Should an ATP be required for both pilots?

[AC560]

I'm also not saying that both pilots having ATPs would have prevented the Colgan accident - but you can't deny that requiring airlines to hire people with more experience, and having already demonstrated their abilities to ATP standards, will increase safety to the general public.

What one can't deny is if the Captain had his certificate pulled at at some point during his five check ride failures, the accident would have been prevented.

 

[Rerouted]

Back to basics here - the airlines need to start paying reasonable wages. Now that the public has a much better understanding of airline salaries, who in their right mind would get into the business? Back to the issue at hand: An ATP written should be required to be hired and the ATP checkride should be part of the sim checkride. The one year ride for an FO should be for a type rating. It gives an incentive to new pilots to keep learning and it keeps them sharp enough to keep an eye on less than stellar captains.

 

[Masterplan]

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

 

[imacdog]

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.

That is also another possibility. Personally as a regular passenger I would prefer to see the pilots that make it that far with their hours demonstrate their abilities to ATP standards and earn the ATP certificate. Some will argue that passing the 121 initial checkride requires ATP-level flying and I won't argue against that; however, taking the checkride in a plane with two pilots and a good autopilot is far easier to accomplish than doing the same, single-pilot in a plane with no autopilot. If the FAA can require a certain experience level for PICs in 135 VFR and IFR, then they could certainly come up with a minimum requirement for 121 pilots, both PIC and SIC. Will they? I hope so, whether it be through requiring ATP-level experience, or the actual certificate itself. Would the airlines voluntarily require said experience? Of course not!

 

[imacdog]

What one can't deny is if the Captain had his certificate pulled at at some point during his five check ride failures, the accident would have been prevented.

That is entirely possible as well. We don't know why he failed those checkrides - if he went 125 feet high on a steep turn and failed the ride because of that, I don't know if we can say with any certainty that it was directly correlated with his flying performance, or lack thereof, on the night of the accident.

 

[AC560]

We don't know why he failed those checkrides - if he went 125 feet high on a steep turn and failed the ride because of that, I don't know if we can say with any certainty that it was directly correlated with his flying performance, or lack thereof, on the night of the accident.

The key is checkrides not checkride[/i]. You think 5 failed rides is acceptable or somehow he was unfairly judged wrong 5 times, that is your opinion. Mine would be he had no business as an airline captain let along PIC in a 172.

 

[imacdog]

I am saying neither, and am not sure how you inferred that from my post. While failing five checkrides in the course of a career is certainly not good, the reasons he failed the checkrides may have been completely unrelated to the causes of this accident.

 

[livin'thesim]

This regulation would ensure that higher time people get hired.

It will force airlines to pay for experience. Since they can't hire 500 hour pilots, they will have to cough up enough pay to hire someone with experience.

There is nothing wrong with asking that pilots' skills get some maturity by flying smaller aircraft until they have some minimum level of seasoning.

Why 1500TT? Well, why not?

It's not like we would be demanding 5,000 hours. It is an attainable goal.

Sure, people graduation from academies will have to put their SJS on hold for a bit, but anything worth having is worth earning.

 

[WMUSIGPI]

Too bad right now it's questionable if it's worth earning....

 

[cjdriver]

In my fathers days, you didn't fly a jet until you were in your 40's and had a ton of turbo prop time, and probably thousands of hours. Not a bad prospect for the passengers.

 

[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.