Behind the Southwest Airlines Culture
- Thread starter Seggy
- Start date
Let it go.
zmiller4
Well-Known Member
You missed my point. I believe that no matter what their total time is now, by bypassing a more standard career progression, they weren't required to develop the same level of basic airmanship they would have otherwise. This doesn't mean that an individual pilot is necessarily less qualified, but as a group they certainly were less experienced in certain aspects of flying when hired. There's experience pilots get instructing, sightseeing, doing aerial photography, or flying 135 freight that you simply won't learn at the airlines, so the path they take could definitely affect their skill set as an airline pilot.
When I finally hit the magic 100hrs multi time in 2005 after instructing for 1200 hrs, I could have tried to go to Ameriflight or the airlines. I picked the airlines for QOL, but I'll definitely admit that my instrument skills were not as strong as someone who flew single pilot night IFR...but instrument skills are practiced daily in airline flying, unlike basic airmanship.
I think you'd find a lot of people are very concerned with "what a large body of airline pilots did or didn't do to get their job and be where they are at today".
It's absolutely hard to quantify. I'd bet it's pretty much impossible, actually. I'm just going off personal experience. But I don't think comparing low-time civilian and military pilots not valid because of the differences in selection and willingness to fail people out.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
"could affect" not "will affect." And what's your definition of the bypassing more standard career progression? How about the recent newhire-to-be at Delta who just started flying for a private license in Feb 2010? Did this person bypass a more standard progression? I think 0 time to a mainline Delta in less than 5 years is phenomenal progression! But I don't think it necessarily means that she didn't develop the same level of basic airmanship that someone who spent 10-15 years to get to Delta did.
Basic airmanship is mostly common sense. You practice instrument skills but who not basic airmanship while flying? For 121 heavily automated airplanes, I would define practicing basic airmanship as when you turn off all automation - AP, FDs, and AT. Complete raw data flying (weather and work load permitting, of course) keeps basic airmanship skills sharp.
Who? If you are concerned, you should work with your company to fix these issues.
It's absolutely hard to quantify. I'd bet it's pretty much impossible, actually. I'm just going off personal experience. But I don't think comparing low-time civilian and military pilots not valid because of the differences in selection and willingness to fail people out.[/quote]
zmiller4
Well-Known Member
I can't really comment on her situation because as I've repeatedly said, it's about the population of low-time pilots as a whole, not one individual. Of course there will be outliers. If you're seriously arguing that the average JetU or ATP 250-hr new hires have on average the same skills as a 1500hr CFI or freight pilot, you're delusional. I don't believe you ever stop (or at least should stop) learning as an airline pilot, but the learning curve definitely slows after a couple of years in the right seat. If she instructed for a decent length of time and then put in a few thousand hours at an airline, I don't really have a huge problem with it. If she got hired at 300 hrs...well, I'm assuming you didn't instruct or build time flying aerial photography or sightseeing, which makes me wonder if you're really comprehending the value of the development that generally happens during that time.
Maybe to some degree, but have you tried not flying GA for a few years and then getting checked out in a light single? That's often an instructor's nightmare because airline flying usually doesn't require putting the airplane in abnormal situations more than once or twice a year in the simulator. When you instruct, you're doing this *every day*. It's not the same at all.
I don't have a "company" any more, but my former employer has never taken low-timers. I've been in enough jumpseats to know that for as a paying passenger now for my family and I, I don't want 250hr hires flying my airplane. Of course there are exceptions--and you might be one--but there's a reason that hiring standards for 121 operations were raised over the protests of the RAA and others.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
How about flychicaga? Remember that guy (where is he anyway). He interned and got hired around 300 hrs at a regional he interned with. Not too long ago (20 yrs or so) airline interns could get hired at United with 400 hrs to a 1000 hrs. It is what it is. I don't deny there is development that happens as a CFI. My point was only that it isn't an absolute requirement and I wouldn't argue a pilot who is a CFI is somehow better than one that is not. You can't generalize like that. In the Colgan crash, it was a non-CFI in the left seat who stalled the plane and a CFI-experienced pilot in the right seat who raised the flaps on a stalled wing.
I did, and I don't think getting checked out in a single is hard. Even with airline flying and no upgrade in sight, I went out on my own in a light twin Seneca (which I never flew before in my life) and then did the ATP ride in it. It's actually fun and if I find time and good weather (as opposed to the snow today) then I will general av again.
Did you leave aviation? ALLATPs had an agreement with just about every regional, even ExpressJet. The lowest for the "higher quality" regionals was about 500TT under the RJ program. Hiring standards were only raised recently because of Colgan 3407 and the vocal family members of the victims. Make no mistake, if it wasn't for that crash, we'd still be hiring 250 hire pilots. Overall, more experience is a good thing for the flying public but there isn't anyone coming through the pipelines with an ATP and 1500 hrs that will line up for regionals.
zmiller4
Well-Known Member
Again, you're talking about individuals. If you could come up with a decent way of characterizing it, the "ability level" of pilots--both as a whole and within individual sub-groups like pay-for-interview, CFI, etc--would be likely be normally distributed, right? I'd argue (again, purely a guess) that there's a statistical difference between average abilities of 300-hr pilots vs higher time pilots.
