ahsmatt7
Well-Known Member
i completely agree. I wouldnt be where i am today without my small group of mentors and advisors. Even on this site i have a very select group of users who i pay more attention to.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
FAA Set To Issue Mentoring Rules For Airline Pilots
- Thread starter RDoug
- Start date
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
ahsmatt7
Well-Known Member
Meh, i have a degree in international business managment. I got through new hire training just fine.
One doesnt need an aviation degree to be successful in this industry.
I dont think the government should be getting involved in this. Let the hiring practices be set forth by the specific airlines.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
I have a pair of unrelated degrees. When read closely, the rule says a degree, not a flying one.
A
Adler
Guest
But we have companies like Great Lakes taking anybody with or without a degree, throwing them into complex airplanes flying to difficult locations in marginal weather; forcing them to build stick and rudder skills, as well as stellar big picture awareness. Why do that when you can have a kid coddled by 141 graduate having only flown technologically advanced aircraft, reach a magic FAA number to be "qualified", and strap into another a highly automated airplane where the training departments just require the minimum standard to be met...
ahsmatt7
Well-Known Member
i see that. However the data it quoted was from aviation degrees. The mention of just having a degree was a secondary catch all. anyways, im not here to split hairs.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
ahsmatt7
Well-Known Member
i dont know if you were being sarcastic. i think you were. anyways, the issue with airlines like great lakes wont be fixed. y a degree or 141.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
A
Adler
Guest
Eh partially. Great Lakes has its problems, but it produces great pilots.
A degree is just something you paid for.
ahsmatt7
Well-Known Member
im more of a foundation guy. I believe that no matter how you build your house, if the foundation sucks, your house will eventually fsll on you. Catch my analogy?
I truly do feel that the training requirements for FAA certificates needs to be completely overhauled. If someone has plans on doing 121, then there should be requirements that one needs to do during their training which are different, more strenuous and much more applicable to 121 operations. If someone has no plans of being in 121, then they can just do the current requirements.
Just like college. if someone wants to minor in a discipline, they need to take certain classes along side their major degree classes. The same should be said for certificates and the FAA.
What they have now for the ATP written is not good enough. Thats not foundational.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Always.
Cruise
Well-Known Member
Yes, definitely!
I absolutely have my group of respected people on speed dial when I have a question. When time permits, it's always better to run things by your mentors/ peers to ensure you're doing the best job you can.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Hee. Yes, if one can't hack it in the trenches of flying a highly automated jet from one ILS to another above the weather and doodling pornography to hide in the cockpit, they can go to the bush leagues of the current, non-foundational (?) regs.
ahsmatt7
Well-Known Member
yep because no one is having issues doing that. (sarcasm)
i would change my statement to not just include 121 but 135.
Its sad to say but the fundamentals are not being taught like they used to because its way to easy to just check off boxes at a lightning pace and push students through programs without actually solidifying a strong foundation.
Colgan 3407 was a perfect example. All im saying is that there needs to be more meat on the bones with training requirements for certificates.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Zapphod Beblebrox
Inventor of the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster
College degree's and part 121.
I skimmed the UAA document and study about college degree's and completion of FAR part 121 training. It stated that pilots with college degrees had fewer non-completes within the training footprint. In consideration of those pilots who come later and with less experience the question possibly needs to be, does the current part 121 training footprint adequately cover the experience level of those who are taking their first initial, or should the footprint be changed.
I have been a 121 pilot for 30 years and flew corporate before that and have also trained at type rating centers. The footprint is remarkably similar. About 20 hours in the sim and ground school. One of the ground schools was primarily home study followed by an intense two day ground school for review. That's fine for experienced pilots but is most likely not enough for inexperienced pilots.
If the FAA and Industry seem intent on allowing those with less experience to fly part 121 then they need to look at the training footprint that has not been significantly changed for at least 30 years. (I am advised by those senior to me that it was that way for 10 to 20 years prior, so we are talking 40 to 50 years.)
