Any impact yet?
- Thread starter TheWife
- Start date
[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, there are no attempts to "change the contract". There are grievances on file by the union as to certain alleged contract violations, and a "contract enforcement" campaign, but no attempts to change the contract.
Ray
[/ QUOTE ]
Have the grievences being filed had any positive outcome yet, that you've seen?
Additionally, there are no attempts to "change the contract". There are grievances on file by the union as to certain alleged contract violations, and a "contract enforcement" campaign, but no attempts to change the contract.
Ray
[/ QUOTE ]
Have the grievences being filed had any positive outcome yet, that you've seen?
xdashdriver
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Ray as I recall you weren't there either.
[/ QUOTE ]
I never claimed to be there. I also do not claim to have a full understanding of everything that went on, despite flying every day with the pilots that were here when it happened and having a good opportunity to talk to them about what happened. There's always two sides to a story....and then there's the truth. From my many conversations with pilots here, it's a lot more complicated and involved than what the commonly held view is.
Ray as I recall you weren't there either.
[/ QUOTE ]
I never claimed to be there. I also do not claim to have a full understanding of everything that went on, despite flying every day with the pilots that were here when it happened and having a good opportunity to talk to them about what happened. There's always two sides to a story....and then there's the truth. From my many conversations with pilots here, it's a lot more complicated and involved than what the commonly held view is.
xdashdriver
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, there are no attempts to "change the contract". There are grievances on file by the union as to certain alleged contract violations, and a "contract enforcement" campaign, but no attempts to change the contract.
Ray
[/ QUOTE ]
Have the grievences being filed had any positive outcome yet, that you've seen?
[/ QUOTE ]
According to the MAG ALPA website, there's a mix of grievances that have been settled, or are pending further investigation, or have been withdrawn, or are deadlocked. I personally haven't had any problems that have not been resolved with a quick phonecall or email to the department concerned. Some would say I am lucky, and others would say I haven't been here long enough to "know" the truth and that "my time is coming" I guess time will tell.
Ray
[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, there are no attempts to "change the contract". There are grievances on file by the union as to certain alleged contract violations, and a "contract enforcement" campaign, but no attempts to change the contract.
Ray
[/ QUOTE ]
Have the grievences being filed had any positive outcome yet, that you've seen?
[/ QUOTE ]
According to the MAG ALPA website, there's a mix of grievances that have been settled, or are pending further investigation, or have been withdrawn, or are deadlocked. I personally haven't had any problems that have not been resolved with a quick phonecall or email to the department concerned. Some would say I am lucky, and others would say I haven't been here long enough to "know" the truth and that "my time is coming" I guess time will tell.
Ray
Mr_Creepy
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ray as I recall you weren't there either.
[/ QUOTE ]
I never claimed to be there. I also do not claim to have a full understanding of everything that went on, despite flying every day with the pilots that were here when it happened and having a good opportunity to talk to them about what happened. There's always two sides to a story....and then there's the truth. From my many conversations with pilots here, it's a lot more complicated and involved than what the commonly held view is.
[/ QUOTE ]
You got that right! That whole Freedom mess was a study in misdirection and mishandling. At first ALPA was for it, then against it, then for it, and finally, when they saw it was going to be used as a negotiating tool, completely against it.
By that time there were J4J guys with class dates.
I was almost in a class. Fortunately I talked to some Mesa MEC guys before I accepted.
[ QUOTE ]
Ray as I recall you weren't there either.
[/ QUOTE ]
I never claimed to be there. I also do not claim to have a full understanding of everything that went on, despite flying every day with the pilots that were here when it happened and having a good opportunity to talk to them about what happened. There's always two sides to a story....and then there's the truth. From my many conversations with pilots here, it's a lot more complicated and involved than what the commonly held view is.
[/ QUOTE ]
You got that right! That whole Freedom mess was a study in misdirection and mishandling. At first ALPA was for it, then against it, then for it, and finally, when they saw it was going to be used as a negotiating tool, completely against it.
