ATP CTP Course

Fixtur

Fixtur

Dunning-Kruger Expert
I'm currently sitting in an online ATP CTP course. I have 38 more hours of this.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the captain of that Colgan air flight for increasing pitch after a stick shaker activation and thereby causing me and every other poor sap to have to spend $4000 to sit through this, even though many of us already hold turbojet types.

Fixtur

edit: here's actual footage of me -
 
Last edited:
And some peeps in CAP who were already in your shoes on their way to jets didn't believe me when I stated this will surely change the industry

And I was a lowly CAP "Safety Officer" with a whopping roughly 700 hours back then with an ASEL/AMEL/ Inst/A&P on my way to a taildragger endorsement

Guess I'll have get another PT gig on top of my non flying, supper supporting gig...since what is illustrated here many of will be in non flying gigs for a bit

So how how is the ATP-CTP course? 40 + hours??
 
40 hours of ground and 10 in a sim. If you've already been doing this for a living, it's really redundant information that's already covered at the recurrents you're going to once or twice a year. Its probably a useful primer if you're a 1500 hour CFI who's never flown anything but light GA, but it's nothing you wouldn't learn at your first initial anyway.

My verdict (and that of many others before me) - it's a $4000 largely useless hoop we now have to jump through because after Colgan, Congress had to "do something".
 
Last edited:
Not to say I didn't learn anything or was not refreshed on certain topics, but if you have been through an initial course it is redundant. And things that would make people better faster-airplane pilots they skim over. In house evaluation questions and test were a joke. Of the ten sim hours, about 2/3 of scheduled time is used, the rest is essentially free.

I wish there was some sort of waiver of credible experience to take a short course or not do it at all. The things you would learn in a 135 indoc flying turboprops/jets at wet commercial hours is virtually the same material, if not more difficult.

Oh well, they got the money. I get the principal even if I think the process could use some work.
 
Fixtur said:
40 hours of ground and 10 in a sim. If you've already been doing this for a living, it's really redundant information that's already covered at the recurrents you're going to once or twice a year. Its probably a useful primer if you're a 1500 hour CFI who's never flown anything but light GA, but it's nothing you wouldn't learn at your first initial anyway.

My verdict (and that of many others before me) - it's a $4000 largely useless hoop we now have to jump through because after Colgan, Congress had to "do something".
Click to expand...
Maybe instead of congress blame the training centers that are more interested in checking the boxes and taking your money than in actually teaching you something?
 
Roger Roger said:
Maybe instead of congress blame the training centers that are more interested in checking the boxes and taking your money than in actually teaching you something?
Click to expand...
Yup, I used to work at one of those training centers and expressed interest in teaching it, until I heard what it was and I quickly lost any interest. Though it wasn’t just the material that was dry, a lot of people came in with poor attitudes with no intention of learning.
 
Don't get me wrong -- I'm here to learn. I'm paying attention and if there's something for me to pick up I'll get it. The program (so far) seems better than average in terms of material and presentation.

Just that for me, with my experience, this is basically another recurrent or indoc, which I had to pay for and take time off to sit through. I think @n57flyguy has it right - there should be a waiver or something for experience, similar to the carveout for RATP.

Fix
 
Ajax said:
Yup, I used to work at one of those training centers and expressed interest in teaching it, until I heard what it was and I quickly lost any interest. Though it wasn’t just the material that was dry, a lot of people came in with poor attitudes with no intention of learning.
Click to expand...
It should be "stupid airline pilot stories" with a side of CRM, TEM and human factors.
 
Fixtur said:
I'm currently sitting in an online ATP CTP course. I have 38 more hours of this.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the captain of that Colgan air flight for increasing pitch after a stick shaker activation and thereby causing me and every other poor sap to have to spend $4000 to sit through this, even though many of us already hold turbojet types.

Fixtur

edit: here's actual footage of me -
Click to expand...

I thoroughly enjoyed ATP-CTP, and my first 121 INDOC. But I’m also kind of a geek.
 
Fixtur said:
I'm currently sitting in an online ATP CTP course. I have 38 more hours of this.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the captain of that Colgan air flight for increasing pitch after a stick shaker activation and thereby causing me and every other poor sap to have to spend $4000 to sit through this, even though many of us already hold turbojet types.

Fixtur

edit: here's actual footage of me -
Click to expand...



To be faaair, I still recall in 2007 initial CRJ training, being taught to ride the stick shaker, including slight back pressure even, for an approach to stall in landing configuration (gear/flaps down). Minimize altitude loss was #1. I remember thinking how silly it was, why not just momentarily push the nose down, reduce AOA, stop stick shaker, and get out that way. Cooperate to graduate. But I do know after the truth of the Colgan crash was known, our entire stall series profiles on the CRJ were changed.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
To be faaair, I still recall in 2007 initial CRJ training, being taught to ride the stick shaker, including slight back pressure even, for an approach to stall in landing configuration (gear/flaps down). Minimize altitude loss was #1. I remember thinking how silly it was, why not just momentarily push the nose down, reduce AOA, stop stick shaker, and get out that way. Cooperate to graduate. But I do know after the truth of the Colgan crash was known, our entire stall series profiles on the CRJ were changed.
Click to expand...
Yep. That’s what they told us in CTP. Old PTS standards were to minimize altitude loss. Instructor said everyone used to pull back some. That all changed after Colgan.
 
And that's what I've been taught since my first flight lesson - fly out of the stall first, then worry about hitting the ground. Because if you don't break the stall, you'll certainly hit the ground.

The only time I've ever been told to ride the shaker is in a microburst escape maneuver.

In any case, it doesn't take a $4000 dollar class and 10 hours in a sim to teach "unload the airplane first, then maneuver". Anyone who's played even a few hours of a combat flight sim knows this.
 
mwflyer said:
I thoroughly enjoyed ATP-CTP, and my first 121 INDOC. But I’m also kind of a geek.
Click to expand...

First indoc was fun even with all the stress because you're so dialed into all the new language, rules, company specifics, etc. But then it's done. Walking into the CTP post part 135 indoc/initial where you have seen literally the same videos, heard about the same accidents, and covered the same emphasis areas (don't buy a house in Buffalo with others, don't belly flop into the ocean with others), now have time in the aircraft at said company in the operational world - while potentially footing the bill? I think thats an honest gripe about the process. I suppose the LCD is in effect, in that everyone sucks, some suck less but cannot be accounted for, so they still suck.


-an RATP applicant from a prestigious FAA approved university, and largly expensive one, maybe -short course/exemption.
- Military exemption/short course
- prior part 135 exemption/short course
- prior part 91 jet/turbiprop exemption/short course
- prior part 121 exemption/short course

I suppose when life was good and regionals/employers were paying for it (some still are and looks like they will continue too), it was less of an issue to get hung up about minus the loss of efficiency and cost for the company. Exemptions and short courses would help that - exempt? When can you start class? Short course? That's XYZ sooner you can be in class. Part 61/91 light GA guys/gals probably would be served the best by the training as a matter of exposure.

Keep in mind this is just to be eligible to take the written exam. Ridiculous - why can't any applicant take the written whenever they want? Schools offering the CTP make a point to tell you that it does not prepare you for the written. But tell you to study before hand to take the written when you get the cert done, at their facilities, after 7-8 days of instructor war stories for 8 hours a day. When this first came out it was essentially just another expensive barrier to entry and loss of efficiency in a career field where those exist. Either way its Pay-to-play with incredibly low standards (pass a short written) and no evaluation.

I am all for the "training" - and I mean exposure of the ATP-CTP. It's needed in some formal concept, but I am also for making it worth while and not a rubber stamp-all waste of time and resources for nearly all involved.
 
Geeezus N57flyguy

Why introduce common sense into this?

Seriously I am a rusty GA pilot and this level of spending 4to 10K ...haz made quite a cottage industry for all the high speed and brick and mortar colleges......

That maybe 1-2 day class on this might be all it takes...but written exams written 14 ways from Sunday from a $49 USD ASA/ Jepp etc ebook or hardbound

Wellll...one gets the idea
 
n57flyguy said:
First indoc was fun even with all the stress because you're so dialed into all the new language, rules, company specifics, etc. But then it's done. Walking into the CTP post part 135 indoc/initial where you have seen literally the same videos, heard about the same accidents, and covered the same emphasis areas (don't buy a house in Buffalo with others, don't belly flop into the ocean with others), now have time in the aircraft at said company in the operational world - while potentially footing the bill? I think thats an honest gripe about the process. I suppose the LCD is in effect, in that everyone sucks, some suck less but cannot be accounted for, so they still suck.
Click to expand...
Last indoc I did, the instructor asked “alright, has anyone NOT flown a Part 121 airplane before? Except you, intern-now-line-guy.”

It was a highly satisfactory indoc experience. Complete, of course, but efficient.

Fixtur said:
In any case, it doesn't take a $4000 dollar class and 10 hours in a sim to teach "unload the airplane first, then maneuver". Anyone who's played even a few hours of a combat flight sim knows this.
Click to expand...
A half-hour in a Decathlon would work just as well, if not better, frankly.

MikeD said:
Reading this crap makes me glad I got the ATP done for MEL in the mid 90s, since the other ATP didn’t require this.
Click to expand...
I rather enjoyed getting my ATP as God intended: in the EMB-120 simulator in Long Beach.

Apophis said:
Actually, me as well. Probably because it was and still is my only time in a jet (737NG) sim. All the rest of my multi thousand hour turbine time is dirty, filthy beer-can turboprops.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, I’d like to get a 737 type rating at some point. I’m far less wild about actually having to FLY the thing day in and day out, mind you.

That said, dirty beer-can t-prop time is best time, and I rather miss it, myself.
 
stroboli62 said:
Geeezus N57flyguy

Why introduce common sense into this?

Seriously I am a rusty GA pilot and this level of spending 4to 10K ...haz made quite a cottage industry for all the high speed and brick and mortar colleges......

That maybe 1-2 day class on this might be all it takes...but written exams written 14 ways from Sunday from a $49 USD ASA/ Jepp etc ebook or hardbound

Wellll...one gets the idea
Click to expand...

Heh - because it needs it. The A320 sim was fun. Exposure to busy airport ground operations, pushbacks, low-vis taxi, etc. is a waste of people's time any money. It's my opinion things like that should be taught by the respective operator running their checklists, their CRM procedures, their flows, etc. In my opinion it is not incredibly useful for exercise purpose without specific standards.

The reason we were there is because of stalls/recoveries in multiple environments. Create exposure to that reason. A few other topics would be helpful but I would like to see it streamlined, shortened, or waived.

I'm sympathetic to the cause of this course but I believe the construct needs updating without violating that principal.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Last indoc I did, the instructor asked “alright, has anyone NOT flown a Part 121 airplane before? Except you, intern-now-line-guy.”

It was a highly satisfactory indoc experience. Complete, of course, but efficient.


A half-hour in a Decathlon would work just as well, if not better, frankly.


I rather enjoyed getting my ATP as God intended: in the EMB-120 simulator in Long Beach.


Oddly enough, I’d like to get a 737 type rating at some point. I’m far less wild about actually having to FLY the thing day in and day out, mind you.

That said, dirty beer-can t-prop time is best time, and I rather miss it, myself.
Click to expand...

My first order of business would be waive the ATP-CTP specifically to those who have flown the Brasilia. :)
 
n57flyguy said:
My first order of business would be waive the ATP-CTP specifically to those who have flown the Brasilia. :)
Click to expand...
Turboprops, and I can hear the pure-jet types whining, are a wonderful "finishing school" indeed.

I still think that a more effective thing than EET would be to put everyone in a Decathlon for an hour, but this old fart is basically what I see myself doing in retirement too:


'course, the CAEs and the FlightSafeties or whomevers of the world wouldn't have made their mint on "upgrading" simulators neither then so
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top