Seggy
Well-Known Member
That is also VERY true.
Beech 1900 versus Metroliner
- Thread starter derg
- Start date
That is also VERY true.
z987k
Well-Known Member
I haven't personally seen anyone under the age of 30 struggle with the "transition". Even saying that, "transition", is funny to people that have typed more on a keyboard than have written letters on paper.
My sample size is quite small though... so...
Garmin Perspective in a Cirrus. I spent quite a few hours in one, never mastered all of it's features, and always found new stuff. For a GA airplane, it blows everything I have seen thus far, even the 2000LX, though I've never flown the Falcon.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
Absolutely true. Same can be said for the 744 & 748.
However, to people that say had 10,000 hours in Metros and maybe another 5,000 in a J31 and had 2500+ in 210s, 310's and Barons prior to that, the E145 in the 90's was a huge transition. From no automation to integrated glass was huge. From straight wing to (kinda) swept wing was huge. And the E145 is EXTREMELY forgiving for a swept wing machine.
Some folks transitioning to the 744/748 from the classic had the same issues, as they had to relearn how to get the right information at the right time to manage the aircraft.
Guys that are luddites really had their hands full learning to manage a logic-driven aircraft, and reprioritizing what is important to look at and when, especially during abnormal operations.
Guys who came from CFIing to fly the RJs at the Borg, as well as guys with previous glass time as new hires at the present place don't seem to have issues punching stuff in.
Where those guys, guys like @Maurus, come in, they have no problems in sim. Actually it's easy, you've operated enough airplanes to do stick and rudder (whether guys just flew Senecas or twin turboprops doesn't seem to matter) and are tech savvy enough to "plop stuff in the FMS" without fault. However, the weakness I've seen at both jobs is the same (and it may or may not apply to @Maurus I haven't flown with him). A general attitude that because the sim was easy, they tend to think they can fly a new machine in a similar way online as the previous airplane. So begin the poor techniques after making an energy management mistake (forward slips in a swept wing). Extremely poor CRM with a flying partner in regards to changes in layered automation programming. Poor 2 pilot cockpit management.
I've seen it so many times at both places.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Performance is way more closely tied to attitude than previous experience once a basic threshold of experience has been reached.
The guy that brags how easy it is usually has more issues down line (I'm saying 3+ years in the same seat) than the one who continually strives for improvement in his weak areas. Not always the case, but I've seen enough cases that I'm confident in my statement.
@Seggy I just delivered the jets. No acceptance flights. And I'm definitely no badass. I have to continually work to improve myself. Luckily, there are lots of areas which need addressed, so no worry of ever a dearth work in that department.
Tommay85
Well-Known Member
Perhaps that's why we're such loud mouths about the transition being a non-issue.
Not to go all out and throw on the AMF cheerleader outfit, but the guys that leave here know what the hell they're doing. I don't know a single person that's left here that has had trouble transferring into any other operation under the sun. Which is why I'm very fast to speak against the jet/glass/fms requirements. Because it really is a BS arguement after working at a place like this. How many ex-AMF guys have you seen struggle @Polar742? Not that Atlas/Polar has ever hired them in the first place...
Not to go all out and throw on the AMF cheerleader outfit, but the guys that leave here know what the hell they're doing. I don't know a single person that's left here that has had trouble transferring into any other operation under the sun. Which is why I'm very fast to speak against the jet/glass/fms requirements. Because it really is a BS arguement after working at a place like this. How many ex-AMF guys have you seen struggle @Polar742? Not that Atlas/Polar has ever hired them in the first place...
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
You realize AMF isn't the first operator of the Metro, right? I will say it generally takes more work as an instructor if the guys don't have jet & glass & FMC experience. I'm not saying those guys don't know what they're doing in their previous environment, in fact they were probably very good at it. In the same manner if I went to training to fly your Metro, it'd probably be much harder for me to go back to that type of flying than someone driving a C310 or KingAir.
Re-read what I posted.
Tommay85
Well-Known Member
I did and I re-state, not one single person from AMF pilot has had problems transitioning to another operation. So the argument is what exactly? They fly whatever it is that they're flying now just fine without flying that particular type of plane in another operation first.
