The ATP rule was just the fixing of a loophole.


There's a job that entails the operation of a transport category aircraft for an airline.

Tell me, which certificate most closely represents the mission at hand, Airline Transport Pilot? Or Commercial Pilot?

 

The decent airlines have stacks of resumes from pilots from the bad airlines. Regionals can't find anyone due to lack of career progression. Look at Compass, okay career progression, low pay, no trouble filling classes.

If PSA was the only way into AA, they would have 15000 apps on file.

 

I'm thinking they meant the 1500 ATP ruling..FAR 117 is ALL research driven.

 

Its just a name. They could have called it a Transport Pilot in Command rating, would that also have solved the problem? There is not much difference to the ATP ride in a piston twin than a commercial multi ride either, its essentially a repeat checkride. Very little about the testing standards would make one truly more airline ready. Lets remember the PIC was PF on the Colgan accident, and how he pulled back without releasing back pressure through a shaker and pusher. The FO had more than 1500 hrs. Common practice then in recurrent training was a power out of a stall recovery while maintaining altitude. A 1500 hr FO is the solution from right field, hence knee-jerk. Almost seems as if the next time a regional had an accident this rule was on the waiting list, even if the FO had 10000 hrs.

 

So is that to say before this rule, a 5000hr FO with a Commercial license is less qualified because he never got a license that has the worlds "airline" and "transport" on it? I get what you're saying, but I don't think the argument you're making holds any water in resolving the situation. I think it's more about the ink in your logbook (and to slight extent your degree) as apposed to the ink on your license...

About the article, with exception to the last few paragraphs, I thought it was pretty spot on, no?

 

I have always been of the opinion that if you want to fly transports a transport rating is required... Left or right seat.

There should, however, be an exception for "non-transport" aircraft engaged in certain operations... And I'm thinking more about decent paying jobs in B190s (Alaska) not GLA.

 

I get your point, but I'll stick to my position. In an word, yes. He is less qualified. He has lesser qualifications.

This is why we have check rides.


Is a student pilot who has 70 hours less qualified than a private pilot who has 60 hours? Yes. Is the holder of an associates degree with 130 credit hours less qualified than the holder of a bachelor's degree with 120? Yes.

Experience + certification = qualifications. If you haven't yet passed an ATP ride, why should I give you the benefit of the doubt based on your experience, and assume you have ATP-level skills? A certification ride isn't about qualification, it's about quantification.


I just applied for a job outside of the part-121 airlines. Guess what they asked for? An ATP. A 5000-hour FO with a Commercial certificate will likely have the required skills, but they required an ATP. Why? It's an additional level of qualification, and they're willing to limit their applicants to that pool. It's like a job requiring a Doctorate. Will a person with a Master's degree do fine? Probably. Are they qualified? No.

 

Here we go again, we have to rehash this accident over and over because some people just don't get it. How many hours did Renslow and Shaw have WHEN HIRED to fly for the airlines? Go find the NTSB report and you will find the answer. Hint: they had way less than ATP requirements. Another piece of the puzzle for those that still don't get it: both of these airmen would have had to instruct hundreds of more hours teaching basic airmanship which include STALLS. I capitalize the word stalls to help those that are still not connecting all the clues. The bottom line, this accident would not of happened if both of these pilots would have entered airline flying with ATP minimums.

 

To the student pilots out there or current regional guys who are for her article.... it's just 1500 hours! That gives you plenty of time to screw up while learning instead of doing the same thing with unsuspecting passengers in the back. I know were all sky gods and deserve a jet job at 250 hours, but they don't know that, there has to be a benchmark and 1500 is totally reasonable. Her article was describing short term gain by repealing the ATP rule but the issue here is deeper than that, not many want to be pro pilots. In a way this ATP rule will help get us the right compensation that we deserve. That will make this profession respectable again.

 

Let's talk about Renslow, since you brought him up. Do you know what his history is?

He started out like we all do, as a student pilot. That means that aside from a few solo hours, there's always someone next to him to bail him out if he should make a truly disastrous decision. He passed (eventually) the necessary check-rides and earned a Commercial certificate.

He then paid for training at Gulfstream. This means that as an FO, he always had someone next to him to catch any major blunders, or unsafe decisions.

He then got hired at Colgan. As an FO. And the Captain was always there to bail him out, should he screw up in a seriously massive way.

He then upgraded. He was flying left-seat in a part 121 operation, having spent very few hours having to actually make his own decisions in an airplane. And almost zero hours in an environment where his decisions were actually the ones that would stick.



To be honest, one of the biggest lessons I learned from being a CFI was built over time. It was the emphasis and clarification that the only level of safety that was going to be enforced, was mine. There's no one else to help anymore. Looking back, that was absolutely invaluable time spent as PIC. Not just flying around by myself where I can control (mostly) the situations that arise, but by flying with new and different people consistently, who will always do the unexpected.