Not to further hi-jack this thread...

My "easiest" X-wind landing airplanes form me have to be a tie between the high wing Cessna's (but especially the 152), and the Canadair CRJ... The main gear were so tucked in the middle, and the airplane landed so flat that it made X-wind landings sort of easy.. but everyone probably experiences X-wind landings differently.

here are some more gems from youtube.. love that 747 in Hong Kong at the end.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X_7X...eature=related

True but you're looking at it from only one side. If the program is well rounded there's plenty the degree can help you in from running FBO's to working at Boeing.

So this is what this thread is really about?
 

So, first, we link GIA to Mesa. :confused: There is no product that Gulfstream offers that Mesa also offers. All of Gulfstream's training is done by the airline with revenue passengers in the back of a turbine aircraft (most with a regular line Captain, who's not training qualified). All of Mesa's training is done in pistons and flight simulators (no revenue passengers) and is done by a part 141 flight school, not the airline, with a CFI (obviously, training qualified) teaching the student. Gulfstream offers a guaranteed job. Mesa offers a guaranteed interview if you finish the program (finishing is not guaranteed, nor is a successful interview).

The only person who actually knows anything about the program tries to unlink it.

Someone who doesn't know much about Mesa's program demonstrates they don't, by posting his opinion, but calling it "fact".

"Our success in placing graduates with Mesa Air Group subsidiaries as First Officers averages above 90%." - Mesa. That's a real fact.

Someone who's never flown a Bonanza or Baron tells us what stick and rudder skills you need to fly one. He proposes that the best training is flying a tailwheel - coincidence, that's his background.
--

Why is it that this forum's threads seem to always revert to those who don't know the subject publicly demonstrating it?

This thread used to be about why former GIA pilots seem to have a habit of ending up @ the controls of aircraft accidents. While the sample size is small, the trend is disturbing, but not statistically relevant.

Oh, and my hardest X-winds have been in large jets, not light pistons or heavies. I've never landed the MD-11 though. :D

I don't think it's totally fair to equate GIA to MESA, sorry if that's what I did... but there is something to be said for their "success" rate .. this isn't saying everyone who went thru it is an idiot with poor flying skills.. I have a friend from my last company who's a grad and he's a sharp stick, but anytime you mix training and airline interview/jobs I think you blur the line and tread into the realm of conflict of interest.

The one is charing you money to train and the other is supposed to pay you to work.. they should not be at all interconnected. JMHO.

Are you for real? Not only did I talk to former students but the head recruiter at Mesa about two years ago. They said they try to take all of them in. They're paying to get a job at mesa after all..

I also have a contact (personal) to the management at Mesa and have some insight into their business model.. it's predicated on "flood the job market"

How is what GIA does (aside from the paying for it part) any different than when things were booming about 18 months ago and TSA, PSA, PCL, etc. were hiring 250 hour F/Os straight from ATP and Riddle and putting them in the right seat of CRJs and 145s?

Is that any different? A low time FO is a low time FO regardless of who they are flying for.

Agreed on the lack of a link b/t Mesa's ab initio training program and GIA, but 90% is a high #, but not when viewed in context. If you were trained by your company for 2 years and 5 FAA checkrides, interviewed twice, and groomed from the very beginning of your flying experience for the job - you should see high success rates, no? When someone goes through groundschool @ an airline and there's a 90% pass rate for the combination of indoc test, systems test and sim checkride, does that # seem too high too? What was the pass rate @ AA, Gemini, or Skybus for those in your groundschool class, 'CE750'? Most of my training experience tells me 90% is not an alarming number in and of itself.

If the job was guaranteed, or 99% of those who started the program ended up making it to the right seat on line 2-4 years later, I'd be concerned, certainly. But, considering that the 90% number is only those who actually complete the program (so it excludes all those students who don't successfully even make it to the interview), I feel like the actual # of those who start the program ending up in the right seat is about right - if you had 2 years of gouge for an interview and training, you should do well. The possibility of impropriety does not mean impropriety exists, and those who are in the position to see the conflict have raised no alarms. Perhaps EG (VP of Ops) sees it differently.

Most IOE CA's @ Mesa reported a couple years ago that the guys with Mesa specific training from ab initio were usually the easiest to train and best sticks - and it should be that way, they got every advantage going for them. If the IOE CA's (who have nothing to do with Mesa's in-house ab initio program) ever start saying that they're being pressured to sign-off pilots with Mesa ab initio in their backgrounds, then that will be my signal that there's an issue. I have heard that the quality of the program may have slid a bit since its beginnings in the 90's, but, then again the average pilot entering the regionals these days is nothing like the 3500TT pilot that was the minimum to crew the right seat of a 1900 or Brasilia in the 90's. Now all you need is a pulse (and why I don't see a need for the Mesa ab initio program. The advantage of an interview with low time is not exclusive to Mesa's internal trainees anymore - anyone can do it, and the almighty $ makes a training program which uses high performance complex aircraft for initial training too pricy for most - except the military, who uses high performance complex aircraft, but UPT trainees don't foot the bill, of course).

Of course they try to take all of them - every airline tries to get all their trainees to the line too, just as the military does - this is par for the course. Some trainees don't make it - that too is standard.

Frankly, the only thing we have is our credibility on these forums. You can say you talked to anyone you want, it doesn't change what happened - you posted inaccurate information and labeled it "fact" (it's not 'for real', as you might say). And that's a fact.;)

My background is flying light singles, complex singles, high performance singles, some tailwheel, some aerobatics, 700 hrs of dual, 135 charter in a King Air 90 and 200, 135 single pilot in a Piper Chieftain, and part 91 in a Citation.

There's a lot of guys/girls here with a heck of a lot more experience than me, but my background is strong enough to at least comment on whether a tailwheel airplane builds more stick and rudder skills at the primary level compared to flying around a Bonanza and Baron. As I've gone up the ladder with airplanes (light singles -> Chieftain -> King Air -> Citation), the airplanes have become easier to fly when it comes to stick and rudder skills. Stick and rudder skills are not to be confused with other flying skills, like staying ahead of the airplane, managing power and systems, dealing with weather, altitude, busier airspace and airport environments, commercial operations, revenue passengers, etc.

If you think that a Bonanza or a Baron are trickier to fly from a stick and rudder point of view than say and old Citabria, I'd wager that you don't have a very diverse background. It just simply isn't so. The hardest airplane I've flown to date is a damn glider!

ummmm.... he said around 99% and you proved him wrong with something that said "ABOVE 90%." ??????

I would hate to break it to you amigo but that is a pretty poor argument on your part. SPlit the difference and say 95% get jobs... and you are paying for your job. It might be a great flight school but theres more to flying then what the airlines do. I would hate to be groomed for a crappy regional job while missing all the exciting things in aviation you could be doing. Even you said if 99% get through training then it is pretty scary. Well 90% or better isnt far off from 99% and i am guessing the real number is closer to 99 then you are trying to prove. be scared