Interesting post Eric, thank you for providing the medical perspective to this all.I'm sure it is the same with surgeons, although you would know better. I can't imagine a surgeon doubting his abilities before splitting someone open.

Doctors spend a great deal of their life working with uncertainty. In the aviation world, no one flies passengers unless they're fully trained and capable of taking off and landing the plane under normal circumstances. When an adverse incident occurs, it's a major issue.I had a (very minor) procedure performed in hospital this week. The doctor performing it had done it twice before (possibly just assisting). He didn't really know how to do the minor op in question. Amusingly, he said the 'f word' out loud during a tricky moment (pilots may too, but usually not to the pax). Stitches came undone after a day and I kind of went swimming in an amoeba-infested Pilbara rockpool yesterday, so my open wound may not do so well.Look, as long as the amoebas don't consume the whole arm I'm cool with all that. It fits the traditional 'see one, do one, teach one' ethos of medicine, which whilst old fashioned is still not too far from reality in some cases (like this). But can you imagine 'see one, do one, teach one' as an approach in aviation?The medical profession is belatedly recognising that very large number of errors occur, many of which are fatal, and that this is not a particularly good thing. Slow progress is being made but serious adverse events are still extremely common in comparison to aviation, and more often swept under the carpet ('medicine - we bury our mistakes').It's not that doctors are 'worse' than pilots, it's just a field with much greater uncertainty. It's not that you would want to 'doubt' yourself excessively in medicine, but an insightful surgeon will know that he often doesn't know what's going on with a patient, and that unexpected post op 'bad stuff happening' is going to occur at a pretty high rate. In addition to this, many doctors will spend a fair bit of time working outside their area of true competence, which should be rare in aviation.Anyway, Eric, if my amoebic lymphangitis starts progressing tonight I'll give you a call, OK?:)P.S. as for which profession is 'harder' - hours in medicine are not necessarily always great, but pilots do more early mornings. Personally I think medicine is easier lifestyle wise, but an ortho resident may not agree.

I've been friends with a few doctors who have their own planes and love flying, we've never had this conversation before.. Mutual respect.. This ongoing arguement reminds me of my ex wife who said her job as a waitress was harder than my flight training.. I just shrugged it off, then divorced her... Haha..

Zach, I agree with you on a lot, but don't take things so offensively, really. I understand you spent a lot of money. So did we all. I just managed to escape going to a large aviation university, so I avoided that cost.To be honest, Congress shot us all in the foot when they passed the bill requiring an ATP (a test originally meant to test fitness for captaincy) to sit right seat, part 121. So, essentially, Congress did make it worthless.What does my COMM get me? The potential to be a CFI, a banner tower, or a crop duster. Not much else. Even if it did, the min hours requirements are pretty high now, so again. I'd support the idea that it's relatively worthless.Are you a better pilot than a PPL, in general? Probably.Your IR guy without COMM? Probably.As I always say:Offense is what you make of it. It's a conscious decision. Get upset or let it go. Let it go man. The world isn't out to get you, especially with words. Words only have the meaning you give them.(The above isn't meant to be condescending)

As to whether you Congress "shot you in the foot" with the atpl requirement is debateable. For the most part north of the 49th having the atpl while not being a legal requirement (comm with the IATRA written will do)it is almost a necessity to not being screened out when resumes are screened by whoever is doing initial selection.....once again dependent on pilot supply/availability, individuals other qualifications/experience and the sales job you do on presenting yourself......and being flexible on start date. Over the years i have heard stories of people being called a day or two before a course start date after after a first round selection for the course backed out and the company had a seat to fill.Even if your first flying job is not what you had in mind it is still much easier to find another when you're flying somewhere and making contacts and building experience.The first flight i did that got me a paycheck was in a cessna 172 on floats with natural resources officer doing a black bear survey. Still remember just about all of that flight including being on the dock listening to the loons.Dave

Edited February 5, 201214 yr by dbw1

I've been friends with a few doctors who have their own planes and love flying, we've never had this conversation before.. Mutual respect.. This ongoing arguement reminds me of my ex wife who said her job as a waitress was harder than my flight training.. I just shrugged it off, then divorced her... Haha..

Lol the last line... :)Btw, I don't think we're having an arguement, just an interesting discussion. Medicine is often compared to aviation, mainly because both are high stakes professions where errors occur.

As to whether you Congress "shot you in the foot" with the atpl requirement is debateable.

