NetJets reduces pilot hiring minimums
 

NetJets today announced they reduced their pilot hiring requirements to that of 61.160 for a standard issue ATP and will consider candidates who meet R-ATP requirements. Completing the ATP written is still a requirement prior to attending indoc.

The company is now ramping up recruitment at the universities with big flight programs in concert with the lowered minimums to try to grab as many qualified pilots as possible before they are all the way on the airline track. I'm sure we will get many pilots from these programs, but I doubt we will be able to hold onto a huge percentage of them very long unless the company offers more money in a new contract. I'm personally hoping for lots of hires followed by lots of rapid departures since this is the only way the company will be willing to come to the bargaining table to improve things for everyone on property- we have at least 5 or 6 years left on the current contract with the extention available to the company. At least this may accelerate the process of hiring/ retention pain for the company.

Funny how they want to be rid of the older very experienced pilots and continue to lower the bar for new folks.

Umm, they’re more expensive. That’s not hard to follow.

Folks on international fleets, that are too old to go international, are problematic.

How expensive is it when an inexperienced pilot bends metal, much less harms someone? Ever heard the phrase ‘you get what you pay for’?

There are many countries that fall into the international category that don’t have limitations. It’s not hard to create an algorithm to separate who goes where.

'Bout the same as when an experienced pilot bends metal, no?

No argument there. However, who is more likely to make the bigger mistake?

Hard for an experienced pilot to bend metal when they are too old to legally take the trip. Sorry, old pilots are a drain on what we do. Pilots know this. Management knows this. FDAC knows this. At some point, pilots need to hang up the headset.

Your opinion will change when you reach the age of disposal. FDAC is an extremely valuable asset. But how many times have you heard someone say they didn’t want to be the one to ruin someone’s career. Fact is it takes way more than one report to bring FDAC into the process. If age is an issue, it’s our responsibility to bring it up to the appropriate committee.

I agree there is a point when it’s time to step down. I will not work till I’m 80, but many of our owners do, and are responsible for far more lives than any pilot is. Do we mandate retirement for someone like WB? I’m sure some 21 year old could step into his shoes and carry on, right?

Oh, btw, major airlines across the globe are petitioning for an age 67 limit. The arbitrary limits are evidently very fluid. As they should be, as medical advances can diagnose and treat previously hidden conditions. We just need AMEs that won’t simply require a fogged mirror.

Yeah, okay, just don't be too upset when something is finally done to establish a maximum age restriction.

With a proper severance package I will depart gracefully. The current package of 40k has been in place for over 20 years. Time to sweeten the pot. Maybe an early out package like the one presented in 2009? We shall see.

In the time span of about a year, the company has decreased hiring minimums by about 60%. Yet, still isn't having trouble hiring. Sure

does this include the multi rule most regionals use? (25 going in- getting the other 25 in the sim during training) or do they want 50 already when getting hired?

The way the new minimums were shared, it was 50 hours fixed wing ME time to be an “eligible applicant”. If you have less, it’s likely you will be screened out.

Thanks. I start training at the regionals in about a month, so worst case I can apply after training in 5 or 6 months with ATP in hand. Hopefully hiring will still be strong by then

The company and the union need to stop with this B.S. game they're playing regarding probationary pilots calling in fatigued. Both the company and new-hire mentors are telling newly hired pilots to just have the Captain do it.

67 is fair.

Especially in a very dynamic environment like NJA has. I'm not necessarily saying anything one way or the other over a retirement age "number", but there needs to be some cognitive testing done as age advances. Not some BS simulator ride where the gouge gets out and you're the only plane in the sky etc. Something that is done by mental health professionals. Flame away, but biology is biology. Some hold on better than others and this a way to prove it. You have it or you lost it. Some by age 45 are checked out, and I have seen guys in their 70s holding on well.

Their minimums don't make sense to me. I just had a buddy email them that has R-ATP minimums with 1500 hours total and 200+ hours of cross country. They want 500 hours cross country if it's not with a university affidavit. He has a bachelor's in aviation but his flight training was done at a part 61. So there he goes to the airlines...

The restricted ATP is to get the pipeline from University 141 training pilots if I had to guess for lower time pilots. The company is a big believer in this. There is even a podcast interview with Alan and Sean and they discuss this.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

I get that, but why exclude someone because they trained at a part 61 school? Interesting they also specify greater than 50nm for the cross country requirement when the ATP cert only requires point to point. (nm, i looked at the NetJets minimums myself in regard to >50nm Cross country) I doubt they would accept cross country time that didn't include a landing at a point beyond 50nm, but who knows.

