Regional Pilot Recruiters
07-15-2012, 07:00 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 192
The fact is that unlike the past ten or so years, major airlines will be hiring thousands of new pilots beginning in a few years and stretching until past 2030. You can't argue with the numbers. The main source of these pilots will indeed be regional airlines.
Anyway, just trying to maintain a positive outlook
Anyway, just trying to maintain a positive outlook
07-15-2012, 09:32 PM
#22
Eats shoots and leaves...
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Didactic Synthetic Aviation Experience Provider
Posts: 849
Wow, where to even start with this thread. This is an outstanding example of the adage about arguing on the internet being like winning in the Special Olympics, but I'll wade in anyhow (which is revealing in and of itself, and not in a good way).
Brilliant! Let's have all flights flown by 300 hour pilots - that will surely reduce the accident rate. I'll let you put your family on an airline flight in the Northeast during a winter storm with a crew of 300 hour pilots; let me know how that works out for you.
I'm not saying high time pilots don't make mistakes, obviously they do such as Little Rock - however, those are the aberrations. However they also pull off great saves (think Sioux City or the Hudson) that an inexperienced pilot just doesn't have a big enough bag of tricks/tools/experience to do. They also operate thousands of flights daily without incident, frequently utilizing the experience they've acquired over the years to make that happen.
On the other hand, I do have reservations about (relatively) high time pilots who have been highly structured environments such as an ab-initio or zero-to-hero program and then virtually straight to a 121 operation airline for their entire careers (the military is a different duck). They have essentially had their hands held every step of the way, suddenly a few years down the road they upgrade and are getting what is effectively their first "real" PIC time with 50, 70, or 90 paying passengers in the back. I do not believe there is any real substitute for being the only one who has to make the hard decisions, and you don't get that in those environments. There's a vast difference between having the safety net of an instructor, a dispatcher, or an experienced pilot to back up your decision making in a scenario; knowing that if you make the wrong one someone will most likely correct you and prevent you from hurting yourself verses being alone in the middle of the night at an airport or inflght, knowing that depending on the decision you make you may be dead or fired. THAT is where experience is gained.
If I hear this about one more time I'm going to puke or kill something, maybe both. For most of the history of commercial aviation, the 250 hour minimum has been a non-issue because NO ONE was hired into a 121 carrier with those kinds of time (yes, I am aware of the very brief aberration in 1960's). Most of that time, people accumulated 2000+ hours to obtain a position at a commuter/regional carrier.
Somehow the SJS/Children of the Magenta Line (COTML) generation has gotten the idea that it's perfectly reasonable to expect to be able to jump into a 121 operation with less than 1000 hours. It's not, and people are missing out on extremely valuable experience by doing so.
Further, in years past, flying for a regional carrier WAS a good way to gain experience and airmanship skills - you would have been flying a Metro or a 1900 with no autopilot, and only a VOR/ILS and NDB for navigation.
That is because you don't know what you don't know. I agree, structured training can produce a better pilot, and certain specialized training even more so. I support reduced hours for 135 PIC, so people can continue to gain experience. I DO NOT support reduced hours for 121 - as I have previously stated, there is experience you gain that only comes from experience; there is no shortcut to getting there. In fact, I personally believe there should be a chronological aspect to the requirements as well (eg; must have X number of hours AND have been actively flying for Y years). You gain experience not just from hours you've flown, but from seasons you've been flying. Again, there is no shortcut there.
From what I've read on that thus far, it has a lot less to do with flight time than it does airmanship skills, CRM, and (if France trains stalls in the same way the idiots at the FAA want them performed for type rides) training. If anything, it points to an over dependance on automation to save the day, rather than understanding what the airplane is doing and why. Again, I've spoken with enough check airmen to believe that this area is NOT a strong suite for the COTML.
Others have pointed out other aspects that are problematic with this, but to me this biggest one is this: The traveling public isn't being sold the portion I've bolded above. Joe and Janice Sixpack don't comprehend when they buy a ticket on ABC Airlines, that the flight they are traveling on is being operated by XYZ Airlines, which has hired some pilots whose primary qualification is the ability to fog a mirror. These carriers aren't the regionals of yestererday, where there was a clear delineation between the mainline flights and feeders.
I'm not bashing all regional pilots - I have number of friends who are back at regionals after being furloughed of unemployed from failed carriers, and I'd have complete confidence riding with them anywhere, anyday. But they didn't get their (or to their previous positions) by hiring on virtually straight out of school, they all had years of experience BEFORE they ever had a 121 command.
