While on the subject of horizon/Alaska, anyone hearing about Alaska warning romadd about another 20 rjs?

 

This thread has drifted a bit from QX hiring, eh?

I don't see any qualitative difference in the knowledge or skills required to fly a C172 vs. an airliner and I believe we can safely characterize both as "flying". There is overlap in the body of knowledge required for each type of operation and there is some specific knowledge required in each operation. I think we're all aware that the same physical principles apply to flying any aircraft. The better our understanding of (and feel for) those physical principles, the better we will perform with our particular aircraft. Individual experience and ability will vary, but I submit that the skills required are the same.

I'm not saying that any airliner pilot can safely jump into a C172 or vice-versa. It depends on the individual's training, background and recency. I think my own personal journey of the last 4 years offers some insights: thanks to furlough I've recently flown B767 (both seats), Tri-Pacer (VFR) , Bonanza, Navajo, King Air (single-pilot IFR) and B737 (both seats)... in that order. My experience is that the decision making process is the same, but there's a difference in degree and the tools at your disposal. Some flights involve more decisions than others at both ends of the spectrum. IE: A B737 flight SEA-BOI may involve fewer decisions than a C172 flight SAN-SFO... and a B737 flight HKG-DLC typically involves quite a few more than a C172 flight between uncontrolled airports on a nice day.

Not to blow my horn but just to establish some credibility, I spent my first 3500 hours flying many Cessna, Piper & de Havilland types in bush Alaska. I've always believed that the experience developed my hand flying skills a bit. I'm very glad that I don't have to use those hand flying skills for 80 hours every month in the B737--I'm getting too old for that much work. But I recently flew three NDB approaches to a certain Pacific island runway (7000 x 100') in the rain with no VASI, crosswind gusting to 25 knots and wind at 200 feet showing 45 knots. It struck me that I used a little bit of that old hand-flying skill. I'm not sure I would describe it as "fun", but it was satisfying as always to get folks safely to their destination.

Bottom line, I believe it's a bit silly (and pointless) to say that operating light aircraft is "flying" and operating an airliner is not. Likewise, I would say that it is a bit ridiculous to quibble over which is "harder". Operating any aircraft requires conscientious effort and attention to detail. An individual who does not recognize that should not be at the controls of either.

 

Since you asked...On my most recent flight (YYC-MSP), we were assigned FL310. We got up to 310, I looked at the weather briefing on our dispatch release, saw that winds at 370 were more favorable, checked the QRH to make sure we had a 1.5g maneuver margin at our final altitude, chose 350 to get that margin. Then we were assigned new routing from our dispatcher around storms. It was a bad route, put us right through a line of storms. Checked out the radar summary report on our dispatch release, looked at our high-altitude enroute charts, requested direct FSD RWF SKETR3 arrival. Good thing we picked the higher altitude, because we would've been below our min fuel had we stayed at the altitude our dispatcher gave us. Dodged storms on the arrival into MSP, controller assigned us a bad heading through a cell, told him no dice. Got yelled at, but who cares? It's worth not putting a FA's head through the ceiling. This was just another jolly day at the office, nothing out of the ordinary.

If the captain and I were just trained monkeys, doing as we're told, assuming everything is rainbows and lollipops...we would've flown through several storms, almost run out of gas, and tossed our passengers out of their seats flying through buildups into MSP

So now I have to ask the question....if you believe airline pilots are "over-glorified", and that what we do on a day to day basis is simple, and virtually worthless, then what are you still doing in this industry? Why have you chosen to continue to do something that you believe is worthless? This is not just my humble opinion, but an imperative based on your assertions....you should quit. Tomorrow. Stop wasting your time, and ours. Go back to school, become an accountant...experience what a TRULY boring job is like...and fly your 172 on the side. Most importantly, get out of the way so that someone who wants nothing more than to be in your shoes, and will become an agent of positive change in this industry, can have their shot.

 

Well said, Speed. Your post is so eloquent that I imagined a British accent as I read it

 

LOL! Far be it from a westerner to be eloquent. I wonder... are the Brits as good at being humble?

Still the same, I agree with you one-hundred percent. Your post above is spot on. This is not an a-typical scenario of what crews are faced with on a regular basis, especially this time of year.

 

The first officer of the Colgan Air accident wasn't doing anything important when she failed to back up her captain and then made the unimportant decision to bring the flaps up in the midst of a stall. Of course she also decided to take a red eye while she was sick and then decided to fly like that the same day without rest. Yep, no important decisions made there.

The FO on Air France 447 decided to pull back on the joystick which stalled the aircraft and killed everyone on board. As wrong as that decision was I guess that wasn't important either.

And none of the other airline accidents that ever occurred could have ever been corrected if the first officer tried to correct the situation. Might as well just get rid of the first officer and go to single pilot cockpits.

Is that pretty much what you're saying jayray2?

I think there would be a lot more aluminum showers then there already are if there were no FO's on the flight deck. that's a bit more realistic.

There is no private pilot on this planet that will ever have anything close to the responsibility of a first officer on the smallest regional airline. A private pilot will never be responsible for the lives of more than a few people on a regular basis in the same manner as an FO. It's not really even fair to compare a private pilot to a part 121 FO. Their level of responsibility isn't the same. Not even close.

The main duty of an FO is to assist the captain. They alone must decide if the captain is performing his or her assigned task properly. It is the responsibility of the FO to take over control of the aircraft if the captain deviates from standards and does not correct. That happens more often than most people realize. A good captain will appreciate an FO that keeps him, the crew, and the passengers out of trouble. I've been thanked several times as an FO.

