midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yeah, but most of these threads tend to be about understanding rules, not needing rules.
Must Safety Pilot Have Complex Endorsement?
- Thread starter MBDiagMan
- Start date
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
The ATP-ASEL is about the most worthless rating ever. I cannot name a single situation for which it could possibly be used.
OTOH, if I happen to do something stupid someday, the FAA would hold me to a higher standard because of it.
So, why would I work on a certificate whose only outcome afterwards is negative? Nah, I'll do something that actually has a chance of being useful, like adding Airplane Multiengine Sea to my Commercial certificate.
RussR
En-Route
There are some inter-island airlines (not charter) that operate single-engine airplanes, for example Mokulele Airlines in Hawaii:
https://www.mokuleleairlines.com/our-fleet/
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Ah, but they don't require an ATP.
For normal part 91 operations:
I already have the commercial and the instrument, so barring any other requirements, I'm already good to go.
Now, Mokulele is operating as a Part 135 scheduled carrier, in which case 135.243 is the applicable reg:
The Caravan is not a turbojet, nor is it multi-engine, nor does it have a passenger seat configuration of 10 seats or more (which is irrelevant because it's not a jet anyway) so no ATP needed there. Later parts of the reg specify other qualifications, but the commercial+instrument is just as good as the ATP is there.
For a 91K fractional, the reg in question is 91.1053, which only requires ATP for multiengine turbine aircraft.
121 requires an ATP, but who is operating a single-engine airplane in 121 service? Probably nobody. IIRC, that isn't required until you have 20 or more passenger seats, and I'm not aware of any single for which that's the case.
midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
Interesting reg apropos your point:
§ 121.159 Single-engine airplanes prohibited.
No certificate holder may operate a single-engine airplane under this part.
I checked the exemption database. None listed (doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one)No certificate holder may operate a single-engine airplane under this part.
I suspect the value of the single-engine ATP might lie in self-marketing for corporate or 135 jobs (when there isn't a shortage) or for the personal satisfaction or perceived necessity of having an official confirmation of your skill level. The (few) single-engine ATP folks I know of fit into the latter category.
Last edited:
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
There used to be a requirement for Part 135 scheduled Operations to have an ATP PIC...even in a Bonanza. But you are correct, it’s pretty much worthless now.The ATP-ASEL is about the most worthless rating ever. I cannot name a single situation for which it could possibly be used.
OTOH, if I happen to do something stupid someday, the FAA would hold me to a higher standard because of it.
So, why would I work on a certificate whose only outcome afterwards is negative? Nah, I'll do something that actually has a chance of being useful, like adding Airplane Multiengine Sea to my Commercial certificate.
As far as holding you to a higher standard because of it, I know that can happen...do you (or anybody) have examples of what the higher standard is?
Full disclosure...I hold a ATP ASEL privileges...I got them so I could act as PIC in a King Air.
RussR
En-Route
I stand corrected, and educated. You obviously did more research into it than I did. Thanks.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Well, let's say you accidentally bust a stadium TFR. If you're a private pilot, you might get off with a warning, while a commercial pilot might get a 30-day suspension and an ATP might get a 60-day. I'm sure the guidelines are in FSIMS somewhere... Maybe @ARFlyer can enlighten us.
Full disclosure...I hold a ATP ASEL privileges...I got them so I could act as PIC in a King Air.
A single-engine King Air?
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
ok...that would make sense.
Goofy deal...the day before my upgrade checkride, my boss remembered that company policy was all King Air captains were ATPs. I didn’t have my written done, so he said we’d do my ATP on my next checkride, which happened to be in the Bonanza.A single-engine King Air?
As he said, “Well, I guess an ATP is an ATP!”
ARFlyer
En-Route
Well, let's say you accidentally bust a stadium TFR. If you're a private pilot, you might get off with a warning, while a commercial pilot might get a 30-day suspension and an ATP might get a 60-day. I'm sure the guidelines are in FSIMS somewhere... Maybe @ARFlyer can enlighten us.
