Pure helo pilots hired by a major?
07-16-2018, 06:46 AM
#21
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,211
Bottom line, it comes down to training cost and landings.
The training part is pretty easy to measure, assuming somebody has some data on RW pilots doing 121 training. The bean counters like to hire pilots who will complete training in the allotted time, and they tweak that algorithm to the Nth degree.
Landings may vary by individual, but fundamentally landing a big jet in a gusty crosswind is harder than landing an ASEL. The basics apply, but then you have to deviate from there, and someone with only a relative handful of FW landings (perhaps less than 100 in a XW) might not have the instincts as finely honed as more experienced FW pilots. That's the concern, and although it's hard to quantify precisely, the uncertainty and probably personal biases of decision makers will likely mean that nobody who can fill classes with quality FW applicants is going to go out of their way to accommodate RW pilots. Honestly, consider yourself fortunate that some of the regionals will bend over backwards for you... that wasn't the case a few years ago, you'd be renting a cessna if you wanted to fly airlines.
I know, I know helos are harder in all regards, but it's a different ind of hard when it comes to landings, different instincts.
The training part is pretty easy to measure, assuming somebody has some data on RW pilots doing 121 training. The bean counters like to hire pilots who will complete training in the allotted time, and they tweak that algorithm to the Nth degree.
Landings may vary by individual, but fundamentally landing a big jet in a gusty crosswind is harder than landing an ASEL. The basics apply, but then you have to deviate from there, and someone with only a relative handful of FW landings (perhaps less than 100 in a XW) might not have the instincts as finely honed as more experienced FW pilots. That's the concern, and although it's hard to quantify precisely, the uncertainty and probably personal biases of decision makers will likely mean that nobody who can fill classes with quality FW applicants is going to go out of their way to accommodate RW pilots. Honestly, consider yourself fortunate that some of the regionals will bend over backwards for you... that wasn't the case a few years ago, you'd be renting a cessna if you wanted to fly airlines.
I know, I know helos are harder in all regards, but it's a different ind of hard when it comes to landings, different instincts.
07-16-2018, 11:51 AM
#22
Covfefe
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,001
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Bottom line, it comes down to training cost and landings.
The training part is pretty easy to measure, assuming somebody has some data on RW pilots doing 121 training. The bean counters like to hire pilots who will complete training in the allotted time, and they tweak that algorithm to the Nth degree.
Landings may vary by individual, but fundamentally landing a big jet in a gusty crosswind is harder than landing an ASEL. The basics apply, but then you have to deviate from there, and someone with only a relative handful of FW landings (perhaps less than 100 in a XW) might not have the instincts as finely honed as more experienced FW pilots. That's the concern, and although it's hard to quantify precisely, the uncertainty and probably personal biases of decision makers will likely mean that nobody who can fill classes with quality FW applicants is going to go out of their way to accommodate RW pilots. Honestly, consider yourself fortunate that some of the regionals will bend over backwards for you... that wasn't the case a few years ago, you'd be renting a cessna if you wanted to fly airlines.
I know, I know helos are harder in all regards, but it's a different ind of hard when it comes to landings, different instincts.
The training part is pretty easy to measure, assuming somebody has some data on RW pilots doing 121 training. The bean counters like to hire pilots who will complete training in the allotted time, and they tweak that algorithm to the Nth degree.
Landings may vary by individual, but fundamentally landing a big jet in a gusty crosswind is harder than landing an ASEL. The basics apply, but then you have to deviate from there, and someone with only a relative handful of FW landings (perhaps less than 100 in a XW) might not have the instincts as finely honed as more experienced FW pilots. That's the concern, and although it's hard to quantify precisely, the uncertainty and probably personal biases of decision makers will likely mean that nobody who can fill classes with quality FW applicants is going to go out of their way to accommodate RW pilots. Honestly, consider yourself fortunate that some of the regionals will bend over backwards for you... that wasn't the case a few years ago, you'd be renting a cessna if you wanted to fly airlines.
I know, I know helos are harder in all regards, but it's a different ind of hard when it comes to landings, different instincts.
I think the real issue is bias. AF/Navy aviation historically have the fighter>heavy>helo hierarchy/mentality, and army helos are in another category far below those. Hell, even a C12, citation, or gulfstream army pilot can’t go fly a C12 or gulfstream (or any other FW) in the ANG/AFR without going through all of UPT, so the biases aren’t just at the airlines, but army helo stink is a special kind that is hard to get off. The airlines have always had AF/Navy pilots in leadership positions, and those biases have carried over.
JetBlue counts helo time (with a mandatory 500 hours minimum fixed wing time) and doesn’t seem to have any issues with it, and they aren’t short qualified applicants (yet).
Non-helo pilots who perpetuate this bias like to argue it’s a different kind of flying and a different kind of hard. It is. So is flying fighters, or ISR, or ______. It is all different than airline flying, yet each has varying similarities. But it’s all flying.
