Spot on, As a767 instructor through the last hiring shortage, we ended up taking just about anyone with a pulse. Very few of the really low time candidates set the world on fire. The occasional one would surprise you. Most really struggled and the training footprint was extended and extended, all the while daily discussions were held between standards and management and Check Airman about letting another one go or giving them another round trip or two. It wasn't just teaching them how to fly a 400k jet, it some cases it was teaching them just how to fly. When you are that far behind, there is no muscle memory to fall back on because you just don't have the experience yet. Going to a regional or small 135 jet operator is a great way to start.

The CFIs were both on their first jet and from bigger Part 141 schools. Straight out of 172s if I remember correctly with some sort of stop for an unrestricted ATP/jet familiarization.

Don’t want to give any personal info away, but my take on my partner (Part 91 guy) - wasn’t used to the pace and flow of a 121 training course and a few hiccups caused them to enter a self-reinforcing self-doubt loop of compounding poor performance. Atlas gave them a lot of chances, including a third shot at the checkride. They were fairly experienced.

I don’t personally know how FSI compares, but I’ve gathered from others over the years that the stock non-AQP course at most any airline is another cut above in terms of level of both difficulty and jeopardy.

Unfortunately the regionals are barely hiring right now.

What do you think is going to happen when Boeing gets their act together, and are finally permitted to ramp up deliveries?

Our training has not been adjusted for our hiring practices. There's a lot of basic stuff that we used to assume people know. That's stuff which we don't teach. Once they are in a learning deficit, offering extra sims and extra trips only allows them to build confidence; It doesn't fill in fundamental gaps in learning. So it's natural that candidates who meet the basic assumptions that are made in our FOTM will perform better than candidates that don't. Adjusting our course material is long term project, and I've griped about that issue before.

Any candidate needs to be able to look at our training, break down how all the blocks fit together and see where they need to build themselves up. Sure we can teach you everything, but only if you meet the basic assumptions that are built into our training program. Those basic assumptions are not spelled out in words, but you can read them in what we don't teach (meteorology, for example). This is why there's debate about whether it's good to read ahead. It's good to know if you have to learn something to get through, but it's not helpful to obsess over momentary vs. alternate action switches. The other thing any candidate needs is the ability to recover from being rattled. Something, sometime is going to get under your skin. Having the ability to re-center yourself and avoid a doubt-fixation-performance loop is critical. That's something you have to be able to do on your own.

This is why, over the years, we've heard that regional pilots, corporate pilots, prop pilots, 135 backgounds, or whatever other candidate profile simply won't make it through training. That's nonsense. What we do is teachable, and no special skills or intellect are required. As long as a candidate is honest with themselves about those 2 skills, they'll make it. When we hire from other airlines we're dealing with people who have already done this type of thing once. When we hire from CFIs, we're the first time they've had "real consequnces" instruction. It's natural that we're going to see different success rates. Nobody should be surprised. I like the CFI candidated we bring aboard. I'm happy to take them across to Europe in the 767. That means at least something is going right in hiring and training right now.

Of course. However, fly nothing but glass for 10 years and you won’t waltz right back into steam and have nearly the same proficiency…not even close. I don’t care who you are.

Does anyone have info on what the payscales are like beyond year 1 FO? All that APC has on the Atlas page for FO's is $97/ hr and nothing about year 2 and beyond? Also is that CA payscale accurate for CA? The top says around $450/hr for top of the scales. Just looking for confirmation.

$450/hr? I’ll take some of that. 🙏

edit: That page is all wrong for some reason.

Everyone's training programs have been adjusted, or Atlas is not hiring low time no time pilots. Simply putting the inexperienced pilots in the 737 is a decision that ensures a better pass rate. That is a conscious training decision.