Why would you work for "them"?

I have a dispatchers certificate... but as i'm sure most dispatchers would tell you, "that does NOT make him a dispatcher!" lol

I picked up the certificate after 09/11 thinking that perhaps if I ever lost my medical it would allow me to continue to put food on the table. Never used it professionally though.
 
intern_mike said:
But once again, how does that translate to being a better airline pilot as compared to a direct tracker? If anything I would think the direct track guy would have a leg up. He's like a groomed airline pilot.
Click to expand...

That's what they (the folks taking your money) want you to think, now isn't it . . .
 
meritflyer said:
Regional captains are flight instructors to a large extent. This is no secret at my airline. My airline is very up front about FO's; they are "captains in training". Who is training these FO's? Its the CA's.

But I do agree that the fundamentals of flying can't be learned in a regional jet or turboprop.
Click to expand...

mtsu_av8er said:
That's sad.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's sad. It's the same here where I am. However, Captains training FOs how to be Captains is completely different then Captains training FOs how to fly. I would expect a Captain to train (not actively) everybody they fly with in good decision making skills, shortcuts (safe ones) and what not. I would NOT expect a captain to have to train everybody they fly with in how to fly an approach, how to talk to ATC and how to do a weight and balance form.

As an FO (and even as a Captain) we should all constantly be learning new things. It's just that there is a certain level we need to be at for each of those seats and a lot of fast track (and low time) guys aren't any where near that level when they get started.
 
ZapBrannigan said:
Unfortunately that puts the Captain in the position of becoming and unwilling flight instructor.

Despite what many pilots think the First Officer position is not that of a "student" or "apprentice", but rather a partner. The Captain should be able to draw on the first officer's talent and experience in order to make the conservative decision. When you take someone directly from 121 with little to no real world IFR experience, that individual is a liability to the Captain... not an asset.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. The First Officer should have varied flight experiences to draw from, and they should be an effective member of the flight crew. However, expecting them to be completely knowledgeable and not a "student" is really expecting too much. The First Officer is a "student" in ways, and the Captain is a "mentor." I know when I go fly a trip, I am not only an Captain but also a Flight Instructor and mentor. Thinking in that manner is the only way to ensure that I pass off any of my limited experience and knowledge to them, so when they transition to the left seat, they are ready.

Too many Captains get angry that they need to mentor and teach, and would rather complain about the ineffectiveness of their First Officer. To me, that is a direct reflection on their abilities as a leader.
 
ZapBrannigan said:
I have a dispatchers certificate... but as i'm sure most dispatchers would tell you, "that does NOT make him a dispatcher!" lol
Click to expand...

LOL - don't worry, if you can use Windows, I'm sure you could spit a release out . . . hehehe.

I've never used mine either.
 
As usual, Matt said exactly what I was trying to say, but with more-bigger (:)) and impressive words.
 
Seggy said:
These fast track direct students can't think outside of the box. They are trained in controlled setting, put something out there they haven't seen, and they freeze up because of the lack of experience.

The more you instruct, the more experience you have dealing with people, dealing with difficult situations, and the more you learn to think outside of the box.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Better than my answer would have been.
 
Seggy said:
I can make the argument because I have flown with guys both as a first officer and captain who have multiple training backgrounds.

Usually within five minutes (if not already discussed before hand) you can tell what the background of the other person is from. Being sharp has NOTHING to do with being able to think outside of the box.
Click to expand...

I agree with Seggy here. I can normally tell those who have had an instructing background. Normally it has nothing to do with the way they fly the airplane. It is how they approach the crew environment, and their abilities to know when to "fly the book" and when to think outside the box. There are times when following exactly what the book says is not a prudent decision.

But what do I know. I only have 50 hours of dual given. :rolleyes:

mtsu_av8er said:
That's sad.
Click to expand...

It is definitely not sad. The only way First Officers will learn how to be effective Captains, and effective leaders for the company, is by observation, association, and emulation. The Captain has a huge responsibility to set a good example for the First Officer, and do their best to transfer their own knowledge and experience to the future Captain in the right seat. Even if you have 2000 hours of dual given, or 2000 hours burning petrol in a Baron, you still have many things to learn.

ZapBrannigan said:
So how can they be expected to support a Captain's decision making when they've never had to make those decisions on their own?

