Should an ATP be required for both pilots?

[BoilerUP]

This would probably have prevented the 3407 accident.

No, it wouldn't have.

The ATP-rated captain was the PF who mismanaged his airspeed, and while the FO wasn't ATP rated I've seen it reported she met the minimum requirements to hold one.

Holding an ATP is not insurance against committing a stupid pilot trick or an act of poor airmanship.

 

[cjdriver]

If she had an ATP and was typed in the airplane, she probably would have caught the low airspeed. Not certain, but likely. I don't think anyone could argue that having two ATP rated and typed pilots is safer than not.

 

[BoilerUP]

I don't think anyone could argue that having two ATP rated and typed pilots is safer than not.

No, one couldn't argue that.

...but its a looooooooooong stretch to say if she had an ATP (which she didn't but was qualified for) and/or was typed in the airplane (which only would have required her do a no-flap landing and circling approach in addition to the SIC check, IIRC) that she would have caught the low airspeed that she was already trained to recognize yet failed to.

Were both pilots who crashed the Gulfstream in ASE both type-rated ATPs?

What about the pilots who crashed the Gulfstream at HOU?

What about the Challenger pilots at MJT who didn't deice?

I know what you're trying to say about the increase in safety and I don't disagree with the thought...but there is no way one can say(or even infer) that this gal having an ATP would have been the break in the accident chain preventing these needless deaths.

 

[FO 4 Life]

Folks, the ATP is a piece of plastic. Saying one should meet the minimums for it before getting a job at an airline I'll agree with. Saying someone should have the certificate doesn't mean they will fly any better.

I got my ATP in a seminole paired with an Eagle driver. I don't think that instantly made me a better pilot (or him) when I sat in the right seat of a 727 the next week. I did it because I wanted it when I applied to other airlines. No other reason.

 

[acpilot]

Yes, they're grandfathered, but......they have to be paired with a captain over age 60.

...except on Tuesdays and Federal holidays...

Tightening the regs, while well intentioned, will only cost the company (and flying public) more $$ in the end. I'm sure the argument that the passengers are "paying for safety" can and will be made, the simple fact remains that pilots are human beings and human beings WILL make mistakes and continue to crash airplanes. Increasing prices will only drive more people away and that's the last thing we need. Where is the balance?

Lakes has some of the lowest mins I have ever seen and they haven't killed anyone. A list of non-fatals...yes. But what do you expect when you fly in the conditions they fly in.

The key is training. All the exp in the world can't make up for good training.

 

[AC560]

Not certain, but likely. I don't think anyone could argue that having two ATP rated and typed pilots is safer than not.

I don't think anyone could argue if the FAA handed out all checkrides and they pulled certificates for failure that we would have much better/safer pilots. Pilots would also be much higher paid as the washout rates every year (from 1yr to 40yr pilots) would drive salaries up due to lack of demand.

Why is the argument only about what it takes to be hired, not what it takes to keep the job or is it because that hits a little to close to home and you aren't confident in your ability to ace a ride with the Feds?

 

[BoilerUP]

I don't think anyone could argue if the FAA handed out all checkrides and they pulled certificates for failure that we would have much better/safer pilots.

Why on earth would you advocate having someone's certificate suspended or revoked for a checkride failure? Hell, even doctors don't have their MD revoked if they kill somebody with a mistake...

There's enough pressure as is to pass...why put that much more pressure on pilots to pass a checkride that already isn't very realistic?

I haven't failed a checkride to this point in my career, but I also recognize I'm not immune from making a mistake and shouldn't have my career or my livelihood jeopardized because of a single screwup on a checkride...especially when FAA inspectors have a habit of landing gear-up in airplanes they're flying.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

Oh yea! What was HER name?

This occured in the early 1960s, and it was 100% male. They would not hire females, which led to the problem you are referring to above. If ALL the airlines would have always hired the best qualified applicants, there would not have been any preferential hiring at all.

I am flying overseas, and learning even more than I did about ICAO and how the rest of the world operates.

EVERYONE has a type rating, which I think is best. And I don't mean a crap FAA invented "FO Type Rating" to get around ICAO rules, to save money for all of their customers (upper management and owners of aviation organizations).

To fly commercially in Kenya, you need an oral and flight test for EVERY airplane that you earn money in. You need a checkout for a 172, and then a separate checkout for a 182, etc.

The -135/-125 crap, not to mention, Oh we're part -91, and we're going to make a lot of money as a private, non-commercial organization is the MOST crap of all!

Overseas, you have Commercial, and private. If you make so much as one dollar, it is Commercial, and all the regs apply. In other words, if you own the plane, and you fly it for fun, it is private (-91). If you, the owner, or the pilot, or the organization, earns money from that aircraft in ANY form, it is Commercial (-121). No part -91 charter, no part -91 subpart K (what the he!! is that, anyway?), no part -135, no part -125, etc., etc.

I have come to believe that ICAO standards are definitely better than FAA standards.

And, from what I have heard, in Europe, with the most experience required and the strictest standards for pilots, guess what?...they have the highest paid pilots!

The reason that American pilots are working overseas, is that the FAA has made it cheap to learn to fly here, in part by having easier standards and more lax regulation than other places.

cliff
NBO

 

[acpilot]

I don't think anyone could argue if the FAA handed out all checkrides and they pulled certificates for failure that we would have much better/safer pilots. Pilots would also be much higher paid as the washout rates every year (from 1yr to 40yr pilots) would drive salaries up due to lack of demand.