What airlines cite as the reason they like hiring military guys (and why the FAA has their reduced hour rATP for all mil pilots, incl helo only) is the fact that they made it into and graduated from a thorough and strenuous training program and are therefore vetted, often operate in complex situations requiring good judgment and high levels of SA, and thoroughly brief/debrief each flight, extracting more quality out of each flight hour. These qualities exist in all airframes and missions in all services—it isn’t unique to fixed wing. But that’s clearly irrelevant for the big 6 regarding mil helo time. The flying/landing a jet part can be taught and mastered fairly quickly imo, especially by someone who has had a military flying job for 8+ years, regardless of their airframe.
The legacies are filling their regional ranks with mil helicopter guys, and helping with structured programs for it. That’s good, I guess. Many regionals didn't even count my helo time and wouldn’t talk to me 4 years ago when I got out. At least the regional pilot shortage has opened the door for many mil helo guys. Hopefully the trend will continue, because my BS flag goes up when an airline will gladly have an experienced mil helo guy at their regional flying their pax on an E175 for 5+ years before becoming experienced/good enough to fly a plane without the eagle/express/connection on it.
Tl;dr: the training, judgment, experience, and SA from crewed mil helo flying should count for something, but it doesn’t. If a mil guy can make it through a regional initial and can fly the line for a year or so with no issues, no reason they couldn’t do fine with training at a major. And landing a jet ain’t that hard, but is an irrelevant argument anyway since airlines are fine letting prior helo only guys land their RJs.
But it’s the way it is. My dissertation won’t change any minds.
07-16-2018, 01:13 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 570
Originally Posted by Sliceback
If you had a company that had a helicopter pilot slot, and had thousands of applications from guys with thousands of hours of RW time, would you select a airline guy, who just switched over or hasn't flown FW in years but who is up to 250 hrs of RW time ,over the guys who've been flying helicopter for an average of 5000-8000 hrs?
DL's requirement of 3,000 hrs is probably their "good enough" line. In other words they're giving zero credit, but perhaps some military service credit, for your RW time.
The airlines have data on thousands, or tens of thousands, of their pilots. Non-competitive FW time, in a resume considered 'good enough' because of it's RW time, was found to be a predictor of future training problems.
There are studies on the internet about the areas of strength, or weakness, that the airlines have identified among pilot backgrounds.
DL's requirement of 3,000 hrs is probably their "good enough" line. In other words they're giving zero credit, but perhaps some military service credit, for your RW time.
The airlines have data on thousands, or tens of thousands, of their pilots. Non-competitive FW time, in a resume considered 'good enough' because of it's RW time, was found to be a predictor of future training problems.
There are studies on the internet about the areas of strength, or weakness, that the airlines have identified among pilot backgrounds.
Delta does give credit for RW in terms of TT. SW doesn't count it at all. My reference to DL and 3000 FW hours is on top of my RW time. Difference is SW would count me as a 3000 TT pilot, not 3000 FW plus RW on top of that.
I have heard there are potential training issues when going from rotor to 121, but I don't know what all they are as far as failures or setbacks go. In the VERY limited sample size of my 121 training class all of us were military helicopter pilots. None failed anything or had to repeat anything due to our issues. Complex SIDs and STARs are new to me, but the only frustration was the lack of instruction and the flow of the flight from getting in. Whats first, whats next, whats next... but overall wasn't an issue. The odd man out got paired up with a FW only guy from another class and his new stick buddy had to repeat events twice because he struggled (which delayed my buddy). Another guy had to take time to deal with family stuff, so his stick buddy got paired up with another strictly FW guy, and that FW guy struggled and not only had to repeat events, but got held back causing the rotor guy to get another new stick buddy. Just because someone has more FW time (and equal TT) doesn't mean they are a better aviator, even in a FW aircraft.
The next few years will be interesting because there are a lot of rotor pilots with the regionals now and looking to move on as soon as they can.
Last edited by Taco280AI; 07-16-2018 at 01:39 PM.
07-16-2018, 01:44 PM
#24
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,211
Originally Posted by BeatNavy
So AA (insert other legacy here) doesn’t want to hire a mil helo/RTP guy because he may not have the instincts to be able to land a big jet in a crosswind, but they are fine with said helo/RTP guy flying their pax in a wholly-owned RJ and landing that jet in a crosswind?
This applies across the board... the folks with the MOST relevant experience fly the bigger jets, and those with less fly the smaller jets... fewer pax at risk, and less metal to bend.
Originally Posted by BeatNavy
Hmmm. How many mil helo guys have bent metal landing RJs? Also, what’s an acceptable time in RJ land flying jets for a mil helo guy to be good enough? If the answer was a year or 2 to get ~1k of jet time (depending on the rest of the resume of course, I’m just talking min jet time to be acceptable), I’d be ok with that. But that isn’t the case. Mil helo guys have little to no advantage over civilian (and non-flying mil) guys at most airlines. If a mil helo guy makes it through a regional initial and has a year of line flying experience, I can’t see how there’d be a training issue at a major. And if there was to be a landing issue with a big jet in a crosswind, wouldn’t that apply to landing the hypothetical E175/CRJ also?
