TRANSPAC Great GIG! $3,000 Bonus Sign-On
07-31-2015, 12:04 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Position: E-175
Posts: 458
Originally Posted by Packrat
Racist, much? I'd bet those foreign students speak English better than you speak Japanese/Chinese/Tagalog.
Dont get me wrong, most of these students are smart, and speak English just fine. But many are not, and dont. Not a good fit for a safety sensitive culture like aviation, especially when you are the CFI and its your life and certificate on board. Dont forget the airspace congestion and mid air collisions killing 4 they have had recently. Bet you didnt hear that on the national news.
Iv had friends and colleagues go through TransPac. Its not all strawberries and sunshine. Thats for sure. Tell me again, how many total hull losses have you guys had in the last few years??? If the number is more than zero, no thanks. Pretty sure its much higher than that...
Im just trying to give people a more realistic look at this place, and not the cheesy sales pitch the OP has. Its always far from reality coming from a recruiter. It is a foreign pilot mill, with an abysmal safety record.
07-31-2015, 03:09 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Captain CL-65
Posts: 268
Originally Posted by GrassLandings
Nope, im not. But I have had the english barrier almost kill me multiple times. If you havent flown with these types of students then you have no clue what I am talking about. If you have, and didnt get sick of it after the first day then you got lucky. As far as me speaking another language, or them speaking Chinese better than me its irrelevant. Thats not the issue here, nor is it a correlation to the requirement to ICAO level 4 English proficient. Those with level 4 "certification" still have significant language barriers that become apparent in high stress training environments.
Dont get me wrong, most of these students are smart, and speak English just fine. But many are not, and dont. Not a good fit for a safety sensitive culture like aviation, especially when you are the CFI and its your life and certificate on board. Dont forget the airspace congestion and mid air collisions killing 4 they have had recently. Bet you didnt hear that on the national news.
Iv had friends and colleagues go through TransPac. Its not all strawberries and sunshine. Thats for sure. Tell me again, how many total hull losses have you guys had in the last few years??? If the number is more than zero, no thanks. Pretty sure its much higher than that...
Im just trying to give people a more realistic look at this place, and not the cheesy sales pitch the OP has. Its always far from reality coming from a recruiter. It is a foreign pilot mill, with an abysmal safety record.
Dont get me wrong, most of these students are smart, and speak English just fine. But many are not, and dont. Not a good fit for a safety sensitive culture like aviation, especially when you are the CFI and its your life and certificate on board. Dont forget the airspace congestion and mid air collisions killing 4 they have had recently. Bet you didnt hear that on the national news.
Iv had friends and colleagues go through TransPac. Its not all strawberries and sunshine. Thats for sure. Tell me again, how many total hull losses have you guys had in the last few years??? If the number is more than zero, no thanks. Pretty sure its much higher than that...
Im just trying to give people a more realistic look at this place, and not the cheesy sales pitch the OP has. Its always far from reality coming from a recruiter. It is a foreign pilot mill, with an abysmal safety record.
Here is a small excerpt about flight times at this company.. Just to give GrassLandings a clue about the law of averages that he thinks is excluded in aviation. I hope you "fly the numbers" or at least understand them a little better now that you're a 121 guy.. Point is accidents are always going to happen and here we are very safe. Like a few people commented about towards you earlier; your original comment wasn't welcomed here, sometimes people mean well but their attitude sucks. With yours, nobody will want to do a four day with you being like that over in the right seat, but whatever.
"Phoenix owns Deer Valley Airport, where TransPac is based, and maintains records of tenant flight hours.
City records obtained by The Republic showed TransPac logged more than 300,000 student flight hours between 2009 and ’13.
In that time, the school averaged one accident per 50,967.5 student flight hours and one fatal accident per 101,935 student flight hours.
The national average, last recorded in 2009 by the national Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, is 7.2 accidents — and 1.33 fatalities — per 100,000 flight hours.
“When you look at the overall numbers, they are actually better (than average),” aerospace consultant Douglas M. Moss said of TransPac’s safety record."
Moss is an expert in aircraft accident investigation and causal analysis and operates AeroPacific Consulting LLC in Reno.
“Obviously, the goal is zero,” Moss said. “But that’s just not feasible."
08-01-2015, 12:08 AM
#14
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,023
The original poster failed to note that the average student fails each of his checkrides (instrument, commercial, multi) twice, some three times. Students graduate the program unable to land in some cases, and some are afraid to land. Nearly everyone here has worked as a flight instructor. How many have a history of each student failing multiple checkrides for each certificate and rating?
The number of fatalities is not a good yardstick as a measure of success, especially with an operation such as Transpac.
The number of fatalities is not a good yardstick as a measure of success, especially with an operation such as Transpac.
08-01-2015, 01:39 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Captain CL-65
Posts: 268
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
The original poster failed to note that the average student fails each of his checkrides (instrument, commercial, multi) twice, some three times. Students graduate the program unable to land in some cases, and some are afraid to land. Nearly everyone here has worked as a flight instructor. How many have a history of each student failing multiple checkrides for each certificate and rating?
The number of fatalities is not a good yardstick as a measure of success, especially with an operation such as Transpac.
The number of fatalities is not a good yardstick as a measure of success, especially with an operation such as Transpac.
I agree with you, fatalities is never a defining yardstick in a flight school operation because you have to go off success. However, it is ironic you bring up average checkride failures for this company as if you work here.. Or that it's the student and not the instructor that is somewhat at fault... If I have students that fail, and actually I haven't yet, then I look at myself for part of that failure. Most of the guys here actually pass their check rides and I'm not speaking just for myself. To be honest with you, I came from a similar mode of training (ATP) and if you want to start throwing check ride failure rates around well you'll have to include them pretty much by default... I had three roommates who all failed a checkride (one failed THREE) and I was fortunate enough to have made it unscathed... I made this thread to post a job option for people and to share some positivity not for it to be picked apart in some negative fashion.
08-01-2015, 10:39 AM
#16
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,023
Originally Posted by Flyboyxc91
However, it is ironic you bring up average checkride failures for this company as if you work here.. Or that it's the student and not the instructor that is somewhat at fault... ... I made this thread to post a job option for people and to share some positivity not for it to be picked apart in some negative fashion.
I do speak from personal experience in this case. Perhaps you're new with Transpac. The majority of the students have multiple failures during their checkrides; retesting is very common there. You're absolutely right; it may very well be that the company employs very poor instructors, and the students are brilliant and matchless in their study, devotion, and ability to the craft. That may be. If so, what does that say?
Some time you might stop and audit say, several hundred students as they complete the program, look back, and review the number of endorsements in their logbook to re-take the practical test after failures. Very high re-take numbers, very common, and no, that's not a guess. That's a direct observation.
Why only four red airplanes? Did you stop to think about that?
08-01-2015, 02:57 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Captain CL-65
Posts: 268
I never have stopped to ask myself "why only four red little airplanes" no... Yes I'm a newer instructor I suppose to the company, I was just sharing a good experience I've had thus far. At any rate, the company is operating 141 for the program's we are referring to, and it does require an 80% pass rate (yes that includes knowledge tests) however I have a hard time seeing through that all these students you say fail each checkride when that would seemingly make it impossible to keep the 141 certificate.. Just me thinking it through a moment, yes I may be wrong but I do believe you've exaggerated a smidge too (possibly but no matter)... Both good inputs towards any flight school operation as I've pointed out its not just here since this thread has seemed to lost its bearing towards INSTRUCTORS and arrived at flight school masses at large.
08-01-2015, 04:39 PM
#18
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,023
I haven't exaggerated at all. Four red airplanes...red for the solo airplanes...because students do minimal soloing, and the rest is supervised solo...ever wondered why that is?
