jhugz
Well-Known Member
Welcome to the board.
Zero to Hero Concept
- Thread starter ILSstud
- Start date
Welcome to the board.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
Both. Zero to hero have no place in an RJ let alone a 320. Also, Spirit (for what ever reasons) felt they needed to hire female pilots so they went to Riddle and UND and hired a bunch of graduating seniors.
They hired pilots right out of school who had THOUSANDS of hours less than the average in the stack or resumes they had.
AND... out of those newbie pilots they did look at, the vast majority (over 80% for a period of time) were female.
They didn't go for the highest time pilot.
They didn't go for the most qualified pilot.
They didn't go for the most experienced pilot.
They hired to check a box on a form.
THAT doesn't sound very safe to me.
This has been beaten to death before. A military guy probably will have less than 50 hours when he gets in his first jet. BUT... the other 30 guys that were gunning for that seat have already washed out and he's spent 10Xs more time and effort training to get into that seat than his civilian counterparts drooling over their first RJ (or Airbus) at 300 hours.
granlistillo
Well-Known Member
Old school USAF UPT "0"
Nah, I don't think it's a dead horse.
If you're just flying airplanes, it MIGHT be alright, but there's so much more to the job than just plugging in a flight plan and launching off of 25R.
At least in my operation, I know that flying is primary, however you've really got to have the flying down cold and be ready to look ahead of the bend and anticipate a dynamic environment.
If you're just focused on the flight director and can't see the "building storm" of not being able to anticipate changes in a dynamic environment, you're no longer an asset on the flight crew, but a liability.
We've had a number of new hires come right to the ER operation and while most have been absolutely amazing, there's a couple of them that you, as another FO, had to watch like hungry dingo around a baby and I got a little pissy because I'm not compensated to be someone's babysitter - because he's not here to learn, he's here to perform a job.
Now if the person was a 300 hour wonder with basic airmanship and inflight decision making was thrown into the mix, it'd be even worse.
Again, opinion only and it's just my perspective.
If you're just flying airplanes, it MIGHT be alright, but there's so much more to the job than just plugging in a flight plan and launching off of 25R.
At least in my operation, I know that flying is primary, however you've really got to have the flying down cold and be ready to look ahead of the bend and anticipate a dynamic environment.
If you're just focused on the flight director and can't see the "building storm" of not being able to anticipate changes in a dynamic environment, you're no longer an asset on the flight crew, but a liability.
We've had a number of new hires come right to the ER operation and while most have been absolutely amazing, there's a couple of them that you, as another FO, had to watch like hungry dingo around a baby and I got a little pissy because I'm not compensated to be someone's babysitter - because he's not here to learn, he's here to perform a job.
Now if the person was a 300 hour wonder with basic airmanship and inflight decision making was thrown into the mix, it'd be even worse.
Again, opinion only and it's just my perspective.
Low&Slow
Ancora imparo
Sorry, I didn't mean to beat a dead horse, but I didn't know that horse was dead. The OP had mentioned "a generally accepted principle" which I never knew existed. Growing up as a USAF brat with a dad that was an Air Force pilot for over 23 years, I knew it was very, very low, but wasn't sure how low and never thought that you had to have X number of hours before you were allowed to fly a jet.
But then again, I didn't know civilians could learn to fly until I was in my early twenties due to my own erroneous "generally accepted principle" that ALL pilots come from the military so my perspective might be a little skewed due to my life influences and experiences.
As far as training time and effort put forth, a civilian is just as capable of working and training as hard or harder than his/her military counterpart so I don't buy that argument. There are "true aviators" and there are "airplane drivers" in both of those worlds and it is up to the individual to decide which one he/she wants to be.
deek
New Member
So i see a lot of thumbs down for the zero to hero concept and I would agree. No kid with a wet comm should be flying big tin. My goal after completing all my certs would be to hopefully CFI a bit until a king air needs a right seater and fly that, assuming it paid the bills, then apply for a regional. My only problem with that and the zero to hero rejection concept is the seniority principal. Why delay going to the airlines if I can get hired, because the sooner you're in, the sooner life is going to be better (pay & QOL), so why not take a right seat at a regional if someone says i'm qualified (passing a sim test) and be on the way to my goal? How do you tell a young pilot to not apply for an airline if they are qualified and would pass all the sim flights, when they know its seniority that rules all?
MFT1Air
Well-Known Member
Me thinks, from all this discussion, that perhaps, despite its size, maybe an RJ is an aircraft that can easily be flown single pilot except for the obligatory
regulation that places an SIC in the cockpit?Thought?
MFT1Air
Well-Known Member
. . .and to elaborate further, in the November edition of AOPA Pilot, they showcase a young lieutenant who I believe is probably a low time pilot as well. She now right seats a C-17. We all know there's a difference in training between civilian and military, but are you really adamant about the fact civilian pilot training (for low timers) is not as comprehensive as the military in preparing pilots for the flight deck even if they have low hours? The reason I say this is because everyone knows airlines hire military for their programs and there are some military who don't pass despite high time in military aircraft. Seems to me even if hired, doesn't necessarily mean they'll endure the training to successful completion.
Itchy
Well-Known Member
Military people are hired because they are more likely to get through training, have demonstrated a proven discipline, fairly smart, and can do the same thing the same way, time after time. And for many more reasons.
That said, there are always a few who buck the trend.
