Originally Posted by
forgot to bid
Agreed.
Its like someone said, every Part 121 crash in recent times has had an ATP in charge. In the next Part 121 accident you'll still have one ATP in charge.
Or maybe with two ATPs the accidents won't happen, because two heads are better than one.
"Look it doesn't take a genius to know that every organization thrives when it has two leaders. Go ahead, name a country that doesn't have two presidents. A boat that sets sail without two captains. Where would Catholicism be, without the popes."
I don't think anyone is trying to put "two captains" on the aircraft. The intent of this bill is to raise First Officer standards. I've seen some absolutely mindblowing stuff out of a few of these 300 hours wonders (ie no clue how to speak on the radio, 'hey that was my first ACTUAL IMC flight', etc.) Every single one of us had to get our experience somewhere, but we should not be learning basic airmanship with paying passengers on board. Anyone who argues that a 300 hour pilot is as valuable as a 1500+ hour pilot in a commercial airliner is kidding themselves. I've flown with some very good low-timers, but they were still inexperienced. IMO there is no downside to the profession here, short of a knee-jerk reaction over commuting rules.
I do agree with slowplay that this may not address all of the problems, but how can anyone argue that more flight experience in the cockpit is a bad thing?
At best a low-timer is keeping up with what's going on (don't plan on too much situational awareness for the first few hundred hours at least.) At worst a low-timer is a huge distraction and can be more harm than good.
Again, no knock at anyone personally, as we've all be low-time at some point in our careers. However, when a passenger buys a ticket on an airline, he/she should not be subjected to "on the job training." This is a win if it makes it through the senate, and past Obama.