Remember 3407 Project Strikes a Chord

Killtron2000 said:
This wasn't a "wet commercial" crew in this case. Going off of hours logged and seniority only guarantees the system is un-biased and there is a lot to be said for that but to think there aren't FO's who would be better to upgrade than the guys who just happened to be senior enough is preposterous.
Click to expand...

You know what scares me the most at my airline? The low time FOs that were hired at 300 hours that are just sitting in the right seat waiting for their turn to upgrade. Now, some of the guys are great, have a good attitude and are willing to learn. Some already think they're god's gift to aviation, you can't teach them anything and they're trying to push you out of your seat so they can get their magic 1000 TPIC and move on to Delta. Our upgrade training program doesn't teach you jack, either. You pretty much have to already know everything going in. That being said, if you can study a question bank and fly profiles, you can probably pass upgrade training here. But, hey. It meets the "minimum requirements" and it's an FAA approved program, so it must be good, huh? Who do you think is in charge of the training programs at Colgan? Same people.
 
I get it. We should have hired you in IAH. By now you would have proven many times over that you are better, and even though less experienced, more qualified to sit in that left seat. Your " higher" written test scores, and superbly flown profile give you proof that we played favorites by hiring the less skilled guy who had more time.

Is it really so very hard to understand the concept that being a great stick doesn't make you a great airline pilot? That perfect test scores and a good ils in a plane doesn't mean you are a fit for the job? We have an AHRS system for interviews. It's called the 1 on 1 helps us watch out for attitude, hotshots, rancid Bo, and 4 (letter word) heads.

You have to pass the written to play, pass the sim to be considered, and make us want to fly with you to land the job. If the face to face is marginal, we look at written and sim results. Otherwise so long as you pass the written, and don't crash the sim, we don't consider them at all. The guy who gets a min passing written score, but is amazing one on one, will get the job long before the guy who does it the other way around. I don't care if you get 100% on that test. I really couldn't care less, and it proves nothing more than you studied the ATP sections reccomended in the gouge. Heck I've even seen the test for sale online. (old version)
 
Killtron2000 said:
So far there is no reason to think this was caused by maintenance. No one has given a convincing argument for sub par training either other than just stating they think it was poor and it wasn't done in-house. I think it's also quite a stretch from there to say management caused this accident.
Click to expand...

I was using maintanace as a theorhetical situation that you could apply to yourself. I just think that you should stop ripping the flight crew and look at the underlying cause, thats all. What happened in that cockpit was a case study on poor training, crap work rules, and fatigue. Managment didn't crash the plane but it sure didn't help to prevent it. If the Captain failed to execute a proper stall recovery and the FO then pulls up the flaps for no reason I see this as a lack of training. Management is responsible for the training programs last I checked. But Im finished arguing about this, we all know that if you were in the left seat on that night you would have undoubtably saved the day.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
I get it. We should have hired you in IAH. By now you would have proven many times over that you are better, and even though less experienced, more qualified to sit in that left seat. Your " higher" written test scores, and superbly flown profile give you proof that we played favorites by hiring the less skilled guy who had more time.

Is it really so very hard to understand the concept that being a great stick doesn't make you a great airline pilot? That perfect test scores and a good ils in a plane doesn't mean you are a fit for the job? We have an AHRS system for interviews. It's called the 1 on 1 helps us watch out for attitude, hotshots, rancid Bo, and 4 (letter word) heads.

You have to pass the written to play, pass the sim to be considered, and make us want to fly with you to land the job. If the face to face is marginal, we look at written and sim results. Otherwise so long as you pass the written, and don't crash the sim, we don't consider them at all. The guy who gets a min passing written score, but is amazing one on one, will get the job long before the guy who does it the other way around. I don't care if you get 100% on that test. I really couldn't care less, and it proves nothing more than you studied the ATP sections reccomended in the gouge. Heck I've even seen the test for sale online. (old version)
Click to expand...
I never said I was super pilot and I don't think I am either. You really trust you can get to know somebody based on a 30 minutes one on one interview? I can sell myself as whatever I think the interviewer is looking for and there are other people who can practically turn that kind of lieing into an art form.
 
SoCalAprch said:
I was using maintanace as a theorhetical situation that you could apply to yourself. I just think that you should stop ripping the flight crew and look at the underlying cause, thats all. What happened in that cockpit was a case study on poor training, crap work rules, and fatigue. Managment didn't crash the plane but it sure didn't help to prevent it. If the Captain failed to execute a proper stall recovery and the FO then pulls up the flaps for no reason I see this as a lack of training. Management is responsible for the training programs last I checked. But Im finished arguing about this, we all know that if you were in the left seat on that night you would have undoubtably saved the day.
Click to expand...
Is it just me or does it seem to anyone else that we always seem come to the conclusion management is mostly perhaps entirely to blame? So now you're not just complaining about your work rules and schedule you are saving lives.
 
SoCalAprch said:
HUH??
Click to expand...

Seems like he thinks he knows what the 121 world is like.
I love when you see these 1 v. Everybody threads, and the one who stands alone is the one who really has no idea what he is talking about.

I guess to satisfy his critera for an interview, it must be entirely subjective, with a sim ride offered in whatever type plane the applicant feels comfortable flying. Get real. We are going to put you in one of OUR airplanes to see if there is a remote chance you can hack it. We are going to base our decesion on whether or not we LIKE you. If we think you will work well in our company, and crews we will likely offer you a job. I have flown with enough people to know what I do, and do not like. I am also pretty damn good at figuring out if your full of crap. If I miss it, the guys on the line figure it out pretty quick, and your life is pretty crappy untill you figure it out.


