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. . .

 

First of all, I am kind of like you in that I have not begun training yet. However, I've done extensive research and I've talked to experienced pilots about this, and I'm happy to pass that along to you.

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...

• Aviation colleges. If you are past college-age, this is not an option. Examples of large ones are Embry-Riddle and University of North Dakota. They integrate flight training into an Aeronautical Science curriculum. Pros include the fact that you get lowered minimums for an ATP certificate, now required for any airline pilot, and the fact that you can flight instruct as an undergraduate once eligible, allowing you to gain hours during college. The cons are that they can be (very) expensive, and an Aeronautical Science degree may not be very valuable if you somehow are unable to fly anymore.
• Local flight school. These operate under part 61 or part 141 regulations. Part 61 means that your flight instructor is responsible for your lessons, and simply has to get you to a point where you can pass the assessments. Part 141 means that your flight instructor follows a curriculum with set lessons, and training is more structured. Aviation colleges run under part 141, and they are required to have a certain % of students passing, otherwise the FAA will intervene.
• Military. I don't know a lot about this, but you may want to look into it.

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.

 

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

 

I meant unfortunately for him - it seemed like he wanted quick training in other threads. Nonetheless, such programs were viable options for people who wanted to become an airline pilot as quick as possible. In fact, I know somebody who made a career change at age 30, and was in a "zero to hero" program.

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:
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

 

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?

 

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.

 

[QUOTE]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

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)

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