Should an ATP be required for both pilots?

[rustypigeon]

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.

 

[imacdog]

I believe it shoud, yes. I had an ATP when I started at my regional and strongly feel the experience gained between getting my commercial and my ATP (and after getting the ATP as well) were extremely valuable in making me a far more competent pilot. Of note in your first paragraph though, that Baron PIC would have to gain 1200 hours before flying those bank checks, yet can legally sit right seat in a 90-seat RJ with 250 hours and a fresh Comm/Multi rating. Something is pretty jacked up there.

 

[DX Rick]

Sure.
But the airline pays for it. The average Joe can go to any ATP flight school and get theirs in a weekend, as long as they pay $2500. But places like these tend to pass the applicant whether they can fly the airplane or not.

 

[OUPilot01]

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

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

I slightly disagree... I believe you should be ATP qualified at a minimum for hiring, however if you don't already have your ATP, it should be up to the company to pay for the rating for you in the simulator. Professionals shouldn't have to pay for ratings.

 

[imacdog]

So should a company pay for your private, instrument, commercial, and multi ratings as well?

 

[imacdog]

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

Yep.........and the difference is, guys with ATPs were once commercially rated, yet commercial pilots have not been ATPs.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

So should a company pay for your private, instrument, commercial, and multi ratings as well?

You aren't a professional yet when you've got your private and such, are you?

I stand by my post.

 

[imacdog]

No but if an ATP was required to get hired, then what's the difference if you get hired with a commercial or private - either way you just got hired into a job for which you'll need training to get the appropriate rating. I thought this whole "airline as a flight school" business isn't working out so well. Reference GIA and all the bottom feeders that hire wet commercial ticket holders (like Pinnacle).

 

[rustypigeon]

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

I would love to hear from those guys as well. If a pilot with less than 1500 hours thinks they have had the experience neccesary to fly in a transport catagory aircraft with nearly 100 people on it, I want to know why.

I spent my early days looking for as much valuable experience as I could find. I did the traditional cfi, then moved on to 135 where I earned my ATP. It was by far the most valuable time I have ever experienced.

 

[airplane wizard]

Or at least make them have 1500tt. Having pilots with only a few hundred hours flying paying pax is crazy.

 

[StarHustler]

In short, YES!!!

You can't even apply to a company like NetJets (I know, they are a fractional) unless you have the minimum number of hours AND the ATP. While their min hours are higher than what an ATP requires (2500 hrs), you will not get the time of day from them without having your ATP - even if you have the min hours.

If you can drop all the cash on your other ratings (which generally cost much more each) than you can cough up the money once you are qualified for the ATP check ride. It's still not nearly as expensive as getting a Type rating. I did mine in the company Navajo (several years back) and paid the examiner his $300 fee, so there are other ways to get your ATP without going to a 'school'. Some Part 135 check haulers will let you use their a/c to do the ride if you are already working for them. Or rent a plane and set up the examiner yourself, the ATP does NOT require an instructor's endorsement. Get the written out of the way first (it's good for two years) and start preparing for the practical/oral. It's not that big of a deal (a beefed up Instrument check ride, but KNOW the plane).

In the end, it will help to solve both a safety issue and the pay issue. I'm 100% for it. Of course, I instructed for the first 3 years of my pro pilot life, and then I flew Part 135 checks/piss for another 3 years after that - before I ever got my first Jet type and worked as a crew (by then I hade almost 4000 hrs), so maybe I'm biased.

 

[crj567]

FORGET IT, PEOPLE!

No matter what the mins are, there will always be a supply/demand factor. Right now, there are a lot of pilots looking for any job they can find. A couple of years ago, and you could grap a job with a fresh commercial.

It always has and always will be this way for the regionals. It even has been this way for some majors. I know people who got hired at Eastern and United back in the day who had never flown a plane with two or more engines and who had less than 300 hrs.

-You just never will be able to ensure safety by requiring high mins. Some people do well at airlines with less than 200 hrs, some people are absolute f-ups with 25,000 hrs.....

 

[rustypigeon]

Keep in mind that if you have your written done, the feds can give you an ATP ride while they are giving you your 6 month 135 ride. It is the same ride with one extra approach.

 

[Skyjet]

YES. Everyone in the cockpit should meet the standard.

 

[blesko]

Sure.
But the airline pays for it. The average Joe can go to any ATP flight school and get theirs in a weekend, as long as they pay $2500. But places like these tend to pass the applicant whether they can fly the airplane or not.

Cant issue the ATP in an inital checkride. The ATP is a PIC checkride, thus it must be issued in a PIC basis, not an SIC "type"

 

[deadstick]

What's the big deal about an ATP? You can get one in a 172, afterall!