I'll believe that when I see it. My personal expectation is a few years from now Delta pilots will be hearing how they need more 76 seaters to compete, and the wheel will continue to go around.
Again, see above.
Thank you, someone here gets it! I wanted to quote this just so it would be repeated here.
This guy shouldn't be allowed to vote or reproduce - but the mentality does explain a lot of things.
I hope you're right about that. Again, my suspicion is that they'll be flying even larger planes AT the regional airlines as the majors shrink ever smaller. Hopefully I'm wrong on this one, but I predicted the debacle we have today as a result of giving away scope 25 years ago. I wish I could pick stocks that well...
Damn, another novel. Sorry about that - I'll probably go on a couple of ignore lists for this one.
Originally Posted by Death2Daleks
It has been shown time and time again that most accidents happen while mid to high time pilots are at the yoke. It seems as if accidents aren't the cause of low-time pilots, but more the cause of pilots either ill-trained for the condition they find themselves in; or are, in fact, trained wrong.
As the devil's advocate, I would ask you: would you rather have a 300 hour pilot who knew how to recover from a stall and odd attitudes, or a 1500 hour pilot who didn't?
As the devil's advocate, I would ask you: would you rather have a 300 hour pilot who knew how to recover from a stall and odd attitudes, or a 1500 hour pilot who didn't?
I'm not saying high time pilots don't make mistakes, obviously they do such as Little Rock - however, those are the aberrations. However they also pull off great saves (think Sioux City or the Hudson) that an inexperienced pilot just doesn't have a big enough bag of tricks/tools/experience to do. They also operate thousands of flights daily without incident, frequently utilizing the experience they've acquired over the years to make that happen.
On the other hand, I do have reservations about (relatively) high time pilots who have been highly structured environments such as an ab-initio or zero-to-hero program and then virtually straight to a 121 operation airline for their entire careers (the military is a different duck). They have essentially had their hands held every step of the way, suddenly a few years down the road they upgrade and are getting what is effectively their first "real" PIC time with 50, 70, or 90 paying passengers in the back. I do not believe there is any real substitute for being the only one who has to make the hard decisions, and you don't get that in those environments. There's a vast difference between having the safety net of an instructor, a dispatcher, or an experienced pilot to back up your decision making in a scenario; knowing that if you make the wrong one someone will most likely correct you and prevent you from hurting yourself verses being alone in the middle of the night at an airport or inflght, knowing that depending on the decision you make you may be dead or fired. THAT is where experience is gained.
Originally Posted by skylover
At least from my perspective, I do think that 1,500 is a high amount of flight hours required, especially considering that before, 250 was the basic minimum by FAA law.
Somehow the SJS/Children of the Magenta Line (COTML) generation has gotten the idea that it's perfectly reasonable to expect to be able to jump into a 121 operation with less than 1000 hours. It's not, and people are missing out on extremely valuable experience by doing so.
Further, in years past, flying for a regional carrier WAS a good way to gain experience and airmanship skills - you would have been flying a Metro or a 1900 with no autopilot, and only a VOR/ILS and NDB for navigation.
Originally Posted by skylover
I welcome and support the reduced minimums, because a "structured" training course, i.e. military or av. college prepare a pilot better for a career, as evidenced in the powerpoint screenshot below.
Originally Posted by Death2Daleks
Look at the Airbus incident, a 5000hr+ pilot drove the thing into the ocean because he failed to recognize the stall indications. There's not a single CFI I know who wouldn't have picked up on that right away. Why? Because they're living with stalls and spins every day. They have currency on how to handle that situation.
Originally Posted by skylover
I do, and always will, see regional airlines as a stepping stone; simply another layer of flight training to become a major airline pilot. The past 10 years, it hasn't been the case. I believe that will change though.
I'm not bashing all regional pilots - I have number of friends who are back at regionals after being furloughed of unemployed from failed carriers, and I'd have complete confidence riding with them anywhere, anyday. But they didn't get their (or to their previous positions) by hiring on virtually straight out of school, they all had years of experience BEFORE they ever had a 121 command.
Originally Posted by skylover
I think major airlines are beginning to reel in scope again, just like the Delta contract is doing (at least it's a good start...)
Originally Posted by skylover
Also, increased hiring at majors means more attrition at regionals, making it a "stepping stone" once again for folks just joining the industry.