This isn't flying to the moon. Flying airplanes isn't hard and an airplane is an airplane is an airplane. Every single one of them will and will not do certain things and that is what training is for.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
Let's get past your tprop moving up dogma.
For a minute, you're an instructor at AMF. Would you rather train a guy on the Metro that came out of a 1900 at SubAir, or a guy like me who has flown steam, but out of the last 14 out of the last 17 years has flown integrated glass?
I know who I'd choose.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Euh...maybe. So, lemme put it this way, some guys are much easier to "train from scratch" so that "our way" is the "only way" they know. Then you've got to pick the best guys you can (albeit this is hard). I think that requiring time in type or "glass time" or whatever is HR's lazy way of hedging their bets against real screw-up types. That's just me though. Primacy is a funny thing, it's hard to break primal habits. If I bought a bunch of brand new "go-fast-machines" tomorrow (you think they'll take a personal check at boeing?), I'd get my training done by guys with a lot of time in type and stock my training department with experienced guys (such as yourself) out of the gate. However for new-hires later on I'd want guys who were blank slates on that sort of machine and had some sort of experience that differentiated themselves from "the pack." That's just me though.
To be honest, I have misgivings about all of the guys at an outfit coming from "the same place." I think it breeds groupthink in the pilot group. If everyone is more-or-less in agreement about how something should be done something is wrong. There should be a variety of experience. I want the guy who was a CFI turned RJ Pilot, I want the guy who flew in Alaska his whole career, and I want the freight-dawg in the flight department because then we can all learn from one another. It's awful hard for guys to learn from one another when they all come from the same background and they never bring anything fundamentally different to the table.
What does the freight dawg bring to the table:
The freight pilot is an incredibly good instrument pilot. He's flown hundreds of instrument approaches, knows how to "get-the-job-done" when the situation dictates it, and has probably flown less than optimal equipment (thus has had actual in-flight emergencies). On the flip side, he's probably done things in the airplane that he regrets because his balls were bigger than his brain in the vicinity of convective activity or some other situation. He's got lot's of steam-guage experience because the airplane's he's flown are old as hell.
Strengths - Creativity, Mad Instrument Flying Skills, He's scared himself in the airplane before (this is a good thing)
Weaknesses - Procedural Discipline, Mission Mentality, Macho, Crew Resource Management
What does the Alaska guy bring to the table (I'm biased a bit here, but whatever):
This guy knows how to operate the airplane at the slow speed end of the envelope, and probably heavy. He's great for the "bottom end" of the non-precision approach because he's operated in Special VFR conditions in a wide variety of aircraft. He too has flown crummy airplanes. In my experience, these guys have flown a lot of different "types" of airplanes, but lack some IFR system knowledge that the freight guy excels at. Being in remote regions has meant that these guys have had to get creative - they've probably scared themselves, and have done something stupid in the airplane that they regret, additionally they may not have talked to anything other than a tiny tower and a flight service station in months and probably haven't shot anything but GPS approaches (if that) for awhile.
Strengths - Aircraft Handling, Terrain Awareness, Respect for the conditions
Weaknesses - Regulatory Knowledge (and for some guys compliance), Macho, Procedural Discipline
What does the CFI turned RJ Pilot bring to the table:
This guy is a professional. He knows his GOM, OpSpecs, FAR/AIM and much more down cold. He knows the systems of his airplane down cold, but he's never seen the thing at the edge of the envelope. He's never estimated passenger bag weights by lifting them and hasn't filled out his own weight and balance since his flight school days. He's an excellent crewmember however, and efficiently works to get the flight done in a safe and timely matter. He's flown very nice equipment for some time, and is experienced operating FMS, Glass, and all the works. He's had lot's of excellent training and hasn't had to "teach himself" anything too crazy. Very rarely is the guy outside of the warm cushy center of the envelope however, and this has ramifications for "saving the day" at the last second.
