ASA direct track checkride PASSED!

But if you could see the looks on the faces of the guys I talk to about 300 hour pilots flying around in RJ's that say Delta on the side of them, you'd understand my concern.
Click to expand...


Yup, but remember, you could be telling that to a United Airlines captain, who in the early/mid nineties was hired with 300 to 400 TT.
 
So what about all the other pilots who are in the pool right now? Aren't they also SOL at the moment? Oh wait, because they decided to instruct and have a job right now they aren't screwed. And once again, you've helped prove my point that it's just "direct track, need to make negative comments." If you had actually read my first post you'd know that I have my CFI, I am just choosing not to instruct. If I wanted to be a teacher I would have become one out of college and not a police officer.

Seems like the only reason you even comment in the FSA forum is to tell people how bad and over priced it is. But then you say they make a great CFI. Well guess what, they make a good CFI because it isn't some 3 day program they rush you through. I takes about a month (around 20 lessons as I recall) and you brief and teach just about every maneuver for the PPL. That's why it costs so much, and thats why they are so good.

As for bring more to the cockpit of a jet after instructing...from what I've heard the guys having the most trouble in training are the CFI's!

Now a Capt/Checkairman for ASA did my checkride for direct track and said I passed. He's one of those guys who likes the program and the quality of pilot coming out of it. And since he's the guy who, you know, does the training for ASA and flies with us, I'll take his opinion over yours any day.

I just want to know when I become worthy of your presence, not that I really care mind you. But how many hours, since you seem so hung up on it? XJT mins are 600, so is that enough? Others want 1000 or even 1200. Maybe I should have my ATP first, and I mean not just the written exam but the license. Do I need so may hours instructing? What if I just built time banner towing? Is that ok? Probably not since no XC. Or even just renting and building time that way. When do I become worthy?

As for the "masses", they can just get over it cause guess what...IT'S DONE!
 
"Do I need so may hours instructing? What if I just built time banner towing? Is that ok?"

Yeah, that's okay. Especially if it's in a taildragger. Now, somebody tell me that's useless if you're gonna be an RJ driver.

"Seems like the only reason you even comment in the FSA forum is to tell people how bad and over priced it is"

I don't start posts here and I only comment when someone says something I disagree with. But, yeah, I don't like direct entry or ab initio and there are a lot of good reasons why. I see no reason to keep that to myself. It's not like anyone reads this stuff, anyways. If anyone gave a crap this forum wouldn't be so one sided as it is.

"from what I've heard the guys having the most trouble in training are the CFI's!"

That's cause they didn't just pay to take the CLASS...
Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? You just did an RJ ground school. Now you are in initial at an RJ airline taking an RJ ground school. If you don't do quite a bit better the second time around then you just wasted your money at FSA.

"I just want to know when I become worthy of your presence"
"When do I become worthy?"

It's hard to say but I know 250 ain't it.
 
DE, I see where you stand on pilots with 250-350TT flying RJs at regionals.

But what's your opinion on those pilots hired with about 300-400TT at places like United back in the early/mid 90s ? I expect your opinion to be no different, otherwise, it's a double standard.
 
Maybe in the 60's but in the 90's? I don't remember that one. You could get on at United with 300 to 400 hours in the early 90's? I don't think so. I had 4000 total, 1500 turbine, a Convair type rating, and 400 hours 121 PIC in a turboprop Convair and they wouldn't give me the time of day...

In the 60's they didn't use simulators and guys learned a lot from the back seat before they moved up front. If FSA did all training in real RJ's and then the guys sat in the jumpseat for 500 hours learning the in's and out's of airline flying going into all the airports in the system, I'd have no problem with direct track.

Also, as I've mentioned before, the military does it. But, screening and training is far in advance of FSA or and other ab initio training. Wouldn't you agree? Or are direct track guys now equal to a US military trained pilot?

"I expect your opinion to be no different, otherwise, it's a double standard"

What's that supposed to mean?
 
DE727UPS said:
I don't start posts here and I only comment when someone says something I disagree with.
Click to expand...

You disagree with EVERYTHING. Why don't you get some first hand experience first then run your mouth about it?

