Multi-Crew Ratings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
01-25-2011, 06:08 AM
#51
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by FlyerJosh
Out of curiousity, how many of you have every had the opportunity to actually work with or see one of these candidates (or any young European aviator) in action?
I recently had the opportunity to work with a german pilot while completing an initial CL604 type rating at Flight Safety. He was 23 years old and had 670 hrs total time. Of that 460 hours was in an Astra SPX, the other time spent flying in a C172 and Seminole. Out of all the people that I have "flown" with in a simulator, he was one of the sharpest and most skilled. Great procedural and situational awareness and a VERY high level of discipline, but also a good awareness of what his limitations were with his level of experience. Needless to say he passed his training and JAA type ride with no problems.
Are there some limits to putting low time/low experience pilots on the flight deck? Definitely. But as somebody who had his first flight in the right seat of a jet at 660 hrs, I can say that it can be done successfully and safely provided that appropriate considerations are taken, especially when considering candidates for upgrade.
Where you get into trouble is when you have a US model where low time pilots are hired into transport category aircraft with low time and then upgrade in a short time frame without building the requisite experience and leadership to be the PIC. The Colgan crash is a perfect example.
I would much rather see the FAA address the issue of low experience upgrades here in the US than impose a "minimum" requirement to get in the door. Something like "121 PIC's must have 3000TT, of which 1000 hours are completed in part 121 operations, and at least 18 months of line experience at the company at which they are upgrading..."
I recently had the opportunity to work with a german pilot while completing an initial CL604 type rating at Flight Safety. He was 23 years old and had 670 hrs total time. Of that 460 hours was in an Astra SPX, the other time spent flying in a C172 and Seminole. Out of all the people that I have "flown" with in a simulator, he was one of the sharpest and most skilled. Great procedural and situational awareness and a VERY high level of discipline, but also a good awareness of what his limitations were with his level of experience. Needless to say he passed his training and JAA type ride with no problems.
Are there some limits to putting low time/low experience pilots on the flight deck? Definitely. But as somebody who had his first flight in the right seat of a jet at 660 hrs, I can say that it can be done successfully and safely provided that appropriate considerations are taken, especially when considering candidates for upgrade.
Where you get into trouble is when you have a US model where low time pilots are hired into transport category aircraft with low time and then upgrade in a short time frame without building the requisite experience and leadership to be the PIC. The Colgan crash is a perfect example.
I would much rather see the FAA address the issue of low experience upgrades here in the US than impose a "minimum" requirement to get in the door. Something like "121 PIC's must have 3000TT, of which 1000 hours are completed in part 121 operations, and at least 18 months of line experience at the company at which they are upgrading..."
Originally Posted by Elvis90
As someone who has sat in the right seat of a jet with 200 hours of jet time and a total of 200 hours I can tell you I was not prepared for Part 121 ops. As someone who has instructed numerous inexperienced folks out of pilot training who were the best and brightest the Air Force had to offer I can say they were not prepared for Part 121 ops as well. This policy is asking for trouble, will increase mishap rates, and will result in the Captain being a "single-seat" crewmember.
Does that make sense?
01-25-2011, 06:36 AM
#52
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
It would be good if there was an in-house program for those who wish to have it by those here now who went down the exact same path initially to better expose those who are new to what is not explained but they're absolutely fully capable of competently understanding in a quick and orderly manner.
Does that make sense?
Does that make sense?
01-25-2011, 07:10 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: MD-88 F/O
Posts: 1,004
What it comes down to is ALPA, and testicular fortitude, to put the foot down. Do I think that will happen, NO. It is the politically dangerous option and ALPA operates in a political world. Unless there is leadership that is willing to be proactive in an issue such as this, we are going to suffer a death of a thousand cuts in the industry.
01-25-2011, 07:14 AM
#55
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,488
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
3000TT to be Part 121 PIC is the rule at a few regionals, maybe an insurance requirement.
An FAR to that effect would be nice...3000 TT, 1000 part 121, at least 200 with the company. Not waiverable.
01-25-2011, 07:16 AM
#56
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I have seen at least two airlines with a similar rule who waived it at the drop of a hat when they needed people to upgrade on small, unpopular turboprops. They also waived their company time requirements for street captains.
An FAR to that effect would be nice...3000 TT, 1000 part 121, at least 200 with the company. Not waiverable.
An FAR to that effect would be nice...3000 TT, 1000 part 121, at least 200 with the company. Not waiverable.
Here's $10K if you leave your sorry FO seat at stagnant regional and come fly Captain for us....
01-25-2011, 07:19 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 777 Captain in Training
Posts: 1,457
[QUOTE=FlyerJosh;935653]Out of curiousity, how many of you have every had the opportunity to actually work with or see one of these candidates (or any young European aviator) in action?
