What up juice

 

Aight, So maybe I was just a little bit ticked when I read the post and probably shouldnt have done any name calling. The idea that low time pilots dont even belong in a Seneca much less an RJ is complete garbage. So tell me where is a low time pilot supposed to get his twin time if they dont even belong in a seneca???? I guess what DMEarc wants is for people who arent as high and mighty as himself to get there multi engine time in an RC plane since according to him someone with 38 hours of multi doesnt even belong in a seneca. I know plenty of good pilots who are low time and I know plenty of higher time pilots who arent worth a crap. You cannot judge ANYONE's abilities solely by their flight time. As far as the Captain being an instructor, I dont think they should be up there teaching people how to fly completely but obviously whether you had 10,000 hours or 40 hours and were brand new to an airplane your going to need some pointers from time to time if the person sitting next to you has a couple thousand hours in type. Im not saying that every single person with low time out there flying RJ's belongs there but I am saying you cannot stereotype low time pilots in RJs as "dont know what theyre doing and need the captains help to fly the plane all the time."

 

I wonder how many PSA pilots who are on furlough went to fly for another airline? Mesaba is giving preferential hiring to furloughed pilots. I have also heard that recalls arent going to happen untill 2009 and new hire classes wont happen untill the spring. Hope I am wrong but...

 

<grin> Yes, I would agree with that. I see your point but submit the following:

If the Captain has to say, "right rudder right rudder right rudder" -- then the F/O has no business being in the airplane.

Here is my acid test for pilots. If you can't put the airplane on the centerline and in the touchdown zone EVERY single time -- then you probably lack the experience to be sitting in the seat.

I am basing this assertion on 13 years of flying professionally for a handful of 121 carriers -- Those pilots who challenge themselves to land on the centerline and in the touchdown zone generally handle the rest of their job with equal professionalism and attention to detail.

Those that don't... might need a little more dual.

 

What up Ralph

 

The above statement makes the point for me. It does not matter if you are Chuck Yeager. We could teach a MONKEY to fly the airplane beautifully -- but the monkey will always lack the ability to participate in the inflight decision-making process. It's really not about how well you fly the airplane at the end of the day. It is about whether or not you have the experience to contribute on the cockpit and help the PIC to make the decisions he or she has to make on a day-to-day basis -- or if you're simply warming a seat as a glorified passenger with a yoke in your lap.

When it comes to flying skills, as i've mentioned, i'm happy if you just put it on the centerline. When it comes to being an active and participatory member of the cockpit crew whome I can rely on ... i'm going to need you to have a little experience in your bag of tricks.

That being said, I have no doubt that you would be a well qualified Seneca MEI and, once you get about 1200 TT, perhaps even a Seneca single-pilot night freight pilot.

Just not quite experienced enough for me to feel comfortable paying US Airways $800 to put my wife and child in the back of your airplane.

 

If only all captains felt that way . Unfortunately most leave the F/O completely out of the in flight decision making process regardless of the F/O's experience level. I can recall few times when my c/a actually asked for my input on a critical decision.

 

I was a copilot for 11 years. That might have had some impact on why I hold the first officers with whom I fly in such high esteem

 

This is all very familiar.

No, there is a difference between a "mentor" and an "instructor." Word-for-word, I have to side with Zap.

The CA is leader, and part of being a leader is mentoring. In some professions that can include providing instruction. This is not one of them. The FO is a CA in training in that he/she is gaining experience and insight by crewing the flights. One thing I really liked at my first 121 job was that the INDOC/AC training was very detailed, and we had CA upgrades in the same class. We were all exposed to the same material and took the same tests. How else can an FO be a check for the CA if not trained on the same material? The training for my second one was not nearly as detailed, and at the end, I felt I knew a fraction of what I needed. FYI: "I didn't know" doesn't fly with the FAA. So my point is this: if the FO is trained properly, what instruction is necessary?

Back in the day, there were 2000TT CFIs with 500ME who were jumping for joy when they got hired to be the FO/FA of a 1900. They brought a several hundred hours of having student scare the @#$% outta them. There is no substitute for experience.

The RJs can fly with this level of experience because of the automation. I think NASA proved that a chimp can fly as long as everything is normal. In the box, the people who grew up on Nintendo can run all the V1 cuts or engine fire drills you want, but they still get to come off motion for a break. In a real emergency, the CA needs a fully participating crew to address the situation because there are 50+ lives on the line.

Judgement/ADM comes from flying, folks. There is no substitute.

 

I agree 100%.