Originally Posted by robthree
1500 hours is a huge number. When you're looking up at it. When you're looking back at it, it is a much smaller obstacle.
One learns when one reaches his limits of experience. Once you get to an airline, you tend to not push those limits(and your passengers thank you for that) and so learning slows. Thus, you get more out of 1000 hours as a CFI than you will in 1000 hours of RJ flying.
One learns when one reaches his limits of experience. Once you get to an airline, you tend to not push those limits(and your passengers thank you for that) and so learning slows. Thus, you get more out of 1000 hours as a CFI than you will in 1000 hours of RJ flying.
Originally Posted by Stitches
...when asked about regional pay he acknowledged it was extremely low but that it would be worth it because whoever hired him would be "investing" in him through all the training he would get.
Originally Posted by skylover
The fact is that unlike the past ten or so years, major airlines will be hiring thousands of new pilots beginning in a few years and stretching until past 2030. You can't argue with the numbers. The main source of these pilots will indeed be regional airlines.
Anyway, just trying to maintain a positive outlook
Anyway, just trying to maintain a positive outlook
Damn, another novel. Sorry about that - I'll probably go on a couple of ignore lists for this one.
Last edited by bcrosier; 07-15-2012 at 09:34 PM. Reason: Apology for lack of brevity.
07-16-2012, 05:23 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 192
Originally Posted by bcrosier
Wow, where to even start with this thread. This is an outstanding example of the adage about arguing on the internet being like winning in the Special Olympics, but I'll wade in anyhow (which is revealing in and of itself, and not in a good way).
Brilliant! Let's have all flights flown by 300 hour pilots - that will surely reduce the accident rate. I'll let you put your family on an airline flight in the Northeast during a winter storm with a crew of 300 hour pilots; let me know how that works out for you.
I'm not saying high time pilots don't make mistakes, obviously they do such as Little Rock - however, those are the aberrations. However they also pull off great saves (think Sioux City or the Hudson) that an inexperienced pilot just doesn't have a big enough bag of tricks/tools/experience to do. They also operate thousands of flights daily without incident, frequently utilizing the experience they've acquired over the years to make that happen.
On the other hand, I do have reservations about (relatively) high time pilots who have been highly structured environments such as an ab-initio or zero-to-hero program and then virtually straight to a 121 operation airline for their entire careers (the military is a different duck). They have essentially had their hands held every step of the way, suddenly a few years down the road they upgrade and are getting what is effectively their first "real" PIC time with 50, 70, or 90 paying passengers in the back. I do not believe there is any real substitute for being the only one who has to make the hard decisions, and you don't get that in those environments. There's a vast difference between having the safety net of an instructor, a dispatcher, or an experienced pilot to back up your decision making in a scenario; knowing that if you make the wrong one someone will most likely correct you and prevent you from hurting yourself verses being alone in the middle of the night at an airport or inflght, knowing that depending on the decision you make you may be dead or fired. THAT is where experience is gained.
If I hear this about one more time I'm going to puke or kill something, maybe both. For most of the history of commercial aviation, the 250 hour minimum has been a non-issue because NO ONE was hired into a 121 carrier with those kinds of time (yes, I am aware of the very brief aberration in 1960's). Most of that time, people accumulated 2000+ hours to obtain a position at a commuter/regional carrier.
Sorry if I wasn't clear about this. The minimums are high, but in a good way - I think the new ATP rule is great for the industry and for safety in general. Again, I'm not complaining about the new ATP rule in general.
Somehow the SJS/Children of the Magenta Line (COTML) generation has gotten the idea that it's perfectly reasonable to expect to be able to jump into a 121 operation with less than 1000 hours. It's not, and people are missing out on extremely valuable experience by doing so.
Further, in years past, flying for a regional carrier WAS a good way to gain experience and airmanship skills - you would have been flying a Metro or a 1900 with no autopilot, and only a VOR/ILS and NDB for navigation.
That is because you don't know what you don't know. I agree, structured training can produce a better pilot, and certain specialized training even more so. I support reduced hours for 135 PIC, so people can continue to gain experience. I DO NOT support reduced hours for 121 - as I have previously stated, there is experience you gain that only comes from experience; there is no shortcut to getting there. In fact, I personally believe there should be a chronological aspect to the requirements as well (eg; must have X number of hours AND have been actively flying for Y years). You gain experience not just from hours you've flown, but from seasons you've been flying. Again, there is no shortcut there.
