500 hour Comm. Pilot versus Multi Crew Pilot
 

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?

The 500 hour pilot will have flown an airplane solo at least and have had to make some decisions.

No problem with the MPL license as long as those who get that as their only license are never in a command position.

I think they should have allowed 60 - 65 year old pilots assume the new position of cruise pilot in three man cockpits. Since the lawmakers didn't do that maybe they can help out the old guys again and allow them to be cruise pilots after 65. No disrespect intended but I've now flown multiple trips with 60+ Captains and most of them have made simple mistakes that I would not expect from a 500 hour wonder. (Intending to land on the wrong runway, not recognizing or understanding a pressurization problem, not being able to interpret a TCAS RA display correctly, falling stone cold dead snoring asleep,...)

They do however add a tremendous amount of experience to the cockpit that could be a valuable resource during an emergency. Putting them in them jumpseat for T/off and landing is the safest avenue. When things start happening fast, a small mistake can turn grave.

OK, I've got my bulletproof vest on now that this thread has been hijacked. Let me have it with both barrels. I'll read your comments after my next trip.

This is like the question on the psych evals "When did you stop hating your mother?" My answer is I don't like either one.

Denny

In return I humbly suggest that all crewmembers on the flight deck of a 121 carrier hold an ATP licensce no exceptions. If it means there are not enough pilots to staff the aircraft perhaps management will have to make the job more attractive, or maybe fly more 100 seat aircraft at mainline instead of 50 to 70 seat aircraft at regionals. I have flown with enough 500 to 1000 hour pilots in the right seat that I know the majority of the time my work load was increased often at the most inopportune time. If requiring 1500 hours for 121 operations creates an actual pilot shortage then I am all for it. Let management figure out how to move the planes without pilots, perhaps seats would become enough of a commodity that higher (more realistic) prices could be charged.

Dude,

I don't think you will take much heat for the above - I doubt any pilot over 60 has figured out this new-fangled interweb yet. :) In any case, you won't get a response until the "early-bird" dinner specials are over.

Scoop

Holy COW!!!!! I have got to stop drinking beer while reading these threads...I hate blowing good beer out the nose!!

Thanks, Scoop...I needed a good chuckle!!
Very funny!

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

Exactly!


Okay, all joking aside, 60 really is not that old. My neighbors dad is an over 60 pilot, was an F-4 pilot and still runs three miles every morning. Lot of complete disrespect on these threads to alot of guys who are military veterans. They changed the law, yes it SUUUCKS, but that is no reason to be disrespectful.:)

That's great. I know a 50 yr old pilot that can't climb two flights of stairs without losing his breath. Extremes on both sides. A 60 yr old jock is not the norm.

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.

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?

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

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

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.