pilot602
If specified, this will replace the title that
[ QUOTE ]
In response to several of the topics in this forum...
It seems that the true focus of these forums is often lost as each poster simply defends his/her flight training, number of hours, and opinions regarding "acceptable mins" to the death.
My response to why the Pinnacle pilot crashed is simple and concise: THEY USED POOR JUDGEMENT. It does not matter if you are a 300hr F.O. out of a direct track program or a 10,000hr Capt with tons of 135 night IFR cross-country time...anyone acting without common sense (i.e. "hot-dogging" or "been-there-done-that" syndrome) can wreck an aircraft. The questions being asked should not focus on whether or not they had enough time or experience, but whether these gentleman had the common sense and quality decision-making skills to be flying any aircraft, much less a jet. I have personally known excellent pilots (such as those in this forum) that occasionally "check their brain at the door" and make a poor choice. It happens...regardless of the amount of experience. None of us are immune to foolish mistakes. I think there are some people on these forums that feel it is their mission to save the aviation world from "low-timers" by preaching the arcane concept of "paying dues". I respect those of you that were long-time CFI's, 135 frieghter pilots, banner-towers, etc. But I would gladly choose to have a motivated, disciplined, well-studied, and quality-trained "low-time" F.O. sitting in my right seat any day rather than the average joe pilot who "paid his dues". Experience is great, but at what point should we consider work ethic, aircraft knowledge, breeding (i.e. quality of flight training), intensity of effort in regards to being prepared, and, let me not forget, even a little of that "natural stick" ability over "BUT HEY, HE's GOT EXPERIENCE".
I must also include my father's opinion as he is the best pilot I know
Yes...I am a little biased. But, his credentials speak for themselves:
3,000hrs in military transports; 24,000 or so hours with United (yes the pension thing sux)...and plenty of G.A. flying through the years. I cannot have enough respect for his opinion as an aviation professional and because of the fact that he has always been straight with me regarding the pursuit of my aviation career goals. He has told me many times that his personal favorite thing in an F.O. is a military background. In terms of the civilian world, however, he would much prefer a graduate from a top flight school (his recommendation and the one I attended was FlightSafety...I am not saying this to draw comments/anger, simply to inform), who is "sharp" (i.e. displays a willingness to learn, adapt, and improvise...not just a person who can read detailed 141 checklists), and shows up to the gate PREPARED TO FLY THE JET (meaning not just a guy who passed airlines indoc training. He always taught me to grow beyond just the curriculum of whatever flightschool/indoc. you are attending (FBO, F.S.I., CRJ ground school, whatever).
My apologies...this isn't supposed to be a rant. I just feel like we, as pilots and/or "experienced" pilots, are focusing too much on numbers and abstract words like "experience" rather than "who IS the guy sitting in the right seat next to me?"
I'll bet some of the 600hr fighter pilots in these forums don't want to read that the only good jet pilots are those with 2,000 hrs.
With respect,
Check_Six
[/ QUOTE ]
So how many hours do you have? What have you flown? And my father has 24,000+ hours as well ... flying things from DC-3s to DC-9s and 300 hour pilots scare the hell out of him so while it's all great and well that your father has so much experience you can't honeslty believe a 300 hour pilot could replace him.
In fact if YOU didn't think experience didn't count for something you wouldnt have listed or called out the experience of your own father.
Sorry to come out swinging but there are some issues that need to be set in stone and this, I believe, is one of them.
I have just over 1,000 hours and just got hired to fly a Twin Otter. I think my experience matches the responsibilities and capabilities of the aircraft and of sitting right seat in a fixed gear twin that tops out at about 140kts. And if you'd care to argue that I'm not well studied or focused on my career because I went through Part 61 training and instructed for a year under 61 and 141 ... well ask anyone who knows me ...
experience can not be taught. Can trainig offset experience? In some cases yes but at the end of the day someone who has "been there done that" will more often do the right thing instead of the wrong thing. Because experience can hurt as well (habits, etc.) but most pilots are pretty safety minded. The ones who survive long enough surely are.
