Wow you guys really missed the point didn't you? It's not about crashing airplanes, it's about improving the industry, the standards, and the expectations, if you're incapable of drawing the correlation, then maybe this isn't a good debate for you.

But the Colgan crash does not prove that EVERY low time flight crew that gets paid crap and doesn't get proper rest will allow their aircraft to slow to stall speed on approach and not be able to properly recover.

I DO understand your point...it is a valid one. I am all for hiring standards being increased...even beyond what I was hired with. But that does not mean that I consider myself to be a liability to my passengers' safety. There are exceptions to every rule.

I'd second that

I am SOOOOOOOOOO glad you put the smiley face behind that statement!

Your argument is like observing a slew of car crashes occurring by drivers from 25-65 years old, then drawing the conclusion that the minimum driving age needs to be raised higher than 16. Why? It doesn't compute.

I did catch much of the Colgan transcript. I heard what was said. But, I stand by the point that ATP mins doesn't do a thing to fix that and I reiterate that both were qualified to be there and had ATP+ hours. What goes into pilot qualification might be at issue, but a blanket hour minimum does nothing but make us with the hours feel warm and toasty.

I bet Marvin, sitting down over a cup of coffee, could tell you anything you needed to know about stalls and proper recovery. The planets aligned (or misaligned) that evening and all hell broke loose. The problem's solution isn't a simple "raise the standards" - crash history throughout commercial aviation doesn't support that argument. Perhaps a thorough study of human factors is mertied. That would likely shed more light on what happened than anything else.

If I were to say:

Having an ATP F/O requirement makes the industry less safe, how many of you would agree with that statement?

From a safety standpoint, how can you argue against requiring more experience for people to fly part 121 ops?

Actually, you are incorrect. Visit AOPA's website and do a search for their Nall Report. Flight time has a tangible, proven, direct correlation to accidents and incidents. The low time folks being the most dangerous, and oddly enough... the EXTREMELY high time folks have a bump back up from being the lowest risk.

The Nall report showed the under 100, 500 & 1000 to be the most dangerous

Slightly less risky were the over 1,000 and under 2,000 non ATP's

The ATP crowd was the least dangerous UNTIL they reached like over 25,000 hours and then was a small bump up again in accidents and incidents; but still well well below the under 1,000 crowd, and below the higher time non ATP's.

If you dig through the report enough, the general take is the ATP ticket holders are statistically the safest. People may not like it, but the stats are what they are.

Do the stats take into consideration that the VAST majority of the GA airplanes flying at anytime are being flown by private pilots with sub 1,500 hours?

Do they take into consideration that most ATPs are flying airplanes that have 2 engines, redundant systems, flight directors, radars, etc, whereas the weekend warriors are flying around 40 year old airplanes w/ steam gauges and handheld non IFR yoke mounted GPS systems.

Do they take into consideration that your average commercial airplane is subjected to much heavier mx checks than Bob's 172 that bakes out on the ramp all day long for weeks on end?

Stats don't always tell the full story.

PLUS: All these crashes happened with pilots that fall in that ATP bracket at the helm. There must be something else then.

The first half of 2008, Colgan was turning over close to 5% of its pilots each month (based on class size and how fast my seniority number changed). In my class (Saab late 2007) we had about 18 people. Only 2 or 3 had ATP mins, and only one actual ATP. So, you do the math.

We already know Colgan is part of the problem, I'm talking about industry-wide.

Thanks for the slap. Answer your own question next time.

If you are trying to make your case, you need to start by not making a statement with NO evidence at all to support it, other than your personal opinion. In fact, you are completely wrong with that assumption. You do realize that all the aircraft Netjets, Citation Shares, Avantair, et all are flying are all considered GA.... and that is just to name a few of the larger more well known GA operators.

My posting was a reply to the person who said there were NO stats.
That being said. One section of the Nall report only compares accident rates with hours. In other sections it compares single vs. twins, IFR vs. IMC, CFIT and various other factors. You can play "what If" games all day and it won't change facts.

Instead of trying to poke holes, why not visit the site, and read the report. The end result is lower time pilots are a higher risk... perhaps you are correct, and that the old 172 is in poor condition... The difference is, the pilot with more experience would have refused the airplane.... while the low time guy became a statistic.

The report doesn't say there are NO ATP accidents, it says the rates are lowest from those holding ATP tickets.

Spin away

Mason, your point is well taken.

You will not get an argument from me that more experience equals less accidents. I agree with that. My point, originally, is that raising hiring minimums not only will not happen as a result of recent events, but it is likely the wrong "why" as to what the actual solution is - if there is a solution. Accidents will always happen. The goal is to reduce them as much as possible. But let us not forget, the current safety record is phenomenal.

Furthermore, I honestly believe that those statistics do not tell the full story. Flying in an airliner is safer than flying a single engine 172. The equipment is superior, the altitudes flown at are safer (when it comes to weather), the maintenance is generally better. Those with the highest hours are flying the best equipment - and are generally not flying alone. Two sets of eyes are always better, not to mention the workload is divided up between the two, etc.

maybe these people with high times will demand more for their experience and eventually be replaced by another applicant who is willing to get his "foot in the door" for less.

yeah, too true

The answer is simple.

Too many applications on the human resource manager's desk.

If the congress requires an ATP for the FO's seat, then they're smarter than I thought.

If congress actually decided to do this i would be more of a fan on passing the buck onto the airlines and not the pilots. ATP mins req for the interview. If you don't have an ATP you get it on your initial PC. Why not make it a type ride as well that couldn't hurt safety. The only issue is the lack of cabbage.

I have no problem with a combo atp/initial checkride. But the ATP is really the cheapest certificate to get. By the time a person gets 1500TT, he/she almost certainly meets the flight time requirements. So the only expenses are a Gleim book, ATP written, an hour or two of rental, and the cost of a DE if used.

I've had previous employers who let us take a recurrent ride with the POI, so we could got a free ATP.

That is probably 800+ish dollars. Although not that much in comparison to what that person spent to get to that point, for someone working with only a CFI/banner tow/parachute jumper/135 salary, it may be signifigant.

Yeah, that was my point. Small cost in the BIG picture.


And I have never made as much under 121 as I did under 135 or 91..... and THAT is the real shame.