DE727UPS said:
"from what I've heard the guys having the most trouble in training are the CFI's!"

That's cause they didn't just pay to take the CLASS...
Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? You just did an RJ ground school. Now you are in initial at an RJ airline taking an RJ ground school. If you don't do quite a bit better the second time around then you just wasted your money at FSA.
Click to expand...

So we just proved being a CFI doesn't help when you get into a jet and I'm already ahead of the game with my 250.

DE727UPS said:
Also, as I've mentioned before, the military does it. But, screening and training is far in advance of FSA or and other ab initio training. Wouldn't you agree? Or are direct track guys now equal to a US military trained pilot?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not equal to a fully military trained pilot. But I think the direct track is like screening and training. I'm showing that I can be trained and have what it takes to work for them and get through their program. I'd hope that when I finish initial training at ASA I'd have the same basic knowledge about my aircraft that a new military pilot would have when they finish their training. No one knows it all right away, or really ever for that matter.
 
DE727UPS said:
Maybe in the 60's but in the 90's? I don't remember that one. You could get on at United with 300 to 400 hours in the early 90's? I don't think so. I had 4000 total, 1500 turbine, a Convair type rating, and 400 hours 121 PIC in a turboprop Convair and they wouldn't give me the time of day...

In the 60's they didn't use simulators and guys learned a lot from the back seat before they moved up front. If FSA did all training in real RJ's and then the guys sat in the jumpseat for 500 hours learning the in's and out's of airline flying going into all the airports in the system, I'd have no problem with direct track.

Also, as I've mentioned before, the military does it. But, screening and training is far in advance of FSA or and other ab initio training. Wouldn't you agree? Or are direct track guys now equal to a US military trained pilot?

"I expect your opinion to be no different, otherwise, it's a double standard"

What's that supposed to mean?
Click to expand...




As far as United hiring low timers in the mid 90s, you can check out this site: http://www.adversity.net/united/default.htm

About the double standard comment, maybe I should have phrased it differently. What I meant was this. You've made your opinion clear of low timers being hired at regionals flying RJs. What I wanted to see is if you held the same opinion for those United guys that got hired at 350-400TT. With your logic, your opinion for both of these civilian trained pilots should be the same. If you made an exception for United taking 350-400 TT pilots, and yet spoke against regionals hiring 300-400TT pilots, then there seems to be a double standard type thing going on (that's "okay" for a "major legacy carrier" to do it, but not a "major regional carrier").
 
"Why don't you get some first hand experience first then run your mouth about it?"

Look. I think the fact that I've been flying since 1978. Employed in aviation since 1984. Working for 121 airlines since 1987 and UPS since 1990 gives me a little experience to judge as to whether low time ab inito/direct track guys should be in the right seat of RJ's.

When I "run my mouth off", as you say, I'm doing it as someone who actually has a pretty fair background in this career. Now, you might not like what I have to say but I do really believe I have the background, and right, to say what I think. My background at this site speaks for itself....

"So we just proved being a CFI doesn't help when you get into a jet and I'm already ahead of the game with my 250"

Man....someday you're gonna come back and read this and not believe how dumb you sound.
 
"UAL Accidents or Incidents caused by underqualified quota-hire pilots -- So far, we have documented one very serious incident, and we have received several anecdotal reports of other incidents"

HAHA. I went to the home page and point #1 was the above quote. Like this really supports your arguement that super low time pilots should be accepted in the industry?

Didn't read any farther but maybe later I will. Sure Doug will enjoy checking out this site as well....

If "double standard" is FSA low time=military low time. Yeah, I'll admit I have a double stardard. There ya go....
 
DE727UPS said:
"UAL Accidents or Incidents caused by underqualified quota-hire pilots -- So far, we have documented one very serious incident, and we have received several anecdotal reports of other incidents"

HAHA. I went to the home page and point #1 was the above quote. Like this really supports your arguement that super low time pilots should be accepted in the industry?

Didn't read any farther but maybe later I will. Sure Doug will enjoy checking out this site as well....

If "double standard" is FSA low time=military low time. Yeah, I'll admit I have a double stardard. There ya go....
Click to expand...



