Originally Posted by
ZapBrannigan
I appreciate your thoughtful and respectful answer but my opinion has not been swayed. While a Captain should, indeed, be a MENTOR -- he or she should NOT have to be a "flight instructor".
There is a big difference. I stand by my assertion that part 121 with paying passengers is no place for flight instruction. (IOE being the one notable exception).
This is all very familiar.
No, there is a difference between a "mentor" and an "instructor." Word-for-word, I have to side with Zap.
The CA is leader, and part of being a leader is mentoring. In some professions that can include providing instruction. This is not one of them. The FO is a CA in training in that he/she is gaining experience and insight by crewing the flights. One thing I really liked at my first 121 job was that the INDOC/AC training was very detailed, and we had CA upgrades in the same class. We were all exposed to the same material and took the same tests. How else can an FO be a check for the CA if not trained on the same material? The training for my second one was not nearly as detailed, and at the end, I felt I knew a fraction of what I needed. FYI: "I didn't know" doesn't fly with the FAA. So my point is this: if the FO is trained properly, what instruction is necessary?
Back in the day, there were 2000TT CFIs with 500ME who were jumping for joy when they got hired to be the FO/FA of a 1900. They brought a several hundred hours of having student scare the @#$% outta them. There is no substitute for experience.
The RJs can fly with this level of experience because of the automation. I think NASA proved that a chimp can fly as long as everything is normal. In the box, the people who grew up on Nintendo can run all the V1 cuts or engine fire drills you want, but they still get to come off motion for a break. In a real emergency, the CA needs a fully participating crew to address the situation because there are 50+ lives on the line.
Judgement/ADM comes from flying, folks. There is no substitute.