![]() |
Originally Posted by Utah
(Post 1015259)
So you've been out practicing slow flight/stalls in an airliner recently?
So in essence yes we practice slow flight in airliners daily. |
Originally Posted by DirectTo
(Post 1015281)
There is a massive difference between teaching stalls and flying into ice and picking through storms (not something your average instructor will be doing in light singles I'll bet).
I put my instrument students in IMC all the time. I wasn't teaching them to fly under foggles. I was teaching them to fly in IMC. Never did I intentionally, but I did get into ice or near thunderstorms, & it taught me a lot. I had plenty of 500 hour puppy mill FO's when I was an RJ CA. We got along great, but many of them lacked the basic situation awareness to really operate the airplane in a 121 environment. One flew me right through the localizer on a visual approach to parallel runways in 10 SM of visibility because he didn't have a Flight Director to follow. I should have never let it happen, but I went heads down for a minute and he's 8 miles out doing 250 kias blowing right into the path of another airplane. Others couldn't even do a visual approach without an ILS to the runway, even if they had a PAPI/VASI. And don't even get me started on when we were down in Mexico! :eek: I had over 1100 hours when I got hired at my regional, and I don't think that was enough time. It took several months on line before I was comfortable. I strongly support the ATP requirement. Your Pt 135 experience is a great way to cut your teeth too, and you have to have quite of bit of time to be a 135 PIC. We need to shut down these pilot puppy mill operations, because they continue to hurt this occupation. |
Disregard.........
|
Originally Posted by j1b3h0
(Post 1015158)
I just read 15 pages of pontificating about the 1500 hour/ATP FAR and whether or not it matters. As Captains, would anyone care to cite examples of exactly how inexperience reveals itself on the line? Myself, an unabashed proponent of higher minimums and an ATP, if, for no other reason than consistency: FAR 135.243 requires 1200 hrs to fly a piston twin full of mail bags as a PIC. Doesn't it stand to reason that to occupy an airliner cockpit would require at least that?
So, please share with us your anecdotal evidence of why inexperienced crew members compromise safety. |
Originally Posted by DirectTo
(Post 1015311)
Well please, by all means explain it then, I clearly didn't learn it at my "puppy mill".
There is no way that in 500-1000 hours of CFI'ing versus flying 1900s, even at Gulfstream, is going to build more skills that apply to the airlines. If he had done 500 hours of instructing them 500 of the 1900 gig, sure, he would no doubt have received some good experience. But to suggest that between one or another that pure CFI'ing is the better preparation for airline flying is ridiculous. |
Originally Posted by minimwage4
(Post 1015367)
It doesn't matter. 1500 rule can't physically happen. A career circiling the drain = no future pilots. They will have to make training harder or something, fix the "law" but low timers will be here to stay.
Again, 1500+ was the de-facto rule for years. Those hired with less than 1500 should feel very lucky. |
Originally Posted by j1b3h0
(Post 1015295)
Gentlemen: I guess what I was asking is for examples of situations Captains have witnessed during which the inexperience of a First Officer somehow made the situation less safe.
On non-precision approaches: The don't mentally plan a VDP. We break out eight miles from the runway at 600 AGL, and you really want to start your decent here? Or, the missed approach point is the runway threshold, 2/10ths of a mile out the clouds part, and he wants to dive for the runway. About half the time we get non-standard holding instructions they cannot figure out where we are supposed to be of how to enter (usually they invert it). I know it can be confusing (that is why I still draw it out on paper), but that is basic IFR. In the round out or flair or whatever is the current term for the last 20 seconds before touchdown. They never learn to be smooth. Winds calm, speed is good, power coming back, and they are sawing away on the yoke like a logger. The plane never rolls, but his hands and the ailerons are goin' like a bat outa Hades. |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1015355)
And don't even get me started on when we were down in Mexico! :eek:
. |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1015355)
I put my instrument students in IMC all the time. I wasn't teaching them to fly under foggles. I was teaching them to fly in IMC. Never did I intentionally, but I did get into ice or near thunderstorms, & it taught me a lot.
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1015355)
I had plenty of 500 hour puppy mill FO's when I was an RJ CA. We got along great, but many of them lacked the basic situation awareness to really operate the airplane in a 121 environment. One flew me right through the localizer on a visual approach to parallel runways in 10 SM of visibility because he didn't have a Flight Director to follow. I should have never let it happen, but I went heads down for a minute and he's 8 miles out doing 250 kias blowing right into the path of another airplane. Others couldn't even do a visual approach without an ILS to the runway, even if they had a PAPI/VASI. And don't even get me started on when we were down in Mexico! :eek:
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:54 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands