Please hammer this ignorant Reporter by email
02-13-2014, 11:46 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 231
Originally Posted by block30
The industry needs to get serious about pilot and mechanic development and retention! No more kicking the can down the road for someone else to deal with!!
Get rid of it, and you can expect a much more rational system.
02-13-2014, 11:52 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2013
Posts: 2,594
Originally Posted by gatorbuc99
AND YOU SHOULD HAVE TO PAY for that service. But people wanna have their cake and eat it too. Low fares is what you want, but now the market can't support cheap labor...cry me a fu**in river. 
02-13-2014, 11:59 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Position: On the hotel shuttle
Posts: 5,838
Originally Posted by dl773
The seniority system makes retention outrageously expensive. It's why airlines and pilots "crash" so hard when times get tough.
Get rid of it, and you can expect a much more rational system.
Get rid of it, and you can expect a much more rational system.
02-13-2014, 12:16 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 231
Originally Posted by GogglesPisano
You must be junior.
I am not saying we have to end it all for senior pilots. But maybe the new hires should not be in this system anymore and slowly phase it out this way.
02-13-2014, 12:22 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2013
Position: Satisfied
Posts: 379
Originally Posted by pete2800
Let's talk about Renslow, since you brought him up. Do you know what his history is?
He started out like we all do, as a student pilot. That means that aside from a few solo hours, there's always someone next to him to bail him out if he should make a truly disastrous decision. He passed (eventually) the necessary check-rides and earned a Commercial certificate.
He then paid for training at Gulfstream. This means that as an FO, he always had someone next to him to catch any major blunders, or unsafe decisions.
He then got hired at Colgan. As an FO. And the Captain was always there to bail him out, should he screw up in a seriously massive way.
He then upgraded. He was flying left-seat in a part 121 operation, having spent very few hours having to actually make his own decisions in an airplane. And almost zero hours in an environment where his decisions were actually the ones that would stick.
To be honest, one of the biggest lessons I learned from being a CFI was built over time. It was the emphasis and clarification that the only level of safety that was going to be enforced, was mine. There's no one else to help anymore. Looking back, that was absolutely invaluable time spent as PIC. Not just flying around by myself where I can control (mostly) the situations that arise, but by flying with new and different people consistently, who will always do the unexpected.
He started out like we all do, as a student pilot. That means that aside from a few solo hours, there's always someone next to him to bail him out if he should make a truly disastrous decision. He passed (eventually) the necessary check-rides and earned a Commercial certificate.
He then paid for training at Gulfstream. This means that as an FO, he always had someone next to him to catch any major blunders, or unsafe decisions.
He then got hired at Colgan. As an FO. And the Captain was always there to bail him out, should he screw up in a seriously massive way.
He then upgraded. He was flying left-seat in a part 121 operation, having spent very few hours having to actually make his own decisions in an airplane. And almost zero hours in an environment where his decisions were actually the ones that would stick.
To be honest, one of the biggest lessons I learned from being a CFI was built over time. It was the emphasis and clarification that the only level of safety that was going to be enforced, was mine. There's no one else to help anymore. Looking back, that was absolutely invaluable time spent as PIC. Not just flying around by myself where I can control (mostly) the situations that arise, but by flying with new and different people consistently, who will always do the unexpected.
02-13-2014, 01:49 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2012
Posts: 126
Originally Posted by pete2800
To be honest, one of the biggest lessons I learned from being a CFI was built over time. It was the emphasis and clarification that the only level of safety that was going to be enforced, was mine. There's no one else to help anymore. Looking back, that was absolutely invaluable time spent as PIC. Not just flying around by myself where I can control (mostly) the situations that arise, but by flying with new and different people consistently, who will always do the unexpected.
1500 is an arbitrary number. As is 250. As are all the rest. 1500 hours allows 6x as many opportunites for decisions to be made, consequences felt, and "OH S#1T!!" moments to be had.
I learned far more in my couple of thousand hrs of GA flying and flight instructing than I have in the many times more hours following the magenta line.
If your argument is that 1500 hrs makes becoming a 121 pilot too difficult, perhaps you doth protest too much.
As to the article:
Originally Posted by GogglesPisano
The "National Review," is an anti-regulation conservative magazine that your grandfather reads.
Follow the money.
Follow the money.
02-13-2014, 02:14 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Position: Supreme Allied Commander
Posts: 1,061
Originally Posted by Nantonaku
Yes, that is what I am saying. He/She never had time to master the basics - something more time flying with a student would have instilled, to the extent that even 20 years later a pilot with solid fundamentals wouldn't even have to think about how to react to a stall. Without a solid base of fundamental airmanship you see what happens. It is the same as Air France, who does not have a reputation for having a slack training program.