Strengths - Procedural Discipline, Crew Resource Management, Complex Airplane Knowledge
Weaknesses - Less "Hands On" experience, Not a lot of emergency or SHTF experience, Limited "out of the box" thinking available]
The truth is, there is no "perfect pilot applicant" for a job. Each candidate brings their own strengths and weaknesses to the table, figuring out if the strengths for a particular individual out-weigh the weaknesses is more critical - and that's going to vary substantially based on the operation, the airplane, and the environment. As usual, the balanced approach of a wide variety of backgrounds in your pilots will be better for you institution to begin with.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
I think you've really missed the mark here. Your version of a jet pilot is a cartoon.
Boris Badenov
This is no laughing matter.
I didn't find the change from steam to glass to be overly challenging, but it seems rather unlikely to me that I was as quick or good as someone who was coming from another glass airplane. The most trouble I've had is going from (old, low-end) glass to EFIS. And even that wasn't a huge big deal. 95% of pilots beyond a certain experience level are going to do fine whatever you put them in, but this is a numbers game, as ever.
KLB
Well-Known Member
I know of one guy who washed out of training at alliegent from AMF. He was an older gentleman though. I think that technology and speed got the best of him. There have been others who have gone through training there from AMF with no problems though.
I believe most people from AMF boast about the transition to jet aircraft being so easy after leaving is because of how rigorous the training they've gotten. Its a real PITA where you think that your rear end is always on the line in initial, six month, annual, and transition training.
Last edited:
Maurus
The Great Gazoo
I can see this. However it seems like a generational issue. The generation coming in has been drowned in technology in comparison.
We may start seeing the opposite issues with guys coming in to fly planes such as the MD-80, old 737s, 757s ect. New hires aren't exactly being placed in then most advanced aircraft.
As far as the rest I would hope a captain would punch me in the gut if it is or does happen.
Inverted
mmmmmm wine
I would think AMF pilots would have a tougher transition to flying live cargo, and flying equipment that doesn't overly suck. Actually that goes for all SPIFR operators, AMF is no better than a Key Lime... That developed scan (if you don't completely suck) can totally carry over into integrated glass systems, whether they are the newest generation glass, or older "semi-glass" systems. Lets face it, older glass systems give a tad more information, are a tad more integrated, and you have an FMS to learn. Even then its a UNS-1 which is a dinosaur, and a basic FMS compared to newer technology. The fact that the E-145 (just using that as an example) is an easy jet to transition to is a huge help for guys flying smaller prop equipment.
It was harder for me to master the finesse required to fly a subsonic missile tube at FL430 by hand and not have the pax in the back barf everywhere than it was to figure out how to switch between FMS1 and 2, and deal with the integrated systems and the small amount of glass. Then again I didn't go from a BE99 to an EASy, or PlaneView II etc etc.
It was harder for me to master the finesse required to fly a subsonic missile tube at FL430 by hand and not have the pax in the back barf everywhere than it was to figure out how to switch between FMS1 and 2, and deal with the integrated systems and the small amount of glass. Then again I didn't go from a BE99 to an EASy, or PlaneView II etc etc.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
I don't think that it can simply be summarized as a generational issue. I've seen old and young folks fail gauges to glass, glass to gauges, and glass to glass. I think change is the issue more than age. If you've been doing anything for 10-20 years, change is going to be a challenge. If a training regimen is designed to address a wide range of backgrounds effectively, the problems are minimized.
Considering that I'm almost 50 and I've had a computer since 1977, I'm not sure what generation we are talking about. Does AARP have a training school?
Inverted
mmmmmm wine
Couldn't agree more. 10 years ago, the term "glass" meant some mythical system that revolutionized the cockpit. Now, we are in a time where the gap from steam to glass is so large, that older glass to new glass is the gap to worry about now. One of our captains is a an absolute dinosaur when it comes to flying, he's only 62 but could never fly an even remotely modern glass cockpit. Still refers to Google as "the Google" and has an old samsung flip phone. In my opinion, he is the "generational" issue as far as an age group of pilot that would not understand the pinnacle of cockpit technology. I love flying with the guy, but he has never been involved with flying modern equipment.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
They are all cartoons. The show the big stereotypes of each. Thats by and large the point.
