No not as such; Im using the two as one in my post there for someone reading who might not be familiar with where P19 was, but would recognize PHX. All runs were into and out of P19.
Ameriflight PA-31 Accident - Arizona
- Thread starter Inverted
- Start date
No not as such; Im using the two as one in my post there for someone reading who might not be familiar with where P19 was, but would recognize PHX. All runs were into and out of P19.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Honestly, I don't know for sure. The Lance's were gone by the time I showed up.
Or I should say we weren't operating them anymore. There was once Lance parked on the ramp when I was working there. When they finally sold it, I thought Bob was going to start crying.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
I don't know what the training department looks like at Amflight right now, but I have potentially bad news: I couldn't tell a difference between training at Amflight, and training at a regional. In fact the training and operational philosophies were identical from what I could tell. And I don't mean to say that the training I got at the regional was bad, in fact quite the opposite; I've found training and checking events to be top notch, highly professional events that are well thought out, with clear expectations for both training and checking. Though I'll admit, the guys I was working with at Amflight, including the managers I was working with, have been gone since mid 2007.
I wouldn't expect to go to a part 121 airline and expect to have your hand held. You have to come in being able to fly most things fairly well, because there isn't the time to teach folks basics that they should already know.
Or said another way, it's not Flight Safety.
This is how I was referring to "not an entry level job" in my posts, in this respect. You can't do the job without some kind of knowing and having experience with, the basics.
Are you talking about the primary zero-to-hero school in Vero, or the corporate aircraft training centers?
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Corporate aircraft training centers:
http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/one-of-those-days-in-the-sim.160346/#post-2020090
Autothrust Blue
Speed Bugs, Surf, Sunshine
At both 121 carriers I've worked at, it's assumed that you know how to fly...they just teach you their specific variation on how the task is to be accomplished. No hand holding was provided.
Sent from Seat 3D
I think you're extrapolating too far based on anecdotal evidence. I know that my company has received phone calls from FSI when a pilot is struggling, and in fact I had one of those calls within the last six months when a pilot busted a check ride. We train over thirty pilots at FSI so we tend to get pretty good treatment overall from them, but I don't expect, nor do I think any of our people receive, special treatment when it comes to being proficient pilots. Maybe there are instructors in their system that let stuff slide to the point of passing incompetents, but I haven't seen it in my years of training with them. I've heard of FSI working extra hard to get a pilot up to proficiency, but I've never seen them pass someone that didn't deserve to. FSI has a good reputation across the board and I think it is deserved.
stuckingfk
Well-Known Member
I've been to FSI more than once, and Bombardier more than once.
Bombardier's ground training was considerably better than FSI's and the sim training relatively the same. One sim guy had never flown a jet before and the other was relatively new to sim training.
Comparing both of those to regional indoc, ground, and sim is night and day. Much more in depth ground and sim training at a regional.
I made my living that way for a while. While I wouldn't call it unsafe in the right context the decision trees are very different than from 135 IFR. While in the IFR environment the enroute wx is generally not a major factor (notwithstanding turbulence, icing, etc) when you're VFR your go / no go decision sometimes gets updated in flight on a very regular basis.
All that said, I wouldn't want to do it in the lower 48; too many man made things to hit. VFR in AK? All day long.......
jrh, I am going to try and add both my opinion and the way I was trained to fly single pilot cargo in single and multi engine aircraft. The first problem is you are flying by yourself meaning CRM for one person whereas you are piloting a aircraft into airports with non-precision approaches, no radar, weather, terrain, and yes fatigue. Most accidents are a result of a lack of situational awareness. The cargo operators I flew for were big on glass cockpits and autopilots. The 121 operators I flew and I am currently fly for are big on glass cockpits because of the value of situational awareness. The most important subject covered in recurrent is CRM/SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. AMF was one of our competitors, with that being said I do not believe AMF is any less safe than any other 135 operator. Majority of aircraft accidents are caused by the operators as opposed to maintenance alone being a factor. I have been flying for 34 years, and I have yet to find an aircraft in which can tell what someone's resume says or what your last checkride was.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
I just got back from Simcom, and having done that and FSI, I was struck by how much more knowledgeable of day to day operations the Simcom guys were. They had all flown the airplane in one way shape or form for more than just a flight or two. While the sim itself wasn't as high quality as the FSI sim, it was good enough - the stuff from the classroom was very informative. At FSI, it felt like all the instructors were trying to cover their ass, at Simcom the instructors were mostly older dudes who didn't give a damn and were more interested in giving you information about the airplane. At flight safety I had an instructor tell me that they wouldn't taxi clear of the runway if they had to pump the gear down because they thought it was too risky, in contrast at Simcom I had an instructor show us the power settings and configuration needed to land zero-zero if we were low on fuel or had to get down "right now."
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
From my experience, I'd rate them 1) Simulfite, 2) Simcom, 3) FSI. Haven't been to Bombardier. Simuflite was pretty good all around (for the most part), Simcom was a little shoestring, but as mentioned above, the instructors know their stuff and have seen/done it all. FSI was like watching a bunch of monkeys try to schtoop a football. Might just have been the time/place/aircraft, though.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Another "flight safety-ism" was that at FSI, everything was done exactly like on the manufacturers checklist - and checklists that operators had modified to suit their needs were "wrong/bad/scary." At Simcom, I brought in our company checklist, the instructor made a copy of it the first day in the sim, and evaluated me off of that reference. Then, much to my astonishment, my instructor even went so far as to say, "The manufacturer is wrong about the sequence here, these things need to be reversed because you could damage the system." That's the way things should be done. I could care less if my sim is a level Z, super-duper, motion activated holo-deck, it's more important that I learn the airplane well and learn how to operate it without doing something stupid. Simcom checked that box pretty well in my opinion, FSI - meh.
Tommay85
Well-Known Member
Ice, mountain, straight down fall, is about all I can say without ticking off the guy that told me I think. "Some" think the pilot dove to get out of the clouds apparently. 10000 FPM+ descent is what would be needed for the angle. "Some" are thinking something different. Those that have flown the chieftain are probably aware of what those boots do sometimes when going from warm to cold.
Which is where the disagreement is stemming from.
