While a novel idea, the thing that gets me about time building is how that person will be building the time. Burning holes in the traffic pattern and VFR cross country flights are not going to make one ready for a job as an airline pilot. I had a few students that wanted to try this back when I was a CFI, and I asked them what they thought they would get out of blowing all that money to build time. And the answer was limited to the fact that it would get them in the door at an airline.

When you earn your commercial certificate, with the exception of adding on ratings, you should not have to spend money to build valuble flight time. Instruct, fly checks, fly tours, traffic watch. Get out there in the real world, out of the comfort of your local airports practice area. File IFR, go flying when the weather sucks, land in a strong cross wind and scare the crap out of yourself a few times. These things help you learn and give you the experience to become a good airline pilot. Paying $80 grand to get a 717 type with 250 hours is not real world experience. Does it get you the job, sure. But if the first time you shoot an approach in the crud or have to park that thing in a wind gusting over 20 knots is in the cockpit of a commercial jet, you skipped a few steps.

 

Why is it not practical to use ATP minimums? I seem to have gotten them without ever stepping foot in the cockpit of a CRJ.

FYI, 1600 isn't what most consider to be high time but it is enough time to experience the real world and as a previous poster mentioned to "scare the crap" out of oneself.

Raising the bar to the ATP level would increase safety, wages, and the profession as a whole. Aviation has needed to get away from this lowest common denominator stuff for a while now, its just too bad fifty people had to die to make people realize it.

 

IFR 135 IS challenging and that is exactly his point. A pilot has no business in the flight deck of an airliner until he/she has been challenged by doing something else. Pilots should FIRST learn how to make good decisions, then start flying passengers around.

Actually it is completely their business. That is what the FAA is for. As quoted on the FAA's website, "Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world." They do this through regulations and one of these should be that only pilots with an ATP could fly an airliner.

A couple people have mentioned this during the debate. The fact that the Captain was high time now is not the issue. He was hired as a low time pilot. Around 650 total, and 250 of that was already in a 121 environment. Had he needed an ATP before getting hired at either Airline, he may have had a chance to build strong flying skills before putting passenger's lives at risk.

 

Now thats funny!

 

Yes, for US Airways, on the 737.

 

Skiles is right on the money. Nice job.

 

My guess is that in ten years the FAA will authorize the Multi-Crew License.

The cost of flight training has doubled over the last ten years. It is due to double or tipple yet again over the next ten. In the near future it will become quite difficult for civilian pilots to pay for their own training. As a result the airlines and the FAA will push for the creation of the Multi-Crew License.

Rather than pay for higher time pilots the airlines will hire cadet pilots and train them from zero under a contract to exclusively be a pilot for their company on their equipment. No VFR or 172 stuff just part 121 airline training from zero to graduation day.

Their total flight time will be low however their training will be exclusively focused on their job. The results will be that people with no cash can become airline pilots and the airlines will get an unlimited supply of indentured servants who are under contract to work for them at slave wages.

It is even possible that the cadets could come from third world countries. Be trained overseas and commute to the US to fly US regional aircraft over US routes for a period of time then return to their country for their days off. Their wages could be half of what regional pilots get paid today.

Skyhigh

 

I completely agree with this. If you are working for an airline, you should have an AIRLINE transport pilot cert. It only makes sense. I think it is funny the only people against this are the people who do not have the time. It is not that hard to build time to ATP mins. Sure it might take a little longer than 90 days, but the experience you gain is invaluable.

 

The government CAN force regionals to hire higher time pilots by making it mandatory that all Part 121 pilots must have an ATP. That's not dictating hiring practices, it's just setting a standard. Just like you need a Commercial license to be a CFI. Plus, it would tighten up the supply/demand, resulting in higher wages. There's no downside to making this mandatory.

 

What is a better airline experience building situation than flying 121? How is another 1000 hours of touch and goes in a 172 supposed to make flying an approach in an RJ any better?

My understanding is that the position of First officer was created as an apprentice position and not to serve as a double PIC. However if the position of FO is intended to have the same skills, certifications and abilities as the PIC then they should make the same wages and trade the left seat every other leg.

In my estimation our problems with seniority, experience and wages lies with the current captain/co-pilot system that we currently have. If all pilots were hired as captains and were all paid the same then you could hire pilots with more experience.

Skyhigh