I think what I said was, "a different type of training that produces the same capable pilot in 250tt rather than 1500tt."

"Capable" is a word that has many different interpretations. While I agree that the 250 hour pilot won't have the same skill set nor the ability to pull from a large bank of experiences to make the same judgement calls as Mr 1500 hour pilot, he is nonetheless "capable" of airline employability.

It has been proven to work. The 250 hour guy (in a factual example) does just as well and in some cases better in the airlines' training program and durring IOE than his 1500 hour compatriots.

As far as I know, these fast track programs are extremly selective also, and do dismiss students with very few mess ups. While they dont have $2M of tax payers moolah to throw at their students, they dont need to because the cost of their training isn't as high as the militarys. There is no need in civilian training to take the F-14 for a spin and a few hunderd thousand dollars an hour. The military is doing things right, however, and there isn't any reason why civilians can't use the same methods. IMHO

 

Not to discredit your statement but you're telling me that you didn't hear about the cadets that went over the 3 strike rule at CAPT and somehow were given lattitude over and over again? That's a double standard and a slap in the face for those of us who were trying to stay outside of the strike zone if you ask me. IMHO.

 

As fast track programs are looking to make money, I suspect that unless one is just completely unfit, they will train people as long as their checks clear. As long as the student is willing to train, why shouldn't the school continue training them?

 

I dont believe just more time/experiance is better. I think the quality of experiance is better. If there is a 3,000 hour pilot who hasnt really run into any major problems, and than a 600 hour pilot who has had to overcome problems and other complications. I would definitly feel better with the 600 hour pilot.
Quality beats quantity.

 

Actually, no, I didn't hear about that. It was my assumption that the three strike rule was still in effect and enforced. There were many a good pilot let go because of this three strike rule, but it is a necessisity. It actually saddens me to see that it is a paycheck that speaks. Selective enrollment and high standards is the only way a fast track program will work. With out these standards, they are no different than an FBO. IMHO

I agree completley. This is the one concept that makes it all work!

 

250 PFTs likely do have an easier time in the sim, because they have already been trained on it. But the sim is a very narrow video game that covers single engine ops and instrument approaches down to minimums (which are much easier than visual approaches).

Low-timers almost invariably struggle in IOE due to lack of real experience. Line flying is almost completely different than the sim...you have to do visual approaches and descents and deal with other traffic and human idosyncrasies in pilots and ATC.

 

Even IOE is "training" and check airmen are under the gun to get people through. I don't believe for a second that a 250 ab initio is going to do as well in the real world as a 1500 hour guy who maybe even did some 135 stuff or multi instruction. How much self confidence can a 250 hour guy have who's first job in aviation is as an airline F/O. They are totally unseasoned and untested in real world stuff. You just can't get that in a simulator.

 

Actually, there weren't a lot. And those that did get let go, which I can count on less than one hand, were morons. But somehow they got to have strike after strike after strike. The policy is still in effect. IMHO, that policy was a way for the program to scare people and easily dismiss a trouble maker. That policy was always a pain point with everyone especially when it's a double standard. stanrhintx is correct in his assessment. That policy is frackin' bulldong.

 

I dont think the pilocy is bulldong and I remember where good pilots were let go because of the three strikes. Yes, there were morons, but they were let go for the same policy. I dont know what is going on currently, but in 2003 it was enforced and the standards were very high and strict.

You're right, the 250 hour guy isn't going to be proficient in the real world experiences that the 1500 hour guy is. You're right, you can't teach visual approaches in the sim. You're right, the 250 hour pilot struggles with IOE, but so does the 1500 hour pilot.

To be exact, what he struggles with is the FMS and ACARS. He struggles, even after the sim, with the automation and the FCP. While he is working his ass off trying to figure that out and having a breeze flying, the 250 hour guy is having a breeze with the automation and working his ass off to figure out the flying. So yes, the 250 hour guy can do just as well in IOE than the 1500 hour pilot. Both will struggle with the airplane in IOE, both with have their butts kicked at some point down the line, but both are capable, both make it through in the end. Its the same requirements to pass IOE no matter how many hours you have, there are no free passes in any airline. The fact that check airmen are signing these guys off, means they feel comfortable that they are just as proficient as Mr. 1500 hour guy.

 

You know you just set yourself up for people to say that you rely 100% on automation and can't fly right? When the automation fails, the guy who's struggling to figure out the FMS and ACARS won't have to worry about his flying skills, which, is more important than the automation. What's more important: automation knowledge or flying skills?