Not to mention their entitlement attitudes. Had one douchebag complain about the training dept the entire time yet he could barely talk on the radios. Wore his cool aviators clipped onto his epaulets though.

Actually the lack of a defined, detailed syllabus is intentional. That way the information presented CAN be tailored to the student pair as needed. If you provide a rediculously detailed syllabus you really turn the lesson into nothing more than PowerPoint regurgitation. I've taught it both ways and seen it.

When teaching systems (CSIs), I make it very clear to the pair that I'm not going to spend time on lights/switches that they can learn on their own or basic complex jet systems like how a pack works or how a de-ice/anti-ice system works. That was what their regional or FlightSafety class was for. I spend time on procedures and/or abnormals that involve those systems of the day.

Automation, flight controls and ECAM get a good detailed lesson as deserved.

Indeed it can be valuable for the instructor to have that freedom based on their assessment of the students. The problem I see with this technique at Spirit is the way training is scheduled with potentially not having the same instructor more than once. My new hire was 5 years ago and we had a different instructor every session until sim and same for upgrade 2 years ago. Impossible for, and not fair to an instructor to have to try and recognize the student needs based on a first glance.

the instructors recognize this and are actively trying to change it. The instructors are awesome. The couple of guys that failed the ride in my class - the "25%" weren't young guys who did a year in a jet and got on with spirit, they were seasoned guys, and whether it was just a stupid mistake they made or maybe didn't understand the system, i don't think their failure was all of spirits fault for hiring them or all of the training departments fault or even all their fault, like anything else it is a combination of things, and each situation is different. but the statistics I gave for my class might be a little misleading from the numbers, i just want to say they weren't "brand new young guys with no experience"

That’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. I personally know 135 guys that didn’t take the program seriously because they were used to Flight safety. Didn’t stay at the hotel to study in bullpen and went home almost every night. Used to being a customer and washed out. Spirit used to have a huge bias against corporate guys for this very reason when they could afford to be picky. We hired almost none because the few we did struggled. I’m not saying it’s all but 135 guys are more of a risk than a previous 121 guy. When we get a good contract (I believe we will) I guarantee we stop hiring corporate pilots.

As a former "135 guy" who has not only passed the training, but effing killed it here in the Spirit training program, I thank you for not including all of us in your comments.

I personally went through initial training and type ratings at Flight Safety and SIMCOM. In both cases I would see pilots walking around with their Bermuda shorts and Hawaiian shirts with sunglasses hanging from a strap around their neck, not carrying any manuals, kicking back with their feet up, and doing everything they could to skate through training. On the other hand, there were pilots there that were dressed appropriately, who hit the books every night at the hotel while their families were at home wondering why their parent was not coming home, paying attention to the instructors, utilizing GFS and SIM time to its fullest, taking notes, and working hard to make the best of their training event and give their 135 operators the best value for their money.

So, I would say that the distinction with our failure rates at Spirit when hiring and training "135 guys" is not necessarily that they were "135 guys" but that some people, whether training under Part 61, 141, 142, 135, 125, or 121, just don't take training as seriously as maybe they should. Some skate and some don't.

Ps. When I was in charge of hiring at my 135 company, I hired furloughed and retired airline pilots, corporate pilots, flight instructors, and brand new off the street pilots. I had equally as many training busts with furloughed airline pilots as a group as I did with the other groups. Our in house training program was unintentionally almost exactly the same footprint as Spirits training program. In my opinion, a pilots success in any training program is more related to their ability to work hard in training, their attitude, and their willingness to learn than it is to where they got their previous training.

Well said!

You judge by the cover a lot. It's all about the individual. Sometimes it's best to just keep your opinions to yourself

I've seen it too. Folks who's previous employment did not use the sink-or-swim firehose technique struggled. This included 135 and some folks from overseas, who had in-depth, lengthy (like 6+ month) training programs which were spoon-fed. But it ultimately came down to the individual... the tough got going. Although they sure whined a lot.

Actually, he/she is correct. I am an instructor at one the large school houses and a pilot at Spirit. There is a huge difference between customers and employees in training. A vast, vast majority of our clients do not take the training seriously, are there for a mini-vacation, and if it were an airline program I would bet 75% or them couldn't pass it. The quality of the client coming through for initial training right now is worrisome.