Do I need to deice? Can I make that crossing restriction? Is this circling approach at night in mountainous terrain a good idea just because i've been cleared for the approach?

You can teach a 500 hour pilot to fly the airplane beautifully. But you can not teach him the experience required to be an asset to his crewmembers. That comes with experience. Take it from me, there is a HUGE difference in the first officers who come from a single-pilot night freight background, vs. those who came from fast track wonder-stick schools.
Click to expand...

How many CFIs will have the experience and knowledge to know when it is a good idea to use Type I or throw on Type IV? Or, how to configure a swept-wing jet aircraft to make a runway when ATC kept them high and fast? Or, should I continue to hold and burn into my reserve fuel for ten minutes since this storm will pass, or just bug-out and go to my alternate which has marginal weather? Even freight pilots, a group who I have the utmost respect for, cannot be prepared for all the situations they will be presented with as a pilot for a 121 airline. When you have an airplane full of customers in the back, you experience a large paradigm shift from any other type of flying you did previous.
 
FlyChicaga,

You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. I feel that is a commuter airline attitude. It was a rare occasion indeed when I worked for a major that a Captain provided instruction. We were there to do a job and we did so as a team. There was no "master and apprentice" relationship.

That's how I run the cockpit and if it is a reflection of poor leadership, then I suppose I'm a poor leader. My expectation is that the first officer is a qualified and experienced pilot and I treat them as such.

And InternMike,
My first sentence was that I believed that even flight instructing did not always adequately prepare a pilot to make the leap from Seminole to RJ. I always encourage pilots that I meet (who ask my advice) to pursue single pilot night freight. Even if they only do it for six months, it teaches valuable real world IFR experience, decision-making, and how to say "no". Any FlightSafety instructor who spent their entire career (thus far) in Vero Beach and has never seen ice or 1800RVR is desperately in need of that kind of experience IMHO.
 
We won't all agree on things, and that's ok!

I'm tending to agree with Zapp here, though. I don't want dual in the cockpit. When it's my leg, I wanna fly it the way I want. If I'm not breaking regs, bending the airplane or making passengers sick, then it should be good to go.

Now, that doesn't mean that I won't be watching the Captain and picking up on things all the time . . . I will! But, I definitely don't want to be his "student" . . . to he11 with that.
 
There should always be some kind of "dual" in a 2 person cockpit... whenever you have a more experienced pilot flying with someone less experienced, there is always an opportunity for leadership.

That being said, when pilots here on JC are referring to "dual given" being a bad thing in the cockpit, I think what they really mean is the Captain teaching the FO something they already should know.

Like Matt's examples - heck no I have no idea about swept wings or spoilers or any of that. My Cappie better teach me. But clearances, weather, IFR basics, approaches at high speeds, etc... the FO better know that.
 
ZapBrannigan said:
FlyChicaga,

You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. I feel that is a commuter airline attitude.
Click to expand...

Having recently left the "commuters," I would agree with you on that. There is definitely a different relationship between CAs and FOs at the regionals and the majors. But FlyChicaga is right about how it is at the regionals, and quite frankly, that's how it has to be. No matter how much instructing experience, or check-hauling experience, or whatever other piston flying experience someone has, they will always have a learning curve when coming to a jet regional. This makes it necessary for regional Captains to act as mentors, and yes, instructors to some degree. What you're used to at the majors doesn't work at the regional level. At the major level, all of us have plenty of experience flying jets in many different environments, dealing with all kinds of weather, and making hard command decisions. Even the most experienced flight instructor doesn't have that sort of experience, so the Captain simply has to act as an instructor and mentor at the regional level. No way around it.
 
Well, all I can say is that I certainly hope I fly with Captains who are willing to "show me the ropes" and continue to mentor me on how to be an effective leader when I am eventually hired at a major airline. I will do my best to provide input and be an effective First Officer, but I would love to milk off my Captains knowledge and experience. Especially those guys and gals with 25 years of airline experience, nearing retirement.

