Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 757upspilot

the military guys just can't get over themselves.

Originally Posted by Thedude

This is true for the guys that went straight from the Military to the Legacies or to FedEx/UPS. Most of the mil guys that went to the 121 Supps or to the commuters usually get that attitude beaten out of them by the nature of the job. I am not mil, by the way.

Originally Posted by 757upspilot

Military pilots are condesending to civilian trained pilots because the military blows smoke at them about the training they recieved the same way the pilot mills do at their students. Fighter pilots are the worst about it and the ring knockers are just silly. they also like to spout off about leadership training when what they have is command training, big difference. I have found over three decades of flying that there are good and bad from both origination points in the industry, the military guys just can't get over themselves.

Originally Posted by ReasonableMan

If this becomes law tomorrow, it will instantly create a shortage of Pilots in the industry. Think supply vs. demand...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!

Originally Posted by ReasonableMan

If this becomes law tomorrow, it will instantly create a shortage of Pilots in the industry. Think supply vs. demand...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!

Originally Posted by 757upspilot

Military pilots are condesending to civilian trained pilots because the military blows smoke at them about the training they recieved the same way the pilot mills do at their students. Fighter pilots are the worst about it and the ring knockers are just silly. they also like to spout off about leadership training when what they have is command training, big difference. I have found over three decades of flying that there are good and bad from both origination points in the industry, the military guys just can't get over themselves.

Originally Posted by SaltyDog

Wow, some pent up condescension to military pilots? <bg>
Talk about generalizing. Woo hoo.
Military just tosses one out. Pilot mills do not. Military doesn't blow smoke. Just the facts. Can't do it, your gone. Survival in a pressure cooker breeds a certain confidence (arrogance in your perception I'm sure <g> (confidence is desired, doubt you want to fly with an F/O who lacks confidence)
Navy Seals appear arrogant, but when I was around them was glad that they were supremely confident. (arrogant to most)
I have GA/Commuter/Mil. Some mil folks are plain jerks and so are some from civilian only backgrounds. My anecdotal experience is the 5% were on both sides of the fence.