No pay for rating, eh? How many schools pay for the CFI with no contract? If you are instrument proficient enough to apply for a 121 job, save up (no McD's, movies, or new iTunes for awhile) and take the ride. The guy in the NYT dropped $100k. The DPE charged $350, the plane was about $300 (not in a 172), the written was $100, and the prep book was $19.95. That's not even 1%!

As a great, Soouthen poet once said, "Get 'er dun!"

It's a license, and it doesn't expire. If you look outside of 121, I have talked to many people (who hire pilots) who have this opinion: "If an applicant has the hours and not an ATP, why don't they have the license?" Call it professional development.

 

[BOOZENEWS]

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

Not with me. 320 TT and I believe an ATP should be required.

 

[DX Rick]

Cant issue the ATP in an inital checkride. The ATP is a PIC checkride, thus it must be issued in a PIC basis, not an SIC "type"

While the gubberment and FAA are changing all these new rules and requirements, they can change this as well.

 

[Fearless Tower]

But the big question is.....how many people with 1500TT are willing to work for 20-25K a year?

 

[DX Rick]

But the big question is.....how many people with 1500TT are willing to work for 20-25K a year?

People think that raising the requirements will cause the pay to go up. You couldn't be anymore wrong.

 

[MALSR]

I also think FO's should go to the sim every 6 months like captains. Its idiotic to think FOs do stall recovery only once a year, have an engine failure once a year, fly a non-precision approach once a year, etc.

 

[acpilot]

So, you REQUIRE an ATP:

-PFT skyrockets
-Low-timers will work for free (not just nearly free) to build time
-Loopholes are employed (Scheduled 135)

On the up side, more pilots will be exposed to "real flying" in the 135/91 environment and that may payoff in the end.

 

[imacdog]

People think that raising the requirements will cause the pay to go up. You couldn't be anymore wrong.

Depending on supply and demand you may be right; if the carrier can get ATP-qualified candidates at their current pay rates then there will be no need to raise wages to attract pilots. However, we should look beyond pay and recognize that as professionals, we need to start holding ourselves to higher standards, and requiring airline pilots to hold airline transport certificates may be a good first step towards restoring our image and give our passengers a step in the right direction with regards to safety.

 

[Volasl]

During the shortage close to two years ago pay did go up at some places temporarily. Remember many regionals were offering a signing bonus. Many were offering more than just first year pay. I know several MECs went crazy over it.

 

[BoilerUP]

There's no reason airline pilots aren't issued full type ratings during their initial checkride; the "cost" argument is bunk as the standards are the same and pretty much the only differences between a PIC and SIC check are a no flap landing and circling approach. If an ATP becomes mandatory for flying 121 (and I don't think that's unreasonable) then there's even less excuse for airlines to not fully type new pilots.

I also think that AQP should become the mandatory training standard for 121, so that "training" is emphaised much more than "checking".

With that said, I was hired by Air Wisconsin with 1050tt, 50 of which was jet SIC. I also had 500+ hours of Level C/D simulator time, the vast majority of which was obtained while working for a major 121 airline training department. At the risk of sounding arrogant, CRJ training was a breeze for me due to my background and I was just as competent and safe a line pilot as somebody going through training with four times my total flight hours. Two years later when I obtained my ATP, my mechanical flying skills were not any better than they were when I was hired by ARW.

HOWEVER...I had two summers and two winters worth of experience under my belt, and that experience very likely made me a better and more knowledgeable pilot.

IMO, if an ATP becomes mandatory for flying 121 I think the minimum experience for Part 135 non-passenger operations (ie freight) needs to be reduced to 750 hours, in order to give pilots a better avenue of achieving the experience that will make them better, more knowledgeable, more experienced airline crewmembers.

 

[SEVEN]

Should an ATP be required for both pilots?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:uzi:250 Hour FO's:smash:

 

[LJ45]

yes, great Idea !!!

 

[Dornier 335]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:uzi:250 Hour FO's:smash:

The thing is though, the ATP doesn't necessarily say anything about the pilot's skill. I have known some low-timers with real good flying qualities/hand flying and some higher-time ones that were ... let's say avarage. I see the problem with the flight schools. Most of them produce mediocre pilots at best, with exceptions of course. But good training is the most important thing. Look across the pond at Lufthansa. They have trained their own pilots for a long time, and new pilots enter a flight deck with less hours than the avarage low-time f/o. Before this mutes into an ab-initio vs. experience thread, make sure you take a look at the LH A340/330 or B744 f/o. He might have less time than your RJ f/o...

 

[EdAtTheAirport]

My letter to Congressman an both Senators is written. It's being snail mailed for extra oomph. I urged doubling the time for ATP to 3,000 hrs, and FOs should meet 135 PIC mins of 1200 hours.

Writing on flightinfo will do NOTHING!