By that time there were J4J guys with class dates.
I was almost in a class. Fortunately I talked to some Mesa MEC guys before I accepted.
The CFI that took me on my introductory flight said something I will always remember: "Flying is not only a passion, but a science, a trade, an ART."
Did the famous artists become great by painting a few pictures? Would you want a doctor operating on you after he passed the MCATS because he is suddenly a "doctor?" Or how about a lawyer representing you after he has just taken the bar? Maybe some people would like that, but personally, I would prefer a doctor or a lawyer with experience practicing his trade. That being said, why should it be any different with airline pilots?
Am I to understand that, if I pass a test, I am suddenly airline-qualified? So I guess a 40 hour guy who trained in a small Class D airport and passes his PPL checkride is suddenly a qualified and competent pilot, able to handle electrical failures, aborted take-offs, and engine fires, recognize hints in his preflight that would make him cancel, or navigate safely and legally through the SFO or New York Bravo Airspace. After all, he passed a test, right?
I've got my private, halfway through instrument, have around 130 hours, trying to one day get to the airlines, and I am JUST BARELY starting to learn the "tricks of the trade." It blows me away sometimes at how much I have yet to learn and experience in this field. Yet, am I to understand that in a mere 120 hours I will be able to handle the demands of flying a regional jet, with paying passengers, all because I dished out 12K and passed a checkride? Maybe it's true, but it sounds a little funny to me.
Now I know what many are thinking and how they are going to respond: "'I've got my private, halfway through instrument, have around 130 hours," this guy is inexperienced. Hell yeah I'm inexperienced! And that is my point: I still have a whole lot of learning and growing to do in aviation before I should be handling an aircraft full of paying passengers that are counting on my level of experience to safely get them from ABC to XYZ. Granted, because I am inexperienced in this field, I may have no clue what I am talking about, but it's a free country and I am just giving my 2 cents.
Did the famous artists become great by painting a few pictures? Would you want a doctor operating on you after he passed the MCATS because he is suddenly a "doctor?" Or how about a lawyer representing you after he has just taken the bar? Maybe some people would like that, but personally, I would prefer a doctor or a lawyer with experience practicing his trade. That being said, why should it be any different with airline pilots?
Am I to understand that, if I pass a test, I am suddenly airline-qualified? So I guess a 40 hour guy who trained in a small Class D airport and passes his PPL checkride is suddenly a qualified and competent pilot, able to handle electrical failures, aborted take-offs, and engine fires, recognize hints in his preflight that would make him cancel, or navigate safely and legally through the SFO or New York Bravo Airspace. After all, he passed a test, right?
I've got my private, halfway through instrument, have around 130 hours, trying to one day get to the airlines, and I am JUST BARELY starting to learn the "tricks of the trade." It blows me away sometimes at how much I have yet to learn and experience in this field. Yet, am I to understand that in a mere 120 hours I will be able to handle the demands of flying a regional jet, with paying passengers, all because I dished out 12K and passed a checkride? Maybe it's true, but it sounds a little funny to me.
Now I know what many are thinking and how they are going to respond: "'I've got my private, halfway through instrument, have around 130 hours," this guy is inexperienced. Hell yeah I'm inexperienced! And that is my point: I still have a whole lot of learning and growing to do in aviation before I should be handling an aircraft full of paying passengers that are counting on my level of experience to safely get them from ABC to XYZ. Granted, because I am inexperienced in this field, I may have no clue what I am talking about, but it's a free country and I am just giving my 2 cents.
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
Here's the difference: in your training did you get systems class specifically geared toward the airliner you would more than likely be flying? How about FTD time practicing engine outs, electrical failures, aborted takeoffs, and engine fires? MAPD does all that, and that's why I say that the 300 hour guys out of there are better prepared for what can happen than most CFIs. There's a huge difference in the failures of a 172/light twin and an RJ. Some accidents have even ocurred because what would be the right reaction in one aircraft is the wrong reaction in another.
