|
Regional Pilot Recruiters
Outside of job fairs, is it possible to get a hold of them and ask for career guidance? I.e., exactly what they want in an applicant?
I haven't even started flight training yet, FYI. |
What they want today is not what they will want by the time you're remotely qualified to go to a regional. Requirements go up and down as the airline's needs fluctuate.
For now, focus on actually enjoying the flying you do. Talk to pilots doing a variety of jobs and find out which ones seem the happiest. By the time you finish flight training you'll need to find a way to amass the rest of the time required...plan on having 1500 total time and 2-500 multi engine time to get hired. You'll probably have to instruct or find some other bottom-of-the-barrel job to get those initial hours. If you want to go to a major, you'll need several thousand total, at least a thousand turbine PIC, and a four year degree for the most part. It's all about checking the boxes. Irregardless, the market will be totally different by the time you're ready, so just stick to looking at the short term, and like I said, actually enjoy your training. |
Thanks for the good advice, DirecTo.
I am wondering, though, what they would tell me if I asked for advice on my training. Any advice, like where to do it, 61/141, how quickly, etc. I've gotten great advice on these forums but it would be nice to hear it straight from the horse's mouth before dropping a ton of money on my training. . . |
Originally Posted by dl773
(Post 1229519)
Thanks for the good advice, DirecTo.
I am wondering, though, what they would tell me if I asked for advice on my training. Any advice, like where to do it, 61/141, how quickly, etc. I've gotten great advice on these forums but it would be nice to hear it straight from the horse's mouth before dropping a ton of money on my training. . . No, regional airlines will not assist you with education choices. Frankly, I'd be surprised if they even would respond to your email - it is not their job to hold your hand. Also, I'd wager that the info here is much more valuable than whatever they'd tell you anyway. Education options...
Unfortunately, because of new FAA regulation, the days of "zero to hero" training are over, since you have to have a very high amount of flight hours to be able to fly as an airline pilot now. (750 military, 1000 av. college, 1500 regular training) You can expect training to take several years no matter what approach you decide on. Please feel free to PM me if you have any questions. |
Originally Posted by skylover
(Post 1229789)
Unfortunately, because of new FAA regulation, the days of "zero to hero" training are over,
since you have to have a very high amount of flight hours to be able to fly as an airline pilot now. (750 military, 1000 av. college, 1500 regular training) USMCFLYR |
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 1229822)
UNfortunate?
Maybe compared to the blimp in history when people were getting hired with nearly wet commercials, but your view of even 1500 hrs being "very high time" is skewed. USMCFLYR 1500 hours is quite a bit to attain for someone who want to go from nothing to an airline pilot. |
I'll insert that word again into your post:
Originally Posted by skylover
(Post 1229823)
I meant unfortunately for him - it seemed like he wanted quick training in other threads. Nonetheless, such programs were unfortunate viable options for people who wanted to become an airline pilot as quick as possible.
1500 hours is quite a bit to attain for someone who want to go from nothing to an airline pilot. USMCFLYR |
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 1229825)
I'll insert that word again into your post:
Yes - it can be a tough obstacle - but it still doesn't make 1500 hrs "very high" time. I suppose the original purpose of the amount of total time, and the different categories of time, was to make sure that a potential ATP applicant at least had some breadth of experience before earning the highest aviation rating. Count me among those who believe that you should have to have an ATP before being an airline pilot and also as one who disagrees with the reduced minimums for certain training programs. USMCFLYR 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? |
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 1229825)
I'll insert that word again into your post:
Yes - it can be a tough obstacle - but it still doesn't make 1500 hrs "very high" time. I suppose the original purpose of the amount of total time, and the different categories of time, was to make sure that a potential ATP applicant at least had some breadth of experience before earning the highest aviation rating. Count me among those who believe that you should have to have an ATP before being an airline pilot and also as one who disagrees with the reduced minimums for certain training programs. USMCFLYR 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. http://i46.tinypic.com/2cgj02g.jpg |
[QUOTE]
Originally Posted by Death2Daleks
(Post 1229827)
It has been shown time and time again that most accidents happen while mid to high time pilots are at the yoke.