Well that's just the thing, there's no set age where cognitive decline begins. And worse, some (albeit very few), were never particularly sharp to begin with. So at what age do we begin testing people for cognitive decline? Seems like picking an age would end up being just another random number we will hate. And it'd be discriminatory. A cognitive test would have to be given to everyone.

Furthermore, which test do we use? There actually is not any standard test that is recognized in the scientific community as being able to reliably identify cognitive decline. Sure, there are some tests that are pretty good at identifying cognitive issues when they become serious, such as identifying Altzheimer's, but nothing exists to truly identify a more "normal" cognitive decline. Since everyone is different, what's the baseline? How do you know if someone has deteriorated from where they were before if you never measured where they started from?

It's really not the same as physical health. And speaking of which, we all know the FAA medicals we take are a joke. Should we tighten up those standards too? We could eliminate some of the older pilots that way. But we need to be prepared to see a lot of younger folks be dismissed too.

You can't just "target" older pilots with tests. Maybe it can be done legislatively, like the age 65 rule for 121 operators, but coming up with tests that are specifically meant to weed out older pilots is illegal and unethical.

You seem to forget we undergo an annual cognitive test in the form of simulator training during recurrent and initials. Problem pilots are all well known in the training department. The only thing we need to do is properly follow through with training to ATP standards. Those that don’t make the cut after some remedial help or need to always rely on their sim partner to get through should be put to pasture. This job isn’t for everybody.

Part 135 allows for PTP XC, but for certificates/ratings, it has to be >50NM. There is a provision that allows you to log >50NM without a landing when pursuing the ATP only. There is no reason they shouldn't accept the time, since this is how quite a bit of the military builds XC time.

I mentioned this on another thread related to the 121 world. Serious question. Why not put police style body cameras on the crew? Reviewable by the FAA and management for performance or competency degradation. We have no issues putting them on law enforcement for accountability. Pilots arguably carry as much responsibility as law enforcement with regards to the public. No he said she said sts.

Don’t need them.

Dr. Baehr already placed monitoring capsules in us with the prostate exams back in the day. They double serve as a mini taser to get early showtimes moving.

Seriously though… worst idea ever. Body cams. No way.

Terrible idea and not necessary. We already have CVRs and FDRs to watch us. We are operating machines not dealing with the criminal public. There's already plenty of tools to keep and eye on us, A body cam would look stupid next to a Jacket and TIe.

Why not cams in all the bathrooms on the plane? After all, things can happen on a plane, outside of a careful observation of the Flight Attendants. Lol

Funny. Tracker along with the "fearsome finger of fate" Sure FDRs and CVRs are there but are typically useful after a mishap. Cameras monitor everything nowfrom bank tellers to equipment operators all the time in our world. I'm certainly not advocating for lav cameras. Riddle me this. If you say it's the worst idea ever then sure let's discuss why. We're all about safety whether enhanced medicals or more realistic sims or differing age limits for that matter. For the most part these are only snapshots that may or may not reveal an issue. Those who hold a security clearance are subject to continuous credit monitoring now and not just every 5 or 10 years. Cameras don't discriminate that's for sure. Actually, think of how many jobs at an airport are under video surveillance 24/7. Why should the flight deck be any different?

The planes already tattle via FOQA data.

So THAT'S why I **** my pants every time someone uses a microwave?

No thanks. It will make its way "leaked" somehow to YouTube, LiveLeak, or some other internet video. There's enough data on FDRs and CVRs to get causal information on accidents. These things were never meant to be spy devices.

Certainly glad this is available. I was looking at FAA Advisory Circular 120-82 and if I read it right it specifically requires de-identification of the data, so it doesn't identify a certain flight/crew/time etc.

If any entity ever pushes for cameras, I see it being the insurance companies. If an operator is given enough of a discount on insurance, they might go along.

Pilot Unions have made it clear they wont tolerate cameras in the cockpit. I think they've even implied the cameras wouldn't be very reliable as the circuit breakers would keep popping. :rolleyes:

No doubt they would.:rolleyes: Cameras hard wired to the aircraft would be a mountain of paperwork with FAA taking years to approve for a particular aircraft. That's why I mentioned stand-alone body cameras. My hope is they catch evolving problems BEFORE they became a mishap. All crewmembers whether 35 or 65 get the same scrutiny. I have no doubt Unions would fight it, but they would have to make a case why they won't tolerate it. It would then come down to what the FAA decides to put it in the rule book.

On a side note the SCOTUS muddied the waters on the authority of government agencies to make rules outside specific instructions from Congress so there is that.

That is not entirely correct. The date, time, and crew during an occurance is known.

A body camera? Looking at what, my yoke clip for 4 hours?

Why don’t we put cameras on you? We can watch your every move.

You can star in your own Truman Show voyeur special.

It’ll be fun.