We can argue this until we're blue in the face (again) and it really won't change anything. However, I think comparing PPL/instrument training to the advanced classes at MAPD is apples to oranges. Besides, you still have to do the PPL/IFR/CSE/CME stuff there before you even get to the RJ stuff. It's not the primary training at MAPD that makes the difference, it's the advanced training on top of that. I personally made the decision not to go there based on the fact that I don't have $10-12K to spend on a "maybe" job. If US Air and United continue in their trend, I'd rather have my CFI ratings to fall back on "just in case." I might regret the decision in a few years since it may take me longer, but then again the tables could be reversed. Then I'd be regretting going, being $12K in debt, and nothing to fall back on. If things are looking better, I might even put in for a CFI spot there when I hit 200 dual given.
[ QUOTE ]
So I guess a 40 hour guy who trained in a small Class D airport and passes his PPL checkride is suddenly a qualified and competent pilot, able to handle electrical failures, aborted take-offs, and engine fires, recognize hints in his preflight that would make him cancel, or navigate safely and legally through the SFO or New York Bravo Airspace. After all, he passed a test, right?
[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I've met 500 hour guys that I wouldn't go into busy airports or trust during an emergency. It's not the amount of hours, it's the quality of the hours. I'm a HUGE advocate of sims as a learning tool for this exact reason. You can "simulate" an engine fire in the air all day long, but I like actually being able to flip the switches, troubleshoot, etc without endangering the flight. My flight school had a full motion sim, and my instructors used to put me through the ringer in that thing. I'd come out drenched in sweat.
We can argue this until we're blue in the face (again) and it really won't change anything. However, I think comparing PPL/instrument training to the advanced classes at MAPD is apples to oranges. Besides, you still have to do the PPL/IFR/CSE/CME stuff there before you even get to the RJ stuff. It's not the primary training at MAPD that makes the difference, it's the advanced training on top of that. I personally made the decision not to go there based on the fact that I don't have $10-12K to spend on a "maybe" job. If US Air and United continue in their trend, I'd rather have my CFI ratings to fall back on "just in case." I might regret the decision in a few years since it may take me longer, but then again the tables could be reversed. Then I'd be regretting going, being $12K in debt, and nothing to fall back on. If things are looking better, I might even put in for a CFI spot there when I hit 200 dual given.
[ QUOTE ]
So I guess a 40 hour guy who trained in a small Class D airport and passes his PPL checkride is suddenly a qualified and competent pilot, able to handle electrical failures, aborted take-offs, and engine fires, recognize hints in his preflight that would make him cancel, or navigate safely and legally through the SFO or New York Bravo Airspace. After all, he passed a test, right?
[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I've met 500 hour guys that I wouldn't go into busy airports or trust during an emergency. It's not the amount of hours, it's the quality of the hours. I'm a HUGE advocate of sims as a learning tool for this exact reason. You can "simulate" an engine fire in the air all day long, but I like actually being able to flip the switches, troubleshoot, etc without endangering the flight. My flight school had a full motion sim, and my instructors used to put me through the ringer in that thing. I'd come out drenched in sweat.
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
As Kellwolf says, its quality not quantity.
[ QUOTE ]
So I guess a 40 hour guy who trained in a small Class D airport and passes his PPL checkride is suddenly a qualified and competent pilot, able ... or navigate safely and legally through the SFO or New York Bravo Airspace. After all, he passed a test, right?
[/ QUOTE ]
What's funny about that statement is I used to teach in Teterboro, NJ. Those that know the area know its nestled in between EWR, JFK, and LGA's class B. I soloed people from that airport. For pete's sake, Teterboro even had GATE HOLD in the afternoons. Teaching a primary student not only tower/ground of a class D but also clearence and gate hold was something else. Wake turbulance? Everyday occurance at TEB. Not to mention the intricies of not busting the class B. But it could be done, and safely.
[ QUOTE ]
Yet, am I to understand that in a mere 120 hours I will be able to handle the demands of flying a regional jet, with paying passengers, all because I dished out 12K and passed a checkride? Maybe it's true, but it sounds a little funny to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
It sounds funny because the "normal" route is to build time (CFI, pipeline patrol, banner tow, etc.) go 135, then 121 regional. That's not a bad route to go, you'll be a very well rounded pilot having experienced all of those things. BUT, there are other ways of doing it. I can't you how many times at night I get calls over the radio from AWA guys that are former MAPD'ers just saying hey. These guys go on to bigger and better things, all without having to build a boatload of time just to meet "minimums" that really don't mean much at all. People think experince equates to total time. Not always so.
I'm not gonna say my personal opinions about 250 hour pilots right seat in an RJ. BUT, they can pass the test and, even if it makes you mad, passing the test (checkride) shows that they can handle it. It's a standard test that everyone takes, not only 250 hour guys. Should the test be harder? Should there be additional requirements such as TT to hold a seat in a 121 carrier? I dunno. Apparently no, as most FAR's are blood laws and no one has shed blood over them being there as of yet.
cya
~wheelsup
[ QUOTE ]
So I guess a 40 hour guy who trained in a small Class D airport and passes his PPL checkride is suddenly a qualified and competent pilot, able ... or navigate safely and legally through the SFO or New York Bravo Airspace. After all, he passed a test, right?
[/ QUOTE ]
What's funny about that statement is I used to teach in Teterboro, NJ. Those that know the area know its nestled in between EWR, JFK, and LGA's class B. I soloed people from that airport. For pete's sake, Teterboro even had GATE HOLD in the afternoons. Teaching a primary student not only tower/ground of a class D but also clearence and gate hold was something else. Wake turbulance? Everyday occurance at TEB. Not to mention the intricies of not busting the class B. But it could be done, and safely.
[ QUOTE ]
Yet, am I to understand that in a mere 120 hours I will be able to handle the demands of flying a regional jet, with paying passengers, all because I dished out 12K and passed a checkride? Maybe it's true, but it sounds a little funny to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
It sounds funny because the "normal" route is to build time (CFI, pipeline patrol, banner tow, etc.) go 135, then 121 regional. That's not a bad route to go, you'll be a very well rounded pilot having experienced all of those things. BUT, there are other ways of doing it. I can't you how many times at night I get calls over the radio from AWA guys that are former MAPD'ers just saying hey. These guys go on to bigger and better things, all without having to build a boatload of time just to meet "minimums" that really don't mean much at all. People think experince equates to total time. Not always so.
I'm not gonna say my personal opinions about 250 hour pilots right seat in an RJ. BUT, they can pass the test and, even if it makes you mad, passing the test (checkride) shows that they can handle it. It's a standard test that everyone takes, not only 250 hour guys. Should the test be harder? Should there be additional requirements such as TT to hold a seat in a 121 carrier? I dunno. Apparently no, as most FAR's are blood laws and no one has shed blood over them being there as of yet.
cya
~wheelsup
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
As Kellwolf says, its quality not quantity.
[/ QUOTE ]
But, there is no way to get "quality" until you have the "quantity."
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not gonna say my personal opinions about 250 hour pilots right seat in an RJ.
[/ QUOTE ]
I WILL.
[ QUOTE ]
...they can pass the test.
...passing the test (checkride) shows that they can handle it.
[/ QUOTE ]
WRONG......They passed a test demonstrating (absolute) MINIMUM qualifications.
[ QUOTE ]
Should there be additional requirements such as TT to hold a seat in a 121 carrier?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes
[ QUOTE ]
... as most FAR's are blood laws and no one has shed blood over them being there as of yet. ~wheelsup
[/ QUOTE ]
Not exactly true....they DID establish minimum age+time requirements for the ATP. At that time, low time FOs were not an issue. Now they are. It's only a matter of time.