Originally Posted by BeatNavy
I think the real issue is bias. AF/Navy aviation historically have the fighter>heavy>helo hierarchy/mentality, and army helos are in another category far below those. Hell, even a C12, citation, or gulfstream army pilot can’t go fly a C12 or gulfstream (or any other FW) in the ANG/AFR without going through all of UPT, so the biases aren’t just at the airlines, but army helo stink is a special kind that is hard to get off. The airlines have always had AF/Navy pilots in leadership positions, and those biases have carried over.
Originally Posted by BeatNavy
JetBlue counts helo time (with a mandatory 500 hours minimum fixed wing time) and doesn’t seem to have any issues with it, and they aren’t short qualified applicants (yet).
Originally Posted by BeatNavy
Non-helo pilots who perpetuate this bias like to argue it’s a different kind of flying and a different kind of hard. It is. So is flying fighters, or ISR, or ______. It is all different than airline flying, yet each has varying similarities. But it’s all flying.
But I still think hundreds of FW landings is a good thing.
07-16-2018, 02:47 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Window seat
Posts: 5,191
“I think the real issue is bias“
Anyone can believe whatever they want. Here’s AA’s story -
Prior RW guys, with “non competitive FW time on their resumes”, were 23% of the guys that had long term training difficulties at AA. They were 3% of the population. The company had no idea until they did the research.
RW guys with “competitive” FW resumes as part of their overall qualifications didn’t show up as an outlier.
Which is why AA made the decision 20 yrs ago that RW time didn’t count towards any of the minimums required.
Anecdotal stories don’t count. We’ve all got them. Both good and bad.
When you walk in the simulator it’s not a given that the IP/CKA knows your RW vs FW time which makes any accusation of bias hard to prove.
If JB accepts RW guys with 500 FW hrs I’d chase that opportunity and keep applying to the choices higher up your list until you’re successful or strike out.
Anyone can believe whatever they want. Here’s AA’s story -
Prior RW guys, with “non competitive FW time on their resumes”, were 23% of the guys that had long term training difficulties at AA. They were 3% of the population. The company had no idea until they did the research.
RW guys with “competitive” FW resumes as part of their overall qualifications didn’t show up as an outlier.
Which is why AA made the decision 20 yrs ago that RW time didn’t count towards any of the minimums required.
Anecdotal stories don’t count. We’ve all got them. Both good and bad.
When you walk in the simulator it’s not a given that the IP/CKA knows your RW vs FW time which makes any accusation of bias hard to prove.
If JB accepts RW guys with 500 FW hrs I’d chase that opportunity and keep applying to the choices higher up your list until you’re successful or strike out.
07-16-2018, 03:03 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 570
So 20+ years ago RW pilots had a hard time switching? Any idea what the difficulties were back then? Any data today with all the rotor pilots coming into the regionals? Would be interesting to see todays numbers from regional training, if there are any trends.
Things like that is why I'm asking. I don't know what Rucker training was like back then. I do know what it is like this decade. Maybe there was a lack in training, instruments perhaps, that contributed to RW guys having trouble with the switch.
And for that data, were rotor guys going straight to 727s and MD80s from helicopters after putting around in 150s? Asking cause I have no idea.
Things like that is why I'm asking. I don't know what Rucker training was like back then. I do know what it is like this decade. Maybe there was a lack in training, instruments perhaps, that contributed to RW guys having trouble with the switch.
And for that data, were rotor guys going straight to 727s and MD80s from helicopters after putting around in 150s? Asking cause I have no idea.
07-17-2018, 05:31 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Position: FO
Posts: 627
Originally Posted by Lefturns
Are there any military helo pilots that made it to a major recently? How long were you at a regional?
Pure Navy helo driver. 3.5 years in the 135 world before interviewing at JetBlue. About 2000 hrs FW when hired. I think the timelines mentioned are pretty reasonable based on other stories.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
07-17-2018, 03:32 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Window seat
Posts: 5,191
Originally Posted by Taco280AI
So 20+ years ago RW pilots had a hard time switching? Any idea what the difficulties were back then? Any data today with all the rotor pilots coming into the regionals? Would be interesting to see todays numbers from regional training, if there are any trends.
Things like that is why I'm asking. I don't know what Rucker training was like back then. I do know what it is like this decade. Maybe there was a lack in training, instruments perhaps, that contributed to RW guys having trouble with the switch.
And for that data, were rotor guys going straight to 727s and MD80s from helicopters after putting around in 150s? Asking cause I have no idea.
Things like that is why I'm asking. I don't know what Rucker training was like back then. I do know what it is like this decade. Maybe there was a lack in training, instruments perhaps, that contributed to RW guys having trouble with the switch.
And for that data, were rotor guys going straight to 727s and MD80s from helicopters after putting around in 150s? Asking cause I have no idea.
From my experience, to include going through two full training courses with first assignment helo pilots that got hired with low, and small (T-34) FW time, a weak point was a slower instrument scan and not making the smaller pitch and power changes required with jet speeds, weights, and sink rates. Combined those two issues made the engine failure and low vis approaches a source of a lot of stress.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