I think you have to look at this from the perspective of somebody like me. I'm fairly sure I'm going to go to an aviation university. Like we've discussed above, a "structured" approach like this produces an overall better educated and better prepared pilot. But there has to be some kind of incentive for this, because av. universities. are overall very expensive, training can take quite a long time, and the degree itself isn't very useful outside of flying. This is what the FAA recognizes, and they are using the reduced ATP minimums to entice aspiring pilots to take a "structured" route, rather than going to Mom 'n Pop's Flight School.
From what I've read on that thus far, it has a lot less to do with flight time than it does airmanship skills, CRM, and (if France trains stalls in the same way the idiots at the FAA want them performed for type rides) training. If anything, it points to an over dependance on automation to save the day, rather than understanding what the airplane is doing and why. Again, I've spoken with enough check airmen to believe that this area is NOT a strong suite for the COTML.
Others have pointed out other aspects that are problematic with this, but to me this biggest one is this: The traveling public isn't being sold the portion I've bolded above. Joe and Janice Sixpack don't comprehend when they buy a ticket on ABC Airlines, that the flight they are traveling on is being operated by XYZ Airlines, which has hired some pilots whose primary qualification is the ability to fog a mirror. These carriers aren't the regionals of yestererday, where there was a clear delineation between the mainline flights and feeders.
I think that public awareness of this industry is slowly increasing. People who have nothing to do with the industry will say things like "Oh, so you'll work for Pinnacle or something before a major?" to me.
I'm not bashing all regional pilots - I have number of friends who are back at regionals after being furloughed of unemployed from failed carriers, and I'd have complete confidence riding with them anywhere, anyday. But they didn't get their (or to their previous positions) by hiring on virtually straight out of school, they all had years of experience BEFORE they ever had a 121 command.
I'll believe that when I see it. My personal expectation is a few years from now Delta pilots will be hearing how they need more 76 seaters to compete, and the wheel will continue to go around.
Again, see above.
Thank you, someone here gets it! I wanted to quote this just so it would be repeated here.
This guy shouldn't be allowed to vote or reproduce - but the mentality does explain a lot of things.
I hope you're right about that. Again, my suspicion is that they'll be flying even larger planes AT the regional airlines as the majors shrink ever smaller. Hopefully I'm wrong on this one, but I predicted the debacle we have today as a result of giving away scope 25 years ago. I wish I could pick stocks that well...
Damn, another novel. Sorry about that - I'll probably go on a couple of ignore lists for this one.
Brilliant! Let's have all flights flown by 300 hour pilots - that will surely reduce the accident rate. I'll let you put your family on an airline flight in the Northeast during a winter storm with a crew of 300 hour pilots; let me know how that works out for you.
I'm not saying high time pilots don't make mistakes, obviously they do such as Little Rock - however, those are the aberrations. However they also pull off great saves (think Sioux City or the Hudson) that an inexperienced pilot just doesn't have a big enough bag of tricks/tools/experience to do. They also operate thousands of flights daily without incident, frequently utilizing the experience they've acquired over the years to make that happen.
On the other hand, I do have reservations about (relatively) high time pilots who have been highly structured environments such as an ab-initio or zero-to-hero program and then virtually straight to a 121 operation airline for their entire careers (the military is a different duck). They have essentially had their hands held every step of the way, suddenly a few years down the road they upgrade and are getting what is effectively their first "real" PIC time with 50, 70, or 90 paying passengers in the back. I do not believe there is any real substitute for being the only one who has to make the hard decisions, and you don't get that in those environments. There's a vast difference between having the safety net of an instructor, a dispatcher, or an experienced pilot to back up your decision making in a scenario; knowing that if you make the wrong one someone will most likely correct you and prevent you from hurting yourself verses being alone in the middle of the night at an airport or inflght, knowing that depending on the decision you make you may be dead or fired. THAT is where experience is gained.
If I hear this about one more time I'm going to puke or kill something, maybe both. For most of the history of commercial aviation, the 250 hour minimum has been a non-issue because NO ONE was hired into a 121 carrier with those kinds of time (yes, I am aware of the very brief aberration in 1960's). Most of that time, people accumulated 2000+ hours to obtain a position at a commuter/regional carrier.
Sorry if I wasn't clear about this. The minimums are high, but in a good way - I think the new ATP rule is great for the industry and for safety in general. Again, I'm not complaining about the new ATP rule in general.
Somehow the SJS/Children of the Magenta Line (COTML) generation has gotten the idea that it's perfectly reasonable to expect to be able to jump into a 121 operation with less than 1000 hours. It's not, and people are missing out on extremely valuable experience by doing so.
Further, in years past, flying for a regional carrier WAS a good way to gain experience and airmanship skills - you would have been flying a Metro or a 1900 with no autopilot, and only a VOR/ILS and NDB for navigation.
That is because you don't know what you don't know. I agree, structured training can produce a better pilot, and certain specialized training even more so. I support reduced hours for 135 PIC, so people can continue to gain experience. I DO NOT support reduced hours for 121 - as I have previously stated, there is experience you gain that only comes from experience; there is no shortcut to getting there. In fact, I personally believe there should be a chronological aspect to the requirements as well (eg; must have X number of hours AND have been actively flying for Y years). You gain experience not just from hours you've flown, but from seasons you've been flying. Again, there is no shortcut there.
I think you have to look at this from the perspective of somebody like me. I'm fairly sure I'm going to go to an aviation university. Like we've discussed above, a "structured" approach like this produces an overall better educated and better prepared pilot. But there has to be some kind of incentive for this, because av. universities. are overall very expensive, training can take quite a long time, and the degree itself isn't very useful outside of flying. This is what the FAA recognizes, and they are using the reduced ATP minimums to entice aspiring pilots to take a "structured" route, rather than going to Mom 'n Pop's Flight School.
From what I've read on that thus far, it has a lot less to do with flight time than it does airmanship skills, CRM, and (if France trains stalls in the same way the idiots at the FAA want them performed for type rides) training. If anything, it points to an over dependance on automation to save the day, rather than understanding what the airplane is doing and why. Again, I've spoken with enough check airmen to believe that this area is NOT a strong suite for the COTML.
Others have pointed out other aspects that are problematic with this, but to me this biggest one is this: The traveling public isn't being sold the portion I've bolded above. Joe and Janice Sixpack don't comprehend when they buy a ticket on ABC Airlines, that the flight they are traveling on is being operated by XYZ Airlines, which has hired some pilots whose primary qualification is the ability to fog a mirror. These carriers aren't the regionals of yestererday, where there was a clear delineation between the mainline flights and feeders.
I think that public awareness of this industry is slowly increasing. People who have nothing to do with the industry will say things like "Oh, so you'll work for Pinnacle or something before a major?" to me.
I'm not bashing all regional pilots - I have number of friends who are back at regionals after being furloughed of unemployed from failed carriers, and I'd have complete confidence riding with them anywhere, anyday. But they didn't get their (or to their previous positions) by hiring on virtually straight out of school, they all had years of experience BEFORE they ever had a 121 command.
I'll believe that when I see it. My personal expectation is a few years from now Delta pilots will be hearing how they need more 76 seaters to compete, and the wheel will continue to go around.
Again, see above.
Thank you, someone here gets it! I wanted to quote this just so it would be repeated here.
This guy shouldn't be allowed to vote or reproduce - but the mentality does explain a lot of things.
I hope you're right about that. Again, my suspicion is that they'll be flying even larger planes AT the regional airlines as the majors shrink ever smaller. Hopefully I'm wrong on this one, but I predicted the debacle we have today as a result of giving away scope 25 years ago. I wish I could pick stocks that well...
Damn, another novel. Sorry about that - I'll probably go on a couple of ignore lists for this one.
07-16-2012, 10:25 AM
#24
Eats shoots and leaves...
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Didactic Synthetic Aviation Experience Provider
Posts: 849
Originally Posted by skylover
"I agree, structured training can produce a better pilot, and certain specialized training even more so."
I think you have to look at this from the perspective of somebody like me. I'm fairly sure I'm going to go to an aviation university. Like we've discussed above, a "structured" approach like this produces an overall better educated and better prepared pilot. But there has to be some kind of incentive for this, because av. universities. are overall very expensive, training can take quite a long time, and the degree itself isn't very useful outside of flying. This is what the FAA recognizes, and they are using the reduced ATP minimums to entice aspiring pilots to take a "structured" route, rather than going to Mom 'n Pop's Flight School.
I think you have to look at this from the perspective of somebody like me. I'm fairly sure I'm going to go to an aviation university. Like we've discussed above, a "structured" approach like this produces an overall better educated and better prepared pilot. But there has to be some kind of incentive for this, because av. universities. are overall very expensive, training can take quite a long time, and the degree itself isn't very useful outside of flying. This is what the FAA recognizes, and they are using the reduced ATP minimums to entice aspiring pilots to take a "structured" route, rather than going to Mom 'n Pop's Flight School.
Take the aviation classes as a minor or second major. My personal experience was the the courses which were most beneficial weren't the actual flying courses (though they were good), but rather the ground school courses, turbine aircraft systems courses, CRM, meteorology, and simulator courses. These are the subjects which you typically won't get as thorough a background on at a "Mom & Pop" operation. You can do the flying at a Mom & Pop's, odds are they do a decent job at that, and you'll likely save a good amount of cash.
The "enticement" should come from the fact that you will be getting a more solid educational foundation upon which to build, and that the experience you gain as you move towards ATP minimums will make you a better, more knowledgable, and safer pilot; which in turn should put you at the top of the stack of your peers when it comes to being selected for an interview. Then you will be able to explain how your background and experience makes you the best candidate for the position.
07-16-2012, 01:18 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 192
Originally Posted by bcrosier
I don't believe an "aviation university" is the only or necessarily the best way to accomplish this. I would look long and hard at state schools with good aviation programs. If you find one that fits the bill, I'd go there and get a major in SOMETHING OTHER THAN AVIATION! You'll probably save some of those $$$ by going that route.
Take the aviation classes as a minor or second major. My personal experience was the the courses which were most beneficial weren't the actual flying courses (though they were good), but rather the ground school courses, turbine aircraft systems courses, CRM, meteorology, and simulator courses. These are the subjects which you typically won't get as thorough a background on at a "Mom & Pop" operation. You can do the flying at a Mom & Pop's, odds are they do a decent job at that, and you'll likely save a good amount of cash.
The "enticement" should come from the fact that you will be getting a more solid educational foundation upon which to build, and that the experience you gain as you move towards ATP minimums will make you a better, more knowledgable, and safer pilot; which in turn should put you at the top of the stack of your peers when it comes to being selected for an interview. Then you will be able to explain how your background and experience makes you the best candidate for the position.
Take the aviation classes as a minor or second major. My personal experience was the the courses which were most beneficial weren't the actual flying courses (though they were good), but rather the ground school courses, turbine aircraft systems courses, CRM, meteorology, and simulator courses. These are the subjects which you typically won't get as thorough a background on at a "Mom & Pop" operation. You can do the flying at a Mom & Pop's, odds are they do a decent job at that, and you'll likely save a good amount of cash.
The "enticement" should come from the fact that you will be getting a more solid educational foundation upon which to build, and that the experience you gain as you move towards ATP minimums will make you a better, more knowledgable, and safer pilot; which in turn should put you at the top of the stack of your peers when it comes to being selected for an interview. Then you will be able to explain how your background and experience makes you the best candidate for the position.
I would wager that between an Embry-Riddle pilot straight out of college with 1,000 hours and experience as an undergrad CFI at Embry Riddle, and a pilot who trained at a Mom and Pop school and graduated from U Anytown, flight instructed at said flight school after graduation and has 1,500+ hours, the ERAU pilot gets picked.
If you can say one thing about Embry Riddle-type schools, it's that they produce a uniformly proficient pilot. This doesn't mean the best aviator in the world, but it means a general group that regional hiring managers can depend upon in terms of skills and knowledge.
I challenge your statement that your mentioned education route produces a "better, more knowledgeable, and safer pilot." The chart I posted above in this thread proves otherwise, and dramatically so.
-Skylover
07-16-2012, 01:54 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by skylover
First, I am aware that what I'm about to say is something taught in Flamebait 101, but here goes.
I would wager that between an Embry-Riddle pilot straight out of college with 1,000 hours and experience as an undergrad CFI at Embry Riddle, and a pilot who trained at a Mom and Pop school and graduated from U Anytown, flight instructed at said flight school after graduation and has 1,500+ hours, the ERAU pilot gets picked.
If you can say one thing about Embry Riddle-type schools, it's that they produce a uniformly proficient pilot. This doesn't mean the best aviator in the world, but it means a general group that regional hiring managers can depend upon in terms of skills and knowledge.