I wouldn't either. I'd say that *I* believe that it's more likely that a higher-time pilot is more skilled. That's not making a determination about individuals...but when you're limited to a 5-hr interview, you're not going to be able to get a very good impression of a pilot's abilities. That's why I'm in favor of higher minimums and not hiring low timers given the educational framework in this country.
Yes, two and a half years ago.
Not true. Apparently, mine did have some ATP agreement, but it wasn't 500tt--I believe it was 800+ and I don't think anyone actually used it. I don't know if it was predicated on the RJ program. I heard rumors of people getting hired sub-1000, but didn't actually know anyone who did. They were very strict on their mins.
Because the Colgan crash highlighted what a bad idea 250hr pilots are in the framework of flight training in the US. Selection standards are completely different in the military and in Europe, so that comparison fails.
Agreed.
Which will be good for the industry.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Yes, but everyone is a 300 hr pilot at some point and more importantly, you're only a 300 hr pilot for one hour. Comparing only a 300 hr pilot to a higher time pilot isn't a fair comparison. The comparison should be to this 300-hr regional pilot back in 2003-2008 to their current status which is probably a good 5000-8000 hrs at a regional/LCC/legacy. Is there really a difference now that they are highly experienced in their field?
Can you say what you do now?
What airline was this? I remember because I heavily considered ATP for their RJ program and remember that all the big regionals had an agreement with ALLATPs.
I will add that the FO was a CFI with good experience, about 1300 hrs when she was hired. The CA was not a CFI but had approx. 625 hrs when he was hired at Colgan. But again, it was the seniority system that allowed him to get to where he was that night. In a merit based system, he would have been fired long ago. The seniority system protects the weak and ensures that no matter what the skill level or experience, a pilot will move up (upgrade or transition). This usually also doesn't happen in the rest of corporate America. Although there is still nepotism/favoritism, largely, promotions for are all merit and performance based. In regular corporate America, that CA would have been fired long ago for incompetence.
z987k
Well-Known Member
That's not entirely true. You still have to be able to pass training.
I have seen "merit" based upgrades go just as bad as someone who's number is up. Our company is merit based and the most competent, who isn't necessarily the guy with the most hours in his logbook, could be sitting in either seat depending on the pairings that month.
And just for the record, I do agree with the balance of what you're saying. Entry level and intermediate level jobs such as CFI, traffic watch, pipeline patrol; working up to 135 cargo/freight, maybe air taxi or air tours and the like......all of those are excellent methods of gaining experience in a variety of aspects of aviation. No disagreement there.
My military comparison wasn't of a low-time civilian as compared to a military; it was a comparison of two military students in pilot training, with one going in with zero time and one going in with some civilian background flying time; the point being that at some place in military pilot training, the guy with the background of civilian flying's advantage of the guy without will become less and less; even tough on the balance, he does have more depth of experience. That's all I was saying.
Curiously, one of the biggest ab initio programs (Im somewhat torn on those anyway) is Lufthansa, here on the west side of PHX. How has their program been in terms of success? I ask only because they've been in existance so long, even when I was young. But I really don't know the answer.
zmiller4
Well-Known Member
I'd say the comparison should be between a 5-8k hr pilot hired with 250 hrs and a 5-8 k pilot hired with 1500+ hrs. There's obviously not a great way to judge their abilities (passing a maneuvers validation is not difficult), so it's a pointless question. I still think that on the whole, the group hired with more experience is still going to be better equipped even after a fair amount of time at the airlines. Airline flying is great experience, but there's a lot it doesn't teach you about flying.
Geoscience.
Skywest. ATP would love to have you believe that every regional was clamoring for their 90 day heroes, but that's just false. I bet ATP just paid Skywest for the agreement so they could use it as a marketing tool--it only lowered mins 200hrs, and I don't know of anyone who used it.
This has been discussed here extensively. There may well be some pilots that the seniority system protects who deserve termination, but a merit based system would be a huge fiasco at most airlines. I kept my head down the 6 years I was in the airlines, but I still had a number of occasions where I had to make decisions in the name of safety where I certainly wouldn't have wanted that supervisor making determinations about my ability to upgrade. If you haven't had those moments, you're lucky.
I don't either...but don't European airlines have really high acceptance standards? I don't have a problem with programs that test for intelligence, cognitive ability, require degrees, and aren't afraid to cut anyone who can't make it (this pretty much describes the opposite of the domestic analogues of those programs).
skyw82
Well-Known Member
From what i've heard it is about the only way you can get on at Lufthansa. Before you step in the door you have to take a battery of tests that makes entry into the air force look easy.
This video is in german but you can use CC translate.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
At 5k-8k hours they're both flying A320s or B737s and between them, their flying ability and ADM has been honed by regional and major Part 121 flying. Now of course you still get a couple of guys who still make it through and keep their jobs (hello seniority) and will continue flying even though they have no business being a pilot because they just can't fly. They mask their deficiency by heavy use of automation. But it happens, both ex-CFIs and non-CFIs.
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
Holy cow...
jynxyjoe
Queso King
Merit based upgrades I think.