The Airforce and Navy have very extensive training requirements, after UPT. Once a pilot has his wings and goes to the training command on his particular type, that training is extensive. Pilots I fly with say it was upwards of 6 months of intense simulator, ground school and actually aircraft training before they were fully qualified in type. Military pilots, who only have about 250-300 hour straight out of completing their training for their wings, require a long training cycle on their particular aircraft before they are fully qualified in type. If military trained pilots, who are considered to have been through the most rigorous training profile in existence, require a long specific qualification course, wouldn't the same apply in the civilian world? The FAA assumes that an ATP pilot with 1500 hours and some real world experience would be ready for the type-rating training footprint, and for many years that system has worked well for those pilots who have some real world high performance aircraft experience.
Perhaps the FAA needs to consider changing the training footprint for those who are lower time. I don't see anyway around the cost factor involved in become a qualified crew member in a 121 jet environment. Either you get experience on your own, anyway you can, or the company that hires you will have to invest more in your training and qualification. In Europe and Asia they are dealing with the MPL system, (MultiCrew Pilot License). That system uses very little actual flight time and a great deal of simulator instruction. There is no way around it, one way or another there is a certain amount of time an effort into producing qualified crew members, and the MPL method proves that the burden will be on the company or the training organization.
In reality all the UAA study proves is that in a very minimal training footprint, pilots with college degrees completed the training cycle, on average, more successfully than those without college degrees. The study was essentially a pass fail question, it did not attempt to measure the success or rate the students by some other measure. Should training be more condensed, pass / fail or should the actual footprint be increased to guarantee more complete training? Remember this is the FAA that now is requiring a jet transition course, and additional ground school for those with no jet time or prior jet type rating.
It seems like they are already changing the footprint.
I skimmed the UAA document and study about college degree's and completion of FAR part 121 training. It stated that pilots with college degrees had fewer non-completes within the training footprint. In consideration of those pilots who come later and with less experience the question possibly needs to be, does the current part 121 training footprint adequately cover the experience level of those who are taking their first initial, or should the footprint be changed.
I have been a 121 pilot for 30 years and flew corporate before that and have also trained at type rating centers. The footprint is remarkably similar. About 20 hours in the sim and ground school. One of the ground schools was primarily home study followed by an intense two day ground school for review. That's fine for experienced pilots but is most likely not enough for inexperienced pilots.
If the FAA and Industry seem intent on allowing those with less experience to fly part 121 then they need to look at the training footprint that has not been significantly changed for at least 30 years. (I am advised by those senior to me that it was that way for 10 to 20 years prior, so we are talking 40 to 50 years.)
The Airforce and Navy have very extensive training requirements, after UPT. Once a pilot has his wings and goes to the training command on his particular type, that training is extensive. Pilots I fly with say it was upwards of 6 months of intense simulator, ground school and actually aircraft training before they were fully qualified in type. Military pilots, who only have about 250-300 hour straight out of completing their training for their wings, require a long training cycle on their particular aircraft before they are fully qualified in type. If military trained pilots, who are considered to have been through the most rigorous training profile in existence, require a long specific qualification course, wouldn't the same apply in the civilian world? The FAA assumes that an ATP pilot with 1500 hours and some real world experience would be ready for the type-rating training footprint, and for many years that system has worked well for those pilots who have some real world high performance aircraft experience.
Perhaps the FAA needs to consider changing the training footprint for those who are lower time. I don't see anyway around the cost factor involved in become a qualified crew member in a 121 jet environment. Either you get experience on your own, anyway you can, or the company that hires you will have to invest more in your training and qualification. In Europe and Asia they are dealing with the MPL system, (MultiCrew Pilot License). That system uses very little actual flight time and a great deal of simulator instruction. There is no way around it, one way or another there is a certain amount of time an effort into producing qualified crew members, and the MPL method proves that the burden will be on the company or the training organization.
