Originally Posted by
Thedude
I thought we were talking about actual flying and not theory. Yes, the JAA-ATP test are quite difficult from what I understand but at the same time they are teaching antiquated stuff such as OMEGA. Remember OMEGA went OTS quite a few years ago. I still believe that alot of those exams are teaching pure theory and could easily be honed down to what is relavant.
I don't recall seeing anything on Omega in the JAR books other than a reference to it in a history paragraph. Everything else is relevant. Now, you may not be thinking about the Kurosiwo current, Oyasiwo current, or the Siberian high in your every day life. But when your flying just east of Hong Kong during a monsoon, you'll at least understand what to expect as you fly north of the ITCZ. Yes.....it's a bit geeky but is it useless information? I often hear guys criticize the JAR ATPL program. Most have never even opened the books. Is the system perfect? No. But it certainly is a lot more indepth than what the FAA requires of you.
Originally Posted by
Thedude
Most of the JAA guys have never even flown single pilot other than what was required to get their intial certificates. If the new rule goes through, they will have to have a special certificate or theirs wil read "CREW ONLY".
I used to fly rj's with FO's with 300 hours and an FAA commercial fresh from 4 days of IOE. I wasn't a check airman.
Originally Posted by
Thedude
That is what happens when you hire guy that have only 250 hrs and have been pretty much flying supervised for nearly all of it. I have also heard stories here in the US about those low-timers getting 100+ of OE in that shiny new RJ. I don't know about the PTS, I was under the assumption that JAR ad FAA standards were about the same.
You are correct. The IOE and CRM is a lot more indepth. But, like I said, the regionals here in the US hire low timers without the extra training. They get a sign off after a few days IOE and the regular line Captains have the burden of babysitting.
Originally Posted by
Thedude
Have you ever flown in Europe? Its almost the same as the US, only the accents are different and you have to watch the transition levels. If you are flying intra-Europe, that could be considered domestic ops.
Yes I have. But, when I started flying at the airlines in the US, my first plane was a 30 seat turbo prop. I had just an FAA commercial ticket and no type. All flights were over land and less than 2 hours. My commercial training was adequate for "that" type of "domestic" flying. Compare that to what the young guys in the EU have to do to land their "first" job. It's night and day.
Originally Posted by
Thedude
Oooo, overwater ops. Just through in a lfe raft and a HF radio and you good to go. I don't know why people make such a big deal about over water ops. ie. the Atlantic and Pacific crossings. (The training I had was pretty ****ty and I learned by doing it) Really only 3 things you have to know. How to fill out a plotting chart, how to make proper position reports and the most important, what do to in-case of an emergency.
Ok but did you have to worry about being tested on that stuff on your ATP exams or applying it in your first job?
Originally Posted by
Thedude
I have spent the last three and a half yrs flying a wide-body around the world and I tell you the learning curve is not that steep, its just different.
Again, when did you study international ops?
Did you do it to study for your ATP written? Or did you have the luxury of grasping that stuff later on in your career?
If you're a kid in the EU and you want to be a pilot, the JAR ATPL exam requires 700 hours study, you need a frozen ATPL (not a commercial) and a type rating. After a few hundred hours, you may end up flying a medium, overwater equiped aircraft internationally. Of course this sounds like a piece of cake to you. But, when you're trying to get your first flying job, the kids in the EU have a much steeper mountain to climb!
AL