I'm not a fan of very low timers in front of an RJ, but for the most part it has worked out, and is a proven idea.
As much as that sucks, it is what it is.
I can think of at least one known accident where total time did not play a part, but maturity did.
That said, there are always a few who buck the trend.
I'm not a fan of very low timers in front of an RJ, but for the most part it has worked out, and is a proven idea.
As much as that sucks, it is what it is.
I can think of at least one known accident where total time did not play a part, but maturity did.
TFaudree_ERAU
Mashin' dem buttons
Why not? They wouldn't be there long! :rotfl:
MFT1Air
Well-Known Member
Could it be more than they have degrees being a primary reason? Just trying to offer THAT perspective. They don't all succeed as pilots, but hello. . .?
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
No worries about dead horses and what not. Just because it may have been, doesn't mean it can't be discussed.
Remember, a military pilot is a civilian before they enlist so yes, you are right, everybody is just as capable of working and training hard. However, not everybody is capable of being highly successful doing so. That's why there are a whole lot of people shooting for each military pilot slot and most of them never make it there. On the flip side, if you have enough time (not flight time but time to spend) and money and are willing to sit it out, there is a pretty good chance that someday you will get in the right seat of a 121 jet. The selection process for the civilian world is NOTHING compared to the military world. So yes, civilian pilots can be "true aviators" as you call them, but many of them just are "airplane drivers" because that's the highest skill set they can attain.
Me thinks, from all this discussion, that perhaps, despite its size, maybe an RJ is an aircraft that can easily be flown single pilot except for the obligatory
Thought?
No. It's a two pilot airplane for a reason. That said when you put a 300 hour guy up front it gets flown as a single pilot airplane some times. But, there is a good reason it's not certified as one. And there's the problem with 300 hour pilots right there.
Baronman
Well-Known Member
What a narrow perspective of what CFI's do...Either you never were or were poor example of a CFI.
I'll tell you what. Some guys who do well in the sim are the same guys that spent 10000 hours playing flight sim. I see it every day on the line. From the time the nosewheel is in the air till 50' there head is buried in the 6inch x 6 inch screen horizon and speed tape. They are unimpressive to say the least.
Itchy
Well-Known Member
The degree at that point is a given.
Also, a lot of total time does not mean (as has been pointed out) that they are great pilots. Just means they have a lot of total time. I know of someone that has somewhere in the hood of 7 or 10K hours, and I would not put my family on board with them.
MFT1Air
Well-Known Member
I understand you completely, but there's something else missing in this equation (and I don't know what it is & truly, I can't put my finger on it).
Explain the difference, if possible, between an RJ and a C-17 as it relates to a low time right seater. I really need some help understanding why it works in one situation and it's frowned upon elsewhere. More specifically, what's in a military person that, generally speaking, is not in a civilian?
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
The low timer in the right seat of the C17 has made it through a VERY tough selection process and thorough training process. From the very beginning she had the ability to learn to be a good pilot. Then the military spent a whole lot of money maximizing her skill set. Throw her in the RJ with normal 121 training and she'll probably be ok because she's naturally good. Throw her in the RJ with the same amount and type of training that the military gives and chances are she'll be good to go.
The low timer in the right seat of the RJ was hired because they showed up for the interview and were able to fly a sim for 15 minutes. Then the airline spends some money to train them to pass a specific checkride. If they have problems they will get more training (up to a certain point) so they can redo whatever maneuver they failed the first time around. Now, if you are lucky, this pilot is a naturally good pilot and when they get into the right seat of the RJ they can keep their head above water. They aren't too helpful because they are limited by their amount of training but they've got a good attitude and they can mostly stay out of trouble as long as the situation stays normal. Even if they are good, the level and amount of training they've received up until they get into the actual plane is the bare minimum required (per the FAA) to be "compentent" in the operation of the aircraft.
Recap
Military pilot slots are HIGHLY selective. You don't get a spot unless they think you will be a strong pilot.
Civilian pilot slots are not as selective. It has more to do with who you know and how you interview than how skilled you may be.
Military training programs are train to excel.
121 Regional training programs are train to pass.
I'm not saying there aren't bad military pilots out there who are weak when they finish training. I'm sure it happens, but it's rare because most of them washed out a long time ago or were never offered a spot to begin with.
EDIT: I see you asked about the planes. There is no difference. A plane is a plane.
granlistillo
Well-Known Member
I think there is a subjective difference that is apparent to most folks, but is still subjective. Kinda like the difference between Madeliene Albright and say jennifer Aniston. Not sayin' one is better than the other, just sayin'.
My experience has been that the women pilots that I know have been, on average, better than their male counterparts. Probably because as a group they have to put up with more BS (witness the attitudes prevalent in this thread for prime examples) that if they don't have what it takes both in skill and in positive mental attitudes, they are looooong gone. (There are always exceptions to the rule of course. Save yourself the effort of pointing out y'alls examples of poor female pilots - I've met some of them as well.)
Personally I'm pretty disappointed with some of the Neanderthalian attitudes prevalent in this thread.
Personally I'm pretty disappointed with some of the Neanderthalian attitudes prevalent in this thread.
ILSstud
Well-Known Member
Personally I'm pretty disappointed with some of the Neanderthalian attitudes prevalent in this thread.
No where in the thread did I make the distinction between female and male pilots. It is purely coincidental that the person I was talking about happened to be female. If this thread came across as sexist that was not my intention AT ALL.