DE, regardless of what you think of that article, the point is United did hire some really low time pilots, some with 300-400 hours TT.
My question to you is that would you still have spoken out against that sort of thing?
How's that any different than being a 300-400 TT direct track new-hire into a regional jet?

The double standard comment was not in regards to regional pilot from FSA versus military pilots. It was regional pilot from FSA w/ 300-400TT compared to those United new hires with 300-400 hours TT.
 
"The double standard comment was not in regards to regional pilot from FSA versus military pilots"

Why not? Do you admit there is no comparision?
 
DE727UPS said:
"The double standard comment was not in regards to regional pilot from FSA versus military pilots"

Why not? Do you admit there is no comparision?
Click to expand...


I honestly dont think you can compare civilan trained pilots, whether at FBOs or at flight academies, to military trained pilots. Military training is a whole different animal/game.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Yup, but remember, you could be telling that to a United Airlines captain, who in the early/mid nineties was hired with 300 to 400 TT.
Click to expand...


....as a plumber..........for 5 years.....
 
Many airlines in places like Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, hire 0 time pilots for their "ab-initio" pilot program.

Right when they get their minimums, they usually act as a Second Officer as a relief pilot, BUT, there are instances where they become a F/O on a large jet with only 200-300TT.

An example would be the Gulf Air F/O in that A320 crash a few years back. He was hired with 0 TT, airline paid training until 200TT, then F/O A320 with 200 hours TT.

At the time of the accident, he had 408 hours on the A320, and his Total time was 608 hours.

Anyway, the point is that low time FOs are all over the world, not just FSA direct track pilots.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
As far as United hiring low timers in the mid 90s, you can check out this site: http://www.adversity.net/united/default.htm
Click to expand...

The "United Case" has to be the absolutely worst example on earth to use in this situation.

United lost a lawsuit where people claimed that there was a systematic aversion to hiring well-qualified non-traditional pilots (a politically correct way of saying 'women and minorities'). Were they guilty? I have no idea, but the minimums were lowered.

It's a small industry and the only person I peronally know (not anecdotal) that was hired with less than 1,500 hours was a CFI at my flight school who moonlighted on the ramp at UAL, his father was a UAL captain and he was Irish.

Long story short, the actual number of people that were hired towards the bottom of the minimums is a small handful. Else, I'd be on my 15th year of seniority at UAL and probably a 777 captain because every starry-eyed kid and his uncle had an application on file in the 1990's, including myself.

Do you know who that benefitted the most? Members of the (and I might have the actual title wrong) "Sons and Daughters Program" and there really weren't that many of them.

Paragraph one:

and we have received several anecdotal reports of other incidents.
Click to expand...

Anecdotal: 1. also an·ec·dot·ic (-dtk) or an·ec·dot·i·cal (--kl) Of, characterized by, or full of anecdotes. 2. Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis: “There are anecdotal reports of children poisoned by hot dogs roasted over a fire of the [oleander] stems”.

Sorry, but this has been a thorn in my behind my entire career and some of the letters used as 'anectdotal evidence' are borderline racist and embarassing as a professional.

I'm not yelling at you, but I think the relevance of 'adversity.net' in the debate needed to be nipped in the bud.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Many airlines in places like Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, hire 0 time pilots for their "ab-initio" pilot program.

Right when they get their minimums, they usually act as a Second Officer as a relief pilot, BUT, there are instances where they become a F/O on a large jet with only 200-300TT.

An example would be the Gulf Air F/O in that A320 crash a few years back. He was hired with 0 TT, airline paid training until 200TT, then F/O A320 with 200 hours TT.

At the time of the accident, he had 408 hours on the A320, and his Total time was 608 hours.

Anyway, the point is that low time FOs are all over the world, not just FSA direct track pilots.
Click to expand...

No offense, but I fail to see how listing out low-time FO's that were involved in incidents or accidents helps your case. Don whole point is that low-time FO's are not safe, and it seems as if you are proving his point admirably.