I recently had the opportunity to work with a german pilot while completing an initial CL604 type rating at Flight Safety. He was 23 years old and had 670 hrs total time. Of that 460 hours was in an Astra SPX, the other time spent flying in a C172 and Seminole. Out of all the people that I have "flown" with in a simulator, he was one of the sharpest and most skilled. Great procedural and situational awareness and a VERY high level of discipline, but also a good awareness of what his limitations were with his level of experience. Needless to say he passed his training and JAA type ride with no problems.
"He was the best guy flying the sim where there is absolutely no chance of bending metal or getting killed." says it all. I fly 121 and teach in the sim and there is no way just a bunch of sim time can adequately prepare you to be a truly competent 121 pilot.
I recently had the opportunity to work with a german pilot while completing an initial CL604 type rating at Flight Safety. He was 23 years old and had 670 hrs total time. Of that 460 hours was in an Astra SPX, the other time spent flying in a C172 and Seminole. Out of all the people that I have "flown" with in a simulator, he was one of the sharpest and most skilled. Great procedural and situational awareness and a VERY high level of discipline, but also a good awareness of what his limitations were with his level of experience. Needless to say he passed his training and JAA type ride with no problems.
"He was the best guy flying the sim where there is absolutely no chance of bending metal or getting killed." says it all. I fly 121 and teach in the sim and there is no way just a bunch of sim time can adequately prepare you to be a truly competent 121 pilot.
01-25-2011, 07:19 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,943
Originally Posted by FlyerJosh
Out of curiousity, how many of you have every had the opportunity to actually work with or see one of these candidates (or any young European aviator) in action?
I recently had the opportunity to work with a german pilot while completing an initial CL604 type rating at Flight Safety. He was 23 years old and had 670 hrs total time. Of that 460 hours was in an Astra SPX, the other time spent flying in a C172 and Seminole. Out of all the people that I have "flown" with in a simulator, he was one of the sharpest and most skilled. Great procedural and situational awareness and a VERY high level of discipline, but also a good awareness of what his limitations were with his level of experience. Needless to say he passed his training and JAA type ride with no problems.
Are there some limits to putting low time/low experience pilots on the flight deck? Definitely. But as somebody who had his first flight in the right seat of a jet at 660 hrs, I can say that it can be done successfully and safely provided that appropriate considerations are taken, especially when considering candidates for upgrade.
Where you get into trouble is when you have a US model where low time pilots are hired into transport category aircraft with low time and then upgrade in a short time frame without building the requisite experience and leadership to be the PIC. The Colgan crash is a perfect example.
I would much rather see the FAA address the issue of low experience upgrades here in the US than impose a "minimum" requirement to get in the door. Something like "121 PIC's must have 3000TT, of which 1000 hours are completed in part 121 operations, and at least 18 months of line experience at the company at which they are upgrading..."
I recently had the opportunity to work with a german pilot while completing an initial CL604 type rating at Flight Safety. He was 23 years old and had 670 hrs total time. Of that 460 hours was in an Astra SPX, the other time spent flying in a C172 and Seminole. Out of all the people that I have "flown" with in a simulator, he was one of the sharpest and most skilled. Great procedural and situational awareness and a VERY high level of discipline, but also a good awareness of what his limitations were with his level of experience. Needless to say he passed his training and JAA type ride with no problems.
Are there some limits to putting low time/low experience pilots on the flight deck? Definitely. But as somebody who had his first flight in the right seat of a jet at 660 hrs, I can say that it can be done successfully and safely provided that appropriate considerations are taken, especially when considering candidates for upgrade.
Where you get into trouble is when you have a US model where low time pilots are hired into transport category aircraft with low time and then upgrade in a short time frame without building the requisite experience and leadership to be the PIC. The Colgan crash is a perfect example.
I would much rather see the FAA address the issue of low experience upgrades here in the US than impose a "minimum" requirement to get in the door. Something like "121 PIC's must have 3000TT, of which 1000 hours are completed in part 121 operations, and at least 18 months of line experience at the company at which they are upgrading..."
The entire DPE system is such an enormous conflict of interest I don't even know what to say.
01-25-2011, 07:24 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: 1986 LeBaron Convertable
Posts: 439
I believe this whole Multi-Crew Rating can best be said by Chris Rock:
"Just because you can do it, doesn't make it a good idea. You can drive a car with your feet, if you really wanted to, but that does't mean it should be done."
"Just because you can do it, doesn't make it a good idea. You can drive a car with your feet, if you really wanted to, but that does't mean it should be done."
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