Was this actually passed? Last I heard they were talking about requiring 1500 hours for the right seat, but an ATP ticket wasnt required, yet. Im not even sure the 1500 was passed, cant seem to find any definitive info on it.

As to whether you Congress "shot you in the foot" with the atpl requirement is debateable. For the most part north of the 49th having the atpl while not being a legal requirement (comm with the IATRA written will do)it is almost a necessity to not being screened out when resumes are screened by whoever is doing initial selection.....once again dependent on pilot supply/availability, individuals other qualifications/experience and the sales job you do on presenting yourself......and being flexible on start date. Over the years i have heard stories of people being called a day or two before a course start date after after a first round selection for the course backed out and the company had a seat to fill.Even if your first flying job is not what you had in mind it is still much easier to find another when you're flying somewhere and making contacts and building experience.The first flight i did that got me a paycheck was in a cessna 172 on floats with natural resources officer doing a black bear survey. Still remember just about all of that flight including being on the dock listening to the loons.Dave

I see your point Dave, and I agree with you that often times the requirements for the airlines - hours-wise - are higher than just a commercial certificate, but that should be up to the airlines. If I see someone with a high amount of skill/aptitude/DM/etc, I should be able to pick him up to sit in the right seat. The thing that really gets me upset about the decision by Congress to make it mandatory is that it's a typical Congress knee-jerk reaction. First, they created the FAA to do the regulating because the FAA is supposed to have specific knowledge about aviation, that Congressmen don't (and that shows in their decision to undercut the FAA). Instead, they undercut the FAA in a knee-jerk reaction, partially regarding CJC3407 and the training issue that stemmed from it (before the NTSB released their report). What did the NTSB find? The ATP-rated captain was a major factor in the crash. So, clearly forcing all pilots to have an ATPL before even entering 121 life is the fix, right? Please...The other thing that bothers me is that the ATP was written/designed to show the competency of an individual for the captain position, having trained under an ATP-rated captain themselves. Essentially, an FO could get in with a commercial at a minimum (speaking from a regulatory sense), and learn while on the job from being paired with an ATP-rated captain. Now, the learning is relegated to classroom and books. Anyone who's been in anything related to teaching would say that move is regressive, as hands-on learning has the effect of intensity (FOI - learning is best accomplished from the actual thing than the substitute). It may also have a negative effect on the number of pilots, as some don't like the lower hour jobs some consider "on the way" to 121 ops (banner towing/aerial photog/instructing/etc). That could work in some pilots' favor, though, as the people who take the "on the way" jobs tend to have less Shiny Jet Syndrome and actually care for what they do (but that's a baseless stat from my brain, no data on that)Do not get me wrong here - having an ATPL is worth praise, especially if you worked hard to get it. I'm not saying it's worthless. I'm saying it isn't the only mark of airmanship. I've seen comm-only pilots with better skill/aptitude/DM/etc than some ATPs, just as I've seen ATPs with some great experience, but lower hours over ATPs with thousands of them.Hours and licences mean nothing if you don't know how to apply them. It is actually possible to get all the ratings and just skim by, and not actually be as good as you should be. Ask anybody who's worked on a line if they've ever thought "Ya know, I really hate that capt, because he [X/Y/Z]. How did he ever get his ticket?"I'm not going to argue that I am one, or that a lot of people are, but there are some people who are prodigies in the aviation sense. These are the guys who got their tickets with lower hours than the rest; their CFIs didn't think twice about sending them off solo; they didn't fail any checks (and if they did, they took it correctly, trained hard to fix the problem, and nailed it on the very next check); and they're methodical and safe, yet efficient just by their very nature. Why should we hold them back? I'm not saying we should automatically toss them on the line with comm minimums, but if the airline interviews them and runs them through their paces and sees them on par with the other higher-hour applicants, why not?I'm not saying anything is below me. I'd fly the Cessna I'm flying in the rest of my life if I got paid for it. I'm probably going to take a summer off from my job in the next few years just to tow banners for a few months because I can, and it'd be an excuse to get my tailwheel. I'm a technology instructor for my primary job, so I think being an instructor could be cool. I'll fly anything, so I don't take it personally as a huge setback that Congress can occasionally act collectively idiotically. I do believe that it was a stupid decision, however.Having Congress make aviation decisions is almost like trying to learn about aviation from the media.

