Atp/alpa/faa
 

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??

We know what the ATP requirements are... Are you even a pilot?

If you look at other posts around here, you will find that just about everybody supports the changeover to ATP. It is airlines and management that don't want this because they know they will have difficulty finding people who are that experienced to fly for the poor wages and working conditions that are currently status quo.

He is absolutely right, even if he lacks a certain modicum of tact.

A more pertinent question is are you? Are you an Air Transport Pilot? You are correct that the ATA will fight this tooth and nail. But difficulty in finding people to fly for those poor wages is the whole idea. Safety however should trump the economics of it. Flying revenue passengers is not the place for OJT.

I am not attacking fellow pilots on this matter. However the point is if the FAA endorses this, companies will have no choice but to honor it. And If ALPA is truly committed to enhancing the lives of it's members, the FAA is truly committed to making commercial aviation safer, this should be at the forefront of their discussions. Don't seek to belittle my statement by asking me whether or not I am a pilot. For one, you wouldn't know the difference even if I told you no. Secondly, what does it matter if I am making a case that will improve the QOL of all commercial pilots. Thanks for your thoughts. Any other thoughts???

It's a reasonable question, and one you didn't even directly answer. It's a poorly considered and postulated "point" (question?) that you try to make.

As it comes "ex nihilo", your post has the smell and feel of something other than what it tries to be.

Set the mins at ATP mins and if the airlines want to hire someone with out it then they should have to give said pilot their ATP certificate before they hit the flight line. Every applicant should be eligible to recieve their ATP in initial. Do it that way so pilots dont get forced to dump any more of their own money into this industry.

Now we know who atleast 2 of the commuter pilots without an ATP rating are on this site. :confused:

Any more thoughts on how we can get this ball rolling with extreme force. The point has been talked about before but what steps need to be taken to make this an FAR? Anyone?????

Reasonable Man, do YOU have an ATP?

I do. Didn't when I was at Air Wisconsin though...

YES!!! The fact that you flew passengers without one is an unfortunate reality of our industry and needs to be stopped immediately for Safety and QOL reasons.

---BREAK, BREAK---

Any more thoughts on how we can get this ball rolling with extreme force. The point has been talked about before but what steps need to be taken to make this an FAR? Anyone?????

Interestingly; the Regional Airline Association--the regional airline lobby group in Washington--has come out in support of this legislation, which I found very surprising, because it's the regional airlines that stand to lose the most should this legislation become law. Randy Babbit--former ALPA president and current FAA chief supports it. It's in the house subcommittee being prepared for a house vote. Write your congressman or representative asking they support it.

The only group that has shown any opposition to this is the ATA--which is the lobby group for the airline industry (major). Maybe they're afraid of the coming pilot shortage...

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.

That's surprising...I would have thought that the majors would not care, and the RAA would be up in arms over this.

Perhaps the regionals think (correctly) that such a requirement will reduce their liability exposure by enhancing safety. If it is an across-the-board requirement, then the bottom-feeders cannot gain a competitive advantage by scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Long-term, any additional costs will get passed on to the majors anyway.

That may be what the majors are afraid of...additional costs flowing uphill and a reduction in the economic benefit of outsourcing.

Same for me....but I had better than ATP mins before I got into 121, and a 121 turbojet checkride is at least as good as an ATP ride in a duchess.

I think there is a safety benefit to hiring pilots with some GA PIC time...if nothing else they will be more assertive when they get stuck with the occasional worthless captain, and will be better captains themselves when the time comes.

Blanket statement. Especially if the guy built his time in a job by himself. Pipeline, traffic, banner tow, etc.

maybe its just me...but i dont think this ReasonableMan is really a pilot....

I'll bite.
I will belittle you and ask you point blank. Are you a pilot? and IF so what level of certificate do you hold and what is your background? Your post make you come off like some sort of reporter (I think so) or some congressman's aide looking for info.

I like to think I would know the difference. and this statement leads me to believe you are not.

Yes it does. The road to hell is pave with good intentions. You need to have a good working knowledge of an industry before you can make effective and sensible laws that govern and regulate said industry.

Stand up and identify yourself. Don't try to hind behind some misdirection and try to play elusive word games.

And yet you continue to miss the point. It's not about the rating, it's the experience that historically comes with requirements that make you eligible to earn the rating, hence why there are numbers attached to the rating. There are obviously exceptions to every rule however, the mass majority of pilots without that level of experience (according to research) is neither as knowledgeable nor capable as one with that level of experience. Thus, the industry would statistically be safer it this were a FAR.
Along the pay lines, because of the qualification, ALPA has more leverage to establish an "Industry Standard Pay" and not those (not all) greedy managers who are currently establishing it. There will be a definite line in the sand. Thoughts???