There are spikes in the mishaps rates at both the lower end of the spectrum(usually construed to inexperience) and at the mid-range (often thought to be bred of complacency), and then of course the 15,000 hr pilot who does something that no one can figure out why :eek: 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? Skylover - And I am trying to give you a different perspective. Of course from your point of view you welcome reduced minimums because you can't see past your first paying job as a pilot and because you are along ways from 1500 hrs you think that is a lot of flight time too. USMCFLYR |
[QUOTE=USMCFLYR;1229916]
No - I think you need to look at the mishap statistics again for both military and civilian. There are spikes in the mishaps rates at both the lower end of the spectrum(usually construed to inexperience) and at the mid-range (often thought to be bred of complacency), and then of course the 15,000 hr pilot who does something that no one can figure out why :eek: Considering training here in the US as a starting point, there isn't a 1500 hour pilot who hasn't been taught the proper recovery for a stall or unusual attitudes. Whether that low, mid, or high time pilot applied that training at the proper time is another question and one that can't be answered until put into that situation - but if you want to put your dollar in the pot with me - I'll generally go with the higher time pilot unless there is some extenuating circumstance (an extreme example would be that I would trust riding in the backseat of a 200 hr naval aviator trainee going through carrier qualifications rather than a 2000 hr GA pilot trying to do the same - highly specialized training being the difference in that scenario) 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. Further reading: http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/m...ia/age60_3.pdf |
Now hold on... you are comparing apples and oranges... Commercial airline pilots are not in my mind nor in the mind of most...General Aviation .....MOST general aviation accidents are very low time....OR ... VFR rated pilot continued flight into marginal or known IFR conditions....result = loss of control of the aircraft. Commercial Airline accidents is a totally different animal. So lets NOT call the Air France or any other airline accident General Aviation.
Oh... and for the poster above who lumped military trained pilots with those from a "structured school"... try again pal...not even in the same league. And before the flamers jump on me.... I am in no way saying that military pilots are better than GA trained pilots. What I will say is they are held to different standards and even then you have guys who make it through who probably shouldn't. FWIW... I support the 1500 rule... with or without exemptions for type of training involved. |
Originally Posted by HercDriver130
(Post 1229975)
Oh... and for the poster above who lumped military trained pilots with those from a "structured school"... try again pal...not even in the same league. And before the flamers jump on me.... I am in no way saying that military pilots are better than GA trained pilots. What I will say is they are held to different standards and even then you have guys who make it through who probably shouldn't.
However, I'm guessing it's mostly av. college pilots applying to ASA in that chart, not military pilots. |
structured...perhaps...comparable...NO.
|
Originally Posted by skylover
(Post 1229830)
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.
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. I can see how you might think going from 250hrs to 1,500hrs is a huge jump. If you look back to the 80's and 90's before the explosion of regional jet operators you might be surprised to learn that it wasn't uncommon for a pilot to have several thousand hours before being hired at any airline (regional or major) flying pax. Back then pay was higher and when you take inflation into account the difference is staggering. Nowadays the airspace is more congested, automation is more complicated, and pilots work longer and harder than ever before. Prior to the massive outsourcing of the last decade and the Colgan accident, a 250hr pilot with a wet commercial flying pax was almost unheard of. The public tolerated this because outsourcing allowed cheaper fares and as long as the flight showed up on time and the landing was smooth no one knew the difference. I do agree with your premise that a structured program is better but I challenge you to find anyone who went into this profession who wanted a 20-30yr "career" with a regional carrier. Unfortunately that is the reality for many pilots today. I fear it will continue so as long as those who are motivated by a quick professional gain to lower the standard. I hope you won't take this as a personal attack as I wish that anyone who enters this profession has it better than those who came before you. |
Originally Posted by Stitches
(Post 1230167)
1,500hrs is high, and it should be. You mentioned earlier that you have yet to begin training. So from your perspective as someone with zero experience, do you really think you are qualified to judge whether 1,500hrs are sufficient mins?