Edited February 6, 201214 yr by scandinavian13

That's about as thorough a point one can make about the issue. Are the regulatory loopholes (i.e., reduction in required time limits) released yet? I remember hearing something about exemptions for students of joint bachelors programs, or students with bachelors degrees or higher, being declared recruitable by 121 operators under less stringent guidelines.

My buddy just got hired this week by ExpressJet as an FO. He's 22, finished his Degree last year. He's only been flight training for 5 years.I on the other hand have been flying since 2005, have the same credentials, and my best bet at being paid to fly will be earning a CFI - hopefully - by the end of the year.Another buddy of both of us has been flying since 2007, wanted to be an Airline Pilot, but ran out of money before getting his degree or finishing all his ratings and works at the airport checking baggage.Aviation industry in a nutshell. It's expensive, time-consuming, and there's never a guarantee you'll get any further ahead you are now, no matter how much time and money you put in: But man is it fun!

I see your point Dave, and I agree with you that often times the requirements for the airlines - hours-wise - are higher than just a commercial certificate, but that should be up to the airlines. If I see someone with a high amount of skill/aptitude/DM/etc, I should be able to pick him up to sit in the right seat. The thing that really gets me upset about the decision by Congress to make it mandatory is that it's a typical Congress knee-jerk reaction. First, they created the FAA to do the regulating because the FAA is supposed to have specific knowledge about aviation, that Congressmen don't (and that shows in their decision to undercut the FAA). Instead, they undercut the FAA in a knee-jerk reaction, partially regarding CJC3407 and the training issue that stemmed from it (before the NTSB released their report). What did the NTSB find? The ATP-rated captain was a major factor in the crash. So, clearly forcing all pilots to have an ATPL before even entering 121 life is the fix, right? Please...The other thing that bothers me is that the ATP was written/designed to show the competency of an individual for the captain position, having trained under an ATP-rated captain themselves. Essentially, an FO could get in with a commercial at a minimum (speaking from a regulatory sense), and learn while on the job from being paired with an ATP-rated captain. Now, the learning is relegated to classroom and books. Anyone who's been in anything related to teaching would say that move is regressive, as hands-on learning has the effect of intensity (FOI - learning is best accomplished from the actual thing than the substitute). It may also have a negative effect on the number of pilots, as some don't like the lower hour jobs some consider "on the way" to 121 ops (banner towing/aerial photog/instructing/etc). That could work in some pilots' favor, though, as the people who take the "on the way" jobs tend to have less Shiny Jet Syndrome and actually care for what they do (but that's a baseless stat from my brain, no data on that)Do not get me wrong here - having an ATPL is worth praise, especially if you worked hard to get it. I'm not saying it's worthless. I'm saying it isn't the only mark of airmanship. I've seen comm-only pilots with better skill/aptitude/DM/etc than some ATPs, just as I've seen ATPs with some great experience, but lower hours over ATPs with thousands of them.Hours and licences mean nothing if you don't know how to apply them. It is actually possible to get all the ratings and just skim by, and not actually be as good as you should be. Ask anybody who's worked on a line if they've ever thought "Ya know, I really hate that capt, because he [X/Y/Z]. How did he ever get his ticket?"I'm not going to argue that I am one, or that a lot of people are, but there are some people who are prodigies in the aviation sense. These are the guys who got their tickets with lower hours than the rest; their CFIs didn't think twice about sending them off solo; they didn't fail any checks (and if they did, they took it correctly, trained hard to fix the problem, and nailed it on the very next check); and they're methodical and safe, yet efficient just by their very nature. Why should we hold them back? I'm not saying we should automatically toss them on the line with comm minimums, but if the airline interviews them and runs them through their paces and sees them on par with the other higher-hour applicants, why not?I'm not saying anything is below me. I'd fly the Cessna I'm flying in the rest of my life if I got paid for it. I'm probably going to take a summer off from my job in the next few years just to tow banners for a few months because I can, and it'd be an excuse to get my tailwheel. I'm a technology instructor for my primary job, so I think being an instructor could be cool. I'll fly anything, so I don't take it personally as a huge setback that Congress can occasionally act collectively idiotically. I do believe that it was a stupid decision, however.Having Congress make aviation decisions is almost like trying to learn about aviation from the media.