How does this have a bearing on a job opening for new instructors, or the announcement thereof? You really don't understand?
The students have their own web sites, every test is listed, every question, every answer. Among the students, cheating is encouraged, and yes, it's cultural. The school doesn't tolerate it, and officially the chinese authority doesn't either, but it's absolutely a fact of life, and 80% pass within the company 141 structure is irrelevant.
Instructors show up there to build time and that's what they do. Students have an appalling failure rate on checkrides for their commercial, instrument, and multi. The FAA understands that these students aren't returning to the US to fly; these certificates (and it is a certificate mill) are generated for the express purpose of being a springboard for a Chinese license at home (and other countries of origin, China being the primary country represented at Transpac).
The student private websites include complete dossiers on each instructor, detailing exactly what the instructor likes, doesn't like, does or doesn't do, etc. Students are trained for a checkride, period. Not to be pilots, not to be aviators, but to pass a specific checkride. A broad understanding of procedures isn't part of the training schedule; press them to the checkride, then when they fail, press them through again and again until they pass.
I can tell you that from the perspective of an instructor, I'd have some very serious ethical issues performing those duties and signing off a student, knowing what the student didn't get and didn't know, at the conclusion of training.
There are some dedicated students there, fulfilling a lifelong dream, and willing to sign the 99 year commitment that they do, to get it. There are a lot of others marking time, gliding through the program because they had connections in their home country of origin, enough to get them into the program with the host airline, and who couldn't care less about learning. A lot of such students. As you were astute enough to point out, however, a great deal of the high failure rate of the students can be blamed on the instructors along with the students, and in the larger picture, on the corporate culture that permits it.
What goes on there really ought to be criminal. If those were US-bound students, the FAA would have taken a very different view a long time ago. For now it's revenue from foreign airlines for students who will never rent or return, going back to serve out their 99 years, never to be seen again. Nobody cares, so long as the money comes in and the students keep testing until they pass.
I've never seen another school or facility or program with so many failures in the logbooks, so many re-tests for any given student. It's shocking. There is absolutely no way I'd ever put myself in the position of signing off such a student, or even taking the remote gamble that the student might be prepared to take the checkride. Never. Does that have a direct implication to a discussion of employment for potential applicants for the job? It surely should. Is it relevant. It absolutely is. It's also something that the applicants should know long before they apply. Otherwise, why bother looking to a site such as this for information? Don't whitewash it. There's nothing professional or ethical about burying your head in the sand; the wages are poor, there's a lot of flying, and the students fail in droves, and have for a long time now. They eventually pass and go home...don't try to pretend otherwise. That students pass internal quizzes and exams after they've had access to photocopies of the tests before the class ever began (and they do--are you not aware??) is no demonstration of success. Call the spade a spade, for that's exactly what it is.
How does this have a bearing on a job opening for new instructors, or the announcement thereof? You really don't understand?
The students have their own web sites, every test is listed, every question, every answer. Among the students, cheating is encouraged, and yes, it's cultural. The school doesn't tolerate it, and officially the chinese authority doesn't either, but it's absolutely a fact of life, and 80% pass within the company 141 structure is irrelevant.
Instructors show up there to build time and that's what they do. Students have an appalling failure rate on checkrides for their commercial, instrument, and multi. The FAA understands that these students aren't returning to the US to fly; these certificates (and it is a certificate mill) are generated for the express purpose of being a springboard for a Chinese license at home (and other countries of origin, China being the primary country represented at Transpac).
The student private websites include complete dossiers on each instructor, detailing exactly what the instructor likes, doesn't like, does or doesn't do, etc. Students are trained for a checkride, period. Not to be pilots, not to be aviators, but to pass a specific checkride. A broad understanding of procedures isn't part of the training schedule; press them to the checkride, then when they fail, press them through again and again until they pass.
I can tell you that from the perspective of an instructor, I'd have some very serious ethical issues performing those duties and signing off a student, knowing what the student didn't get and didn't know, at the conclusion of training.
There are some dedicated students there, fulfilling a lifelong dream, and willing to sign the 99 year commitment that they do, to get it. There are a lot of others marking time, gliding through the program because they had connections in their home country of origin, enough to get them into the program with the host airline, and who couldn't care less about learning. A lot of such students. As you were astute enough to point out, however, a great deal of the high failure rate of the students can be blamed on the instructors along with the students, and in the larger picture, on the corporate culture that permits it.
What goes on there really ought to be criminal. If those were US-bound students, the FAA would have taken a very different view a long time ago. For now it's revenue from foreign airlines for students who will never rent or return, going back to serve out their 99 years, never to be seen again. Nobody cares, so long as the money comes in and the students keep testing until they pass.
I've never seen another school or facility or program with so many failures in the logbooks, so many re-tests for any given student. It's shocking. There is absolutely no way I'd ever put myself in the position of signing off such a student, or even taking the remote gamble that the student might be prepared to take the checkride. Never. Does that have a direct implication to a discussion of employment for potential applicants for the job? It surely should. Is it relevant. It absolutely is. It's also something that the applicants should know long before they apply. Otherwise, why bother looking to a site such as this for information? Don't whitewash it. There's nothing professional or ethical about burying your head in the sand; the wages are poor, there's a lot of flying, and the students fail in droves, and have for a long time now. They eventually pass and go home...don't try to pretend otherwise. That students pass internal quizzes and exams after they've had access to photocopies of the tests before the class ever began (and they do--are you not aware??) is no demonstration of success. Call the spade a spade, for that's exactly what it is.
08-01-2015, 05:18 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Captain CL-65
Posts: 268
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
I haven't exaggerated at all. Four red airplanes...red for the solo airplanes...because students do minimal soloing, and the rest is supervised solo...ever wondered why that is?
How does this have a bearing on a job opening for new instructors, or the announcement thereof? You really don't understand?
The students have their own web sites, every test is listed, every question, every answer. Among the students, cheating is encouraged, and yes, it's cultural. The school doesn't tolerate it, and officially the chinese authority doesn't either, but it's absolutely a fact of life, and 80% pass within the company 141 structure is irrelevant.
Instructors show up there to build time and that's what they do. Students have an appalling failure rate on checkrides for their commercial, instrument, and multi. The FAA understands that these students aren't returning to the US to fly; these certificates (and it is a certificate mill) are generated for the express purpose of being a springboard for a Chinese license at home (and other countries of origin, China being the primary country represented at Transpac).
The student private websites include complete dossiers on each instructor, detailing exactly what the instructor likes, doesn't like, does or doesn't do, etc. Students are trained for a checkride, period. Not to be pilots, not to be aviators, but to pass a specific checkride. A broad understanding of procedures isn't part of the training schedule; press them to the checkride, then when they fail, press them through again and again until they pass.
I can tell you that from the perspective of an instructor, I'd have some very serious ethical issues performing those duties and signing off a student, knowing what the student didn't get and didn't know, at the conclusion of training.
There are some dedicated students there, fulfilling a lifelong dream, and willing to sign the 99 year commitment that they do, to get it. There are a lot of others marking time, gliding through the program because they had connections in their home country of origin, enough to get them into the program with the host airline, and who couldn't care less about learning. A lot of such students. As you were astute enough to point out, however, a great deal of the high failure rate of the students can be blamed on the instructors along with the students, and in the larger picture, on the corporate culture that permits it.
What goes on there really ought to be criminal. If those were US-bound students, the FAA would have taken a very different view a long time ago. For now it's revenue from foreign airlines for students who will never rent or return, going back to serve out their 99 years, never to be seen again. Nobody cares, so long as the money comes in and the students keep testing until they pass.
