I'm going to start taking bets....

Status
Not open for further replies.
zmiller4 said:
:rotfl:

I am the only one who finds it ironic that someone who calls themself "AmazingPilot" is lecturing someone about cockiness?

At least Seggy posts his name (and phone number, for that matter).
Click to expand...

All the good names like zmiller4 were already taken so I had to go with amazingpilot.
 
EatSleepFly said:
Do you even know what "safety" means?



Just because Mesa, et al, aren't piling airplanes into the ground left and right doesn't make them safe. Safety can be compromised LONG before any metal is bent. And if you think the FAA is out to promote safety by requiring 250 hours or whatever, you're way naive. The FAA does a piss poor job at promoting safety.
Click to expand...

The pilots I grew up around, the ones who defined "professional" to me, the people from the "old" days of former combat pilots with masters degrees and the ability to fly by the stars if necessary, seemed to define their role as a safety professional as reducing the exposure to risk. I don't remember any of them uttering anything remotely close to "margin of error" or "acceptable". These are things in the professional vocabulary of accountants and MBAs, not professional vanguards of safety and security in an already risky environment.

Is a 250hr pilot with a GED good enough for the FAA? Yes. Would an accountant or middle manager for an airline argue it is OK, as it is a lot less expensive to hire him and nobody really has been making airplanes into augers recently? Maybe. Would, should a current or future, respected aviation safety professional argue it is OK, with the undeniable knowledge risk is reduced with higher experience and training standards, argue it is OK? The answer to preserve lives and a profession I respect and care deeply for, is an unequivocal NO.
 
AmazingPilot said:
I also find him very cocky and arrogent thinking that it was okay for him to get hired at 600 hours, but those minimums are too low for the rest of the pilot population.
Click to expand...

Way wrong. He is implying that in 20/20 he might have rushed into his current position and he was in over his head. Luckily he was able to get his head above water and now he is telling us on the shores don't just jump in the deep end. I'm sure we can all relate to an experience we'd do over and wouldn't suggest. Just because you won't suggest something doesn't mean noone can do it. Hell, I don't suggest marriage:) .
 
AmazingPilot said:
All the good names like zmiller4 were already taken so I had to go with amazingpilot.
Click to expand...

And you wonder why you come off as argumentative?

I think it was clear, to all but a few, that Seggy's comments were meant to bring attention to a growing problem in the industry. Too bad the literal interpretation is all that some can see.
 
jtrain609 said:
I will ask again, how many 400 hour guys have you had sitting next to you at .80?

How about how many 180 hour guys you've had to teach how to fly a 7,000 lbs "light" twin?

Or a Beech 99?

It's not as rosy as you think, and if a guy can't hack a 99 then they got no business being in a jet.
Click to expand...

The answer is none, so far. I believe the time will come for me though.

I don't think it's rosy, have never said that. I have changed my view in recent years on just how much weight experience should be given vs. training. You can produce experienced pilots that are quite dangerous and inexperienced pilots that are quite safe. I concede the obvious that the best thing is an experienced, well-trained pilot.

I don't see the industry being able to provide that over the next several years. One of the things I found to be inconsistent with a safe cockpit was a captain who "knew" how dangerous I was based on my background or age.
 
Sprint100 said:
Way wrong. He is implying that in 20/20 he might have rushed into his current position and he was in over his head. Luckily he was able to get his head above water and now he is telling us on the shores don't just jump in the deep end. I'm sure we can all relate to an experience we'd do over and wouldn't suggest. Just because you won't suggest something doesn't mean noone can do it. Hell, I don't suggest marriage:) .
Click to expand...