Hi Kyle,Very good post. Man, there's so many ways to look at a subject like this. For the guy/girl in the right seat as to what licence they should hold it is a charged topic. You're going to get older guys like me who value experience to the nth degree. On the other side of the coin there are some truly gifted low timers. I think for said low timer to be effective in the cockpit will get down to a company's culture - good solid CRM and captains who are great mentors etc. Where that doesn't exist having experience will go a long way to contributing to a safe, effective cockpit environment. You have to know when to speak up which within reason is any time something doesn't seem right but not something happenning that is simply a clash of personalities but not a safety issue....if you can understand what I mean. I've ofted kidded that I'm not being paid to fly but rather to know when to stay home.You have to look at the finished versions of accident reports to ask yourself whether more experience in either seat might have changed the outcome. Total hours don't always tell the story but more what you've done with them. Some thoughts for what they are worth. It's a great way to earn a living. All the best,Dave

Hi Kyle,Very good post. Man, there's so many ways to look at a subject like this. For the guy/girl in the right seat as to what licence they should hold it is a charged topic. You're going to get older guys like me who value experience to the nth degree. On the other side of the coin there are some truly gifted low timers. I think for said low timer to be effective in the cockpit will get down to a company's culture - good solid CRM and captains who are great mentors etc. Where that doesn't exist having experience will go a long way to contributing to a safe, effective cockpit environment. You have to know when to speak up which within reason is any time something doesn't seem right but not something happenning that is simply a clash of personalities but not a safety issue....if you can understand what I mean. I've ofted kidded that I'm not being paid to fly but rather to know when to stay home.You have to look at the finished versions of accident reports to ask yourself whether more experience in either seat might have changed the outcome. Total hours don't always tell the story but more what you've done with them. Some thoughts for what they are worth. It's a great way to earn a living. All the best,Dave

Thanks Dave. There really are many different sides to the argument here, and it doesn't help that there's no real good, all-encompassing metric to evaluate pilots. As we both mentioned, hours can only give so much. It's what's in them that matters.This whole thread really makes me wonder if some who've commented are in the right business. If you're not handed everything, it can be a hard road, and you do get treated like trash in some cases, but that's not to say it isn't probably one of the more rewarding careers out there.

Aviation industry in a nutshell. It's expensive, time-consuming, and there's never a guarantee you'll get any further ahead you are now, no matter how much time and money you put in: But man is it fun!

"The future is about 30 minutes from now, and long-term is about an hour and a half."

I figure I'll chime in since I was in a lot of your guy's shoes a few years back.Growing up, I always wanted to be a pilot. Well I did achieve that. I got my PPL a year and a half ago. One of my best experiences ever and by far my best accomplishment so far in life.However, there was a point where I had to realized weather or not this was something I could see myself doing for the next 30 or 40 years of my life as a career. It took a lot of thinking and looking into, and in the end I decided to go the ATC route and have never looked back. Enrolling in a CTI school and switching to the "dark side" of aviation is something that a lot of you guys will probably end up doing, trust me. My freshmen year in college, I met a lot of people that wanted to go the commercial aviation route like myself and many others on this site. 3 years later when we are all getting ready to graduate, I'd say about 90% of them switched to ATC.Just as being a commercial pilot for a living takes A LOT of compassion and determination, which I did not have for it, not everyone is built to be a controller either. It definitely takes an aquired set of skills to be able to sit behind a scope and push tin.If someone asked me if it was worth it to try and become a commercial pilot, I could not give a yes or no answer. Each person is different when it comes to that decision. For me, it turned out to be a great choice to say no. In 10 year will I regret it? I highly doubt it. The pleasure that I get from controlling airplanes is just as much as when I was flying to earn my PPL, if not more.Take my post for what it's worth.

If your not passionate about flying then airlines would not be good. It would become very mundane. If you love flying it is great but after years of doing it your not dying to go to the airport and fly,

however that would be true in every profession, but the enjoyment never really goes away. It took me about 10 years from private to airlines and I had to bust my butt to get there. It has been a joy and privilage ever since. I just bought a used 997 turbo with cash and have averaged 15-18 days off a month for the last 8 years. Captains here earn between 220 and 300k per year. so please tell me how this job is bad again????

Well, to make it short. It's a joke in the USA. You better fly GA's over there. Over here in Europe it's just great. It's still not easy but the working conditions are much better.

Well, to make it short. It's a joke in the USA. You better fly GA's over there. Over here in Europe it's just great. It's still not easy but the working conditions are much better.

 

Its a joke being an airline pilot in the US, please explain that one to me???