I've never seen another school or facility or program with so many failures in the logbooks, so many re-tests for any given student. It's shocking. There is absolutely no way I'd ever put myself in the position of signing off such a student, or even taking the remote gamble that the student might be prepared to take the checkride. Never. Does that have a direct implication to a discussion of employment for potential applicants for the job? It surely should. Is it relevant. It absolutely is. It's also something that the applicants should know long before they apply. Otherwise, why bother looking to a site such as this for information? Don't whitewash it. There's nothing professional or ethical about burying your head in the sand; the wages are poor, there's a lot of flying, and the students fail in droves, and have for a long time now. They eventually pass and go home...don't try to pretend otherwise. That students pass internal quizzes and exams after they've had access to photocopies of the tests before the class ever began (and they do--are you not aware??) is no demonstration of success. Call the spade a spade, for that's exactly what it is.
How does this have a bearing on a job opening for new instructors, or the announcement thereof? You really don't understand?
The students have their own web sites, every test is listed, every question, every answer. Among the students, cheating is encouraged, and yes, it's cultural. The school doesn't tolerate it, and officially the chinese authority doesn't either, but it's absolutely a fact of life, and 80% pass within the company 141 structure is irrelevant.
Instructors show up there to build time and that's what they do. Students have an appalling failure rate on checkrides for their commercial, instrument, and multi. The FAA understands that these students aren't returning to the US to fly; these certificates (and it is a certificate mill) are generated for the express purpose of being a springboard for a Chinese license at home (and other countries of origin, China being the primary country represented at Transpac).
The student private websites include complete dossiers on each instructor, detailing exactly what the instructor likes, doesn't like, does or doesn't do, etc. Students are trained for a checkride, period. Not to be pilots, not to be aviators, but to pass a specific checkride. A broad understanding of procedures isn't part of the training schedule; press them to the checkride, then when they fail, press them through again and again until they pass.
I can tell you that from the perspective of an instructor, I'd have some very serious ethical issues performing those duties and signing off a student, knowing what the student didn't get and didn't know, at the conclusion of training.
There are some dedicated students there, fulfilling a lifelong dream, and willing to sign the 99 year commitment that they do, to get it. There are a lot of others marking time, gliding through the program because they had connections in their home country of origin, enough to get them into the program with the host airline, and who couldn't care less about learning. A lot of such students. As you were astute enough to point out, however, a great deal of the high failure rate of the students can be blamed on the instructors along with the students, and in the larger picture, on the corporate culture that permits it.
What goes on there really ought to be criminal. If those were US-bound students, the FAA would have taken a very different view a long time ago. For now it's revenue from foreign airlines for students who will never rent or return, going back to serve out their 99 years, never to be seen again. Nobody cares, so long as the money comes in and the students keep testing until they pass.
I've never seen another school or facility or program with so many failures in the logbooks, so many re-tests for any given student. It's shocking. There is absolutely no way I'd ever put myself in the position of signing off such a student, or even taking the remote gamble that the student might be prepared to take the checkride. Never. Does that have a direct implication to a discussion of employment for potential applicants for the job? It surely should. Is it relevant. It absolutely is. It's also something that the applicants should know long before they apply. Otherwise, why bother looking to a site such as this for information? Don't whitewash it. There's nothing professional or ethical about burying your head in the sand; the wages are poor, there's a lot of flying, and the students fail in droves, and have for a long time now. They eventually pass and go home...don't try to pretend otherwise. That students pass internal quizzes and exams after they've had access to photocopies of the tests before the class ever began (and they do--are you not aware??) is no demonstration of success. Call the spade a spade, for that's exactly what it is.
Last edited by Flyboyxc91; 08-01-2015 at 05:32 PM.
08-03-2015, 06:51 AM
#20
New Hire
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 3
GrassLandings and JohnBurke are both correct in their view of this place. Stay far away from TransPac. I encourage you to look them up on Glassdoor. See what instructors, mechanics, and administrative personnel have to say about this place. It is NOT a good (nor safe) place to work.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