A single-engine King Air?
2150.3C. Chapter 9
Enjoy the read!
midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
If it's a good reason to avoid an ATP, I guess it's also a good reason to stop flying altogether since a pilot with more experience is also held to a "higher standard," regardless of certificate level.2150.3C. Chapter 9
Enjoy the read!
For those interested in what it says and don't want to wade through it. It's part of a discussion of aggravating and mitigating factors.
3) Level of Certificate and Experience. Certificate holders with a higher level of certificate as well as those with more experience are held to a higher standard of safety. The level of certificate held and amount of experience serve only as aggravating factors. Note that in addition to serving as an aggravating factor, the level of certificate held by a violator and the violator's overall experience may be relevant in assessing whether a violation rose to the level of reckless or intentional conduct.
(i) Holders of a higher level of certificate are held to a higher standard. For example, commercial pilots are held to a higher standard than private pilots and airline transport pilots are held to an even higher standard than commercial pilots. Similarly, a mechanic who is the holder
of an inspection authorization is held to a higher standard than a mechanic who is not. Air carrier certificate holders and their personnel are held to the highest standard of safety.
(ii) Certificate holders with more experience are held to a higher standard. For example, a pilot with 2,000 hours will be held to a higher standard than a pilot with 200 hours. A commercial operator that has held its certificate for ten years will be held to a higher standard than a newly certificated operator. (My emphasis'
(i) Holders of a higher level of certificate are held to a higher standard. For example, commercial pilots are held to a higher standard than private pilots and airline transport pilots are held to an even higher standard than commercial pilots. Similarly, a mechanic who is the holder
of an inspection authorization is held to a higher standard than a mechanic who is not. Air carrier certificate holders and their personnel are held to the highest standard of safety.
(ii) Certificate holders with more experience are held to a higher standard. For example, a pilot with 2,000 hours will be held to a higher standard than a pilot with 200 hours. A commercial operator that has held its certificate for ten years will be held to a higher standard than a newly certificated operator. (My emphasis'
Sounds a lot like real life, huh? "Your brother is just a little boy, but you should know better."
midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
BTW, it's not a 1-to-1 kind of thing. Experience is one of a number of aggravating and mitigating factors. The way they work is very similar to any penalty process, including presumptive sentencing in criminal cases.
(Over)simplifying a bit, The 2150.3 FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program internal Order establishes ranges of penalties for various violations. If you look at the Order @ARFlyer linked, Figure 9-2 lists Low, Moderate, High and Maximum ranges for penalties. For example, for certificate suspensions, a "Low" penalty range is 20-60 days suspension; the maximum range is 150-270 days.
Figure 9-9 lists various types of violations and ranks them by severity. For example, screwing up your taxi and having a runway incursion is Severity 2.
Within each Severity level, Figure 9-1 ranks the conduct as either "careless" or "reckless and intentional" for the purpose of applying a penalty range. Our runway incursion due to a brief moment of inattention might put the pilot in the 60-120 day Careless/Moderate penalty range; a more flagrant violation, in the High 90-150 day Reckless/High range.
Where experience, certificate level and other aggravating and mitigating factors come into play is what the specific penalty should be within the range and even whether it should be above or below the range. The FAA generally starts in the center of the range. The aggravating and mitigating factors move the penalty up and down within the range. Staying with our "careless" incursion, the presumptive penalty within the 60-120 Moderate range is 90 days. The newly minted private pilot who rarely gets into Class D and misunderstood the instruction might get closer to 60. The pilot with 1500 hours, most of them based at that Class D, can expect closer to the 120.
That's really oversimplifying it. I'm not taking such things as the Compliance Program, Administrative Actions and other dispositions short of formal certificate actions, or "plea bargaining." Also, understand we are talking about "presumptive" penalties. There can be activities which take one out of the range altogether. For example, a pattern of repeated violations is an aggravating factor which could lead to an an bring a pilot above the presumptive penalty range and even into the most severe FAA certificate sanction of all, revocation.
And no, it's not an exact science.