Are you (or you friends) willing to be the one who's blood is lost for the new FAR? Something to think about.
As Kellwolf says, its quality not quantity.
[/ QUOTE ]
But, there is no way to get "quality" until you have the "quantity."
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not gonna say my personal opinions about 250 hour pilots right seat in an RJ.
[/ QUOTE ]
I WILL.
[ QUOTE ]
...they can pass the test.
...passing the test (checkride) shows that they can handle it.
[/ QUOTE ]
WRONG......They passed a test demonstrating (absolute) MINIMUM qualifications.
[ QUOTE ]
Should there be additional requirements such as TT to hold a seat in a 121 carrier?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes
[ QUOTE ]
... as most FAR's are blood laws and no one has shed blood over them being there as of yet. ~wheelsup
[/ QUOTE ]
Not exactly true....they DID establish minimum age+time requirements for the ATP. At that time, low time FOs were not an issue. Now they are. It's only a matter of time.
Are you (or you friends) willing to be the one who's blood is lost for the new FAR? Something to think about.
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
[ QUOTE ]
But, there is no way to get "quality" until you have the "quantity."
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WRONG......They passed a test demonstrating (absolute) MINIMUM qualifications.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sigh. Blue in the face, but here we go again.....
I (personally) would rather have a 500 hr guy specifically trained to fly an RJ than a 1000 hour CFI that's been saying "right rudder, don't drop the wing, okay recover" for the past 800 hours. Just because the CFI has the QUANTITY does not mean he has the QUALITY. Hours do not magically turn into systems knowledge once you get 1000 hours. Now, as far as the test. Guess what? That 1000 CFI has just passed the same test demonstrating absolute minimums. What's to say he won't freeze up during an emergency? A 172 is a LOT different than an RJ.
Honestly, I think people in general are WAY too focused on the number of hours pilots have. Technically, I have enough hours to fly commercially right now. As in banner towing, traffic watch, etc. I won't since I don't have ANY experience in winter ops yet. But technically, I have the 250, so I must be knowledgable since I have the quantity of hours, right? It's no different with a CFI and the magic 1000 hour mark. If the guy (or gal) has been instructing at an uncontrolled field for tha past two years just teaching PPL, IMO he'll get eaten alive in ground school unless he does a LOT of preparing on his own.
But, there is no way to get "quality" until you have the "quantity."
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WRONG......They passed a test demonstrating (absolute) MINIMUM qualifications.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sigh. Blue in the face, but here we go again.....
I (personally) would rather have a 500 hr guy specifically trained to fly an RJ than a 1000 hour CFI that's been saying "right rudder, don't drop the wing, okay recover" for the past 800 hours. Just because the CFI has the QUANTITY does not mean he has the QUALITY. Hours do not magically turn into systems knowledge once you get 1000 hours. Now, as far as the test. Guess what? That 1000 CFI has just passed the same test demonstrating absolute minimums. What's to say he won't freeze up during an emergency? A 172 is a LOT different than an RJ.
Honestly, I think people in general are WAY too focused on the number of hours pilots have. Technically, I have enough hours to fly commercially right now. As in banner towing, traffic watch, etc. I won't since I don't have ANY experience in winter ops yet. But technically, I have the 250, so I must be knowledgable since I have the quantity of hours, right? It's no different with a CFI and the magic 1000 hour mark. If the guy (or gal) has been instructing at an uncontrolled field for tha past two years just teaching PPL, IMO he'll get eaten alive in ground school unless he does a LOT of preparing on his own.
DE727UPS
Well-Known Member
Had lunch with my buddy who is an RJ check airman at Mesa. Had to ask him about MAPDer's and his thoughts on Mesa's training. His response was that some MAPDer's and some 1000 hour CFI's get to him that don't a very good job. Need extra training. Need to be babysat.
What that tells me is that passing Mesa's "test", which is ground school and sim training, doesn't lead to someone who is ready to do the job. This is not good.....
