View Single Post
Old 01-04-2018 | 04:39 PM
  #31  
TheRoboFighter
On Reserve
 
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
From: 73N F/O
Default

Originally Posted by 155mm
Do you have a source for that data? Are the "attrition rates in training" coming from the Majors hiring "rusty/ not current" pilots? What is the background of the folks getting hired in your statement? Former Regional AQP trained pilots? I doubt the Majors have gotten to the bottom of the barrel that they are hiring "rusty/ not current" pilots! Although I'm sure the Regionals are.

In addition, I'm pretty sure Appendix E and H (ass on fire) training programs had higher failure rates compared to this (LOFT type) AQP paradigm. From my experience, AQP is a much easier program not only for initial but re-currency training as well. AQP is certainly more realistic versus a multiple system failures approach to training until you are so overloaded you either swim or drown. So yes, I disagree, I believe a "rusty, non current pilot" can get through an AQP program especially if they have the experience this OP has but I don't believe a Major will hire him or her at this point, only a Regional.

The data I have (for only one of the majors) is less than 1% attrition in 15 then it jumped to a little over 2% in 16. I don’t have the numbers for 17. However a majority of failed rides and training extensions were to prior military. I don’t have the exact percentage for that. Last discussion I was privileged to was whether there is a correlation between military hires who were turbine current vs. those whos last hours were in SE piston. Just food for thought.
Reply