Bingo. If I had been offered a job at 300-600 hours, I would have jumped on it. I would have still been in way over my head and a burden on my CA, but I would have taken the job out of not realizing that. When I was at 200 hours, I was a firm believer in the fact that you could take a 250 hour pilot, give him a CRJ course, and he'd be an asset on the flight deck. When I hit 250 hours and realized how much I DIDN'T know, I started to question that. When I started getting my CFI ratings, I changed my tune altogether based on the fact I realized not how much I knew already, but how much I DIDN'T know in terms of experience and decision making skills. I don't blame the guys taking the jobs with low time, I blame the system that's allowing it to happen. And it's a system driven purely by the bottom line. The pilot mill flight schools are churning out pilots with the ratings but not much in the way of experience so they can get the next guy with a SLM loan in to cash in. Airlines are hiring the low time guys b/c a) they'll stay FOs longer and won't jump ship for a while since they don't have the hours to go anywhere else and b) they'll take the crap wages more than someone with options. I guaran-damn-tee you that if wages came up at the regionals, the low time guys would have more competition on their hands. The career isn't as financially lucrative as it used to be, so people are bailing on it left and right to pursue things that pay more and have you home more. Put that financial security back in the equation, and those people would probably come back. I personally know 4 CAs at PCL off the top of my head that have left aviation altogether b/c it didn't pay as much as their side job and the schedule was getting so bad they spent fewer and fewer days at said side job. I know of two more that will probably be out of aviation by the end of the year for the same reasons.

Two years ago guys with 600 hours wouldn't get a second look from most places. Now that the wages haven't kept up with inflation, fewer people have started training for the airlines. This is what has the airlines lowering the bar, not a sudden "Hey! We should hire low time guys and give them a break!"
 
Ophir said:
And you wonder why you come off as argumentative?
Click to expand...

Actually I don't wonder why I come off as argumentive.
If you look back in this post you'll notice that I was the one that said I was argumentative.
I believe the exact quote was,
"Well I don't mean to come off as argumentitive..."

So I am openly admitting I may come off as argumentive, nothing to wonder about here. Just thought you would like me to clarify that for you.
 
AmazingPilot said:
Actually I don't wonder why I come off as argumentive.
If you look back in this post you'll notice that I was the one that said I was argumentative.
I believe the exact quote was,
"Well I don't mean to come off as argumentitive..."

So I am openly admitting I may come off as argumentive, nothing to wonder about here. Just thought you would like me to clarify that for you.
Click to expand...

Actually, saying that you didn't mean to come off as argumentative is saying that you didn't realize you were. If you don't realize you are being argumentative then you certainly couldn't have known it before hand. Just to clarify.

You're beginning to sound like Alberto Gonzales.
 
jtrain609 said:
You know a lot of time I feel this argument goes kinda like this:

"Well you know, you can't just use flight time as a measurement for how good of a pilot somebody will be in X aircraft. I mean look at Chicaga, he's a regional captain and doing just fine! He hasn't crashed a plane yet! It's obvious that flight time is not a good indicator of how well somebody will do in the cockpit."

All these people are looking for is the mere admission that flight time is not the only qualifier, and they're right from a technical sense, it's not. But you know what? It's still better than thinking everybody is a superstar.

Because listen guys, not every one of is going to be the Lebron James of flying. You ain't gonna get you're commercial and then have somebody say, "WOW! You're really hot ####! You NEED to come fly this airplane!" It doesn't work that way, and you guys have got to accept that you are simply not going to be up to speed with faster airplanes until you get some more serious time under your belt.

So you want an admission? There it is. You want reality, here it is; the MAJORITY of 500 hour pilots have no business being in jets. Do I fault them for taking the jobs? Not at all. Would I have taken those jobs? Of course. But ya'll have got to realize that as good of pilots are you think you are, you're most likely not up to the level you need to be at to safely operate a jet as a valued crew member. COULD you be? Yes, you might be. What are the chances?

Well how many Lebron James' are there out there, and what are the chances you're him? MOST people have to replace mad skills with hours in the logbook to keep them safe, it's just a fact of life that transcends flying and applies to most things in life.
Click to expand...

Wow...

Seriously good post Train.
 
PoH, ditto what Ophir says. We've got the high altitude charts within grabbing distance at all times, so it would take about 30 seconds to get a VOR frequency and get on course, but we generally don't fly with them out all the time. The FMS uses a lot more sources than one VOR to keep you on course
Click to expand...

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say we had them out on our lap, just up in the visor or within easy reach. We do get them out about every couple hundred miles on long legs. We tune in an active one, put it on number one. Tune the next into the number two, and have the third farthest one in the bottom of number two. I guess it just comes more out of a boredom thing.

