Originally Posted by
FixTheMess
I can only assume you are employed at Delta, and if so, I hope you are advocating to your management/HR Department the benefit in hiring Turboprop pilots with 8,000+ hrs of "steam six pack" time. We are constantly in the weather, hand flying, operating our aircraft to the edges of its envelope. However, for some time now, it seems most any major is more interested in hiring a 2,500 hr jet pilot, who found a quick upgrade at a jet regional.
I'm not saying a jet pilot doesn't have their own unique skill set, but if stick and rudder skills are so important, (which I wholeheartedly agree with), jet operators need to stop looking down their nose at a high time turboprop pilot. I know several excellent pilots who have plenty of smarts to be able to program an FMS, or work an AFCS, that would be an asset at any airline, who have been shot down recently, because they didn't have any "holy" turbojet time. There may come a time when all the button pushing in the world will not save your plane, and I would much rather have a high time prop driver sitting next to me.
Anyway, my intent is not to start a prop vs jet debate, but to make the point that I do believe experienced prop drivers are under-valued when applying to major jet operators.
That checks. A buddy of mine at SWA who cut his teeth flying the turbo-props you speak of for a quality regional, was recently chatting with a CP while at work. They discussed the sad reality that because he had no jet PIC time, he wouldn't even get an interview had he been applying today.
I've flown four different high performance jets in the Air Force (well, maybe the T-37 isn't "high performance"), and the KA-350ER. By far the most challenging "pilot" situations occurred in the King Air.
I wouldn't trade my Air Force training for anything, ever. I am a better pilot for having flown, and made decisions in, an aircraft that had just enough performance to get me right where I didn't want to be in Afghanistan.
Hopefully I'll get hired.