted by RedDogC130
And my view is everyone should have an ATP...it stands for AIRLINE transport pilot....the title should match who uses it.....

 

[CessnaFan]

I don't have one, but I do think that you should if you fly 121.

This debate will break to guys with ATPs saying yes you should, and guys with out them saying no you shouldn't.

 

[Wooly]

I haven't read the past 18 pages to cover all replies, but I ate ramen noodles with the rest of my fellow bretheren flight instructing to get my IFR 135 mins and then "busted a hump" to put it mildly doing 135 check hauling WELL PAST ATP mins earning $1500 mo. as a contract employee(for all you youngn's, look at what that involves, paying"FICA" etc.) during the 90's.(air whisky and AE wanted 2500t 500 turb multi to start with if I recall correctly) If you are "LUCKY" enough to have foregone this rite of passage and still have gained some VALUABLE flight time then I am at a loss of words to tell you what you missed(speaking from my own experience) As much as I hated the IFR 135 mins and ATP mins(at that time keeping me from an AIRLINE job/compared to the current mins), I would say that the bare minimum for an IFR Comm license should be ATP standards. Don't get me wrong, I have had some very low time FO's when I was a CA at a regional that were exceptional pilots for the amount of time they had, but the real world experience was definitely lacking due to no fault but their own lack of flight time. I know check hauling is becoming a relic, but flying hard IFR as a CFI (within your comfort zone/good judgement/legal mins etc.)or flying banners, getting a good corp. job, "mixing it up" with different experience etc. goes a long way and the higher mins will only help with raising the bar to get better pay and weed out the "daddy's money" pilots (it took me 10 years to pay off my student loans @ 8%) and others that have the "instant gratification syndrome" (it took me 12 yrs to reach a major/some may take longer, some may take less especially due to age 65) but the journey is what you make/learn of it. No flame intended!