Originally Posted by
Sniper
- Though an FO and CA ATP ride are to the same ATP standards, the airline FO ride is more lenient than the CA ride (and that's regardless of whether it is a type ride or not. CA's PC's are to the a higher standard than FO's too)
- it is not the possession of an ATP certificate that increases safety, it is the experiences required to get one (flight time, aviation knowledge, and life). Attitude and professionalism (which are arbitrary) will not provide the same minimum level of safety as a 100% ATP licensed pilot group. Requiring pilots to have an ATP before flying 121 is a proper balance of increasing safety without raising the barriers to entry into the profession to an unattainable level for prospective 121 pilots.
Ok, say you got 2 guys;
First guy has been doing canyon tours, glider/banner towing, flying traffic, pipeine, whatever. Basically something that isn't rally IFR/reg intrensive. Just to use a figure, has 2500 TT. He then goes to (insert place to knock out ATP rating here), comes out with an ATP in hand.
Second guy flight instructed in the Northeast, at 1200tt got a non ATP required job flying piston night freight in the Northeast, Has 2500tt and says to himself he's going to (insert place to knock out ATP rating here), comes out with ATP in hand.
Both have experience, do you think that ones experience might be different than the other?
it is not the possession of an ATP certificate that increases safety, it is the experiences required to get one (flight time, aviation knowledge, and life).
Here, it's not the possession of an ATP that increases safety.
Requiring pilots to have an ATP before flying 121 is a proper balance of increasing safety without raising the barriers to entry into the profession to an unattainable level for prospective 121 pilots.
Here, requiring pilots to have an ATP helps a proper balance of increasing safety.
Which is it?