Originally Posted by FlyerJosh (Post 81948)

Hmmm. The military thinks differently. Most airlines overseas think differently. Many regionals (with very good safety records) here in the US think differently.

Not saying that it's right or wrong (I certainly have my opinions, and might even be a bit biased since I was hired into the CRJ at my first airline job with about 700/75).

Either way, I think you're taking out your frustrations on the wrong group. Don't yell at the CFI with 400/50 that's trying to get on with the airline. If he/she can do so, then good for them- it's quite an accomplishment as far as I'm concerned.

But if you have an issue with the fact they were hired, blame the pilots that hired them without whatever qualifications you see necessary. Better yet, volunteer your time and go conduct some interviews yourself. You'll learn very quickly that time in a logbook is just that.

There are 200 hr pilots that I would let fly around in my company's Citation. There are 7000 hr pilots I wouldn't even let drive my car, let alone get near an airplane I had anything to do with... judgement, depth of experience, training, real-world qualifications, and maturity play a bigger role in my book.

For example, a guy that has 300TT and 50 ME, but 7 years as a professional flight engineer or a military navigator probably has enough experience from being there and seeing it, to make wise decisions. If he/she can pass the interview, has the knowledge, and can make it through training, why shouldn't they be hired?

Originally Posted by sflpilot (Post 117105)

. . . Ok now here is the problem: Military pilots and CFI's are low time, but when they screw up it will only hurt one or two people both of which know what they are doing can be dangerous. . . . Low-timers do not belong in a jet or t-prop flying people around. When the going gets tough most of them will need to change their pants. There is no substitute for real world experience, not a sim, not the books, but real flying experience. . . .

Originally Posted by Ftrooppilot (Post 119741)

HOGWASH- :eek:

I started flying a supersonic aircraft at 120 total hours. When I has 750 hrs total time I was an Instructor Pilot in Vietnam - muti engine crew aircraft getting our ass shot off. At 1500 hrs total time I was in command of a C-141 flying airevac patients and medical crews from the Phillipines to the US often landing in Alaskan winter weather. AT 2000 hrs I was flying photo reconniassance in a pressure suit above 70,000 ft where the difference between stall and Mach tuck is 12 kts - a high pucked factor. All of this before I turned thirty years old.

It's the quality of training and the depth of the experience not total hours that determine a competent pilot.

Originally Posted by Ftrooppilot (Post 119741)

HOGWASH- :eek:

I started flying a supersonic aircraft at 120 total hours. When I had 750 hrs total time I was an Instructor Pilot in Vietnam - muti engine crew aircraft getting our ass shot off. At 1500 hrs total time I was in command of a C-141 flying airevac patients and medical crews from the Phillipines to the US often landing in Alaskan winter weather. AT 2000 hrs I was flying photo reconniassance in a pressure suit above 70,000 ft where the difference between stall and Mach tuck is 12 kts - a high pucker factor. All of this before I turned thirty years old.

It's the quality of training and the depth of the experience not total hours that determine a competent pilot.

Originally Posted by saab2000 (Post 119743)

I agree. In the whole rest of the world there are low-time pilots sitting in passenger jets. On the right seat.

My background was in Europe and I was hired at 260 hours total time. The difference is training and screening of applicants, which is vastly more selective than it is in the US.

Originally Posted by sflpilot (Post 119751)

Sorry, can't be that selective in the U.S. There would not be any pilots. That's why you go on experience.

Originally Posted by sflpilot (Post 119749)

Exactly, you were not flying 70+ people around for hire. That's the point.

Originally Posted by Ftrooppilot (Post 119754)

Does 100 airevac patients, twenty medical personnel and eight crew members add up to more than 70 ? :confused:

Originally Posted by BoilerUP (Post 119753)

You bring up an interesting contradiction.

You say we can't be that selective in the US because there would not be any pilots, "that's why you go on experience". Unfortunately for you, the pool of experienced pilots willing to fly for the airlines for the current level of compensation is dwindling rapidly. In order to maintain staffing, airlines are accepting pilots with less experience (instead of sharply increasing compensation)...and are doing so without negative effects to safety of the operation.

You still never answered this question in another thread - has there been a modern 121 accident in the United States directly attributable to a sub-ATP minimums pilot being at the controls?

Originally Posted by sflpilot (Post 119757)

They knew the possible dangers when they joined the military. Airline passengers don't expect any danger and they have the right.

Originally Posted by sflpilot (Post 119758)

You are advocating the classic race to the bottom. I feel sorry for you.

Originally Posted by sflpilot (Post 119757)

They knew the possible dangers when they joined the military. Airline passengers don't expect any danger and they have the right.

Originally Posted by saab2000 (Post 119773)

BoilerUP is not advocating a race to the bottom. He is stating the obvious. And he doesn't need your "Feeling sorry for him".

He and I and a few others on this board have been fighting hard to stop the race to the bottom. We just won a major grievance at our company which helps to do just that.

I have flown with captains at my company who, through good timing, are captains with quite low time. They have been almost without exception very good, safe pilots and have shown better judgement than some more experienced ones I have flown with who seem to revert to a 60's style cowboy way of thinking in tough situations. (LGA anyone?)

Don't pick on BoilerUP until you know the fight that has been going in within our company to stop the race to the bottom. We have lost a lot of business opportunities supposedly because of our pilot group's refusal to participate in that race.

Originally Posted by sflpilot (Post 119823)

Then the company will claim that they are bankrupt and start imposing rules. Most pilots don't have the gumption to walk to prove a point for the industry. See SkyHigh's posts for more info.

Originally Posted by BoilerUP (Post 119829)

I'm beginning to think you ARE SkyHigh. Your posts are so contradictory one to the next its difficult to ascertain exactly what the heck your point is.

So either we're "lowering the bar", or after fighting to raise the bar we'll inevitably be screwed by management and yet won't "have the gumption to walk to prove a point for the industry". You've proven time and time again you don't know jack about the regional airline industry in general or specific pilot groups as a whole.

How many times did YOU "walk to prove a point for the industry"?

Originally Posted by sflpilot (Post 119845)

I know enough to know that it's a waste of time. Why don't you grow up and get a real life instead of running around the sky like a curious child.