If the Colgan FO had her head out of her ass she would not have let the Captain get away with not maintaining airspeed in the first place and that accident would have never happened. In point of fact, her hours were so low she still was likely operating at the private pilot level. That kind of explains a good part of that accident.

An incompetent private pilot crashes a Cessna. An incompetent FO can crash an airliner. Having a competent person in the right has made the difference between a minor error and hundreds of people dying.

There is no comparison to decision making in a 172 to decision making in an airliner.

 

Nice post, for the most part I agree with you and I understand that I am making vast generalizations. Yes, in both scenarios you are technically flying an airplane. However take an airline pilot 30 years ago and compare that to the job of a pilot in a CRJ today. The connection between pilot and aircraft is so far removed that pilots are now more a computer monitor/operator rather than a pilot. I think this was my point back in my original post. It is a lot more fun to fly a plane rather than just monitor it. There is no arguing that this is the current direction of aviation and I'm not saying that is bad - it is just the way it is. I've heard from 777 pilots that V1 cuts are so simple that sometimes they don't even notice they lost an engine, these are the kinds of things I am talking about.

I will offer the caveat that yes, there were exceptions to the rules when a flight crew is presented with a plethora of difficult decisions that a GA pilot could not even comprehend. This is the reason you have a job - if the possibility didn't exist for someone to have to make difficult decisions then there would in the end be no humans, just computers. This is however the exception and no where near the rule. I understand you had to make some difficult decisions about what flight level to fly but luckily there were two people thinking together. You don't think people in light aircraft have to make those same decisions. I understand there are more people in the back of your aircraft - does that change the way you make decisions? Give me an honest assessment was changing flight levels and going around thunderstorms that difficult of a decision? In 90% of flights what kind of decisions are you making?

I never said your job was worthless or simple. And how am I wasting your time? See herein lies the problem in this industry, you prop this profession up to such a high level (maybe it deserves it and maybe it doesn't) that 10 pilots will always be right behind you to replace you at half your wage - it is sad. I am not saying I don't like being a pilot but I am not going to lie to myself so I can sleep tonight telling myself this job is something that it really isn't. I am not belittling this profession. I think pilots should be highly education, highly trained and highly paid professionals. As I passenger I would expect nothing less. And as a professional pilot I try to hold myself to a high standard of proficiency, professionalism and competency. I understand why it needs to be that way. This does not mean I think being a pilot is something that I need to over-glamorize put up on a pedestal.

Does it really bother you that much to think that on most days flying a 172 is harder than your current job? Does it bruise your ego that much that you have to come on her and tell me to quit my job because you don't agree with my opinion. We are just having a friendly discussion here.

I never compared the level of responsibility. It started out by me saying that flying for the airlines is not as fun and actually quite removed from the actually flying of an airplane. And then I went on to say in most cases the pilot of a 172 has a plethora of decisions to make while airline pilots biggest decision is sugar or cream. I said in rare occasions this is not the case. This is why there are two pilots in the actual cockpit and not in some office somewhere flying remotely. For every Colgan or Air France accident I can give you 100 GA accidents - to me the crash statistics tell the whole story. Flying around in the aviation system outside an airline environment is more deadly by 100 times (yes, I made that number up). What does that tell you?

 

I can agree with you on many things that you have pointed out, but in my experience there is a difference in making decisions at 8 miles+ per minutes and 2-4 miles per minute, at climbing or descending at 6,000 fpm vice 500-1,000 fpm, etc....

USMCFLYR

 

The reason I posted the actions I took on my last flight was because you claimed that the decisions involved in day-to-day flight in a 172 are more difficult. Although the actions I took on that flight were not all that difficult, they were certainly more involved than those of a VFR or IFR flight in a small piston single.

I guess we should just agree to disagree about which attitude is the problem in this industry. How can you say that your job is so simple, to the point where human interaction is virtually worthless on the one hand, while on the other say that you're not belittling the profession? To me that sounds like a contradiction. If to you, taking pride in our work is having an ego, then you're darn right I have an ego. I love this job...and as The Joker said in The Dark Knight...."If you're good at something, never do it for free". As you well know, it's not up to the "10 people behind me willing to do the job for half the wage because of how much I love my job" who determine YR1 wages in the airlines, but the pilots currently on the seniority list. I can't recall a time in history when airline managers have ever canvassed CFI's to see what they would accept as a minimum pay rate for flying transport aircraft. We, the pilots, are the ones who vote TA's in or out. A pilot group's level of dedication, commitment, and professionalism will likely be a determining factor in the process of negotiating pay rates. As long as you have the attitude that your job is simple enough that you may as well be flying a 172, then that's what management will want to pay you. It would behouve you to assume that the management group can quite effectively asses the pilot group's appraisal of their own value to the company.

I'm telling you to quit your job because you don't seem to take much pride in your work, nor do you seem to take the level of responsibility very seriously. If you did, then you probably wouldn't be arguing with anyone about the validity of our jobs. I submit that, if I'm paraphrasing your opinion correctly, the job of a private pilot flying from A to B is more difficult than a 121 operation flying from A to B is an argument against the validity of our work. You may be good at being an airline pilot, and you may be as professional as the next guy, but if you don't love your work...why do it? Maybe I shouldn't have made it an imperative for you to quit...but rather ask, why do you even bother? Why waste your time with something you don't take seriously?

 

A fitting article for this discussion:

Are airline pilots forgetting how to fly? - Business - msnbc.com