Your condescending tone clearly shows your lack of maturity, experience and maturity are two things lacking in this industry and something even the best training program cannot teach.
Your condescending tone clearly shows your lack of maturity, experience and maturity are two things lacking in this industry and something even the best training program cannot teach.
I guess I feel what your saying comes off as arrogant. I realize experience matters, and I'm not really debating that in any way. Its like you presume that anyone hired at say 1400 hrs is inferior, a liability and less qualified than their peers with 100 TT more. Flying the same circuit around the Grand Canyon in VFR conditions is not the same as landing a F-18 on an aircraft carrier, flying single pilot IFR approaches to minimums without an autopilot, aerobatic experience etc.
So what level of experience is necessary as a minimum to begin training as a first officer? If it really takes 1500hrs to master a stall recovery our training system is broken. Many time building paths wont even touch upon stalls even if your there for thousands of hours. 1500hrs is an arbitrary number, its not based on research or studies. Again why not 2000 hrs, or 1800, thats safer than 1500 hrs. What will prevent another Colgan more than anything else thus far has been AQP and emphasis on training standards to proficiency. But maybe Im wrong, maybe we should all have a Masters in Aeronautical Sciences to be FOs as well. But if its all about safety, why aren't the qualifications of the final authority in the cockpit looked at, considering the last 3 regional accidents had a PIC at the controls. Get your 1000hrs in type and your in charge at 24 years old. 2500hr captains arent a problem I guess, its the FOs. Id rather be in the back with an experienced CP and a 1000hr FO than a crew consisting of a high GA time FO and a 1 year upgrade CA.
I realize this is a thread drift. How I even got here was stating that the 1500 min was politically driven. The head of the FAA even stated to the politicians at the time he didnt understand where the number came from, and suggested more specific experience qualifications.
Last edited by saturn; 02-13-2014 at 02:30 PM.
02-13-2014, 02:14 PM
#49
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
While we're at it, this ignorant fool needs to get hammered on hard too:
http://www.facebook.com/KeepingDreamsandKeepingWings
http://www.facebook.com/KeepingDreamsandKeepingWings
02-13-2014, 02:29 PM
#50
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
Posts: 3,543
Originally Posted by saturn
I guess I feel what your saying comes off as arrogant. I realize experience matters, and I'm not really debating that in any way. Its like you presume that anyone hired at say 1400 hrs is inferior, a liability and less qualified than their peers with 100 TT more. Flying the same circuit around the Grand Canyon in VFR conditions is not the same as landing a F-18 on an aircraft carrier, flying single pilot IFR approaches to minimums without an autopilot, aerobatic experience etc.
So what level of experience is necessary as a minimum to begin training as a first officer? If it really takes 1500hrs to master a stall recovery our training system is broken. Many time building paths wont even touch upon stalls even if your there for thousands of hours. 1500hrs is an arbitrary number, its not based on research or studies. Again why not 2000 hrs, or 1800, thats safer than 1500 hrs. What will prevent another Colgan more than anything else thus far has been AQP and emphasis on training standards to proficiency. But maybe Im wrong, maybe we should all have a Masters in Aeronautical Sciences to be FOs as well. But if its all about safety, why aren't the qualifications of the final authority in the cockpit looked at, considering the last 3 regional accidents had a PIC at the controls. Get your 1000hrs in type and your in charge at 24 years old. 2500hr captains arent a problem I guess, its the FOs. Id rather be in the back with an experienced CP and a 1000hr FO than a crew consisting of a high GA time FO and a 1 year upgrade CA.
So what level of experience is necessary as a minimum to begin training as a first officer? If it really takes 1500hrs to master a stall recovery our training system is broken. Many time building paths wont even touch upon stalls even if your there for thousands of hours. 1500hrs is an arbitrary number, its not based on research or studies. Again why not 2000 hrs, or 1800, thats safer than 1500 hrs. What will prevent another Colgan more than anything else thus far has been AQP and emphasis on training standards to proficiency. But maybe Im wrong, maybe we should all have a Masters in Aeronautical Sciences to be FOs as well. But if its all about safety, why aren't the qualifications of the final authority in the cockpit looked at, considering the last 3 regional accidents had a PIC at the controls. Get your 1000hrs in type and your in charge at 24 years old. 2500hr captains arent a problem I guess, its the FOs. Id rather be in the back with an experienced CP and a 1000hr FO than a crew consisting of a high GA time FO and a 1 year upgrade CA.
With that said, I am honestly disappointed that the 1000/1250 hour reductions were tied to degree granting instutions instead of tying time reductions to the merit of a school's training syllabus. Oh well, I didn't write the law...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