I can see how you might think going from 250hrs to 1,500hrs is a huge jump. If you look back to the 80's and 90's before the explosion of regional jet operators you might be surprised to learn that it wasn't uncommon for a pilot to have several thousand hours before being hired at any airline (regional or major) flying pax. Back then pay was higher and when you take inflation into account the difference is staggering. Nowadays the airspace is more congested, automation is more complicated, and pilots work longer and harder than ever before. Prior to the massive outsourcing of the last decade and the Colgan accident, a 250hr pilot with a wet commercial flying pax was almost unheard of. The public tolerated this because outsourcing allowed cheaper fares and as long as the flight showed up on time and the landing was smooth no one knew the difference. I do agree with your premise that a structured program is better but I challenge you to find anyone who went into this profession who wanted a 20-30yr "career" with a regional carrier. Unfortunately that is the reality for many pilots today. I fear it will continue so as long as those who are motivated by a quick professional gain to lower the standard. I hope you won't take this as a personal attack as I wish that anyone who enters this profession has it better than those who came before you. 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. |
Originally Posted by skylover
(Post 1230176)
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. |
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
(Post 1230207)
How is that going to change? Regional airline managers love it when pilots think this. It means cheap labor, which in turn means they can continue to undercut major airlines/routes, which in turn keeps it a "career" due to the passenger volume on regionals.
Also, increased hiring at majors means more attrition at regionals, making it a "stepping stone" once again for folks just joining the industry. That's just my opinion; I know others think differently. Also, there are other ways to make it to a major quicker if one is proactive. Internships, for example. Some even offer a guaranteed interview once one meets the min. requirements. |
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. |
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
(Post 1230207)
How is that going to change? Regional airline managers love it when pilots think this. It means cheap labor, which in turn means they can continue to undercut major airlines/routes, which in turn keeps it a "career" due to the passenger volume on regionals.
I was in an FBO not too long ago when an older gentlemen asked the All ATP CFI who just landed about his career plans. The CFI replied that he was building hours (at a rate of 8 per day plus ground instruction:eek:) to move on to a regional and 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. I don't think it ever occured to him that "investing" could easily be replaced with "exploiting". Just depends on your point of view. |
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 :) |
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).
Originally Posted by Death2Daleks
(Post 1229827)
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? 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
(Post 1229830)
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
(Post 1229830)
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
(Post 1229961)
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
(Post 1230176)
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
(Post 1230209)
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
(Post 1230209)
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
(Post 1230309)
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.
Originally Posted by Stitches
(Post 1230392)
...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
(Post 1230418)
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 :) Damn, another novel. Sorry about that - I'll probably go on a couple of ignore lists for this one. |
Originally Posted by bcrosier
(Post 1230471)
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. |
Originally Posted by skylover
(Post 1230550)
"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. 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. |
Originally Posted by bcrosier
(Post 1230683)
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. 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 |
Originally Posted by skylover
(Post 1230762)
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 USMCFLYR |
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 1230777)
You base this "challenge" on ONE chart from ONE airline and consider this hard evidence?
USMCFLYR |
Originally Posted by skylover
(Post 1230782)
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 |
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 1230789)
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 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.:) |
Originally Posted by skylover
(Post 1230762)
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
(Post 1230762)
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
(Post 1230762)
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
(Post 1230789)
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. 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... |
Just a couple of final points-
|
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...6Jyuk6M9A8acH2
Always good to see pilots with little to zero experience making their points based on research and not experience. When you base your research on ALLATPs website and ERAU and the like you will find what you want to find. Our research is built on thousands of hours of experience starting at zero and culminating at being hired at numerous airlines or other commercial operators. As for 1500 hours, that is supposed to be the fun part. What ever happened to people wanting to be a pilot? For most, being a pilot now simply means getting to an airline as quick as possible. Everyone wants to skip the "crappy" part that is flying around in light singles and building time via the various methods out there. |
Originally Posted by skylover
(Post 1231006)
Just a couple of final points-
USMCFLYR |
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 1231014)
Since you like to use one chart from one airline and the thoughts of one graduate that you are conversing with as basis for facts, would it help you if I put you in touch with numerous people on this very forum who attended ERAU and now feel like it was a huge mistake? I mean if the word of a single person is enough for you to make a decision maybe you need to hear from another with similar experience - OR - you may only want to hear from those that validate a decision already made ;)
USMCFLYR |
Originally Posted by skylover
(Post 1231022)
Sure, if you are willing to do that, that would be great!
