I would say at 1200 TT he is just going though the wrote memory of what to do. If faced with a real emergency, at 1200 hrs , he just does not have the background to pull from. I dont believe a A-319 can cross oceans as in Atlantic or Pacific. Crossing the Indian Ocean (PIA that it might be) or the Carribean doesn't really count as overwater. As with all the fancy wizz bang neaty stuff the Airbus has, class 2 nav means nil. In Europe all the flying can be considered international since you are passing over a country about 1 per hour.

If you had said a 2000 hr check hauler instead of A CFI, I would pick the check hauler over the A-319 SIC. Why, because the check hauler has been out there making the decision to make things happen and not being just along for the ride.

I disagree from the learning curve being steeper. I will say that it is just different.

Have you actually seen the syllabus???

Take a look at the 14 ATPL exams. They cover subjects like climatology and international ops. 700 hours study is the norm before taking the 14 exams. It is impossible to take all 14 at once due to the very high workload. Most split them up and take just 3 at a time. Most require to re-take 1 or more tests. The 2008 pass rate is 86%.

Then take a look at the amount of CRM. Then take a look at what's involved with getting a type (including tighter PTS) and approx 5 months IOE before the sign off.

Compare that to Irwin Gleim's easy Commercial book, virtually no CRM, and a couple of 4 day "domestic" trips in a user friendly rj not equiped for overwater ops.

In the US, you won't see half this stuff until you get to a major and it will be your airline that trains you. You are not required to be tested on it in the ATP exam like the EU guys are.

"Just different?"

The learning curve is steeper. No question about it.

AL

Not sure what you mean by saying, "you would pick him".

Pick "him" for what type of operation?

I logged 450 hours in a Piper Seminole. I'm a former MEII but I'm not current in the a/c as I haven't flown one in over a decade. I fly medium jets at a Major.

There are many current MEII's out their flying seminoles every day. If I show up at a flight school in the morning and get recertified, Am I better suited to teaching right away with students, or should the job go to a proficient MEII?

I'd say give the job to the other guy.

Is he currently a "better" pilot than me with my 8000 hours?
For that particular job at that level...............YES!

Is he more experienced and knowledgable overall?

Highly unlikely. If he shows up at my airline tomorrow, he might have a mountain to climb.


I'd have a job on my hands trying to get through IOE on a long haul trip in the A380 though.

As for decision making, in my limited 8000 hours, I've declared a few emergencies including engine failures, flap failures, gear failures, and hydraulic leaks/failures. Not one of those emergencies required much decision making skills. Make a decision, follow the QRH, follow SOP's, land safely, and do some paperwork. Done!
It's not rocket science although some would like to believe so.

I used to fly with FO's who had only a few hundred hours. I flew with low time airforce guys too. Fortunately, when problems occured, they were right on the ball because they had ability, if not experience.

AL

Guys,

Again I dont think its about hours. I have 800 hours that I accumulated over 12 years of on and off flying. Take another guy that has 500 hours that he accumulated in 2 years flying consistantly.

I think he would be a better stick than me just because he has flown more consistantly and I havent. So, its not about thehours. its about the experiences

I thought we were talking about actual flying and not theory. Yes, the JAA-ATP test are quite difficult from what I understand but at the same time they are teaching antiquated stuff such as OMEGA. Remember OMEGA went OTS quite a few years ago. I still believe that alot of those exams are teaching pure theory and could easily be honed down to what is relavant.

Most of the JAA guys have never even flown single pilot other than what was required to get their intial certificates. If the new rule goes through, they will have to have a special certificate or theirs wil read "CREW ONLY".

That is what happens when you hire guy that have only 250 hrs and have been pretty much flying supervised for nearly all of it. I have also heard stories here in the US about those low-timers getting 100+ of OE in that shiny new RJ. I don't know about the PTS, I was under the assumption that JAR ad FAA standards were about the same.

Have you ever flown in Europe? Its almost the same as the US, only the accents are different and you have to watch the transition levels. If you are flying intra-Europe, that could be considered domestic ops.

Oooo, overwater ops. Just through in a lfe raft and a HF radio and you good to go. I don't know why people make such a big deal about over water ops. ie. the Atlantic and Pacific crossings. (The training I had was pretty ****ty and I learned by doing it) Really only 3 things you have to know. How to fill out a plotting chart, how to make proper position reports and the most important, what do to in-case of an emergency.


I have spent the last three and a half yrs flying a wide-body around the world and I tell you the learning curve is not that steep, its just different.

I don't recall seeing anything on Omega in the JAR books other than a reference to it in a history paragraph. Everything else is relevant. Now, you may not be thinking about the Kurosiwo current, Oyasiwo current, or the Siberian high in your every day life. But when your flying just east of Hong Kong during a monsoon, you'll at least understand what to expect as you fly north of the ITCZ. Yes.....it's a bit geeky but is it useless information? I often hear guys criticize the JAR ATPL program. Most have never even opened the books. Is the system perfect? No. But it certainly is a lot more indepth than what the FAA requires of you.

I used to fly rj's with FO's with 300 hours and an FAA commercial fresh from 4 days of IOE. I wasn't a check airman.



You are correct. The IOE and CRM is a lot more indepth. But, like I said, the regionals here in the US hire low timers without the extra training. They get a sign off after a few days IOE and the regular line Captains have the burden of babysitting.



Yes I have. But, when I started flying at the airlines in the US, my first plane was a 30 seat turbo prop. I had just an FAA commercial ticket and no type. All flights were over land and less than 2 hours. My commercial training was adequate for "that" type of "domestic" flying. Compare that to what the young guys in the EU have to do to land their "first" job. It's night and day.

Ok but did you have to worry about being tested on that stuff on your ATP exams or applying it in your first job?


Again, when did you study international ops?
Did you do it to study for your ATP written? Or did you have the luxury of grasping that stuff later on in your career?

If you're a kid in the EU and you want to be a pilot, the JAR ATPL exam requires 700 hours study, you need a frozen ATPL (not a commercial) and a type rating. After a few hundred hours, you may end up flying a medium, overwater equiped aircraft internationally. Of course this sounds like a piece of cake to you. But, when you're trying to get your first flying job, the kids in the EU have a much steeper mountain to climb!

AL