HermannGraf

Well...... then you should know how to read better because if you read my post again.....carefully you will find out that............oh that's right........ I said that there are no CPL ME with 190 hours.

190 hours!!!

I think I know very well what i am talking about. I am talking in general and not about exceptions to the normal.

You got yours CPL ME with 200 hours, great for you then! it still proves what I said. 200 hour is more than 190 so what is you point and attack?

Another point, even if I said no CPL ME with 190 (not 250 like you turn it into) you getting it at 200 is one of the rare cases as also TransStates is not representative for the Regionals.

TransStates would even turn down applicants because they had too much experience. They wanted the bottom of the barrel. You can figure out why yourself. And I for one do not know any pilot that wanted to work for them.

If one did some research before applying as it was done 2 - 3 years ago during pilot shortage then Trans State would be at the bottom as places to work for.

Nevets

I think you can get a CPL with 190 hours at a 141 school. And there have been 19 year olds hired by the regionals as well.

And if you read it you will see that the House bill does cover all the other issues you are concerned with, not just this ATP requirement. This ATP requirement is a small part of the package the House has introduced to increase safety.

I dont think the House feels that way either. There are many other sections of the bill that deal with things other than this ATP requirement in increase safety.

757upspilot

Regulating the minimum training has always been an FAA function, they would appear to need to revisit the standards and minimums. Given the arguement over 190 or 250 hours to get a CPL on this thread and the indication that 60 hours even makes a difference is humorous.
The CPL at that level is an authorization to learn while being paid opposed to paying to learn and to gain experience. After thirty plus years flying transport category aircraft I have never encountered a training environment where it is even remotely possible to gain experience, it is possible to learn procedures that will keep you alive, most likely, when you encounter something you have never seen before.
The biggest problem we have in the flying community right now is that a license equates to more than a minimum skill level.

FloridaGator

Is an ATP only good for 121 carriers?
Is part 121 airline flying the only place where an ATP is absolutely required?

Can you be type rated in different aircraft (greater than 12,500 lbs) when the certificate you hold is a commercial? private?

If the answer to these questions are yes.... Then I believe the FAA has some soul searching to do and bears much responsibility for what this industry has become in only 10 years. The existance of ratings mills, Colgans accident, and the degradation of the profession.

I agree with many of those posting on here that the lax requirements of an ATP and the lack of an ATP requirement for First Officers is something that needs to be addressed in the wake of the Colgan accident.

Specifically I believe that:

1) the hours required to obtain an ATP should be increased slightly.

2) the 121 regulations should stipulate that both the captain and first officer have an ATP certificate and be type rated.

3) and to add some controversy, I believe that a Bachelors degree should be a requirement to obtain an ATP. My proposed rule would be in addition to § 61.153 (a) through (h), and simply state that all applicants for an ATP certificate must have the minimum of a Bachelors Degree from an accredited College or University. The citation for the new regulation would be FAR § 61.153 (i)

Just being 23 and having 1500 hours of bannertowing after dropping out of highschool is a bit troubling to most people flying around. Would you go to a doctor or dentist who didn't go to college?

To ease some tempers, I would absolutely not want to see this rule or any other be retroactive. In other words, if you already have an ATP.... nothing changes for you. I simply believe in raising the bar for the next generation of airline pilots. Haven't we seen enough deterioration? Wouldn't raising the bar be better than cultivating an atmosphere of Skybus. Taking a job that pays less, undercutting and bankrupting other companies, perpetuating the whipsaw cycle.

I believe that the only way forward is raising the bar for all. The Railway Labor act has no provision for that..... The only way to raise the bar for all is simply to improve the FAR's.

The only way to improve the FAR's is to write your Senators and Congressman pushing them to get behind legislation to change the Regs. The Senior generation of pilots accomplished exactly that in precisley this method regarding the age 60 (on age 65) rule.

