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!:D

Yes, for US Airways, on the 737.

Skiles is right on the money. Nice job.

Quality Expereince
 

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.

Experience
 

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

If all you're going to do is 1000 hrs. of T & G's then it won't help you that much. If, however, there was a guidline of what was acceptable hours before an ATP could be earned, it would be much better. I would love to see a plan of options for the hours. It could have instructing, working 135 or taking 121 clases / simulator training.

I agree that the extra hours should be meaningul but simply requiring more hours will help eliminate a portion of those that aren't all that interested but would love to wear a uniform and spend only 6 months in training.

I think the minimum for regional FO should be 900 hours tt.

1500=ATP
1200=135 Single Pilot IFR
900=Regional FO

300 hours difference between the 3.

I think the Hudson FO's opinion sounds OK on paper, but I don't see how it would work. Requiring an ATP is one way to get more experienced pilots, but I don't think you can tell if someone is "safe" or a "good pilot" just by them having a piece of plastic. My commercial license is the same that everyone else has... including the pilots that shouldn't be flying... If I had an ATP, it would be just the same as everyone elses ATP... including all the captains out there who need babysitters.

I was hired with 900/50 back in '07 when it was easy to get hired, and could have gotten hired earlier except I didn't want to go to Mesa, or Colgan, or any of the other low paying regionals with lower minimums. Does that mean the regional that I took a job with got a more experienced pilot because they pay more? Sure. Did all the pilots in my class have 900 hours? No, some had 400/50 and a really good connection. Did my 900 hours in piston airplanes make me better at flying jets and turbo-props? I have no idea.

I don't think the Colgan crash was caused by lack of experience (talking above my pay grade). Sure, one of the pilots was uncomfortable in icing, but if they had just focused on flying the airplane like they were supposed to, it wouldn't have gotten ahead of them. Just because the topic of their conversation was experience doesn't mean that's what caused the crash. They were distracted... just like so many other accident crews... and forgot to move the thrust levers forward after adding drag.

So... you can hire a pilot with an ATP, but that doesn't make them safe.

My 2 cents,
Hotelmode

Your right, touch and goes wont make you a better RJ FO, however as a CFI you do more than just touch and goes. I don't know about you, but I learned A LOT from my CFI experience. Also, that is just one way to get your time required for an ATP.

By your defination of a First Officer, they should not be flying. If they are just an apprentice, they should be there to learn and not really fly. Granted I don't fly 121, but it's my understanding that the CA and FO trade off legs (PF, PNF). Yes the CA has all the responsiblity, but the FO flys just as much, so why shouldn't he/she have the same pilot cert?

Also, just to thow this out there, I do not think anyone should upgrade into a different aircraft. If you are an Saab FO go to a Saab CA not Saab FO to Q400 CA. I think the CA should have SOME time in type before he/she upgrades. How much? Who knows, more than 0.

That is true, just like you can hire a 250 hour wonder, doesn't make them safe. You have to set the bar somewhere.

The issue isn't the ATP rating. That only say's you can fly as PIC over 12,500 pounds. The issue is experience. And it only comes from hours in the seat.

Flight instructing teaches you as much as it teaches the student. Single pilot check hauling or cargo teaches you as well. So do a lot of things.

Yes, back in the "day," commuter flying was twin Cessna's, B-99's, Shorts3-30, Merlins and Twatters. Big guys got the Dash 7. FD/O's didn't have a chance of a job unless they had close to 1500 hours. They (we) flew in unpressurized and in many cases, non autopilot equipped planes. You LEARNED how to fly hard IFR and how to deal with things.

That's not said to make it sound like we walked to and from school everyday uphill each way in blizzards...and loved it. It's said because getting into an RJ with very low time, programming the boxes and hitting the "A/P engage" at 500' and disconnecting it on rollout does not give you any experience other than how to manage systems.

Skiles is right. More experience is required before getting the job. The airlines must consider the type of flying done and the FAA should require more time before getting into a 121 cockpit.

In reality, the move will likely come from insurance underwriters who will jack up premiums on carriers who insist on hiring low time pilots on the cheap.

ALPA, if it had any balls, would get off it's butt and have it's legacy members demand that any carrier who flys code share must have better hiring standards and better pay. In the end though, pay is not the issue either. It's inexperience.

Getting experience and an SIC rating in an RJ with a couple of hundred of hours is hogwash. It may look nice, but it's nothing more than a license to learn.

Maybe to open the debate to what's done elsewhere:
in Europe (JAA) regulations, we get CPL/ IRs, the ATP wrtitten test (pretty big actually - used to be basically 6 months of ground courses) and then a mandatory MCC (Multi crew coordination) training (approx 2 days ground course and 2-3 days in a sim to teach you basics of multi crew op).
Then you can apply for a job. At that point guys can be at minimum 250 hrs approximately.

So at that point you have only a "frozen" ATP (i.e. written test). When you have 1500 hrs, then you can go for the full ATP (usually done in the sim during one of those 6 months refresher).

The main difference with the US is that on these 1,500 hrs to get your ATP, 500 hrs MUST BE on multicrew aircraft. So you need a minimum of what some people in Europe call "quality time" before you're delivered a full ATPL.

Just though some of you might be interested.

CFI time
 

I learned a lot about being a teacher and salesmen however I don't think it helped me at all to fly a transport category plane.

Skyhigh

We've all flown with excellent 250 hour wonders
We've all flown with crappy 250 hour wonders
We've all flown with excellent ex-military pilots
We've all flown with crappy ex-military pilots
We've all flown with excellent high timers
We've all flown with crappy high timers

If a pilot truly reached the correlation level during his training, he is a good pilot. If not, he knows what category he fits in.

This Pilot IS THE PROBLEM...
 

This so called "pilot" is the reason why we cannot agree completely in our resolve to fight lower and lower wages and quality of life issues with our employers. This so called "pilot" was probably raised in a conservative household (which I have absolutely no problem with). This so called "pilot" probably was in the military which is a government concern; and was probably taken care of in every way(healthcare, retirement, and social security), until he met the real reality which most of us face, here at the regional pilot level in our national airline transportations system. This "pilot" probably has a retirement; already in place and is not concerned with that particular issue. This "pilot" is probably very confident that he has enough old squadron friends, that he will surely be the next one hired at SW which means he should "probably have" even more retirement benefits. This "pilot" probably has a spouse who , probably has a decent job, which contributes considerably to his overall wellbeing. This "Pilot" probably has not a clue as to what sort of industry he has entered into and probably has not a care as to how he will be compensated in it. He has his own beliefs about how the business world operates and they are reenforced by his experience in the "protectected" military realm. I believe this belief system is not comprehensive in its scope and is biased. I also believe that this "pilot's" statements are invalid because of that experience and I hereby refuse to listen to his Ilk. In the event that I am mistaken in any of my assumptions about this "pilot", I still maintain that he is only taking himself and the rest of us with him in his resolve to maintain his current position. There IS a DIFFERENCE between being a "sharp" management and simply being willing to be absolutely, unemotional, tyrants towards your employees! That IS my bottom line; I will rigourously defend it and I appreciate anyone who will argue it with me! Bring it on!

Yeah; until you're reduced rest overnite at GOJETS causes you to suddenly forget to set the flaps, or some other FU! Good Luck bro.... you are truely going to need it in the future... I however, will shed no tears for you.

You're right, there is a differnce between C-150's and RJ's, however flying is flying. You need to know the basics in both planes, and by teaching you really get to know it.

Instruction is the closest many of us will get to upset recovery training (students DO try to kill you, though they dont intend to).

Hauling checks, or boxes or what have you, BY YOURSELF done long enough DOES teach you when to say when. (Your either learn or kill yourself).

Flying a Banderante, Brazillia, 1900, or Jetstream AS AN FO will teach you how an airline functions.

Being a Banderante, Brazillia, 1900, or Jetstream CA will teach you leadership.

THEN flying as an FO in a narrow body under a CA with twice your hours WILL teach you how to be an AIRLINE CA.


Oh, and by the way, all that time you have spent LEARNING how the real world works, will give you the b@lls to stand up to management when they try to force you into an unsafe flight. You will learn NO JOB IS WORTH ENDANGERING YOURSELF, YOUR PASSENGERS, OR THOSE ON THE GROUND!

For my son -

You seem to have a problem with military pilots.
I promise you that if he has all those retirement benefits that you mention in your rant then he has spent 20 years in the military and deserves everything that he gets and has defintiely "done his time" even compared to your regional world. If he hasn't retired from the military then he doesn't have all those retirement benefits you mnetion ut still has many of the other good things in his hand - like metworking. No different than someone coming up through a pilot training factory and the regionals who has made contacts along the way.
I'm sorry - but your post comes off at a rant at the military and makes you sound jealous.

USMCFLYR

Are you talking about Tinpusher here? If so, you're not even close.

A professional co-pilot is called a first officer. I hope Jeff didn't write that but rather USA Today changed it in their editing process.

The problem is, that the greedyness of airline management also remains in the flight school. How much do you pay for an instructor per hour these days... 45, 55 dollars? That instructor won't even get half of that for his paycheck.

I left the USA to instruct elsewhere so that I could make good money... but what about the rest of the flight schools in the USA? Any instructor bound for the airlines will easily take a regional f/o job at 18/hr over CFI'ing at 12/hr. That's a joke. $12/hr for a CFI when the student pays a minimum of 4 times that amount for the instructor. Ridiculous.