I do realize the FMS's use more then one source. I was asking the question based on you mentioning the fact that they might fail.

Thanks for the replies, sorry to hijack.:)
 
Ophir said:
Actually, saying that you didn't mean to come off as argumentative is saying that you didn't realize you were. If you don't realize you are being argumentative then you certainly couldn't have known it before hand. Just to clarify.
Click to expand...

Exactly I didn't mean to come off as argumentative, but realize I was coming off as argumentative. Then I must have realized I was coming off as argumentative because I personally addressed the issue.
Now to timeline this whole thing out for you, when I initially posted in this thread I had no intention of addressing the thread in a argumentative fashion. That being said, however, I ended up having to take an offensive stance to make my point thus taking on an argumentative position.
Realizing this I addressed the point that I didn't mean, intend, plan, or forecast my attitude to be argumentative, but however it did. I take full credit for being argumentative, and I realize I am being argumentative right now.
However in responding to you posts, I know I am being argumentative at this point and DO MEAN to be.
So I am hoping this RE-CLARIFIES the entire situation for.
I know it may be confusing so take your time with it, I'd be more than happy to be of more assistance if you need it.
Thanks again for you concern.
 
AmazingPilot said:
Well i don't mean to come off as argumentative, but I do think people should be accountable for what they say.
Click to expand...

Nah, holding someone accountable for breaking the terms and conditions of the website is my job as the webmaster.

The problem is that apart from following the Colganites around the forum, we really have no idea who you are because you haven't spent the time in the forum to introduce or establish yourself. From what I read, you more or less joined the site and took an aggressive stance.

Once you get aggressive, people have no interest in what you're trying to say because people didn't choose jetcareers to fight about stuff none of us have control over, we're here because we're a community of people helping one another in real life, and secondarily members of an online community.

Come to a meet and greet and see what I'm talking about.
 
PositionAndHold said:
Sorry, I wasn't trying to say we had them out on our lap, just up in the visor or within easy reach. We do get them out about every couple hundred miles on long legs. We tune in an active one, put it on number one. Tune the next into the number two, and have the third farthest one in the bottom of number two. I guess it just comes more out of a boredom thing.

I do realize the FMS's use more then one source. I was asking the question based on you mentioning the fact that they might fail.

Thanks for the replies, sorry to hijack.:)
Click to expand...

About the same as me. I keep a 1" Jepp binder in the clipboard on the side. It's got all the plates for the hubs, the plates for the aiports I'm flying to that day and all my high altitude charts in it. That way, if the FMS DOES fail, I'm not rifiling through my flight kit looking for them. I think I stole that idea from either Captain Bob or Szluka. So far, the FMS has only failed on me twice.

As for boredom alleviation, I've been known to dial in NDBs and pull up the needle on my MFD just to watch it swing. That's pretty bad. :)
 
I really should have kept my mouth shut about the FMS stuff. Wouldn't you know it... I get a plane today with no FMS and no auto pilot. Green needle/hand flying 4 legs. I felt like a 1900 driver.

Highlight of the day was the last leg. PHL-DAY and somehow the gate agent let a REALLY drunk guy on. Our FA calls up as we are over PIT and tells us the guy is crawling down the aisle singing at the top of his lungs looking for his headphones (which are on his head). No diverts on the go home leg! It took me, the captain and two rampers to convince him to get off the airplane.
 
BobDDuck said:
I really should have kept my mouth shut about the FMS stuff. Wouldn't you know it... I get a plane today with no FMS and no auto pilot. Green needle/hand flying 4 legs. I felt like a 1900 driver.
Click to expand...

Did you have to stand at the bottom of the airstair door in negative 15 below zero windchills, a blizzard, and 19 passengers trickling out one by one? Then after the flight was over did you find two barf bags filled with a yellow liquid?

Then you could feel like a 1900 driver :D
 
Seggy said:
Did you have to stand at the bottom of the airstair door in negative 15 below zero windchills, a blizzard, and 19 passengers trickling out one by one? Then after the flight was over did you find two barf bags filled with a yellow liquid?
Click to expand...

A job fitting to your attitude.





Ah just messing...:laff:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top