ASA had a -700 sim ride..... RAH made SOME of the applicants fly some desk top POS.... I had never even used one like that and did fine.... pretty easy actually.....

I would bet most dont use a sim due to the cost involved.....

fwiw... when i was interviewed and hired in 1992 with AE....we flew a citation II sim during our interview.....

outstanding post skybolt...wish we had the power to make you the new speaker of the house.

I believe that particular driver was a former RIO. A little hot dog overconfidence. Another guy almost did the same in LBB or AMA can't remember (besides thinking what a d*p******), but limped back with one shut down.

The point...can happen anytime, anywhere, to anyone.

Complacency
 

I didn't remember that two over 60 can not fly together.

Skybolt mentioned that there is an "envelope" of optimum performance. So far all we have discussed is the lower end of the spectrum. Complacency is not necessarily related to age just as capacity for the job is not necessary related to experience however they are related, and there have been plenty of accidents blamed on complacent pilots.

Skyhigh

"I didn't remember that two over 60 can not fly together."


Thank God. That will save thousands of lives.
Someone remind me, how old were the pilots that overflew Hilo a few years back?

skyhigh, I mentioned nothing about complacency. My position is related to pilot skills. A skilled pilot may get complacent, but he/she does possess the skills to do the job. The complacent pilot needs motivation, which is a whole other issue.

These recent accidents are pointing to the conclusion that pilots who enter the 121 arena at around the 250 hour mark just don't have the skills to succeed when the chips are down.

Don't forget Captain Dave Cronin, who retired within a few months of the following event that he successfully handled.

"United Airlines Flight 811 experienced a cargo door failure in flight on Friday, 24 February 1989, after its last stopover at Honolulu International Airport, Hawaii. The resulting decompression blew out several rows of seats, killing 9 passengers."

United Airlines Flight 811 -

It doesn't get much worse than that one. Night; overwater; two engines out on one side; a nearly grossed out 747; hole in the side; etc. An example of supperb airmanship getting that thing back on the ground. They were dumpin' fuel on landing !!

From my own experience I see two types of pilots. The first type are pilots that actually fly the plane, and I don't mean with autopilot off. The first type are pilots who make the airplane do what they want. The second type are reactionary pilots, i.e. if a parameter is off, they fix it using whatever method possible. The second type are not proactive in flying but reactive. A great example of the second type would be, I was flying a plane with the autopilot differed and the guy was chasing the needle on the ILS. I asked what heading he was flying for the approach, there was no answer. CFI's, Military, Single pilot IFR, fly the airplane, the other let the airplane fly them.

It would be nice
 

It would be nice if every crew were at their peak but the reality is that some people are better than others. We all have good days and bad days. A 250 hour FO is not ideal but it seems to be good enough most of the time. If an extreme situation were to happen it would be best to have Chuck Yeager and Howard Hughes up front but the reality is that the airlines can get by on a daily basis with much less.

It seems to me that anyone who has the drive to become a Chuck Yeager would not be interested in burning up their days in the front of a modern airliner anyway. It takes someone with a special set of traits to be able to be able to drone along for years of doing the same thing every day over and over without getting bored silly.

In the airlines there are no points given for working harder than the next guy. Natural talent is wasted in the seniority list system. The airlines create and reward the average. Pilots are only motivated to pass the next proficiency check. Their skills and abilities are narrowed down to exactly what they need to get by.

From my experience the airlines do not prefer to hire ex-crop dusters or African bush pilots. They want people who have a long and stable career of doing the same thing everyday. You don't have to be good in order to be a successful airline pilot just good enough.

SKyhigh

When you have 3000 hours, you think you're experienced. When you're well into five digits, and you fly with someone with 3000 hours, you realize insurance companies are taking a HUGE risk by insuring a PIC with that little experience.

Insurance companies may be the ones to force some change, not the FAA, ALPA, or congress. When the insurance companies realize there is a lot of experience out there, they may require it. There are some low time pilots out there who haven't had a chance to develop their skills with some real hard-core instrument flying, who feel they're entitled to airline flying. Not when my family is in the cabin!

The problem starts way earlier: flight training.

1) We have too many schools like ATP that trains zero to hero in 90 days. Those schools do harm to this industry. How can you develop the proper skills, knowledge and decision making in this time frame? This is impossible.

2) Rarely have I seen or heard a checkride being properly conducted. Designated Examiners are suppose to represent the FAA to test applicants to the PTS. Looking at some Designated Examiner (only a few - am not trying to generalize) pass rates, I can't help but think it is just a position to make some good money putting aside the standard we are seeking in this industry.