It's been said, but that's probably the least constructive idea out there.

 

[rustypigeon]

No, it wouldn't have.

The ATP-rated captain was the PF who mismanaged his airspeed, and while the FO wasn't ATP rated I've seen it reported she met the minimum requirements to hold one.

Holding an ATP is not insurance against committing a stupid pilot trick or an act of poor airmanship.

Holding and ATP is certainly not insurance against poor airmanship. My arguement is that more pilots (not all) will be forced to develop the fundementals of flying by spending their early days flight instructing and flying 135.

The fact is, there is a high learning curve for the first couple thousand hours in aviation. There is no better way to learn stick and rudder than to teach it as a CFI. There is no better way to learn weather flying and the system than to fly 135 yourself.

I feel that pilots who have by-passed this traditional route to a 121 career missed a great opportunity to develop themselves as pilots.

 

[DX Rick]

Making an ATP a requirement is just that, another requirement.
Since the age of flight time requirements, people have been making their log books meet all the requirements. Some honestly, some not so honestly. I know a guy who whipped over 600 hours in a SUMMER!!! He had a friend in Hawaii who owned an Aztek and let him fly it for free. But that's another story.
You raise the requirement to ATP, people will gain the flight time, drop the $2500 and get the ticket.
The real winner is the flight school offering the rating.

 

[imacdog]

Works for me though. There is a HUGE difference between a 250 hr commercial certificate holder and a 1500 hr ATP holder, not to mention the difference in standards that ATP applicants are expected to fly to during their checkride.

 

[Flying_Hiker]

With all due respect to your career progression, just because you (and thousands of others) did it that way doesn't mean its the best or only way for one to go.

Having nearly a thousand hours of dual given myself, one reaches a point of minimal "experience" gained in proportion to the hours of dual given beyond a certain point; I'd say 500 hours. By that point, you've already had people try to kill you dozens of times over, already taken the airplane away from people, already made plenty of PIC decisions; after that point IMO most instructors are simply logging the same hour time after time after time. Is that really the kind of experience that provides value in an airline cockpit?

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that my career progression was the best or only way to go. The main point of my post was to disagree with your argument to lower 135 IFR PIC mins. Many 1200 hr pilots struggle with a transition to a single pilot 135 IFR environment, and I don't believe lowering those minimums would be in the best interest of safety.

 

[acpilot]

Speaking of minimum experience, shouldn't we also require airline pilots to have a minimum number of Dual Given (CFI or IP) in their logs? We can't downplay the importance of the experience gained by teaching people how to fly airplanes. As long as we're imposing minimum certification, why not require a CFI cert or time as an IP as a prereq. to an ATP? In the interest of safety, shouldn't pilots be exposed as many flight "environments" as reasonably possible?

 

[acpilot]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that my career progression was the best or only way to go. The main point of my post was to disagree with your argument to lower 135 IFR PIC mins. Many 1200 hr pilots struggle with a transition to a single pilot 135 IFR environment, and I don't believe lowering those minimums would be in the best interest of safety.

If anything, single pilot IFR mins should be increased (particularly in larger turbine equip).

 

[WayBack]

Someone said it above.
You make a new requirement, it will take a few minutes with a pen, and voila! You meet the new requirements.

 

[727gm]

NO.

I have known pilots that had thousands of hours, flew in many different facets of aviation, other than airlines, with lots of PIC time, and were consummate aviators. All the while never working where an ATP was required to do their job.

When their number came up for upgrade under FAR 121, they added an ATP along with the type-rating to their certificates.

The desire to see pilots having to acquire an ATP certificate prior to being hired at a FAR 121 carrier is really displaced horror/disgust at the hiring of applicants with no real-world experience.

This proposed change would not really change anything, as, when a requirement to be ATP-rated comes into being, those same "insufferables" will still show up (in times of hiring need), with an ATP in a Seminole or DA-42, and (probably) a lot of (shared) "time-building"/"safety piloting" and LSA pilot time, and possibly "Parker" time and still no real experience.

At least those complained about the most: Will they go out and get GA night cargo experience/Alaska/glider tow/forestry/fire-fighting/parachute drop/Ag/pipeline patrol/pax 135 on their way to 1500 hrs.? Probably not. But in times of need, they'll be hired anyway, with their ATP.

And at the same time adding to the expense/obstacles of getting an airline job for some of those you really would rather have.

It really boils down to those hiring the pilots (not HR, but the hiring captains) deciding what they really want to inflict on their long-suffering line captains, and customers.

 

[bendover]

Atp's should be required as well as a four year degree. It would help keep salaries up and limit the number of tools in the cockpits.

 

[JohnnyP]

........

Speaking of minimum experience, shouldn't we also require airline pilots to have a minimum number of Dual Given (CFI or IP) in their logs? We can't downplay the importance of the experience gained by teaching people how to fly airplanes. As long as we're imposing minimum certification, why not require a CFI cert or time as an IP as a prereq. to an ATP? In the interest of safety, shouldn't pilots be exposed as many flight "environments" as reasonably possible?

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......

 

[rustypigeon]

It really boils down to those hiring the pilots (not HR, but the hiring captains) deciding what they really want to inflict on their long-suffering line captains, and customers.

But those that do the hiring are never going to increase the minimums unless it is required by law. They are only looking for the pilots who will work for the lowest pay, or even pilots will to pay to work.