Earn the hours. Learn something. 250 hours is not enough to be responsible for 50 people in the back of an airliner.

An ATP is an instructor rating. Instructing is part of the job. The FAA will renew your instructor certs if your an ATP employed as a Captain in an Airline. Your instructing every F.O. you fly with, grooming them to be the next Captain, teaching by example.

AND 2 of those crashes had CHECK AIRMEN on the flight deck!

The FAA should inform so called analysts that those statistics doesn't distinguish between US and Foreign citizens. I know many US pilot license holders who don't live in the US!

I don't get paid for that. I get paid to manage the operation and mentor the younger pilots.

Sure, an ATP can give instruction, but every second of every trip is a little overboard in my opinion. It's really a firehose effect at this level for an inexperienced and ill-qualified FO. The amount of information needs to be metered and controlled. I'd like to be able to let my guard down over a four day trip and relax a bit and enjoy the trip.

If my airline decided to make me a check airman then I would agree with you. No over-ride, no instruction in my opinion (within reason).

I just flew an international long haul trip with a low time FO. It was too much work in my opinion.

Good point!..I dont see it ever happening..What if there is another
accident as a result of them changing the rule?..Way too much
liability

Not exactly. FAA isn't supposed to renew your instructor certificate based on just being an airline pilot, the POI or inspector is supposed to have direct knowledge of your instructing ability, rather than a random inspector or AST. This has slipped through the cracks from time to time though, so I don't blame anyone that has gotten it.
If you think about it, there is so much more a flight instructor can do, in terms of train a private student, commercial, and they have to stay on top of part 91 and 61 regulations, which is usually something that most ATPs don't. For the ones that ARE active instructors, this is probably not a huge issue, but if you just have it to "have it", that's what the FIRCs are for.

If you are going to your CMO office or you can have the ASI contact your CMO, it probably would be fine, but it's not supposed to be an "automatic renewal", this from the inspector's handbook (8900).

IMO, the whole DPE system is flawed. What does it indicate: On that day, in that aircraft, under those conditions, with that examiner, my private pilot applicant performed (or not) for a three hour period. I did 3000+ hours of primary instructing (gold seal CFI) and had applicants that I figured would pass with flying colors - nope, pink slips. Others that I did all I could for, and hoped for the best - passed without a glitch.

Then you have the financial incentive issue. In the 90's some examiners were making 100K a year just giving checkrides (when a private exam was $125). I don't know what the answer is. But after flying with someone for 40 hours you get a better glimpse at behavior and traits than a quick look see.

ACA had a pretty high failure rate on the CRJ at one point as well. To them it was the space shuttle. They gave us maintenance manuals at indoc. At JetBlue I get a lot of, "you don't need to know that." Which is great, but being old school, I'm still wondering what the answer is sometimes.

There is another thread on this same topic started several days ago I believe.

It boggles my mind why any pilot would be against the higher minimums rule.

Sully is speaking out on behalf of pilots...why would you guys not want that?

Can someone please explain this.

Agree 100%. Scientists and experienced flight instructors (career instructors) wince at the testing methodology used by the FAA to test pilots. A basic knowledge of statistics will tell you that a reasonable level of certainty, say 95%, cannot be achieved with less than about 30 samples taken from a purely random, consistent population. By contrast, the FAA has a pilot candidate taking a single checkride that will supposedly be representative of years of future aircraft operation, based on only one flight. No wonder airplanes crash.

A case study can be found in any college course- an instructor gives multiple closed book exams per semester, 4 or 5 usually, plus a final exam, plus they usually throw in a weighted score for homework grades, and after all that is calculated a final grade is established using a curve scatter because it is known that natural logarithms apply. Even with all that care and effort, students still complain "oh I got a B when I deserved an A". Imagine how random it would be if a final score were assigned using only one exam! At best you would get a ballpark idea such as, this candidate is alive or dead. Worst it is inadequate testing based on one (1) personal opinion on one (1) particular morning or afternoon.