Regarding your earlier post about how instructing does not provide relevant experience for flying an RJ, think again. That sort of comment proves how narrow your range of experience is. I learned more in my first 10 hours of instruction than I did in my first 400 hours as a private/commercial pilot. It is about decision making, responsibility, and being PIC. The actual FLYING of the plane doesn't teach you that much, but being PIC does. Most of all, I think just being in the air, in the industry, surrounded by like minded professionals prepares you for an airline career. NO ONE, should go from being a student to an RJ pilot without some sort of intermediate experience. That is comparable to going from med student to surgeon without a residency. That ramping up of experience is required, and without it, the experience will come in large doses from captains not-so happy to be teaching you how to fly.

As an example, I will detail a comment that was made from a low-time ab-initio guy in my Basic Indoc class. He had somewhere around 250-260 hrs, and he made the entire class realize just how little experience he had.

We were discussing altitude deviations, and how they are a problem in our company. The instructor made a comment about ATC giving the crew a number to call upon landing, and the student said, "What? They would give you a number to call while you are flying? Isn't that an unsafe distraction?" After the awkward silence, the instructor pointed out that no, many times ATC will give you directions to write down while flying, and with a crew of two pilots, it shouldn't be a problem to do so.

The above example demonstrated that this candidate didn't have experience in the IFR system, and that he had much to learn. He successfully passed his training, and is on the line now. I'm sure he will get up to speed eventually, but it is going to take a while.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Many airlines in places like Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, hire 0 time pilots for their "ab-initio" pilot program.

Right when they get their minimums, they usually act as a Second Officer as a relief pilot, BUT, there are instances where they become a F/O on a large jet with only 200-300TT.

An example would be the Gulf Air F/O in that A320 crash a few years back. He was hired with 0 TT, airline paid training until 200TT, then F/O A320 with 200 hours TT.

At the time of the accident, he had 408 hours on the A320, and his Total time was 608 hours.

Anyway, the point is that low time FOs are all over the world, not just FSA direct track pilots.
Click to expand...


I'd like to see how many Direct Track pilots actually make it through the screening process for the ab initio programs, especially in Europe...It's MUCH MUCH MUCH more selective than the system here, not to mention they actually have to learn something. They have to spend as much time in a classroom as an ATP candidate in this country. They get psychological testing, dexterity testing, knowledge testing, cognitive ability testing, and a whole bunch of other testing. They HAVE to have a college degree. Ask any Swiss or Austrian student next time you're strolling around FSA and then you'll understand how much of a joke the direct track program is to the foreign ab-initio programs. Apples and oranges in my opinion. As for the Gulf Air pilots, when FSA had the Saudi program, the students (especially towards the end) weren't selected based on their ability, but rather who their daddy was. They were a consistent and painful thorn in everyone's ass when their program was at FSA......

I've flown with direct track guys, and I've flown with the european people...NO comparison. The ab initio guys were on their game.....they flew PERFECTLY.....not because they had to, but because they wanted to. They were always prepared for their lessons, and they were very self critical. They always fixed what you told them to fix, weather it was looking something up or something related to their actual flying. The direct track guys were nowhere near that level, and I spent a lot of time watching them walk around the flight line with a chip on their shoulder 20 or 30 minutes after their scheduled show time trying to get ready for their flights.

People who bring up the ab initio argument vs. the direct track argument obviously haven't been on the recieving end of the foreign contract training stick. Try it sometime and when you run with your tail between your legs, call me and tell me the direct track guys deserve to be in the cockpit as much as the foreign guys........they don't.
 
I'm going to have to side w/ DE and Philosopher (whasup G?) on this one...

I think that it's time to change the part 121 minimums to at least meet those for part 135 IFR operations. Maybe even require an ATP (oh my!).

If you think that the ASA/Eagle/GoJets/whatever direct track program prepares you to operate in REAL WORLD situations, you are unfortunately a bit misguided. It's not your fault, that's just the way that they want you to feel. Otherwise, why would you pay so much $$?

You'll probably pass ground school w/ flying colors, but what about when something unexpected happens that isn't in the Op Specs? What happens when that sausage biscuit eating CA next to you bites the big one? What's the flow for that?

They say that hindsight is 20/20 and maybe someday you'll feel differently.

Of course all of the people who are giving you a hard time are CFIs or former CFIs so maybe we're just jealous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top