My opinion remains that 250 to 300 hour pilots don't belong in the right seat of a jet. You can disagree until you're blue in the face...and you will....but the fact remains that the airline pilots of this thread and this board, that do the job day in and day out, don't agree with you. You're opinon on this matter will carry more weight with me when you have 1000 hours PIC jet.
What that tells me is that passing Mesa's "test", which is ground school and sim training, doesn't lead to someone who is ready to do the job. This is not good.....
My opinion remains that 250 to 300 hour pilots don't belong in the right seat of a jet. You can disagree until you're blue in the face...and you will....but the fact remains that the airline pilots of this thread and this board, that do the job day in and day out, don't agree with you. You're opinon on this matter will carry more weight with me when you have 1000 hours PIC jet.
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Sigh. Blue in the face, but here we go again.....
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not blue yet....I've got more quantity
[ QUOTE ]
I (personally) would rather have a 500 hr guy specifically trained to fly an RJ than a 1000 hour CFI...
QUANTITY does not mean he has the QUALITY. Hours do not magically turn into systems knowledge once you get 1000 hours.
[/ QUOTE ]
You miss the point entirely....we don't want EITHER of them in the cockpit.
I could put my wife in a CPT or Level D sim for 200 hours and train her to help flip switches. But she still won't have a clue about flying the plane.
I don't care if you're a trained in a sim at 250 hours or a 1000 CFI. You need PRACTICAL experience. Go fly freight in a C210, Baron for a few hundred-1000 hours. Fly some charter in King Airs.
For comparison, I have over 300 hours in level D sims alone. Sure it was helpful, but the true knowledge comes from the road. How is someone with 500 hours TOTAL and a little bit of sim time "experienced."
I don't care how you dress up a resume and make it smell nice. HR is hiring low time pilots because they have to. The experienced pilots aren't applying to them anymore. Ever wonder why mins are so low, when 10,000 major airline guys are furloughed???? Think about it. Then ask, "What do they know that I don't?"
Sigh. Blue in the face, but here we go again.....
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not blue yet....I've got more quantity
[ QUOTE ]
I (personally) would rather have a 500 hr guy specifically trained to fly an RJ than a 1000 hour CFI...
QUANTITY does not mean he has the QUALITY. Hours do not magically turn into systems knowledge once you get 1000 hours.
[/ QUOTE ]
You miss the point entirely....we don't want EITHER of them in the cockpit.
I could put my wife in a CPT or Level D sim for 200 hours and train her to help flip switches. But she still won't have a clue about flying the plane.
I don't care if you're a trained in a sim at 250 hours or a 1000 CFI. You need PRACTICAL experience. Go fly freight in a C210, Baron for a few hundred-1000 hours. Fly some charter in King Airs.
For comparison, I have over 300 hours in level D sims alone. Sure it was helpful, but the true knowledge comes from the road. How is someone with 500 hours TOTAL and a little bit of sim time "experienced."
I don't care how you dress up a resume and make it smell nice. HR is hiring low time pilots because they have to. The experienced pilots aren't applying to them anymore. Ever wonder why mins are so low, when 10,000 major airline guys are furloughed???? Think about it. Then ask, "What do they know that I don't?"
RPM
Well-Known Member
but would you have turned down the job way back when you had only 300 hours....I seriously doubt it.
I don't even see what the hell the problem is....bitch and moan all you want, these guys are obviously trained well enough to get the job done because they aren't crashing airliners. How many thousands of safe flights are these guys flying for Mesa every year???? How many fatalities have resulted strictly from having a low time F/O??? I'd like to see some hard numbers.
Sure it probably increases the Captains workload a little until these guys get some experience under their belt....but they are still getting the job done safely EVERY SINGLE DAY! If safety was an issue and planes were crashing because of the low timer F/O's, surely this practice would stop.
I will certainly agree with you on the "more experience the better the pilot" but the fact is, these guys ARE getting the job done....just like the low time military pilots do.