I have seen how a checkride is conducted in UK. I was impressed. When an applicant is ready for a checkride, he needs to send his application with the appropriate fee to the CAA. At this point, the applicant will be designated an examiner for the checkride. CAA will give equal workload to examiners. Students cannot choose an examiner. This examiner will enter in contact with the applicant and establish a time and location for the checkride. The applicant does not pay directly the designated examiner. This is included in the fee paid to the CAA and the designated examiner will be paid once the checkride complete whether a pass or fail. This system removes the business entity and really help concentrate on the standards.

3) Aerobatic training. How can you have a CFI who has done one spin flight in his flight training teach this complex maneuver after??? This should be left to experienced pilots. Aerobatic training should be mandatory for commercial and ATP. Period. I have seen too many pilots crying like babies asking not to pull too much negative Gs or pleading me to go back to normal attitude doing an inverted check. This needs to change!

Rant over. Over.

Remember, two over 60s can't fly together.


APPLICABILITY OF ICAO STANDARD- A pilot who has attained 60 years of age may serve as pilot-in-command in covered operations between the United States and another country only if there is another pilot in the flight deck crew who has not yet attained 60 years of age.



It only applies to international ops.

Grass always greener?
 

The flight test profession has changed too. One senior YF-22 test pilot met an old squadron mate, a Delta captain, at a reunion and said: "You have the best job in the world." True story.

A lot of Chuck Y's buddies got out and became Pan Am or TWA pilots, and flew another 30 years after the military. They were pretty good too, just never had a movie made about them.

Today's no different. The good one's are still out there, but the bar's been lowered to ground level for some of the marginal operations. You get what you pay for.

But if pilot-less drone airliners are what you prefer to fly on, have at it. No way. Think I'll wait for the "B-Model" on that one.

Nothing against you personally dude, but I think the point some of us would agree on is this: you should not have been flying around ticketed passengers with this lack of experience, and especially that lack of confidence flying in IMC. If the captain had crapped the bed, you would have been the man to bring it in. The people in back (possibly any of our families) deserve better than someone who is still not confident, and lacking experience flying in the wx.

Like I said, nothing is personal here. We have all been at the point where we did not feel comfortable flying in the weather. The difference is - many of us were not hauling around passengers at that point - and rightfully so.

Flying boxes, charter, military, and CFII type ops are all great places to gain that confidence and experience. Part 121 is not.

Based on your extensive airline experience?

I think Silver2Gold has a real valid point here. Especially when you consider that your wife or kids are on that plane. It is absolutely absurd for an unconfident pilot to drive these people around. I built my time flying checks.. and I learned a lot. And I don't blame a person for taking a job that is offered to him/her. The problem is not with the pilot but with the system. I know of no other profession that puts a person in instructor role as a first job. It makes no sense.

Good point - and I should have brought this up. In a like manner, I do not fault these young guys/girls for taking and flying those jobs. Rather, quite the opposite - good on em for stepping up to the plate. The FAA, however, is negligent in allowing it to happen in the first place.

I know that it is not the way of the industry - but this is one reason why I did not pursue my instructor ratings right away - and I questioned the SERGRAD program of naval aviation. I have known SEGRADs and FAIPs since and some of them are great pilots - but personally - I just couldn't instruct when I didn't feel that I knew much about flying myself. I needed to be seasoned before I felt I could instruct others.

USMCFLYR

Apparently times have change considerably since the 1960's regarding hiring of airline pilots, whether it be the Regional or Major Carriers.

I went through two airline hiring processes (getting hired both times, BTW), and they were NOT a walk in the park. I had guys wash out during both processes because they just couldn't 'hack it' like they needed to. But, back then, there was a larger pool of pilots to draw from I guess, so the airlines could be a little more demanding. While the first airline I went with only had a one month new hire program, the second airline I was with had a FOUR month program. After four months, they could tell if you had the "right stuff" or not. And, back then you flew the actual aircraft, not a sim. It was easy to see who was going to make it and who wasn't.

Glad I'm out of this racket !!

I am a CFI with 1200 hours.

I graduated from a large and prestigeous aviaiton university a year ago. Had you asked me a year ago (when I had 500 hours) wether or not I was ready to fly an airliner, of course I would have told you yes, and would have taken an airline job had it been offered me.

Now with only 700 more hours under my belt over the last year, I have learned A LOT...really taken my skills and my knowledge to the next level. I heartily support the concept of ATP minimums/ATP license to join the airlines.

On a completely different note...I now make more as a mostly-full time flight instructor than any second-year FO on a regional airline...and I'm home every night.
hmm. Them jets are shiny though!

I worked at Continental Express and Delta, neither had a sim ride in the interview. In my class of 40 at Coex, 100% passed and hit the line. In my Delta class 1 out of the 30 didn't make it to the line. I think a lot of airlines have found a sim ride as a difficult means to judge the quality of the pilot since you're not using the airplane that pilot has been flying.

Thats what I was told at Coex, not sure what Delta's thoughts were.

Sim Rides can do a coulple of things:
1. Evaluate the pilot's instrument scan (especially important for regional carriers hiring lower time pilots)
2. Evaluate the pilot's CRM capabilities (perhaps more important for major airlines who assume the pilot has the required stick and rudder skills to fly their jet)

Simulator rides worry me. I haven't even started the process yet but it is one of the things that worry me the most. I hate to think that my future job could be judged on a single ride in an airplane that I've never even sat in the cockpit of before and then be expected to fly it to any level of proficiency. If they want to judge my instrument scan, BAW skills or CRM - I'm rather invite them into my sim for the evaluation. :(

USMCFLYR

The sim ride is more about finding out if you are who you say you are, eg a heavy driver with 5000hr...do you fly like one, do you call for the correct checklists eg in sequence, do you recover from a mistake. The expectations of a pilot with low time, would be completely different and based on other criteria. I didn't know until I was sitting in class that the majority of my classmates had purchased time in a sim to prep for the sim ride. Also if you came from a glass background we would put you in a glass sim...we didn't try to play stump the dummy. We had a fairly even mix of military(fighter and heavy), civ, low and high time...it seems to work.

First company we had 2 pilots wash out in my class...one could fly, but couldn't land...the other could land, but couldn't fly...together they were ok.

Yes
 

Standards.

Skyhigh

Skybolt, your post is spot on and I don't think anyone disagrees with the sentiment. ATP as a minimum standard is great. But after looking into my crystal ball, I predict a serious problem. However, there are many changes on the horizon that many of us do not see coming, no matter how hard look. It’s still fun to try.

Allow me to paint a picture.

It has been remarked and become generally accepted that regional level flying has become a career peak for many pilots. At the company I work for, it is especially true. You can point to a variety of reasons for this, but I will not spend too much time in this post on that issue.

The senior captains at regional can break 100k a year if they work really hard and are creative. Their monthly guarantee will approach it. I don’t know an average, but looking at the pay calculator and using the highest paid senior captain, I calculate about 92k pre tax, pre insurance, pre retirement. How much do they take home? I don’t know. Is 60% a good guess? 55k? Maybe 70% for 64k? For arguments sake, 55k-64k take home pay AT THE HIGH END.

Now, imagine you are a 17-20 year old (or your child, nephew/niece or friends child) is pondering their post high school life plans. They Google airline pilot pay. APC comes up first. Maybe they look at Delta, AA, or FedEx and their eyeballs get big. A little more research later, maybe they see some news links. The story is getting out there that pilots do not live the glory life that has been painted from the past. Some younger folks will decide to take the gamble anyway (let’s face it, the best pilot jobs are still awesome for pay and QOL).

A new reality IS being painted, however. Some will decide it’s not worth the investment for the return. I am guessing based off my crystal ball image (more like a foggy magic 8 ball), that more and more will see flight training cost are going up while the pay and QOL is going down. My guess is that flight training cost will become prohibitive to entering the career. A cash strapped, but talented person will more likely take the medicine, engineering, military, law, etc…route. Even though medicine and law are expensive educations and give no guarantees, hard work will still pay off.

The airlines will still have to staff their airlines. How will they do this if the supply is going down but demand is staying the same or rising? Are they still going to depend on the same flight schools we have today? I just don’t see more affordable flight schools being profitable competitive businesses without subsidizing. That potential issue opens up a whole new can of worms.

The only thing I can see happening is that the current method of flight training has to change simply because of cost. You already see some morphing in training syllabus at places (like ERAU) by becoming more simulator heavy.

Beyond the initial training, there is now the issue of attaining ATP minimums. How are these students going to attain ATP minimums cost effectively? I mean cost that are justified by reasonably expected returns.

CFI jobs? That’s traditional. I still have a problem with the idea of instructors and mentors being only a couple hundred hours and maybe a couple years older than their students. After looking back, I blame **** poor instructors on ¼ - ½ my flight training cost. God knows how much I cost my own students.

The military will NOT supply enough pilots in the future to staff the airlines needs, not even at the mainline level.

Multi Pilot License? That is certainly NOT in keeping with your “ATP minimums” sentiment. I personally think the idea of MPL is ****. However, I am not very confident that flight training cost can be cut to a level that justifies the current system/method of becoming a professional pilot. MPL seems like a natural progression. Chances are, pilots with less real air time will still fill our flight decks.

We are still a few good years from seeing any huge morphing, but these things don’t change overnight. They are gradual. My prediction is less and less FBO style flight schools and larger flight training centers that are heavily simulator based. The cost of fuel alone almost dictates this (Yes, it will go way up again). An airline could own and operate a program like this. It would reduce flight training cost, allow them to screen their candidates and allow them to pay their pilots low wages. If someone doesn’t have to spend a small fortune to get the job they are more likely to have an opportunity to do it and accept lower pay.

What will happen to flight instruction? Obtaining a CFI CFII and MEI is very expensive and arduous task. Hopefully flight instruction will take its rightful place as respectable career or end of career profession. Less flight schools = less flight instructors. To be a cost effective instructor you also have be a talented instructor. That’s tougher done than said.

My predictions don’t even take into account what influence FAAs NextGen program or what E170s and E190s will have. Regardless if my prediction is accurate or not, there will be fundamental changes in “how things are done.” We know this because the industry has been in a constant state of change over its entire history. It will be different than what we are used to.

OK.

You've repeatedly stated before that it takes a special kind of person to sit on their ass and watch the DME click down, but you've also repeatedly stated that the only reason you got into aviation in the first place was to get hired at Alaska Airlines and do exactly that.

I get it, any booger eating moron can fly an airliner. It bears pointing out however, that your credibility is somewhat lacking in this area since you yourself couldn't get hired to do it. Which begs the question; are the standards too low, or just different from what they should be in your world?

I'm not particularly trying to be a dick, but you are on an infinite playback loop on this subject, and from where I sit it sounds less like a reasonable critique of the aviation industry, and more like a continuous whine about your failed career track. Sorry it didn't work out - but you aren't making any new observations here. Let it go and move on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SebastianDesoto (Post 613913)

Skybolt, your post is spot on and I don't think anyone disagrees with the sentiment. ATP as a minimum standard is great. But after looking into my crystal ball, I predict a serious problem.

---

Mr. Sebastian, your exactly right. Barriers to entry into this profession are going to be such that it turns good people away or good people won’t even be able to enter in as getting a $70,000 loan to a job that pays $17,000 won’t probably cut it in this day and age.

I was talking with my university looking at ways to make training more affordable after the oil spike sent a dual C172 to nearly $200/hr. By the way, I was never older than any of my students until I got to my last year of four instructing. My favorite idea was the simulator, although not cheap per hour, it’d save a lot of money and significantly increases the quality of training in my opinion. I’d loved to have had one of those Frasca full visual sims when I was teaching, holy cow that’d been nice. But while simulators are great for teaching they’ll be horrible for CFIs to build time. So if 1500 TT (i.e. ATP) becomes a minimum to get hired to fly a B1900D or a E170 and PIC Part 135 minimums stay at 1200 TT its going to suck for the CFIs out there to build time and start paying their aviation debt off. And you’ll probably start to see the rich kid that bought a VFR only Apache get hired long before the more qualified instructor. That’s my beef with hiring mins to become a Part 121, just seems odd that a 2-day crash course at ALL ATP puts a check in a box and somehow shows a higher level of quality than the 1000 hour instructor who did your training. Its probably why ATP instructors call the ATP ride a joke. You go to them, they go to the "right" DE, and there's your ATP. Your so much more qualified then you were 3 days ago.

If ever the ATP became the minimum to become an airline pilot I think small piston single-engine and twin-engine aircraft, such as a B58 or C310, flying freight only should have an exemption to allow PIC’s to have less than 1200 TT. Say 600 TT with an SIC and 800 TT without.

I’m going to stick to my opinion, the problem is not a plethora of pilots, the problem is a plethora of jobs thanks to scope relaxation at the expense of both mainline and regional pilots. So now that major airlines aren’t hiring because their replacing their flying with CRJ900s and E-Jets the “pay your dues” wages of the regional industry have gone from temporary to long term. That sucks.

They already do. It's 500 TT for part 135. The 1200 TT is for IFR part 135. Part 91K offers a whole new venue for people to buidl time as well as earn a paycheck with considerably less hours than 135 minimums. What I do not understand is how flying the mail to an offshore island in a C172 requires 500 TT to do it VFR and 1200TT to be able to do it IFR... but you can come work part 121 with an ink wet commercial ticket....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 614014)

I’m going to stick to my opinion, the problem is not a plethora of pilots, the problem is a plethora of jobs thanks to scope relaxation at the expense of both mainline and regional pilots.