I am not Human Resources. I am not on the pilot hiring board. As it stands right now, I have no influence on whether our company hires a 2500-hour CFI or a 500-hour academy graduate. The only thing I can do is try and pass on some experience and instruct as necessary so my First Officer is well prepared when their seniority number comes up and they move to the left seat. If I just sit here and complain, that is doing my company a grave disservice. I don't want to see an inexperience crew auger-in because I didn't do my best to help an inexperienced First Officer become a better pilot. I am lucky that I flew with many great Captains in my first year at the airlines who held the same opinion that I do. They were outstanding, knowledgeable, and patient mentors who did more than they will ever know to help shape me as a pilot.

That might just be my "commuter-pilot" mindset, however. Your mileage may vary.
 
We don't wake up the day after the initial PC check and are a copilot on a shiny RJ. We don't wake up the day after your ATP checkride and are a captain.

Being a professional aviator is a continuous maturation process. A great first officer will pick up things from each captain they fly with to use and mold when they are in that left seat. A great captain will mentor the first officers and as you go along on a trip ask them, "what would they do in this situation?" Both members of the crew can bring something to the table.

With this said, when I am flying with someone who was in a limiting fast track program with no CFI certs to their name, I don't trust what they have to say as much as someone who has their CFIs, or flew a 152 from SMF-ALB a few times.
 
FWIW, as a PIC of a two pilot Army helicopter in combat, I taught my SICs, and was happy to do so. I didn't teach them systems or basic skills - I taught them technique and tactics.

Tactics aren't regulated by the military you know - all professions have tactics.
 
It's all well and good to have your opinion evolve and change. However, what is NOT ok (and I'm not saying this is what happened here) is to point fingers at those that work at "those" places. And by those I mean the places that while they might not be great AREN'T actively brining the industry down like Skybus, Virgin, GoJets and Gulfstream. Just because Mesa treats their employees like crap does not give anybody else the right to question a person for going there. Sure, bash the company all you want, but as long as that person is making it work for them, it really doesn't matter. SO many people are so quick to defend their regional (err... company) against any negatives and yet are just as quick to question somebody's choice for going somewhere else.


:yeahthat: Nothing more!
 
intern_mike said:
Speaking purely out of ignorance, how much more "experienced" is a high time instructor with little (>50 hours) multi time as compared to the direct track student? How is their experience teaching basic maneuvers and landings making them a better pilot in a jet? The direct track student gets intensive advanced cockpit training, Level D sim time, and airline specific training. How does one need more "babysitting" than the other?
Click to expand...

The only experience I can give here in pointing out the difference between a fast track student and a high time instructor is that approximately .5% of flights encounter an actual emergency. Knowing how to deal with that is paramount.

To compare, a fast trackker might have 300 hours, or a total of 1-2 emergencies; let's use the most common - NORDO, gear extention failure and vaccuum failure.

A 2000 hour pilot might have had to deal with 10 emergencies, using my experience as the basis for the examples:
NORDO in VFR
NORDO in actual
gear extention failure
vaccuum failure in VFR
vaccuum failure in IFR
engine fire
engine problems
control surface malfunction
severe icing / turbulence

So how does this affect one pilot as compared to the next? Experience.
 
APACHEpilot said:
And by those I mean the places that while they might not be great AREN'T actively brining the industry down like Skybus, Virgin, GoJets and Gulfstream.
Click to expand...

I believe they are. Pay the employees next to nothing, terrible healthcare benefits, understaffed, and over worked ultimately leads to lower operating margins hence allows "them" to underbid companies that pay a decent wage and treat their employees with a tiny bit of respect. "They" are awarded RFP's which tends to result in half decent companies having to lower their pay, benefits, along with increase schedules to decrease overhead to compete with "them".

Same concept as Skybus, Virgin, jetBlue, and GIA.
 
meritflyer said:
I believe they are. Pay the employees next to nothing, terrible healthcare benefits, understaffed, and over worked ultimately leads to lower operating margins hence allows "them" to underbid companies that pay a decent wage and treat their employees with a tiny bit of respect. "They" are awarded RFP's which tends to result in half decent companies having to lower their pay, benefits, along with increase schedules to decrease overhead to compete with "them".

Same concept as Skybus, Virgin, jetBlue, and GIA.
Click to expand...

Question, Merit:

I recall you saying in prior posts that it was cashflow that was king - not necessarily profitability or operating margin. Pound for pound, do "those" airlines report a better cashflow rate than others?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top