I don't even see what the hell the problem is....bitch and moan all you want, these guys are obviously trained well enough to get the job done because they aren't crashing airliners. How many thousands of safe flights are these guys flying for Mesa every year???? How many fatalities have resulted strictly from having a low time F/O??? I'd like to see some hard numbers.
Sure it probably increases the Captains workload a little until these guys get some experience under their belt....but they are still getting the job done safely EVERY SINGLE DAY! If safety was an issue and planes were crashing because of the low timer F/O's, surely this practice would stop.
I will certainly agree with you on the "more experience the better the pilot" but the fact is, these guys ARE getting the job done....just like the low time military pilots do.
montanapilot
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
just like the low time military pilots do.
[/ QUOTE ]
comparing a 250 hour T-38 pilot to a 250 hour bonanza pilot is a joke. This military low time whining has been disproved many a time on this site.
just like the low time military pilots do.
[/ QUOTE ]
comparing a 250 hour T-38 pilot to a 250 hour bonanza pilot is a joke. This military low time whining has been disproved many a time on this site.
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
would you have turned down the job way back when you had only 300 hours....
[/ QUOTE ]
No.....but when I had 300tt, you needed 3000tt to be a B99 FO.
[ QUOTE ]
...these guys are obviously trained well enough to get the job done because they aren't crashing airliners.
[/ QUOTE ]
So....they are experienced because they haven't crashed yet?
Good logic. Not.
[ QUOTE ]
How many fatalities have resulted strictly from having a low time F/O?
[/ QUOTE ]
So....you want to judge their qualifications by how many people they have/haven't killed?
Great. There's a new column for the logbook (sarcasm).
[ QUOTE ]
Sure it...increases the Captains workload ... EVERY SINGLE DAY!
[/ QUOTE ]
Now, that's a valid quote.
would you have turned down the job way back when you had only 300 hours....
[/ QUOTE ]
No.....but when I had 300tt, you needed 3000tt to be a B99 FO.
[ QUOTE ]
...these guys are obviously trained well enough to get the job done because they aren't crashing airliners.
[/ QUOTE ]
So....they are experienced because they haven't crashed yet?
Good logic. Not.
[ QUOTE ]
How many fatalities have resulted strictly from having a low time F/O?
[/ QUOTE ]
So....you want to judge their qualifications by how many people they have/haven't killed?
Great. There's a new column for the logbook (sarcasm).
[ QUOTE ]
Sure it...increases the Captains workload ... EVERY SINGLE DAY!
[/ QUOTE ]
Now, that's a valid quote.
[ QUOTE ]
but the fact is, these guys ARE getting the job done....just like the low time military pilots do.
[/ QUOTE ]
RPM, love ya man, but comparing a 250 hour military pilot and a 250 hour civilian pilot is similar to saying "Hey, I play a mean game of cul-de-sac stick ball back in Iowa, so I'm ready to play against Barry Bonds."
but the fact is, these guys ARE getting the job done....just like the low time military pilots do.
[/ QUOTE ]
RPM, love ya man, but comparing a 250 hour military pilot and a 250 hour civilian pilot is similar to saying "Hey, I play a mean game of cul-de-sac stick ball back in Iowa, so I'm ready to play against Barry Bonds."
RPM
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just like the low time military pilots do.
[/ QUOTE ]
comparing a 250 hour T-38 pilot to a 250 hour bonanza pilot is a joke. This military low time whining has been disproved many a time on this site.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think its been disproved.... the military trains there pilots to a minimum standard in a relatively short period of time to be able to perform specific tasks just like the airlines do once you get there. The training to get to that point really isn't all that different despite everyones opinions. 40-50 hrs in a c-152, 90hrs in a T-37, then 120hrs in a T-38 if you go fighter track and a bunch of sim time....so what, the only difference is they're in better, faster equipment....why does that automatically make them so much more competant than everyone in civillian training studying/flying their butts off...I don't think it does.