To any that may take offense... Please understand that I firmly believe and was raised to understand that More Education = More Money. I think there is a direct correlation between our declining wages and workrules and benefits to the explosion of ratings mills since the mid 90's. Profiteers have waved 777 pay and lifestyle in front of people ..... baiting them into astronomical debt amounts in lieu of a traditional college degree.

This issue and This issue alone are why military pilots have at least a small degree of condescention for civillian trained pilots like me. In the Military, pilots are officers (therefore college degree) and the enlisted generally do not have the degree. Why not have Civillian ATP regs at least mirror Military pilot requirements?

Anytime this point is discussed someone always feels it pertinent to bring up the Army Warrant Officer position. It does not apply. Warrant officers typically only fly helicopters and are not observed in most branches.

BoilerUP

No.

No; its also required in 135 turbojet and and 91K operations.

Yes.

Nah, that responsibility falls solely on PILOTS. Pilots, by the decisions they did and did not make, are 100% responsible for "what this industry has become" and nobody else deserves to bear that burden.

Unmet expectations aren't the fault of the Administrator.

Neither were a contributory cause to the Colgan accident.

Where to start?

1. Military ain't civil aviation and vice versa. Different rules, different standards.

2. Military personnel have always been held to a higher standard than civilians...in all matters.

3. There is no ATP equivalent in the military world; you can make AC with substantially less than current civilian ATP aeronautical experience requirements.

There are plenty of WOs who fly fixed-wing assets in the Army.

F172Driver

You make alotta very good points. If the industry is not going to maintain the high standards that used to be common then the regs are going to have to make it happen.

DeltaPaySoon

While that may or may not be arguable, what is indeed fact is that you will be a more experienced pilot when you do get your ATP. Whether it's a minor difference or major, you will be more experienced.

B757CA

The bill makes for interesting discussion among professional aviators and it has clearly brought some non-pilots out and into this forum.

I liked the point that someone made earlier about "situational awareness" being an essential characteristic of a professional pilot. I would like to add 2 more and that is the ability to do "multiple tasks at once" and most importantly "good judgement". A monkey can be trained to fly an ILS with or without an autopilot or a flight director. While those skills are obviously mandatory, they are the easy part that almost everyone can perform whether you are an "ATP" or not with a little practice. The harder more critical part is evaluating the above 3 characteristics. Scenario based checkrides are one way.

I wonder if "Reasonable" knows that there are only a few differences between a typical first officer non-type airline checkride and a captain type ride. Both must basically perform to the same standards. Thus I think the discussion on mandating "minimum hours" to be an airline pilot misses the most important qualifications. Its not as easy as that....all hours are not created equal.

Would you prefer someone who has 2000 hours in a C172 running around towing banners flying your RJ or someone who has 800 teaching instruments in the weather? Assuming the banner towing guy meets ATP minimums while the other guy obviously doesn't, I think the answer is clear.

Bottom line is that 1500 hours with an ATP as a minimum in the cockpit won't affect safety much. Its low time as is. You might improve safety numbers by mandating like 5000 hours and 1000 multi with 500 in the clouds. Its obviously not practical.......

I just dont think its productive for congress to get hung up on the term "ATP"....It doesn't mean what they think it means.....

Freedom421

To any that may take offense... Please understand that I firmly believe and was raised to understand that More Education = More Money. I think there is a direct correlation between our declining wages and workrules and benefits to the explosion of ratings mills since the mid 90's. Profiteers have waved 777 pay and lifestyle in front of people ..... baiting them into astronomical debt amounts in lieu of a traditional college degree.

This is the biggest lie people tell their kids. It's who you know not what you know. If you are born middle class most likely you will die middle class education cannot change what class you are born into.
You should read rich dad poor dad. You might change your mind (More Education = More Money)
When airlines make money pilot pay will go up. You can have a PHD if your company looses millions every year your pay is not going up.
You should take a good look at who your customers are they are not who they used to be. Who is your airline marketing department trying to attract.

What i got out of your post is you think you should be paid more and if you screw over the future pilots maybe their will be less of them and your airline will have no option but to pay you more.

Freedom421

test test test