Step 1: Type ERAU into the Search engine. Step 2: Read numerous threads pertaining to ERAU. Step 3: Make a list of users who have both good and bad things to say. Step 4: Start networking (a very important part of navigating the profession). USMCFLYR |
Regional new hires
I had 3800 hours when I was able to get hired by my first regional and I was the lowest time guy in class. A few years before I got on I was told that they were hiring 5000 hour guys.
A year later I was teaching basic indoctrination and there was a guy sitting in class with 190 hours total time and 45 of that was in a simulator. The regional made a choice to hire low timers. Market conditions did not warrant it. Skyhigh |
Originally Posted by skylover
(Post 1231006)
To be clear, my family and I do not have unlimited money - far from it. The majority of the grants I'm getting are from merit, because I've worked my behind off throughout school, and I now have an extremely high GPA/SAT. It's from hard work, not mommy and daddy's pockets.
Originally Posted by skylover
(Post 1231006)
I really have done research on ERAU. Unfortunately, around here, there are extremely biased and disgruntled folks complaining about ERAU just for the fun of it.
Because they couldn't possibly have any valid reasons for complaining about it? Ask yourself - WHY are they so biased? WHY are there so many of them? "Because they're all *********s" probably isn't the correct answer.
Originally Posted by skylover
(Post 1231006)
I actually have been PMing with an ERAU graduate who went to a regional straight after graduation, and he gave me loads of advice/opinions as well, that aren't biased, but truthful. The fact is that for flying, ERAU really is a very good institution to attend.
Let me see if I have this straight:
Originally Posted by skylover
(Post 1231006)
Also, I've done campus tours and that kind of thing, and the campus is beautiful as well. I think a final benefit of ERAU is that it's all-aviation, all the time. While this is miserable for some, I love it and I enjoy being around like-minded people.
Being around people who only share your interests and are "like-minded" misses the whole concept of what a university is supposed to be. It should be an amalgamation of many interests, different viewpoints, and backgrounds. Again, based on everything I've read about it, ER falls well short in that category. You should have to work on and English project with a psychology major who has a worldview which is diametrically opposed to yours, and learn how to make that happen - that's part of the whole experience. I know that isn't what you meant by that, but you should give that some consideration as well. I'm really not trying to talk you out of going to ER - frankly I don't care where you go; but you should be going with open eyes as to what you are getting out of your experience there. I AM trying to talk you out of being a [.....] and taking the absolute shortest route to an RJ seat, thereby bypassing some of the most valuable experience you'll have the opportunity to get. The term character building comes to mind - and that's not a bad thing. To be the best pilot you can be, you need some character building experiences. I've already given examples, I won't bother repeating them - but perhaps you should go back and re-read them and contemplate that. Ultimately, you aren't getting paid to fly people somewhere. You're getting paid to NOT fly them somewhere when the circumstances dictate. You are being paid to be your passenger's last line of defense; over company management, over chief pilots, over schedulers, dispatchers, mechanics, even over the passengers themselves. You need to have the experience and the knowledge to know when to say NO, when to say YES, and when to say MAYBE - and to have and continue to develop multiple contingency plans during the operation. YOU CANNOT AND WILL NOT GET THAT EXPERIENCE IN A HIGHLY STRUCTURED FLIGHT SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT, AND IT WILL COME AT AN EXTREMELY SLOW RATE AS A FO IN THE HIGHLY STRUCTURED WORLD OF SCHEDULED 121 OPERATIONS!!! I believe anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar. An aviation school exists to give you the foundation, framework, and basic knowledge to flesh out and make these concepts your own reality, but it is not the reality in itself. It's the foundation and the framing of the house if you will. A 121 operation exists to transport passengers and cargo at the highest levels of safety, utilizing highly structured operations, procedures, and