The CRJ hand flies like crap. I flew the Metro, so that should tell you something. I'm a 600 feet autopilot on guy.

Lot of these guys went from 172s and small twins to RJs, they don't know other jets dont come with auto-rock, crap touch feel, an electric trim that might be better used to trim against your inputs, electrically controlled surfaces like flaps, slats and spoilers that would all work better and more comfortably at halfspeed (of course the spoilers dont have that "feature"), and trend vectors that work opposite to the reality, purposefully omitted in your scan.

Of course lessons will be repeated for blown procedures that are required. That doesn't mean that the pressure to move on isn't there due to expense and backlog, or that instructors are enthusiastic to do do things that aren't required. Especially when there's a chance to get home in time for the hockey game.

But from what you describe in 2017 (a year after my initial) it sounds like changes are being made in the right direction and I'm glad to hear it.

I agree on the crap feel with heavy stick forces especially around neutral breakout. But I always figured that any transport jet with hydraulic controls would be like that. My one other jet was unassisted pushrods, and a beauty to fly. I also agree on the pitching motions with flaps coming out being a huge pain. I just about had it down consistently on the 200, then I switched and whoa now you have pull then push in perfect timing!

But what do you mean by "auto rock," and what's wrong with the trim? And the trend vector?

The only thing you feel is the touch feel computer (the crjs is garbage), it has nothing to do with the hydros or even if was squirrels tugging cables with their teeth, the computer is the only thing you "touch".

as for everything else I suggest hand flying more and looking out the window on a deadhead, you'll see it eventually.

Isn't the FOU supposed to come out with the latest DGI pass/fail rates? I did not see it in the latest FOU.

I know of a few folks who did not make it after the initial group of candidates who went back in November/December.

It has nothing to do with safety. It’s who might be the better “employee” in their eyes. How would you define that if you were mgmt?

Ps. Don’t shoot the messenger.

They hired people with severe attendance problems, it's not that either. You had to pass the testing, then get lucky with your panel draw, nothing else mattered.

Yeah, i think sometimes people get very very backwards on this board. Work as hard or not as you like, pass the interview (which is supposedly a measure of a pilot) and you're in. Its bizarre they are once again saying no to checkairmen, and our rising stars that were the hardest working.

Once again, completely confused why some are hired and others arent.

I agree. But one thing is a certain: Nobody knows what goes on behind that closed door except the interview panel and the interviewee. People are hired for a reason and they are turned away for a reason.

Airlines don't hire pilots, they hire people and future leaders who can represent the brand just as well as they can manage an engine fire over an ocean. I'm not being condescending in any way, I'm just saying that so much more is "reviewed, analyzed and studied" about a candidate in an interview that goes far beyond what they've done while at work or how many hours they have accumulated since they began flying.

The problem with this statement, is that given the demographic hired over the years, the DGI/SSP rate should be >90%. They are turning away some of our best people, but yet hiring some of our worst. If you worked hard all you career, but draw a bad panel, yet a total buffoon draws a sympathetic panel, that's kind of a raw deal. Better to be lucky than good, as they say.

As an example, if you did not have a degree for the SSP, you could draw a panel that was okay with that, for some interview panels however, that was a hard line no go item.

The union is trying to balance that by making the interview a merit based system, but Delta is not interested.