I challenge your statement that your mentioned education route produces a "better, more knowledgeable, and safer pilot." The chart I posted above in this thread proves otherwise, and dramatically so.
-Skylover
I would wager that between an Embry-Riddle pilot straight out of college with 1,000 hours and experience as an undergrad CFI at Embry Riddle, and a pilot who trained at a Mom and Pop school and graduated from U Anytown, flight instructed at said flight school after graduation and has 1,500+ hours, the ERAU pilot gets picked.
If you can say one thing about Embry Riddle-type schools, it's that they produce a uniformly proficient pilot. This doesn't mean the best aviator in the world, but it means a general group that regional hiring managers can depend upon in terms of skills and knowledge.
I challenge your statement that your mentioned education route produces a "better, more knowledgeable, and safer pilot." The chart I posted above in this thread proves otherwise, and dramatically so.
-Skylover
USMCFLYR
07-16-2012, 02:01 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 192
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
You base this "challenge" on ONE chart from ONE airline and consider this hard evidence?
USMCFLYR
USMCFLYR
07-16-2012, 02:19 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by skylover
I think the differences (percentages) are so dramatic that it can be assumed they represent a general trend. I'm confident that if I could get a hold of similar charts from other airlines, the trends would mirror the one I posted.
They often don't work out well.
You do realize to that bcrosier mentions in his post going to a STATE school vice your "aviation university program [you seem to be favoring ERAU]" and taking the aviation class (he specifically says the ground courses over the flying courses). So an example of his route would be a UND type of program, majoring in something other than aviation and taking those aviation related classes as a minor, and getting the flight training through a mom-n-pop school (if I understood his post correctly). Not only will the two applicants in your scenario come out with the same ratings, but one will generally be in MUCH less debt (a factor in your QOL), but according to many experience hands on this forum, that recruiter does not care where you got your training from unless the school's name was 'Uncle Sam'.
Do you think that ERAU is the only P141 training program?
Personally - I liked the structured approach much better and it certainly fit my learning style, but big 'aviation universities' are not your only route as bcrosier noted.
USMCFLYR
07-16-2012, 02:37 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 192
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
Well....we all know about assumptions.
They often don't work out well.
You do realize to that bcrosier mentions in his post going to a STATE school vice your "aviation university program [you seem to be favoring ERAU]" and taking the aviation class (he specifically says the ground courses over the flying courses). So an example of his route would be a UND type of program, majoring in something other than aviation and taking those aviation related classes as a minor, and getting the flight training through a mom-n-pop school (if I understood his post correctly). Not only will the two applicants in your scenario come out with the same ratings, but one will generally be in MUCH less debt (a factor in your QOL), but according to many experience hands on this forum, that recruiter does not care where you got your training from unless the school's name was 'Uncle Sam'.
Do you think that ERAU is the only P141 training program?
Personally - I liked the structured approach much better and it certainly fit my learning style, but big 'aviation universities' are not your only route as bcrosier noted.
USMCFLYR
They often don't work out well.
You do realize to that bcrosier mentions in his post going to a STATE school vice your "aviation university program [you seem to be favoring ERAU]" and taking the aviation class (he specifically says the ground courses over the flying courses). So an example of his route would be a UND type of program, majoring in something other than aviation and taking those aviation related classes as a minor, and getting the flight training through a mom-n-pop school (if I understood his post correctly). Not only will the two applicants in your scenario come out with the same ratings, but one will generally be in MUCH less debt (a factor in your QOL), but according to many experience hands on this forum, that recruiter does not care where you got your training from unless the school's name was 'Uncle Sam'.
Do you think that ERAU is the only P141 training program?
Personally - I liked the structured approach much better and it certainly fit my learning style, but big 'aviation universities' are not your only route as bcrosier noted.
USMCFLYR
To each his own. As always, I love having these kinds of discussions - of course, people have different opinions, but I appreciate these kinds of conversations.
07-16-2012, 09:33 PM
#30
Eats shoots and leaves...
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Didactic Synthetic Aviation Experience Provider
Posts: 849
Originally Posted by skylover
I would wager that between an Embry-Riddle pilot straight out of college with 1,000 hours and experience as an undergrad CFI at Embry Riddle, and a pilot who trained at a Mom and Pop school and graduated from U Anytown, flight instructed at said flight school after graduation and has 1,500+ hours, the ERAU pilot gets picked.