In response to several of the topics in this forum...
It seems that the true focus of these forums is often lost as each poster simply defends his/her flight training, number of hours, and opinions regarding "acceptable mins" to the death.
My response to why the Pinnacle pilot crashed is simple and concise: THEY USED POOR JUDGEMENT. It does not matter if you are a 300hr F.O. out of a direct track program or a 10,000hr Capt with tons of 135 night IFR cross-country time...anyone acting without common sense (i.e. "hot-dogging" or "been-there-done-that" syndrome) can wreck an aircraft. The questions being asked should not focus on whether or not they had enough time or experience, but whether these gentleman had the common sense and quality decision-making skills to be flying any aircraft, much less a jet. I have personally known excellent pilots (such as those in this forum) that occasionally "check their brain at the door" and make a poor choice. It happens...regardless of the amount of experience. None of us are immune to foolish mistakes. I think there are some people on these forums that feel it is their mission to save the aviation world from "low-timers" by preaching the arcane concept of "paying dues". I respect those of you that were long-time CFI's, 135 frieghter pilots, banner-towers, etc. But I would gladly choose to have a motivated, disciplined, well-studied, and quality-trained "low-time" F.O. sitting in my right seat any day rather than the average joe pilot who "paid his dues". Experience is great, but at what point should we consider work ethic, aircraft knowledge, breeding (i.e. quality of flight training), intensity of effort in regards to being prepared, and, let me not forget, even a little of that "natural stick" ability over "BUT HEY, HE's GOT EXPERIENCE".
I must also include my father's opinion as he is the best pilot I know
3,000hrs in military transports; 24,000 or so hours with United (yes the pension thing sux)...and plenty of G.A. flying through the years. I cannot have enough respect for his opinion as an aviation professional and because of the fact that he has always been straight with me regarding the pursuit of my aviation career goals. He has told me many times that his personal favorite thing in an F.O. is a military background. In terms of the civilian world, however, he would much prefer a graduate from a top flight school (his recommendation and the one I attended was FlightSafety...I am not saying this to draw comments/anger, simply to inform), who is "sharp" (i.e. displays a willingness to learn, adapt, and improvise...not just a person who can read detailed 141 checklists), and shows up to the gate PREPARED TO FLY THE JET (meaning not just a guy who passed airlines indoc training. He always taught me to grow beyond just the curriculum of whatever flightschool/indoc. you are attending (FBO, F.S.I., CRJ ground school, whatever).
My apologies...this isn't supposed to be a rant. I just feel like we, as pilots and/or "experienced" pilots, are focusing too much on numbers and abstract words like "experience" rather than "who IS the guy sitting in the right seat next to me?"
I'll bet some of the 600hr fighter pilots in these forums don't want to read that the only good jet pilots are those with 2,000 hrs.
With respect,
Check_Six
[/ QUOTE ]
So how many hours do you have? What have you flown? And my father has 24,000+ hours as well ... flying things from DC-3s to DC-9s and 300 hour pilots scare the hell out of him so while it's all great and well that your father has so much experience you can't honeslty believe a 300 hour pilot could replace him.
In fact if YOU didn't think experience didn't count for something you wouldnt have listed or called out the experience of your own father.
Sorry to come out swinging but there are some issues that need to be set in stone and this, I believe, is one of them.
I have just over 1,000 hours and just got hired to fly a Twin Otter. I think my experience matches the responsibilities and capabilities of the aircraft and of sitting right seat in a fixed gear twin that tops out at about 140kts. And if you'd care to argue that I'm not well studied or focused on my career because I went through Part 61 training and instructed for a year under 61 and 141 ... well ask anyone who knows me ...
experience can not be taught. Can trainig offset experience? In some cases yes but at the end of the day someone who has "been there done that" will more often do the right thing instead of the wrong thing. Because experience can hurt as well (habits, etc.) but most pilots are pretty safety minded. The ones who survive long enough surely are.
