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.