Airline Pilot Central Forums - Hiring / training

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Frontier (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/frontier/)

- - Hiring / training (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/frontier/119576-hiring-training.html)

Culture and schedule.

I haven’t met too many Frontier pilots in my travels. The few I’ve talked to like the company.

Looking to find a MCO based airline and stay there. All the airlines pay enough to make me happy. Care more about culture, pilot community, and schedule. Most of you Frontier pilots happy there? Happy enough to make it a career without hopping?

Thanks for any input..

Fly Safe

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyLikeEmu (Post 2971626)

I’m an MCO FO. I love it here and stopped updating apps elsewhere over a year ago. I think you’re likely to move up the ranks among MCO FOs fairy quickly but my guess is you’ll see some stagnation around the top 25% mark. Don’t expect to hold MCO captain in the next decade + unless management decides to grow the base. Most MCO captains live in base and the majority are under 55 years old. Not to mention several pilots have recently bid into Orlando and accompanied the bid with a move. Orlando is becoming senior fairly quickly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyLikeEmu (Post 2971626)

I’m an MCO guy thats why I came to the airline, turned down Southwest and JetBlue because of the growth and it has worked out in my favor. Crews are great here and schedules are good as well do not plan on working for another airline unless we go out of business or get bought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaterRooster (Post 2971613)

The answer is that if you were in a 2 pilot aircraft and you did not sign for/were not responsible for the flight, then you were NOT the PIC.

Again, if you have to use a reg to justify your PIC experience, that’s an issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Powderkeg (Post 2971614)

The question you asked WaterRooster was, how do you justify things not going well for an applicant if they have to use a FAR to explain why they logged something the way they did. That’s what I answered.

In explaining why they logged something the way they did, citing the regulation that says how to log that thing should be simple and clear cut... especially if that is the only instruction they have to go by. I don't see how a TMAAT question figures in.

I know that many employers want something other than what the reg says (which, again, they have a right to) and there's a general cultural understanding about this. But not everyone is gonna have that, and someone new (or at least new to civilian flying) asked a very fair question where the job description doesn't specify which version they're asking about. And it grinds my gears that people are getting snippy with him for trying to clear up what the description leaves unclear.

As pilots, one of the qualities that's expected of us is the ability to follow instructions, and rightfully so! In doing our job we have a huge amount of technical data and procedural workflow to follow (some of it not in line with common sense, either). The mentality is black and white, if A then B. Follow the checklist. So we have a reg on what goes in this box, and the application asks what is in this box. Pretty simple. So how can you introduce a secret expectation that the applicant does something else? Why leave it up to the vagaries of general cultural knowledge when you can just specify it in the job requirements and kill the ambiguity?

Quote:

Originally Posted by vessbot (Post 2971658)

Your answer goes against the only instruction out there, which is the reg 61.51. So if this is the only instruction the applicant has to go by, why would you expect of him to do anything else, until surprised by your demands at the interview table?

If you demand something other than what the reg says (which would be your prerogative) why not specify this in the job requirements? I don't understand the resistance. Why create mystery games?

In explaining why they logged something the way they did, citing the regulation that says how to log that thing should be simple and clear cut... especially if that is the only instruction they have to go by. I don't see how a TMAAT question figures in.

I know that many employers want something other than what the reg says (which, again, they have a right to) and there's a general cultural understanding about this. But not everyone is gonna have that, and someone new (or at least new to civilian flying) asked a very fair question where the job description doesn't specify which version they're asking about. And it grinds my gears that people are getting snippy with him for trying to clear up what the description leaves unclear.

As pilots, one of the qualities that's expected of us is the ability to follow instructions, and rightfully so! In doing our job we have a huge amount of technical data and procedural workflow to follow (some of it not in line with common sense, either). The mentality is black and white, if A then B. Follow the checklist. So we have a reg on what goes in this box, and the application asks what is in this box. Pretty simple. So how can you introduce a secret expectation that the applicant does something else? Why leave it up to the vagaries of general cultural knowledge when you can just specify it in the job requirements and kill the ambiguity?

You are making this way bigger than it needs to be. PIC is PIC, if you are questioning whether or not it should be logged, don't log it. It's that simple. A box says it wants PIC. Enter exactly that in the box. A box says it wants time flown with an arm tied behind your back, enter that in the box.

The problem with it at the interview, is if you are tight on PIC, or shaky of the validity of it. It will get sniffed out, it will look dishonest, and that will likely be enough to be shown the door. Renting a 152 to hit the number...if it bumps you over the threshold, sure the computer might say to bring you in. But if you're lucky you'd probably get the thanks but come back in a year after getting some more seat time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vessbot (Post 2971658)

There is an issue military guys trying to do this. The Blackhawk has a civilian type S-70. So what they are trying to do is say that while flying a BlackHawk, which is not the S-70, that they can log PIC time as the sole manipulator of the controls. That is not correct because that FAR does not override the military regulations. Hence they did not sign for it, they are not the PIC, that’s an issue.

61.51 was created for helicopters. If someone brings it to me and doesn’t have all the appropriate logbook sign offs, with CFI sign-offs as well as what the PIC training program was, then yes, it’s an issue. Without that, you can just log as much PIC as you want, magic pencil if you will.

Sorry if it’s grinding your gears that I’m not giving you the answer you or anyone else want on this topic. I know everyone wants to move on quick, but sometimes grinding it out it a good thing so stop looking for shortcuts. In the end wether you have 1000 TRUE PIC or 500 61.51 PIC, it’s up to the interviewer to judge if the person is going to be a right fit. Why make it harder for yourself and explain a reg during an interview?

Having spoken to several interviewers and a chief pilot, they are looking for aircraft commander time, NOT 61.51 time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary et al (Post 2971676)

You are making this way bigger than it needs to be.

But it IS actually that big, and I didn't make it so. 61.51 has been around a lot longer than this conversation, and due to employers' wanting PIC defined another way, there are multiple definitions of PIC out there (so "PIC is PIC" is not true) and that needs to be dealt with. And the way to deal with it is not to pretend that the reg definition doesn't exist. And to expect from everybody to magically know to also pretend that way, is an unreasonable expectation. From day one as student pilots, we're taught to follow the regs, and follow the manuals, and follow the SOP's, and follow the opspecs, etc.; and now suddenly this, without warning? To me, the attitude that simply logging how the reg says to log is "dishonest," is bizarre.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaterRooster (Post 2971689)

Sorry if it’s grinding your gears that I’m not giving you the answer you or anyone else want on this topic.

You've misunderstood the answer I want. I'm not looking for airlines to accept 61.51 time; I've stated several times that it's their right to demand whatever they want. I'm looking for what they want to be specified in the job requirements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vessbot (Post 2971697)

To me, the attitude that simply logging how the reg says to log is "dishonest," is bizarre.

This conversation has been here since the reg came out. Some apps have it in the application section, some don’t. So sure, they could clean it up. Either way, you have your answer above on how to log if you want to come here.