Great Lakes' Part 135 plan
#441
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: A-320
Posts: 784
All the instructors I ever encountered in my lakes tenor where top notch guys. I never really saw too much of the furious fail rates or unsympathetic, scornful, diabolical instruction as is the reputation. I suppose they were a little unwavering to the non-hackers but I've seen that down the line in my career as well. A rigid training department is the backbone of a safe flight operation and I think GLA has had a pretty solid reputation for keeping airframes in tact in a challenging environment. Few exceptions noted. Now as for this 135 business...damn cockroach
#442
There's nothing impressive about a training department that takes pride in how 'hard' their training is. Training for any airline can be enjoyable or difficult based on the quality of the training department. A high washout rate means the training sucks, not the pilot.
Why people think GLA training is 'cool' or 'badass' is perplexing. It sucks. Plain and simple.
Why people think GLA training is 'cool' or 'badass' is perplexing. It sucks. Plain and simple.
At different time the military flight training programs have often had high washout rates and certain military specialities have high washout rates.
The training is TOP NOTCH.
Not everyone can succeed, not everyone gets to play first string and not everyone gets a trophy and it isn't always the companies or training program's fault.
#444
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,067
Not necessarily.
At different time the military flight training programs have often had high washout rates and certain military specialities have high washout rates.
The training is TOP NOTCH.
Not everyone can succeed, not everyone gets to play first string and not everyone gets a trophy and it isn't always the companies or training program's fault.
At different time the military flight training programs have often had high washout rates and certain military specialities have high washout rates.
The training is TOP NOTCH.
Not everyone can succeed, not everyone gets to play first string and not everyone gets a trophy and it isn't always the companies or training program's fault.
GLA is a pax carrying airline. If there is a high washout, the training is poor or the candidates are poor.
#445
Not necessarily.
At different time the military flight training programs have often had high washout rates and certain military specialities have high washout rates.
The training is TOP NOTCH.
Not everyone can succeed, not everyone gets to play first string and not everyone gets a trophy and it isn't always the companies or training program's fault.
At different time the military flight training programs have often had high washout rates and certain military specialities have high washout rates.
The training is TOP NOTCH.
Not everyone can succeed, not everyone gets to play first string and not everyone gets a trophy and it isn't always the companies or training program's fault.
Last edited by Cubdriver; 03-19-2014 at 03:39 PM. Reason: diction
#446
This post is a joke. The military has a high washout rate because you're learning to fly a turbo prop/jet from square one to include aerobatics and formation flying. Then, at less than 400 total hours, you learn how to deploy a weapon system with flying secondary.
GLA is a pax carrying airline. If there is a high washout, the training is poor or the candidates are poor.
GLA is a pax carrying airline. If there is a high washout, the training is poor or the candidates are poor.
#447
This post is a joke. The military has a high washout rate because you're learning to fly a turbo prop/jet from square one to include aerobatics and formation flying. Then, at less than 400 total hours, you learn how to deploy a weapon system with flying secondary.
GLA is a pax carrying airline. If there is a high washout, the training is poor or the candidates are poor.
GLA is a pax carrying airline. If there is a high washout, the training is poor or the candidates are poor.
What's really going on is they let just about anyone play their game which is a huge disservice to the many who fail at that game. 1900s are only slightly harder to fly than King Airs, but the failure rate being this high means something is wrong with recruiting, training, or both. And we know what it is- Great Lakes is cheap, cheap, cheap. U.S. armed services are not so cheap by contrast. They have exotic aircraft and tough programs to fly them causing substantial washouts, but selection and training are first rate and sheer cheapness is not the reason. This company in contrast lures wannabees who really do not know they are incapable of flying airliners because there was (is) a glut of civilian pilot wannabees out there wanting to try, encourages leaving paid jobs in many cases, supplies false hope they'll be the minority who pass, pays zip while they donate their time, lets them pay for their own travel and other expenses during training, and then some number of weeks later calls a cab that it will not pay for either to get them home. It's not the same thing. Quality airline training departments do not exceed 10% failure.
I look at the members post in a broader sense of anything training program that has high washouts rates = poor training.
I disagree.
If talking about ONLY GLA training - I'll reserve judgment because I've not gone through GLA's training program; but if it is 'military style boot camp' as one poster recalls, then I can relate.
Was bernouli only referencing GLA's training or is this how he feels about a relationship between high washout rates and poor training programs in general? Bernouli?
#448
And you are both looking at the post only through the source of GLA.
I look at the members post in a broader sense of anything training program that has high washouts rates = poor training.
I disagree.
If talking about ONLY GLA training - I'll reserve judgment because I've not gone through GLA's training program; but if it is 'military style boot camp' as one poster recalls, then I can relate.
Was bernouli only referencing GLA's training or is this how he feels about a relationship between high washout rates and poor training programs in general? Bernouli?
I look at the members post in a broader sense of anything training program that has high washouts rates = poor training.
I disagree.
If talking about ONLY GLA training - I'll reserve judgment because I've not gone through GLA's training program; but if it is 'military style boot camp' as one poster recalls, then I can relate.
Was bernouli only referencing GLA's training or is this how he feels about a relationship between high washout rates and poor training programs in general? Bernouli?
#449
As a former Laker, I can attest to the the difficulty of the training. It's fast paced and there is not a lot of time allotted, especially in the simulator to repeat profiles or maneuvers. That being said, we had twelve in our initial class and eleven of us made it through. This was two years ago. The instructors were professional and had no desire to see anybody fail, but they were limited by the constraint of time ($$$ for the sim). The fact of the matter is that the majority of pilots, given the opportunity to hand fly an aircraft, without an autopilot or GPS, from VOR to VOR, can do it. Lakers do it day in and day out, and consequently develop a terrific scan. I think its a perishable skill and if you are not using it everyday, you lose it.
#450
Just a few years ago they were having classes of 11 and 3 were getting through, that means the training program is broken!
Hopefully their training costs to get all the 135 wet commercial guys online will be astronomical
Hopefully their training costs to get all the 135 wet commercial guys online will be astronomical
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post