Very very few people make it through a regional without learning the ropes. This is why you need letters of rec. To move on. If you toss me under the bus, and 5 years after I move to a major, the dr of hr asks me if I ever flew with you, you won't get the job.

It's not what you know, it is who you know... And when.

Example, we are going to be hiring next spring. We may be the only place hiring, so it will be tough to get in. I'm not going to give you a good word, because right now I don't feel that you would do well in a crew enviroment. Not that you wouldn't, but it seems like you have a chip on your shoulder, or know everything... And there is no place for that in a cockpit.

I am a pilot that is on the interview panel at an airline... I may not be right, but I've got a pretty decent idea about what it takes to be hired. Rather than challeng the process, because you will continue to loose, ask questions and learn. When I say it is very rare for the less experienced pilot to be the better canidate, the info comes from first hand info. When you leave the 1 on 1 the call is made. We know if you made it or not, even if you have not simmed yet. I have nevered said hire him, and had them wash out on the sim.

The only bad pilot is one who is intentionally and willfully negligent. The rest can be trained.
 
I'd hate to fly with kiltron. Seeing as he's never made a mistake behind the controls, he is due for one. I just hope no one else is with him when he makes it.
 
2270077370_a36d07e06c.jpg
 
SoCalAprch said:
Well you sure act like you know everything about stuff that you have no experience with. I have flown with a couple of those in my time and I hope to never have to do it again.
Click to expand...
All I have stated here is my own observations I never pretended to have an incredible level of knowledge about anything. You're reading between the lines and adding something that I didn't write.
 
ctab5060X said:
Never said you couldn't get one. Just said you were against them.



Wow, talk about holding a grudge against someone. You realize that in the professional world, you would probably lose a ton of respect from your fellow pilots if you actually did something like that.
Click to expand...
A couple other people have stated I'm the kind of person they would try and filter out with an interview. I'm saying they can't even do that using their normal process.

People hold grudges over little things like that all the time I hardly think pilots are above it.
 
Originally Posted by Some PIC/SIC requirements
PIC Turbojet/Turboprop
Airman Certificate: FAA ATP
Type Rating: Appropriate type rating
Medical Certificate: FAA 1st Class
Total Time in All Aircraft: 4,000 hrs 3,000 hrs as PIC
Total Time in Category: 4,000 hrs 3,000 hrs as PIC
Total Multi-engine Time: 3,000 hrs 2,000 hrs as PIC
Time in Type: 200 hrs with 100 hrs as PIC
Actual Instrument Time: 250 hrs as PIC
Category and Class last 365 days: 300 hrs
Category and Class last 90 days: 75 hrs
FAA Sanctions last 5 years: None
Accidents/Incidents last 5 years: None

SIC Turbojet/Turboprop
Airman Certificate: FAA Commercial Instrument
Type Rating: Appropriate type rating (if
flying international)
Medical Certificate: FAA 1st Class
Total Time in All Aircraft: 2,000 hrs/1,500 hrs
Total Time in Category: 1,500 hrs/1,000 hrs
Total Multi-engine Time: 1,500 hrs/1,000 hrs
Time in Type: 50 hrs
Actual Instrument Time: 75 hrs
Category and Class last 365 days: 200 hrs
Category and Class last 90 days: 50 hrs
FAA Sanctions last 5 years: None
Accidents/Incidents last 5 years: None
Click to expand...

I guess an attempt to get the thread back on topic

Where did those numbers come from?

Having different requirements for PIC and SIC in a Part 121 operation - I think is a good thing. Some of the scariest people I've flown with were not the 250hr FOs, but the 1500hr street captains who had zero 121 time and were flight instructors in their previous employment. It wasn't that their flying was bad - their flying was where it was supposed to be with 1500hrs. It was the dispatch paperwork / determining airworthiness with MELs and dealing with deicing/thunderstorm avoidance/radar or their lack of experience with it that was giving these street captains a hard time. But because he had 1500hrs he could hold an ATP - he was a captain.

Then that 1500hr captain gets paired with the 325hr FO who because the FO had 75 hours in type that meant the crew was no longer a "green" crew and the two were legal to pair together to fly pax on a revenue 121 flight... it's happened so many times at my last carrier...

So my point is having different PIC vs SIC requirements would be a good thing... though I believe that the above numbers will need to be tweaked because there will be some pilots at major legacy carriers that can't upgrade from FO to captain because they don't have the PIC time in category or multiengine. (I believe that DE757UPS said he couldn't get hired at some major carriers because he didn't have 1000 turbine PIC before he upgraded to captain) and in my situation, I don't think I'd be legal to fly at my carrier as an SIC with those numbers anymore as I've barely gotten 50 hours in the last 7 months much less 50 hrs in the last 90 days.
 
How is someone suppose to get 2000 hours ME PIC or 100 hours PIC in type to upgrade when a First Officer can't log PIC time? Expecting someone to come to an airline already with 2000 hours PIC in Multi is crazy and will exclude 95% of the applicants. Then how do I upgrade without 100 hours PIC in type? Where do I go to get PIC time before upgrade? Answer.... Nowhere!!!

I like where it is going but those numbers are insane. I think more in line with Pt 135 PIC minimums as a requirement for Pt 121 SIC.
 
subpilot said:
Expecting someone to come to an airline already with 2000 hours PIC in Multi is crazy and will exclude 95% of the applicants.
Click to expand...

Had two in my class. Furthermore, we almost furloughed one with 2000 multi pic. He's like 5th from the bottom.

Note: I did not come into the industry with 2000 multi pic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top