experienced crew members (or at least it should to fulfill it's intended mission). You certainly will gain experience at a 121, but that experience isn't the drywall or the siding that forms the wall of the house - it's the final layer, the stucco, paint, or trim. If you don't have intermediate level, there isn't anything for the finish work to adhere to. Okay, it's not a great analogy, but it's what I've got. I guess I'm probably done here, it seems you have your mind made up and would prefer to not be confused with the facts; or at the very least the insights of numerous people who have decades of experience in the matters of which we are speaking. Good luck to you where ever and whatever you end up doing (I mean that sincerely). |
Originally Posted by bcrosier
(Post 1231432)
I AM trying to talk you out of being a dumbass and taking the absolute shortest route to an RJ seat, thereby bypassing some of the most valuable experience you'll have the opportunity to get. The term character building comes to mind - and that's not a bad thing. To be the best pilot you can be, you need some character building experiences. I've already given examples, I won't bother repeating them - but perhaps you should go back and re-read them and contemplate that. Quite frankly, I think it builds more character to even be eligible to become a new hire regional pilot by the end of college. It takes a ton of hard work - flight instructing as much as possible, including the summer, and maybe squeezing in an internship as well. I recognize and accept that people here have different opinions on flight training. But it's not acceptable to call somebody a "dumbass" because they value real-world career goals rather than building whatever concept of "character" that you have in your mind. I'm never going to be the very best pilot in the world. But if I can operate the aircraft safely, comfortably, and efficiently while working well with my captain/first officer and flight attendants, I'm happy. Whether you like it or not, ERAU and other "aviation colleges" have produced thousands of people just like that, with good character, decision making skills, and knowledge needed to fly safely. That's probably why during 2006-07 at ASA, approx. 75% of applicants who came from structured approaches were hired, while less than 27% of non-structured applicants were hired. And the interview process includes a simulator portion, where applicants need to deal with a variety of emergency situations, exactly like what you were mentioning. Character is who you are when nobody is looking. I was taught that in kindergarten, and I've followed it ever since. It is NOT, however, going to Mom 'n Pop's Flight School of Fun rather than ERAU, and becoming a regional pilot at age 24 rather than 22, going through "character building exercises" along the way. Oh, and by the way - my PM contact who went to ERAU did not say all positive things about the school, far from it. But because of his first-hand experience, he could provide me information that somebody who hasn't even attended ERAU can't provide. |
At least half?
By my guess a good portion of those who go to fancy aviation university programs really do not hold much intention of going to work as a pilot. If grandma leaves you a small fortune to go to college on why spend it on something useful like business or accounting? Just go and blow it on something fun like getting a degree in winter sports (skiing and snowboarding), advanced ballistics and accuracy (shooting) or aviation.
Once college is over you can go home and work in mom and dads furniture factory. My Alma matter is on life support right now by giving playboys a place to go and blow their future. Few real dreamers are left who can afford it. If I were dean I would fill the university catalog with useless self indulgent programs to fill classes with trust fund kids who are looking for a place to have fun but still make it look like college. On second though perhaps they already do that now. :rolleyes: Skyhigh |
Pilot SHortaGe
If anything is going to create a pilot shortage it will be due to the fact that it is not worth the long time horizon it takes to get there anymore.
I understand why young people want to go straight to a regional. The prospect of wasting half a decade on instructing is not worth it at all. Then add 7 years in the right seat and forget about it. YUK All for less than mailman wages. Skyhigh |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:04 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands