Originally Posted by JulesWinfield

The CRJ hand flies like crap. I flew the Metro, so that should tell you something. I'm a 600 feet autopilot on guy.

Originally Posted by ninerdriver

So, based on your training experience, I can see from where you're coming. I don't see that as the case, though.

When I went through initial in 2017, MT6 was almost exclusively handflown, including flying from altitude to touchdown using a non-precision approach. Half the IQLOE scenarios also included loss of autopilot enroute. There were ample opportunities for the training department to identify someone who couldn't competently hand-fly the plane.

We're also going to have to disagree that the training department is just checking boxes and pushing folks through to save money on the sims. Take a peek at Trim. People repeat lessons.

Originally Posted by theUpsideDown

Lot of these guys went from 172s and small twins to RJs, they don't know other jets dont come with auto-rock, crap touch feel, an electric trim that might be better used to trim against your inputs, electrically controlled surfaces like flaps, slats and spoilers that would all work better and more comfortably at halfspeed (of course the spoilers dont have that "feature"), and trend vectors that work something close to the sim, rather than being the opposite you purposefully omit in your scan.

Originally Posted by vessbot

I agree on the crap feel with heavy stick forces especially around neutral breakout. But I always figured that any transport jet with hydraulic controls would be like that. My one other jet was unassisted pushrods, and a beauty to fly. I also agree on the pitching motions with flaps coming out being a huge pain. I just about had it down consistently on the 200, then I switched and whoa now you have pull then push in perfect timing!

But what do you mean by "auto rock," and what's wrong with the trim? And the trend vector?

Originally Posted by JetDoc

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. On what level in the universe is this even remotely acceptable? You can NEVER fly for us at mainline but go on back to Endeavor, which we own and fly our passengers in planes that we own in the same weather to the same airports but for pennies on the dollar? The hypocrisy here defies even the most simplest of logic. Spare me the arguments of culture and attitude. These people represent the brand EVERY DAY and here is the ultimate litmus test for all you delta apologists who undoubtedly are going to rush in here and try to defend the stringent delta hiring process. Not a single one of you would hesitate to ask any these very same unworthy pilots for the hospitality of their jump seat nor would you even think twice about putting your entire family in the back of that same pilots airplane when it's time to go to Disney World. Nearly 40% of delta's daily departures are farmed out. You can't have it both ways and maintain any sort of credibility in the hiring process.

Originally Posted by max gross

It has nothing to do with safety. It’s who might be the better “employee” in their eyes. How would you define that if you were mgmt?

Ps. Don’t shoot the messenger.

Originally Posted by Mesabah

They hired people with severe attendance problems, it's not that either. You had to pass the testing, then get lucky with your panel draw, nothing else mattered.

Originally Posted by theUpsideDown

Yeah, i think sometimes people get very very backwards on this board. Work as hard or not as you like, pass the interview (which is supposedly a measure of a pilot) and you're in. Its bizarre they are once again saying no to checkairmen, and our rising stars that were the hardest working.

Once again, completely confused why some are hired and others arent.

Originally Posted by Wynncore

I agree. But one thing is a certain: Nobody knows what goes on behind that closed door except the interview panel and the interviewee. People are hired for a reason and they are turned away for a reason.

Airlines don't hire pilots, they hire people and future leaders who can represent the brand just as well as they can manage an engine fire over an ocean. I'm not being condescending in any way, I'm just saying that so much more is "reviewed, analyzed and studied" about a candidate in an interview that goes far beyond what they've done while at work or how many hours they have accumulated since they began flying.