Posted on 02/12/2014 8:07:39 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Since the old system already had a great safety record, the airlines do not need the new system to prevent crashes.
As for the lack of young pilots...I’ve noticed a trend in teens showing no interest in learning to drive. They would rather play video games. Teens who do not want to learn to drive REALLY are not going to go $100K+ in debt to learn to fly!
“Since the old system already had a great safety record, “
You didn’t read my comments. The old system was based on airlines keeping the safety standards high, but as we get stupid in this country and let unqualified people become execs and managers we make dumb decisions that suffer safety. No one gets fired anymore if there is a crash, so who cares, right? Cut that training budget. Work pilots harder. Who cares, it isn’t my job in jeopardy if people get killed.
The Dumbing Down of America.
“The old system was based on airlines keeping the safety standards high...”
No. Commuter airlines had hired commercial, non-ATP pilots for years, and still had a great safety record. Someone with 700 hrs can still be a good pilot, and the traffic SYSTEM still provided an excellent margin of safety. A safe pilot does not require 1500 hours of flight time...
In answer to your statements talking about the 1500hrs, this is what I posted earlier: “The 1500hr requirement will force commuter airlines to require their applicants to be ATP-rated, meaning having polished skill-sets beyond a basic commercial ticket. That will affect safety.
I also point out: “While the 1500hrs thing isn’t a measure of pilot proficiency or safety, in and of itself, but add an ATP to the 1500hrs and you do improve safety.”
I include this observation: “1500hrs and still having a basic commercial/instrument ticket is just flying and flying and never really achieving the highest proficiency and capability. In my mind, any pilot with 1500hrs SHOULD be looking to earn that ATP otherwise (again in my mind) he is lazy.”
That affects safety.
What does ATC have to do with the safety of the pilot?
Basically, if given a choice between hiring a pilot with a basic commercial ticket versus hiring a guy that has an ATP, I'd pick the ATP because they are indeed safer. . .and with the glut of ATP-rated guys out there, they will work for the same pay on a commuter airlines as a basic commercial pilot.
The cost of learning to fly is way tooo high (thank you personal injury lawyers), so MOST major airline pilots received their training via the military. They don't pay to learn to fly, the get paid to learn to fly.
Average Joe civilian pilot pays his way to get a private ticket first. That cost will not go up if an ATP is required to fly commuter airlines. The Joe pilot will pay his way to earn a commercial and instructor ticket and from there fly short-hop deliveries in very small aircraft, instruct students. . .all geared toward logging hours and earning higher tickets, eventually earning an ATP.
Paying for an ATP out-right only happens if you are like a Saudi Prince with billions in the bank and can afford to pay the tab. So the "cost to learn to fly" will not go up because of the ATP requirement (the 1500hr requirement).
While the 1500hr requirement doesn't state “ATP,” that will be the result.
Not that many pilots get their ATP right at 1500 hrs. Many exceed 3000 hrs before they get the chance. I know loads of pilots without their ATP that are well past 3000 hrs. Considering it is not uncommon for a regional pilot to get 600-900 hrs in a year, it as also a bit silly to mandate 1500 hrs anyway as they will exceed 1500 hrs fairly quickly anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.