Originally Posted by hotelmode

I think the Hudson FO's opinion sounds OK on paper, but I don't see how it would work. Requiring an ATP is one way to get more experienced pilots, but I don't think you can tell if someone is "safe" or a "good pilot" just by them having a piece of plastic. My commercial license is the same that everyone else has... including the pilots that shouldn't be flying... If I had an ATP, it would be just the same as everyone elses ATP... including all the captains out there who need babysitters.

I was hired with 900/50 back in '07 when it was easy to get hired, and could have gotten hired earlier except I didn't want to go to Mesa, or Colgan, or any of the other low paying regionals with lower minimums. Does that mean the regional that I took a job with got a more experienced pilot because they pay more? Sure. Did all the pilots in my class have 900 hours? No, some had 400/50 and a really good connection. Did my 900 hours in piston airplanes make me better at flying jets and turbo-props? I have no idea.

I don't think the Colgan crash was caused by lack of experience (talking above my pay grade). Sure, one of the pilots was uncomfortable in icing, but if they had just focused on flying the airplane like they were supposed to, it wouldn't have gotten ahead of them. Just because the topic of their conversation was experience doesn't mean that's what caused the crash. They were distracted... just like so many other accident crews... and forgot to move the thrust levers forward after adding drag.

So... you can hire a pilot with an ATP, but that doesn't make them safe.

My 2 cents,
Hotelmode