Originally Posted by
pilotmike
I would concur with anyone disputing that a Commercial Pilot's Licence simply allows the holder to be paid for their flying, and that it has no bearing on their ability to fly safely, especially under adverse conditions.
Training for - and passing the tests - for gaining a Commercial licence give the far greater knowledge and skills to Commercial pilots, allowing them to make better, safer judgements, especially under commercial pressures. All Commercial pilots are tested thoroughly for their theoretical knowledge and their flying ability, as well as judgement to a greater degree than a mere Private pilot's licence. Even the Class 1 medical is a far higher hurdle to pass than the lesser requirements of a Private pilot. Many perfectly able Private pilots are weeded out at the Class 1 medical as being unfit for Commercial flying.
Otherwise, what would be the point of requiring Commercial pilots to undertake an enhanced medical, as well as a long and arduous course of study, as well as an in-depth course of flying training in order to demonstrate the flying skills required to a considerably greater level than that required for the PPL? The theory course and written exams, as well as the flying course and test(s) cost at least £20,000 and 8 months of dedication and hard work. Many prospective Commercial pilots invest far more time and money than that. Gaining a Commercial Pilots Licence is sufficiently difficult that many never achieve it, despite putting their heart and soul into it. It is NOT an easily gained qualification, for the avoidance of doubt.
If it were merely a paperwork exercise, as has been reported, wouldn't it be far simpler all round for anyone wishing to be paid for their flying simply to stump up say £20,000 to buy a shiny new Commercial licence, then operate with impunity and without the greater knowledge and skills required for the Commercial environment?
Wouldn't that be simpler? For sure! As safe? Definitely not! Anyone suggesting it is merely a paperwork issue would either be ignorant of the facts or misrepresenting them. It is interesting that the jury in the recent Henderson case apparently aligned with these sentiments and found the defendant guilty, despite suggestions that inadequate licencing and qualifications weren't relevant.
To put the above into context, when I flew aeroplanes and helicopters as a Private pilot, I believed I was a good pilot, about as safe, knowledgeable and experienced as could be, able to undertake almost any flight completely safely - coincidentally with similar hours to David Ibbotson's reported hours. Then I underwent the ATPL training, comprised of studying for 15 difficult written exams, flying training, flight exams etc, and blowing £40+k in the process. If it gave me just one thing, it was the knowledge that I didn't know it all. It taught me that there were vast areas of potential risk that I was previously either unaware of - or more likely in denial: that I needed to be more careful than I had ever realised or admitted before, factors that needed more careful consideration than I had ever before believed possible. Mercifully I learned that I had SO much more to learn about inclement weather, commercial pressures, Aviation Law, and taking tough decisions when I had doubts about the aircraft's serviceability, that the ATPL training has thankfully kept me safe to this day. "There but by the grace of God".
To that extent, I find myself fully supporting Katamarino's sentiments on the true value of Commercial Pilot's Licence. It demonstrates a level of knowledge, ability, experience and competence that merely holding a Private Pilot's Licence does not. It is more than a paperwork issue.