* The standard disclaimer that this doesn't apply to military flight training applies here, but even they still have to establish their skills in a sim ride, and there are a number who do fail.
Not intending to be insulting (though this probably comes across that way), my suggestion would be to put down the glossy brochures and do more research on your own, read more threads on here where this has been hashed out countless times and read what people with a decade or more in the industry have to say on the matter.
Originally Posted by skylover
If you can say one thing about Embry Riddle-type schools, it's that they produce a uniformly proficient pilot. This doesn't mean the best aviator in the world, but it means a general group that regional hiring managers can depend upon in terms of skills and knowledge.
Don't get me wrong - I've flown with a number of capable, competent pilots from ER; but the most accurate part of the "Harvard of Aviation" refers to the price tag, not the quality.
Now since you apparently have piles of money to burn, knock yourself out; but I'd suggest saving some of Mom and Dad's money for when you get tired of Top Ramen while living in a crashpad in Hoboken.
Originally Posted by skylover
I challenge your statement that your mentioned education route produces a "better, more knowledgeable, and safer pilot." The chart I posted above in this thread proves otherwise, and dramatically so.
[QUOTE=skylover;1230762]At least for me, it would be difficult to juggle majoring in a separate topic, AND taking ground school on-campus/flight training off-campus. I just don't learn the best that way. The biggest issue is that ground school and flight training aren't "in sync" if you will. At ERAU (which indeed I'm favoring), ground and flight school are synchronized and work hand-in-hand. That in and of itself is a tremendous benefit, at least for me, to attend ERAU. And I do think that produces a better quality education.[QUOTE]
That's fine and understandable, but that criteria certainly doesn't point only to ER - again in that case (since saving $ isn't huge issue) go to one of the state schools with a quality program and double major in aviation and _________. That said, it's not that difficult to sync the flying and the ground courses, particularly is you aren't struggling to come up with the funds to do the flight training. But if the "pre-packaged" route fits for you, by all means do that.
[QUOTE=skylover;1230762]To each his own. As always, I love having these kinds of discussions - of course, people have different opinions, but I appreciate these kinds of conversations.
[QUOTE]I'm glad you feel that way, but I hope that you take some of this to heart and aren't just debating for the Socratic exercise.
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
Well....we all know about assumptions.
They often don't work out well.
You do realize to that bcrosier mentions in his post going to a STATE school vice your "aviation university program [you seem to be favoring ERAU]" and taking the aviation class (he specifically says the ground courses over the flying courses). So an example of his route would be a UND type of program, majoring in something other than aviation and taking those aviation related classes as a minor, and getting the flight training through a mom-n-pop school (if I understood his post correctly). Not only will the two applicants in your scenario come out with the same ratings, but one will generally be in MUCH less debt (a factor in your QOL), but according to many experience hands on this forum, that recruiter does not care where you got your training from unless the school's name was 'Uncle Sam'.
Do you think that ERAU is the only P141 training program?
Personally - I liked the structured approach much better and it certainly fit my learning style, but big 'aviation universities' are not your only route as bcrosier noted.
They often don't work out well.
You do realize to that bcrosier mentions in his post going to a STATE school vice your "aviation university program [you seem to be favoring ERAU]" and taking the aviation class (he specifically says the ground courses over the flying courses). So an example of his route would be a UND type of program, majoring in something other than aviation and taking those aviation related classes as a minor, and getting the flight training through a mom-n-pop school (if I understood his post correctly). Not only will the two applicants in your scenario come out with the same ratings, but one will generally be in MUCH less debt (a factor in your QOL), but according to many experience hands on this forum, that recruiter does not care where you got your training from unless the school's name was 'Uncle Sam'.
Do you think that ERAU is the only P141 training program?
Personally - I liked the structured approach much better and it certainly fit my learning style, but big 'aviation universities' are not your only route as bcrosier noted.
I too like the structure of a formal program, but not because the courses were "synced," but rather because the performance standards we were held to (in the ground schools more than the flight portion) did a good job of mirroring the expectations I've been faced with in 121 training programs. It makes a big difference going into such a program know HOW to go about studying and preparing for your training - to me that is one of the biggest values of a structured program (in addition the the comprehensiveness of the ground courses). I really think the importance of high quality ground training is vastly under-rated. Not that good flight training isn't important as well, but the classroom knowledge is so foundational and yet it often get the short shrift because it's not as "glamorous" as operating the machine.
I'll shut up now before I go another 2 pages...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
