They changed it so they can hire all us low time chicks! LOL!

 

I their high washout rate has to do with their poor training too. Supposibly their training is almost with no instructor. They give you bunch of CBT CD's and assign you a partner. You guys study by yourself. Than you have a sign in sheet to see an instructor if you need to and you are usually no 80 on the sign in sheet. If you fall behind in training they say bye. Thats what I heard.

 

Actually, to their defense- I believe they were using the proper procedures to attempt an APU assisted start. Problem is, once your engines experience core lock any start attempt is useless.

They would have been alive today if they didn't deviate from their climb profile and get into that scenario to start with. Those profiles are there for a reason. You reap what you sow....

 

its easy to monday morning quarterback... people of all experience levels f* up.. what about easter 401, or alvianca 419. Flying tigers, Tinarif (or however you spell it.) how about the countless 74's that drug an engine going into kai tak, or slid off into the water, or the heavy that bumped in ord the other day. These are all experienced flight crews. Mistakes happen, there are two of us in the cockpit for a reason. As I said before, back in the 60s - 70s they were hiring people off the streat with nothing more than a private ticket, if that, in some cases. Its just a sign of the times, my biggest hope is that this will help to make the job desirable again, and management may realise that pilots are not a disposable resource and drive our pay up.... We will see...

 

Mistakes happen every day, but the Pinnacle accident was no mistake. It was gross negligence on the part of the flight crew. As was Tenarife, on the part of the KLM captain, since you brought that up.

 

agreed with the previous posts. I also see a big gap between being qualified for the position and being prepared for it. to the guy who said TSA just hands you the material and lets you be...it's not entirely true. You do get instruction, extra help is there if you need it as well, along with one on one mentoring, etc. The company however is much more cutthroat than a good chunk of the other regionals, and the capt. checkride is typically a "build the airplane for me" type of ordeal.

The guys who will probably see 1.5-2 year upgrades still @ TSA will be the ones hired with wet tickets...for people who come over with nearly 1000 hrs, they'd upgrade you tomorrow if you volunteered.

 

It's interesting read what you all think makes a pilot experienced enought to be a PIC versus what Army Aviation thinks makes a pilot experienced enough. I come from a culture where 1 year experience as a PI and roughly 500 hours FWME time is the target on the the wall to be nominated for PIC. The trick is, all the PICs in the orginazation that we've flow with have to nominate us and the commander has to approve even before we can take the checkride.

It was not uncommon in my last organization to have flight crews with less than 1000 hours FWME flying together, with passengers on board, on international legs, over water, into large airports (Frankfurt, Brussels, Lisbon, Venice etc). (Granted most of the pilot had 1000+ RW hours but not all the 1LT's and CPTs did).

Even now, on my second overseas tour with a grand total of three years and 1250 hours Army C-12 (BE200) time under my belt I am in the top 25% experience bracket (for airplanes). Once I get 150 hours in my current version I would expect to be up for PIC again.

If the FAA has thrown a mark on the wall and said "This is what you need to be an ATP and you have to be and ATP to be a CA on an airliner" and you pass your companies CA upgrade program than that should be enough. Just because your airline takes 3-10 years to upgrade from FO to CA doesn't mean that you're not experienced enough to be a CA with less than 3000-10000 hours. It just means the seniority has you by the tail and you have to wait your turn.

Lowering minimums isn't a problem, lowering standards and failing to mitigate risk is.

 

100% wrong, as usual.

 

The only thing the pilots of FLG3701 didn't have was professionalism. Oh yeah, and an understanding of high-altitude aerodynamics, and the knowledge that you need to keep speed on that wing at altitude and if you can't keep speed you need to level the ****** off.

 

we are in the same boat 600/100 is Competitive