Less than 100 Multi...
02-15-2007 | 11:39 PM
#81
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,370
Likes: 0
From: 737 FO
Seems easier to find carriers now willing to hire at less than 100 than ones that won't. In fact, I'd venture that many carriers with posted minimums above that may be interviewing people with less.
02-16-2007 | 01:28 AM
#82
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
From: 737FO
Who cares. . .just apply where you want to work!
02-16-2007 | 10:40 PM
#83
Cloudbase
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 565
Likes: 28
From: 717A
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?
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?
YES. I agree 100%, sir.
02-17-2007 | 04:55 AM
#84
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,349
Likes: 0
From: Body at sea level; heart at 70,000+
. . . 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. . . .
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.
Last edited by Ftrooppilot; 02-17-2007 at 05:10 AM.
02-17-2007 | 04:58 AM
#85
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,755
Likes: 6
HOGWASH-
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.
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.
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.
02-17-2007 | 05:17 AM
#86
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 692
Likes: 0
HOGWASH-
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.
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.
02-17-2007 | 05:18 AM
#87
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 692
Likes: 0
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.
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.
02-17-2007 | 05:23 AM
#88
Doing One Pilot's Job
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,889
Likes: 129
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?
02-17-2007 | 05:26 AM
#89
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,349
Likes: 0
From: Body at sea level; heart at 70,000+
AND - there were hundreds of C-141 crewmembers of the same age and total hours flying airevacs around the world between 1965 and 1972. The same age group and experience level is flying C-17 airevacs in the Middle East today.
Last edited by Ftrooppilot; 02-17-2007 at 05:37 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
