Atp/alpa/faa
08-08-2009, 03:15 PM
#31
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,512
Originally Posted by Freedom421
If you want to improve safety checkrides should be flown without auto pilots. And Captain rides should be flown without flight directors. hours don't necessarily make better pilots skills do.
Auto pilots and flight directors are allowing pilots to fly aircraft that they might not be able to fly with out them.
Auto pilots and flight directors are allowing pilots to fly aircraft that they might not be able to fly with out them.
08-08-2009, 03:35 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Leftof longitudinal
Posts: 1,899
Originally Posted by ReasonableMan
What does the term "Airline Transport Pilot" mean? How is it even sane, let alone legal, to allow any pilot to fly passengers around without this Rating? The FAA should have to answer for this insanity not the Company nor dragging the Pilot's name through the mud because of an accident. They are getting what they asked for/allowed. There is a reason why you need to have the following to even be qualified as a candidate:
Current FAA Medical Certificate
Minimum Age 23 to Hold an ATP Rating
FAA eligibility (one of the following)
Commercial Instrument Certificate
Military experience per FAR 61.73
Non-U.S. Commercial Instrument Certificate accompanied by an http://www.atpflightschool.com/progr...tion_61-75.pdf
Flight Time per FAR 61.159 Requirements:
1,500 Hours Total Time:
500 Hours Cross Country Time
100 Hours Night Time
75 Hours Instrument Time of Actual or Simulated Instrument Time:
50 Hours Must be in an Airplane
250 Hours PIC Airplane
Why isn't ALPA pushing the FAA to make this the bar for ALL Airline Pilots (Commuters as well)? This will also help make the case of pay increases across the board. I don't agree with $2,000 per hour pay (although it would be nice
) however, these qualification have a price associated with them and it's not $19 per hour. ALPA needs to establish the "industry standard pay". If you work for an AIRLINE that TRANSPORTS passengers in the capacity of a PILOT, you should be mandated by the FAA to have this rating (FO's and Captain alike). This needs to be at the forefront of ALPA'a agenda! You don't get the job unless you are qualified,... BOTTOM LINE! Thoughts??
Current FAA Medical Certificate
Minimum Age 23 to Hold an ATP Rating
FAA eligibility (one of the following)
Commercial Instrument Certificate
Military experience per FAR 61.73
Non-U.S. Commercial Instrument Certificate accompanied by an http://www.atpflightschool.com/progr...tion_61-75.pdf
Flight Time per FAR 61.159 Requirements:
1,500 Hours Total Time:
500 Hours Cross Country Time
100 Hours Night Time
75 Hours Instrument Time of Actual or Simulated Instrument Time:
50 Hours Must be in an Airplane
250 Hours PIC Airplane
Why isn't ALPA pushing the FAA to make this the bar for ALL Airline Pilots (Commuters as well)? This will also help make the case of pay increases across the board. I don't agree with $2,000 per hour pay (although it would be nice
) however, these qualification have a price associated with them and it's not $19 per hour. ALPA needs to establish the "industry standard pay". If you work for an AIRLINE that TRANSPORTS passengers in the capacity of a PILOT, you should be mandated by the FAA to have this rating (FO's and Captain alike). This needs to be at the forefront of ALPA'a agenda! You don't get the job unless you are qualified,... BOTTOM LINE! Thoughts??The ATP requirments are subjective anyway, we could argue indefinitely about what real ATP requirements should be, maybe that is where you should push as well.
08-08-2009, 03:53 PM
#34
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,512
Originally Posted by ReasonableMan
If this becomes law tomorrow, it will instantly create a shortage of Pilots in the industry.
Couple years from now? Yeah, probably.
08-08-2009, 03:54 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 101
Instead of having 8,000 pilots with 300hrs, you could potentially have 8,000 pilots with a minimum of 1500hrs (if it builds back to previous levels). As a pilot would you rather fly on a plane operated by a pilot with 300hrs or 1500hrs (not knowing any background on either pilot)? Based on my assumption of your answer, WHY????
08-08-2009, 04:04 PM
#36
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
If you want to lower the use of automation for a checkride so be it...but the problem isn't automation or hand-flying ability: its SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. Unfortunately, one can't can't effectively teach or implement SA through procedures or properly evaluate SA through checking.
08-08-2009, 04:07 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: EMB-145 FO
Posts: 266
Originally Posted by ReasonableMan
Instead of having 8,000 pilots with 300hrs, you could potentially have 8,000 pilots with a minimum of 1500hrs (if it builds back to previous levels). As a pilot would you rather fly on a plane operated by a pilot with 300hrs or 1500hrs (not knowing any background on either pilot)? Based on my assumption of your answer, WHY????
08-08-2009, 04:37 PM
#38
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: The Beginnings
Posts: 1,317
Originally Posted by Freedom421
If you want to improve safety checkrides should be flown without auto pilots. And Captain rides should be flown without flight directors. hours don't necessarily make better pilots skills do.
Auto pilots and flight directors are allowing pilots to fly aircraft that they might not be able to fly with out them.
.
Interesting idea, and I like essentially like what you're getting at (tougher standards).
However, you're supposed to train like you fly, and vice-versa. I don't think it would be a great idea to have line FO's turning off all the automation for all legs 3 months prior to upgrade to refresh their hand-flying skills. Because in the scenario you describe, that's exactly what would happen, and passenger safety would be needlessly compromised.
08-08-2009, 04:42 PM
#39
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by ReasonableMan
Instead of having 8,000 pilots with 300hrs, you could potentially have 8,000 pilots with a minimum of 1500hrs (if it builds back to previous levels). As a pilot would you rather fly on a plane operated by a pilot with 300hrs or 1500hrs (not knowing any background on either pilot)? Based on my assumption of your answer, WHY????
How about a civilian pilot with 8,000 hours who has not flown in 5 years or a 1500 hour pilot who flew yesterday?
More hours does sound good on paper i will give you that.
08-08-2009, 04:45 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Reclined
Posts: 2,168
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
And yet, somehow, me not having an ATP didn't diminish safety of flight one iota.
While I don't think it unreasonable for airline pilots to be required to have an ATP despite me not having one, I also know one doesn't automatically become safer after simply passing a checkride.
While I don't think it unreasonable for airline pilots to be required to have an ATP despite me not having one, I also know one doesn't automatically become safer after simply passing a checkride.
Trying to belittle the magnitude of this type of change with a statement like..... "I also know one doesn't automatically become safer after simply passing a checkride," is not the point and is simply diverts attention from reality.... since you couldn't take that checkride with the same hours that they were hiring people to fly jet part 121 aircraft.
The fact is, people are/were being hired with 190-250 hours of flight time into the right seat of part 121 jet airliners... the requirement to mandate an ATP as the entry point with 1,500 hours required for the rating, among other things, is a HUGE difference in training, experience, and safety.
