Originally Posted by
dojetdriver
Ok, say you got 2 guys . . .
Both have experience, do you think that ones experience might be different than the other?
Yes. No 2 pilots have the same experience or background. Military single seat fighter pilots don't have that much actual instrument either. Not everyone can write your manuals, have taught the aircraft, and have 20K hours and a type in the aircraft you operate when their hired. No candidate is perfect, but a minimum standard must be set. Since the FAA calls it an ATP, why shouldn't ATP's possess an "ATP" as a minimum?
Here, it's not the possession of an ATP that increases safety. . . .
Here, requiring pilots to have an ATP helps a proper balance of increasing safety.
Which is it?
It's both. To get an ATP requires you have a certain amount of flight time, flight experience, general aviation knowledge, and life experience (you have to be 23). Both life experience and flying experience help ensure that, as an ATP pilot, you are generally going to be a safer pilot than a non-ATP pilot, b/c you met a certain standard, which is a higher standard than the minimum, but still enough to not make the barriers to entry into the profession prohibitive. Both Colgan pilots had the minimums for an ATP, but only 1 had one. Would it have made a difference if the FO had an ATP too? Probably not, but the ATP isn't a 'cure all', its an enhancement to safety. The only way to have a 100% safety record is to stop flying.
I feel like my point is clear. Feel free to have the last word.
--
Great house hearing. Especially the talk about stall training from the Congressman who's also an active guard pilot. Actual stall recovery training is needed, not just 'first indication'.