Thanks man and yup!

 

Having flown the turboprops, then the 145's, then the CRJ's, then the 737's, and now the Airbuses, I see nothing wrong with what tcco94 wrote. He may be a new hire, as you are, but it seems he recognizes the fact that time spent in a simpler jet (such as the CRJ), flying in the same environment you fly your 175, forces a pilot to maintain a more "connected" situational awareness - in the sence that the CRJ does not have autothrust to maintain or change speed (therefore it's solely the pilot's role to take care of this - or not), nor does it have coupled VNAV, which FORCES a pilot to be more situationally aware of his aircraft's position on the vertical path, and to make adjustments to his vertical speed to meet all of the restrictions. The fact of the matter is that CRJ pilots are required to use their noggin a little more than their 175 counterparts, due to the lower automation levels. They are forced to think about - and solve - more issues than their 175 counterparts, wth regard to vertical navigation and speed management at all times.

This is not a dig on you or any 175 pilot. It's a statement of fact. By spending some significant time in a jet that requires you to think more to solve the vertical challenges of a STAR and the speed management issues of said Star and the subsequent approach and landing, you are building a solid foundation for the rest of your career. You are always double checking you're "box" with your own 3:1 vertical profile and 6x the groundspeed descent rate, just in case something's been entered wrong or whatever. People who've done this mental math out of necessity for years have a stronger foundation to back up the automation we all now so heavily rely on.

I speak from experience. I spent 8500 hours in the 145 and another 1000 in the CRJ 700 before I flew the 737, and later the Airbus - a jet I have more than 1500 hours in now. Those last two jets (and your 175) will make you and me lazy if we let them, because their FMS's and Coupled VNAV and Autothrust take care of everything - we are just along for the ride, in a sense. I have to force myself to stay "in the game" with the Airbus I fly now. A big part of being able to stay in the game is being aware of your position on the vertical profile and being able to handle your own speed/thrust changes without AT and VNAV - a set of skills that jets with lower automation levels force their pilots to master out of sheer necessity.

As was said by someone else earlier, turn off the AT as often as you can. Control your own speed with your own hand and brain. Try to always stay ahead of your jet during the descent so that if the automation fails you somehow, you are always aware and ready to take over on your own.

So, personally, I think there's every benefit to be had by spending a few years in a "simpler" jet (like the CRJ or the 145) before spending the rest of your career in the more highly automated jets of today. It builds a good foundation.

 

450knots hit the nail on the head why the ERJ should not be one's first jet. I started out flying 60s turboprops and old corporate jet for 135.... even the CRJ is highly automated to me, it's so automated let alone the 175.

 

But it's sooo shiny!!

 

Come on. The 1500 hour rule has made us much safer....in the dark days before the rule lots of pilots went from a 172 to a BE1900 to build experience before going to a jet....a BE 1900 is 1729 more than a 172, so very dangerous.

Now, we young folks get to go from a 172 straight to a 175....the 175 is only 3 more than a 172, so its almost the same thing.

See? And people thought congress would screw this whole thing up. The rule seems to be working fine to me!

 

Bravo

(Filler)

 

And therefore, the 747, being halfway between, is the perfect compromise for new hires

 

So you're saying it's a downgrade to go from a C-150 to a C-130?

 

2005-2007 not ring a bell?
The market, not congress.

 

Lol I love that this is what you took exception with about his post.