My Dad was a T-38 instructor pilot then moved to the F-15 so I have a pretty good idea how the whole A/F training deal works....I grew up around it.
If you take a 250 hour T-38 military pilot and a 250 hour well trained civ. Baron pilot....put them both through the same Mesa RJ training. I seriously doubt you would even be able to tell the difference between the two pilots out on the line, except for the haircuts.
[ QUOTE ]
just like the low time military pilots do.
[/ QUOTE ]
comparing a 250 hour T-38 pilot to a 250 hour bonanza pilot is a joke. This military low time whining has been disproved many a time on this site.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think its been disproved.... the military trains there pilots to a minimum standard in a relatively short period of time to be able to perform specific tasks just like the airlines do once you get there. The training to get to that point really isn't all that different despite everyones opinions. 40-50 hrs in a c-152, 90hrs in a T-37, then 120hrs in a T-38 if you go fighter track and a bunch of sim time....so what, the only difference is they're in better, faster equipment....why does that automatically make them so much more competant than everyone in civillian training studying/flying their butts off...I don't think it does.
My Dad was a T-38 instructor pilot then moved to the F-15 so I have a pretty good idea how the whole A/F training deal works....I grew up around it.
If you take a 250 hour T-38 military pilot and a 250 hour well trained civ. Baron pilot....put them both through the same Mesa RJ training. I seriously doubt you would even be able to tell the difference between the two pilots out on the line, except for the haircuts.
RPM
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...these guys are obviously trained well enough to get the job done because they aren't crashing airliners.
[/ QUOTE ]
So....they are experienced because they haven't crashed yet?
Good logic. Not.
[/ QUOTE ]
I never said they were highly experianced....only that they have the training to get the job done safely, how can you deny this, they're performing safe flights every day, are they not? This isn't a new thing at Mesa, its been going on for a while now. Like I said before...thousands of safe flights a year with low timers at the controls, and an experianced pilot in the left seat.... speaks for itself.
[ QUOTE ]
How many fatalities have resulted strictly from having a low time F/O?
[/ QUOTE ]
So....you want to judge their qualifications by how many people they have/haven't killed?
Great. There's a new column for the logbook (sarcasm).
[/ QUOTE ]
The point is...they are NOT killing people and causing accidents at Mesa, if they were and if it was a serious safety issue, the FAA would'nt allow it.
[ QUOTE ]
Sure it...increases the Captains workload ... EVERY SINGLE DAY!
[/ QUOTE ]
Now, that's a valid quote.
[/ QUOTE ]
thanks for changing my quote
and for the record, no i'm not a mapd'er... I'm going the CFI route for my own personal benefit.
[ QUOTE ]
...these guys are obviously trained well enough to get the job done because they aren't crashing airliners.
[/ QUOTE ]
So....they are experienced because they haven't crashed yet?
Good logic. Not.
[/ QUOTE ]
I never said they were highly experianced....only that they have the training to get the job done safely, how can you deny this, they're performing safe flights every day, are they not? This isn't a new thing at Mesa, its been going on for a while now. Like I said before...thousands of safe flights a year with low timers at the controls, and an experianced pilot in the left seat.... speaks for itself.
[ QUOTE ]
How many fatalities have resulted strictly from having a low time F/O?
[/ QUOTE ]
So....you want to judge their qualifications by how many people they have/haven't killed?
Great. There's a new column for the logbook (sarcasm).
[/ QUOTE ]
The point is...they are NOT killing people and causing accidents at Mesa, if they were and if it was a serious safety issue, the FAA would'nt allow it.
[ QUOTE ]
Sure it...increases the Captains workload ... EVERY SINGLE DAY!
[/ QUOTE ]
Now, that's a valid quote.
[/ QUOTE ]
thanks for changing my quote
and for the record, no i'm not a mapd'er... I'm going the CFI route for my own personal benefit.