Airline Pilot Central Forums - Selected into JetBlue's ab initio program

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

- JetBlue (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/)

- - Selected into JetBlue's ab initio program (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/94420-selected-into-jetblues-ab-initio-program.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mobiusixi (Post 2108182)

Value Jet 592. When your time is up, your time is up.
The same could almost be said for Swissair 111. The captain was one of the most expirenced pilots at Swissair and the FO wasn't straight from flight school either. The whole thing might have been avoided if he did a pan pan call when he smelled smoke and diverted straight to Halifax just to play it safe, but his expirence likely told him it was the A/C system. There are times when expirence means nothing if the cards are stacked against you.

You already know that, but that's just my thought on that.

I might be wrong, but weren't the Swiss guys management pilots? It seems to me the original Capt. rejected the aircraft.

You win guys. I'll stick with drilling. Can't imagine what will happen, but I guess it's doomsday for the airline industry.

Just announced : JetBlue's gateway 8 program!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UGcyier95sw

Quote:

Originally Posted by UpAndAway (Post 2107943)

My first instructor, before pay increased, made just over $20,000 a year a couple of years ago starting at SkyWest (EMB 120, I believe they've phased them out since). I'm not asking for a handout or a golden ticket, I'm simply stating that type of wage is unacceptable for people today (or ten years ago), especially after incurring significant debt. That's a perfectly reasonable position to have. I'm not alone in this and there are countless articles and threads on this.
If you've accepted that's just how it is, then we'll likely never make much progress on this front and the status-quo will continue.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the experience front. I will say, however, there are thousands of regional flights operating daily that fly in those conditions and at those airports. If you're saying every day there are American regional pilots putting thousands of lives at significantly more risk, then I think you know as well as I do that change needs to happen.

It was obviously acceptable to him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mobiusixi (Post 2108182)

quite a few comments on Swiss 111 that are off the mark. industry practice back then and Swiss fire checklist proritized detection and elimination of sources first and only then the land at the nearest suitable airport. they were trained that way and following procedure. after this accident many airlines changed their procedures and now a land asap is of priority when dealing with an onboard fire.

Also the TSB did many simulations of the flight profile. Even without the fuel dump they conclusively proved the aircraft would have not made it regardless.

Pg 248
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-re...3/a98h0003.pdf

quoted portion:

Theoretical calculations confirm that from any point along the actual flight path after the aircraft started to descend, it would not have been possible for the pilots to continue maintaining control of the aircraft for the amount of time necessary to reach the airport and complete a landing.

Some of you think that because the Europeans have been doing this it's OK. The reason that Most non-US airlines have these programs is the ridiculously high cost of flight training to the average European student because of the ridiculously high cost of fuel due to all the government freebie programs/socialism. Fuel is over $8.00 a gallon there and that's why many European kids come to the US for flight training. Our system is much better. Ab-Initio would probably work out OK, if the standards are very high for applicants, but I don't see the airlines paying for rigorous military style training that would make an Ab-Initio program safe and worthwhile.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papoo (Post 2108181)

I get your point, but I don't entirely agree.

During that .001% of Ops, experience may help. Equally, of greater use is knowledge, decision making, TEM, etc.

Experience may help with those things too, but it's not a precursor. If you select individuals with a tested aptitude for the important skill-set, I'd say that guy is more useful than a magenta drone with 8,000. The military also agree.

Hence, the airlines I mentioned continue to maintain as high a safety ranking and record as it is possible to get in the industry.

Perhaps saying 'experience means little' was too strong a term, but you get the general drift of my post, I'm sure.

Knowledge, decision making, and TEM are all things that are largely the byproducts of experience. "Wisdom," would be another way to say it.

The reason these programs have some success is in no small part due to the other guy in the cockpit. The concept of hiring hire ab initio CAPTAINS is a ludicrous one for one very specific reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAXative (Post 2108361)

It was obviously acceptable to him.

Hardly. What other option did he have (especially with no degree, which most Majors are wanting to see now)? The airlines have been abusing the idea that pilots will fly for nothing for a long time. This trend has devalued the profession in the interest of profits and provided an environment of limited mobility and substandard wages.

This is nothing new to you all. If none of this were an issue, this thread wouldn't exist and there would be no talks of a pilot shortage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by antbar01 (Post 2108413)

Knowledge, decision making, and TEM are all things that are largely the byproducts of experience. "Wisdom," would be another way to say it.

And with that experience comes the ability and conviction to tell the person next to you, "No" when your experience suggests the course of action is a bad one.

In regards to Swissair, the smoke/fumes of unknown origin checklist took 20-30 minutes or more to complete. Only at the end did it suggest a diversion if results were not suitable. The checklist was revised after the accident. This is important to consider: NO manufacturer produced checklist takes time of completion into account. NONE OF THEM. This is an issue I discussed extensively when I managed the human factors program at FlightSafety Intl.