Why is it unfortunate and why is it a safety reason? You seem to be throwing out buzzwords without really knowing anything specific. An ATP certificate is just another piece of paper and not some life changing event. I was the same guy the day after my ATP ride that I was before it. With that being said, the mins to work for ANY airline need to be increased. So far the ATP has been put out there mainly because it is a benchmark sorts. It takes X amount of expeience to apply for one and a known set of standards to past the test. Its a start and nothing wrong with it. I also think 1200TT/200ME/500 PIC would be enough to hold an SIC position at a 121 company.

But FIRST the FAA needs to address the antiquated rest rules that all airlines operate under. Esp in the 121 Supp world. I bet you were probably not aware there is NO minimum duty day under 121 Supp International rules. Meaning you can be on duty for in excess of 24 hrs (and I have) but only be limited by flight time. Before you even ask, there are plenty of passenger carriers that operate under 121 Supp as well as cargo haulers. I would prefer to see the rest rules revamped to mirror something of the UK system. It is based on scientific reserach and limits the duty day based on report time and number of sectors. A better approach in my opinion.

I'll restate this point for clarity. Having an ATP currently does nothing to improve my QOL. Having better rest rules would have a dramatic effect though.

Have I sufficiently answered your baited/coded question?

I guess you missed the day the Railway Labor Act and collective bargaining were taught.

About 10 years ago, during a staff meeting, I proposed the idea of adding a surcharge to the pax ticket. It was $1 per hour of flight time per pax per flight crewmember. Meaning if you were on a 2 hour flight with 2 pilots in the cockpit it would cost each pax an extra $4. I think most pax would be more than happy to pay a mear $4 to get a "quality crew". It would basically cost the company nothing and give the crews a much needed raise. I was greeted with blank stares


Its a little of topic but I think its humors and a little educational.
About 5 yrs ago I was working for a "prestigious" 121 Supp company that flew pax. We had to divert into XXX airfield becase the weather at the destination was socked in due to a thunderstorm on top of the airfiled. When we reach out alternate airport, we of course needed gas. The fuelers refused to put gas in the airplane until it was payed for. We had contract fuel at this destination but the locals decided they would try to scam us (the crew) and make us pay in cash. Well, we don't carry that kinda cash and we no longer have Captain's checks or credit cards. So some of the pax came up with the idea that they (all 170 of 'em) would take up a collection to get to their destination. This was a great idea until I informed them that it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000. Of course they promptly recognized their error. After a couple hours of waiting, a few phone calls and faxes, the fuelers realized they were not going to win and finally gave us the necessary gas.

Moral of the story. Pax have NO IDEA how much money it takes to operate an aircraft nor the logistics involved. Most equate it to the simplicity of driving a car.

I guess I'd have to bring my "strip-club" jar to work every day. I might have to give back $1 to every pax that didn't think my landing was "good enough", the ride was too bumpy, or that my 12,000 hours wasn't as "good as the guy who landed in the Hudson"

Back to ReasonableMan's thought. You seem to be hung up an the title of Airline Transport Pilot certificate. As others have said, focus on the hours or you could create a "Regional Airline Pilot" certificate.. you know one that's less then the current ATP, but much more then the 400 hours that some are getting hired at these days... and a card that's big enough to write all the limitations on the back.

The bill is going through the house, then, who knows when it will reach the senate. If and when it becomes law, there are time constraints that the FAA will have to meet for implementation. After the NPRM is issued there will be a comment period.

Through the process, line pilots can always contact their congressional reps and make their feelings known.

To put this on the top of the ALPA (or any union) agenda, attend a local meeting and submit a resolution.

I guess I forgot to mention its non-refundable ad smooth landings are extra.m:p

You seem to contradict yourself throughout your posts. I currently well exceed ATP mins and have taken 3 checkrides to ATP standards using ATP criteria. If I want to get the ATP before upgrading to Captain I will have to go rent a light twin for an hour or so for the checkride. How is renting a light twin for a few hours and spending $2000+ out of pocket going to make me a more competent airline pilot?

Good for you but you still don't have the rating. Also, multiple thoughts on a complex subject is possible you know. I dare not pose the question of why is it mandatory that a Captain have this rating. He/She is well beyond the requirements so what's the use (rhetorical).

At any rate, the requirements that make you eligible to earn an ATP rating is a definitive way to currently establish an industry standard. Hours are relative. 4000 hrs of straight and level airline flying does not in any way compare to 4000 hrs of military fighter flying. However, the FAA has gotten the ball rolling by taking the guess work out of it and establishing this rating (with requirements for those who hate the word rating). It's a starting point to solve a problem that should have never been allowed to begin in the first place. Sure, earning an ATP rating is not a life changing event, but the training and experience required to be eligible to receive the rating was!

I find this very interesting that so many posters here have jumped on this guy with both feet so hard. When I read his post I didn't see anything subversive in a big picture kind of way. Yes this issue has been discussed elsewhere, but what did ReasonableMan say that is so offensive? You guys that hammered him about whether or not he is a pilot really confound me. He is talking about an issue that has a potential to get payrates up and you hit him in the head. In fact, if he weren't a pilot, you should want to buy the guy a beer. I didn't see any slams toward anybody.. oh I know we all get our panties in a bunch if someone infers that we did something unsafe, but who on here can honestly say that they have never done that? Fire away...

That being said though, ALPA will always negotiate from a position of weakness because of the RLA. The leverage of which you speak is a fly on an elephant. The company holds all the cards as long as this industry is viewed as crucial to the national economy, and knows that NO sitting president will allow a meltdown due to a pilots' strike.

But where you the same as you were when you did your first walkaround of your first Cessna/T34? No. Of course not.

I don't have a problem with what you say here.

I think we need to be careful here. Since the government likes to kill mosquitos with flame throwers, all they have to do is count our commuting time towards duty time, and there are a whole lot of guys that are gonna be really screwed. I do agree with you that something need to be done, but in your case, it sounds like you need to negotiate this in your contract with your company. Are you on a classic 3 man airplane? When we had L1011s, the international guys had NO rest breaks, and THAT was ridiculuous. But we have duty day limits at DAL, and even the company cannot force you to go beyond them if you don't want to. Actually I prefer having it in MY contract than some sort of government mandate, that can be changed at a pilotical whim.

It's not... no more than having a degree in underwater basketweaving from an accredited 4 year university would. Can I assume that you have no problem with THAT? But what he suggests is that it is another ticket you need to punch in order to get hired to do this job. It's a benchmark. I got my ATP from a puppy mill too. So what? You are right, the piece of paper itself does nothing from a safety perspective, but it is just another filter.

Say, at the end of this statement, it ended with "I'm currently only licensed by the FAA as a private pilot". Would that change any opinions? Should it? By the logic I read here, if you think you could pass an ATP, that's as good as actually passing one. Is this conclusion is defendable?

An FAA rating is just a piece of paper. So is a college degree. It's not about the piece of paper, it's about the baseline level it establishes, the guaranteed minimum experience that the piece of paper represents.

Military pilots are not all equally skilled, but all employers know, if they hire a military pilot, they are getting a known standard. Perhaps they'll get someone who significantly exceeds the minimum, perhaps not. But they will get, at the very least, the baseline 'military pilot' - a certain skill set that includes demonstrated flying ability and leadership.

Same with an ATP. A pilot with an ATP has met a basic standard, a standard set by the FAA, and one that has been demonstrated, not just theorized. If a pilot doesn't have an ATP, we can speculate all we want about if they could pass an ATP ride, if they're as safe as an ATP, if they're as knowledgeable as an ATP, etc.

A sample of 100% ATP pilots is likely a statistically safer sample than one that is 100% full of pilots who "currently well exceed ATP mins and have taken 3 checkrides to ATP standards using ATP criteria" - but don't have an ATP. The license is called the Airline Transport Pilot license, not the Airline Transport Pilot in Command license. Why should only Airline PIC's have to have this license?

In the end, you're either an ATP - or you're not.

--
And since it seems to matter in this thread (though it shouldn't), I have an ATP and am an airline pilot

All Captains at airlines have ATP's. If their was a qualified Captain in the Colgan crash the FAA would not even be thinking of raising the hiring minimums. A Captain should be able to fly single pilot in a transport category aircraft. I guess the ATP will make the pilots equally qualified right. Well i hope equally qualified pilots will be paid equally.

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.

I don't think raising the min's on FO's is the right thing to do. They should be raised on Captains.

The reason pilots want to raise the min's on new hires is they think this will raise the pay for pilots.

should the minimums be 250 hour no. should we make it more expensive for new hires to get a job no. If you guys want people to have atp flight time so be it.

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.

What is a commercial certificate good for? You can fly for hire including someone willing to pay for a ride. Window dressing is the only answers coming out of politicians. Are you going to push for a more stringent commercial certificate requirements and that no 'regular' commercial pilot can take another human up for hire? In the early 60's UAL hired 300 hour types. You want one level of safety? Push for real safety measures by companies. not a "pilots are the fault" because they did not have an ATP.
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.

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

Nah...not instantly. There's thousands of unemployed ATPs out there right now, not to mention all the underemployed ones.

Couple years from now? Yeah, probably.

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????

You have a point. My SA was alot better when i hand flew old school lear jets. The automation is nice to. I don't think anyone thing is going to solve the problem. I do know a 250 hour pilot will most likely be unable to hand fly a checkride. I think a basic fundamental of great SA is hand flying once you can do that Automation ADD's to your SA foundation. Some of the low time pilots today are missing a building block in the SA foundation.

You still avoid to tell us YOUR flying background....

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.

Who is a better pilot a military pilot who puts 8 years in and has 1500 hours or a civilian pilot with 8,000 hours?

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.

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.