---

True, but only to a certain extent. That is not the single reason. It certainly contributed, but the reason for it are numerous and collectively have ruined the profession.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 614014)

So now that major airlines aren’t hiring because their replacing their flying with CRJ900s and E-Jets the “pay your dues” wages of the regional industry have gone from temporary to long term. That sucks.

---

Now that is true, they are replacing mainline flying with larger E170-190 jets flown at regional operators. It wasn't always the case though, regionals operating smaller jets and turboprop equipment just meant the mainlines were able to accept more, or additional, feed from numerous smaller airports that would otherwise not have been served to begin with.

Then they started getting larger "small" jets like the 70+ seaters and started using them on routes that no normal, sane, person would ever call a "regional flight." The scope guidlines should have not focused so tightly on plane size only.... They should also have declared what leg length is "regional." Going from Chicago to Nassau is not a Regional flight.

The original arguement for these smaller jets was that the public prefered to fly on a jet than on a turbprop. They said they needed to have the small jets to compete with the companies that had, or were getting them... otherwise the pax would go fly the jet, instead of the prop.

So, they got jets. Then they realized they could go further leg lengths.... and they started using them on low volume runs to feed from remote airports to or from the mainline flights at larger hubs.

Then they realized they could get slightly larger jets and slip some flying away from mainline and replace it with regional.... charging the same fee's, but running the operation at regional costs instead. Then some brain surgeon at Midwest decided they could just outsource just about ALL of their flying to a regional operator using a baby 737 style E-jet.

Now, there are NO good mainline jobs to go to, the folks working at the regionals who supported all this are now stuck there forever in most cases, and things are not likely to improve much at the regionals, while things are very likely to get much worse at mainlines.

This is why you give management NOTHING.

I had 6000 hours before hired by a major airline. Add 3000 hours on the panel before occupying the right seat. Another 8 years of flying before the first bid opportunity to upgrade to the left seat as the most junior captain.

Before the major airline position, my earlier years in the left seat were in aircraft that were humble and forgiving of mistakes. It was there that I learned about thunderstorms, icing, turbulence, crosswinds, and crew coordination.

Most important of all, I am still learning the skills and judgement of my profession and expect to do so until my last flight.

I am concerned about the rush today of a pilot new to the trade, yet placed in a sophisticated aircraft, with trusting passengers, in a complex environment, and in challenging weather conditions.

Yes, each day numerous flights are successfully conducted with these pilots. But will the odds one day overtake us resulting in tragedy?

Now, and even though this was a while back, how do we describe this pilot?

http://crazycrashes.files.wordpress....-am-1977-1.jpg

Do I even need to tell you what this iconic photo is about, and the multi thousand hour ATP and chief training captain who caused it while killing 583 people?

I am not saying that the Colgan crash was not due to inexperience, but I think it was mostly caused by inattentiveness and some complacency, with perhaps some fatigue thrown into the equation. That's not always something that thousands of hours in the left seat will prevent. I know it was not due to low pay, disagree as you may.

We're still human, we're not always perfect, and aviation is usually not very forgiving of such.

These days we're not used to crashes, and that's why when they occur the reasons behind them are often somewhat unfathomable, as to not paying attention to airspeed or taking off without clearance. Simple things that even a student pilot should know about.

Oops... that last one wasn't very recent, but sometimes we have to look back in history and note that the worst of the crashes (when caused by pilot error) were caused by some very senior captains.

Tons of hours and good pay did not prevent crashes then, and will not prevent them now.

Granted, advanced technology, CRM, and perhaps better training will, and has, but it will never make aviation 100% safe.

We still have humans in the cockpit, and I do not see that changing anytime soon, and neither would I want it to!

Just my opinion- not looking for anyone to agree with me either.

I kind of see where you are going but the Tenerife disaster was directly caused by the Dutch Captains arrogance and ego. No amount of money or training can eliminate that.

You cannot, honestly, say that 'tons of hours' did not prevent crashes. You could say that it didn't prevent ALL crashes. 'Tons of hours' may have prevented thousands of crashes (it can't be proven) but I think that is the safer view.

Technology is great but cannot always replace hand and stick flying skills or human shortcomings.

Fly safe!

Sounds like you may still need some experience. Flying through thunderstorms isn't habit-forming.

It sure didn't seem too difficult for the FAA to change the age 65 rule, why would it be so hard for them to require all 121 operators to require an ATP in both seats? I'm 150% for it.