In reality all the UAA study proves is that in a very minimal training footprint, pilots with college degrees completed the training cycle, on average, more successfully than those without college degrees. The study was essentially a pass fail question, it did not attempt to measure the success or rate the students by some other measure. Should training be more condensed, pass / fail or should the actual footprint be increased to guarantee more complete training? Remember this is the FAA that now is requiring a jet transition course, and additional ground school for those with no jet time or prior jet type rating.
It seems like they are already changing the footprint.
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
As far as college degrees and 121 flying, you certainly know my opinion on that.
Research by an organization with an interest in a particular result shows that particular result? Sure.
I'm on the verge of just giving up on the subject of educational elitism. Like many things, it's become so entrenched in society that there's no impetus whatsoever for change in a direction I'd consider positive. College graduates—as dumb as many are—are absolutely certain they're superior to the "great unwashed," and, rather than striving to prove them wrong, the "great unwashed" is beginning to adopt a position of stubborn, willful ignorance, reinforcing the point. To my dismay.
Fact: You are not better than me because you have a degree.
Fact: I am not better than you because I have no degree.
You may be better than me for other reasons.
I may be better than you for other reasons.
Aside from that, I give up. The world is foxed.
-Fox
Research by an organization with an interest in a particular result shows that particular result? Sure.
I'm on the verge of just giving up on the subject of educational elitism. Like many things, it's become so entrenched in society that there's no impetus whatsoever for change in a direction I'd consider positive. College graduates—as dumb as many are—are absolutely certain they're superior to the "great unwashed," and, rather than striving to prove them wrong, the "great unwashed" is beginning to adopt a position of stubborn, willful ignorance, reinforcing the point. To my dismay.
Fact: You are not better than me because you have a degree.
Fact: I am not better than you because I have no degree.
You may be better than me for other reasons.
I may be better than you for other reasons.
Aside from that, I give up. The world is foxed.
-Fox
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
TL;DR: correlation is not causation
But in all seriousness, the advantage that a college degree confers is documented proof that you can study well enough to get your the GPA you got in the field you studied
Tommay85
Well-Known Member
Meh, I've not seen a single correlation with most criteria under the sun that will indicate how one will be as an employee... Gut feeling has been the most successful for me so far. Obviously a mainline carrier doesn't have the time or resources to use that method...
College degree vs no college, criminal vs clean record, PIC vs no PIC time, high flight time vs low flight time. Oh and Metroliner time vs no Metroliner time.
All of those have shown, to me at least, to have absolutely ZERO objective substance (subjective reasoning is irrational at best and not backed by rational study) to a pilot's ability to pass training and more importantly, if they possess strong work ethic and not be a chode in the work environment.There is one tiny indication I've noticed though and that is whether or not one was a CFI before or not. CFIs will starve to death if they are jerks. They almost did or left aviation at that point when I was a CFI at least. Someone with a descent amount of dual given in a short amount of time has ALWAYS been top notch in the pilot group so far. Obviously I wouldn't turn away someone without a CFI. This is bottom barrel freight for gods sakes and I need beating hearts in airplane seats!!!
However, ever former CFI that I've worked with has been absolutely amazing as a colleague and as an employee. There has only been one person so far that wasn't a CFI and was just the WORST, and the group before me were all CFIs and almost destroyed the base entirely.So let me backpedal a little and say that I'm also irrationally using pre-conceived ideas with applicant screening I guess. Perhaps those other criteria that mainline carriers are using as a screening tool have similar statistics. At least at that particular employer or HR department as to what I think a CFI will bring to my base. I really can't disagree with their methods then...
ESPECIALLY since they have a MUCH bigger sample group to derive their standards from. Does it suck if you feel that you don't fall into statistical categories? Yep, but that's just the way it is.TL;DR maybe
Meet requirements, don't be a buttface, get jerb. Probably
Last edited: