500 hour Comm. Pilot versus Multi Crew Pilot

Reply Subscribe

Page 2 of 2

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

08-16-2010 | 11:48 AM

#11

dosbo

Banned

Joined: Jan 2008

Posts: 437

Likes: 0

From: Furlough/Gun Driver

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyWilliams

If a 50 or 70 seat plane is the correct machine for the mission, why 100 seats? Maybe that is part of the problem?

My point is that some routes could stand a reduction in frequency while maintaining capacity with larger aircraft. This just might help congestion at some of the busier airports as well.

Unfortunately this may result in fewer jobs at the regional level but more careers at the majors.

08-16-2010 | 12:05 PM

#12

Twin Wasp

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Oct 2007

Posts: 2,740

Likes: 0

From: Sr. VP of button pushing

Quote:

Originally Posted by dosbo

In return I humbly suggest that all crewmembers on the flight deck of a 121 carrier hold an ATP licensce no exceptions.

And why should a PFE/A&P have to have an ATP? Yeah, there are still some of those working in 121 cargo operations.

08-16-2010 | 03:53 PM

#13

dosbo

Banned

Joined: Jan 2008

Posts: 437

Likes: 0

From: Furlough/Gun Driver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twin Wasp

And why should a PFE/A&P have to have an ATP? Yeah, there are still some of those working in 121 cargo operations.

My apologies in overlooking those that are operating as a PFE. My point is that for those manipulating the flight controls in a 121 operation be qualified as ATP's. If the aircraft still requires an FE for operation you hold a FE certificate for that. On a tangent if a commercial pilot can't operate as an FE which is an additional rating, then why should they be allowed to be a copilot in an operation where they may have to assume command of an operation that does require an ATP?

08-18-2010 | 03:38 PM

#14

LeeFXDWG

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Feb 2006

Posts: 1,130

Likes: 0

From: B737 CAPT IAH

Quote:

Originally Posted by snippercr

I humbly propose this question: While just about everyone on this board champions this law because it should increase pilot pay (and to a certain extent, safety), many people have said they fear it will give rise to multi-crew licenses. Which do you think would be worse: 500 hour wonders sitting right seat of a 50 seater, or the implementation of multi-crew licenses?

My 2 cents.....if you are in the cockpit of a 121 operation, you should have an ATP. Is an arbitrary hour requirement, yes. However you are one pilot away from flying solo.

An ATP holder has at least demonstrated the ability to perform at that level once. MPL is the most ludicrous concept ever. Then again, a 250 hour Comm pilot is almost the same thing with regards to sitting in a 121 cockpit IMO.

Lee

08-18-2010 | 05:30 PM

#15

Thedude

Are we there yet??!!

Joined: Apr 2006

Posts: 2,010

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twin Wasp

And why should a PFE/A&P have to have an ATP? Yeah, there are still some of those working in 121 cargo operations.

PFEs don't have to hold an ATP, only the pilots.
I work for one of those operations.

08-18-2010 | 05:37 PM

#16

Twin Wasp

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Oct 2007

Posts: 2,740

Likes: 0

From: Sr. VP of button pushing

I do too and that was a concern when the highlights of the law were made public. My comment was more for Dosbo and others who may have forgotten there still are some folks sitting sidesaddle.