Low Time Pilots

Dugie, kell, I'm tellin' ya, you're wasting your time. I've been down this road, and it's like beating your head against a wall. Logic and reason aren't going to do you a darn bit of good, because the problem isn't about logic, reason, data, or science. It's about "warm fuzzies" and "common sense" (which, as we all know, is what tells you the world is flat).

And of course, all your reason and logic will be met tooth and claw with anecdote and touchy-feely garbage to beat the band. It may even be suggested that your "rants would be better off in a new thread..." A thread entitled Low Time Pilots, perhaps?

Anyways, I give. I mean, how do you argue with people who think they know more than the FAA, the airlines themselves, and simple mathematical data combined? You don't: It's like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
 
If someone calls anyone "Experience Police" and the private message ends up in my bounced mail folder, I'm so posting it.
 
Capn
I am not really trying to change anyones mind, just putting out my personal point of view. We are all entitled to an opinion and having a discussion about it is a good thing. This is how we all evolve and grow (still waiting on my tail to come in).

I liken this train of thought to the hazing mentallity, and yes I was hazed big time in college. IF, you haven't gone through what someone else has gone through you are not worthy, any questioning of this train of thought is answered with the catch all, "When you get 'older' you will see..." I understand it, I really do, but I don't agree with, simple as that.
 
"I realize Don, you would probably not say this directly to somones face, but body language, side (not snide) comments, etc can leave that impression."

Not sure what your point is? I really do believe having more experience is better than having less. I also believe guys with super low time don't belong in airline cockpits, would tell that to anyones face. Do it all the time. I can have an opinion on this and still be a nice guy...really....

Seriously, it brings me back to the hope that those who have no problem with 250 F/O's get to fly with them all the time...enjoy. Not gonna be my problem.

"Dugie, kell, I'm tellin' ya, you're wasting your time"

Yes you are...but it's still fun.

"Logic and reason aren't going to do you a darn bit of good, because the problem isn't about logic, reason, data, or science"

Your only logic and science is that planes aren't falling out of the sky. My point is that a low time F/O is more work for the Capt and, at some level, the line in the sand is drawn too low (not sure where that line is but 250-300 hours isn't it). You don't need logic or science to come to that conclusion, in my view. You can bang your head against the wall or say I'm full of crap, but I've bet I've been flying 121 longer and you and Dugie put together, maybe even longer than you, Dugie, and Kell put together, so, I have no problem feeling strong in my convictions when logic and science can't prove the point either way. Maybe I'm wrong, show me your logic and science again?

"rants would be better off in a new thread..." A thread entitled Low Time Pilots, perhaps?"

My point is that your post, post #53 in this thread, was well written and thought out, though I disagree with parts of it. Had it been in a new thread, more people would see it. That's all.
 
"There shouldn't be a magic "line in the sand" where the angels descend and you're now okay to be a 121 pilot."

I get your point but you gotta draw the line somewhere. What happens when the training depts keep lowering their standards to keep the seats filled. You think the FAA is gonna give a rip? Not until there is a crash or two.

By the way, if you want to draw the line at 700 total/200 multi/and 500 in a variety of single engine, I'm cool with that. It's the varied experience that's valuable.
 
DE727, good stuff. You're entitled to your convictions, just as I'm entitled to mine, and you've made some very valid points.

I'd like to expound on what you and kell have suggested: While I am firm in my conviction that the level of safety a 121 pilot is capable of is not related to his total time, I will concede that of any given set of 250/100 hour pilot applicants versus any given set of 700/200 ones, you will have a higher rate of success (measured as percent successful completion of a rigorous 121 training cycle) in the higher time group.

And it's this, I believe, that we are really measuring when we look at hiring mins. Any good company should endeavor to hire applicants that will give them the greatest chance of success, as well as not waste money; not wash out of training. When the majors are hiring briskly, the regionals are unable to pick and choose from more qualified applicants because they're off to CAL and SWA and the like. When the majors are doing poorly, the regionals see a higher percentage of 2,500 hour guys, some with types, jet time, and prior 121 experience.

So what do we want from a new jet pilot? Essentially, to know thier ass from a hole in the wall. I was hired at ExpressJet, I had 1400 and 500, gobs of cross country and IMC, and a little jet time. The highest time guy in my class was ex-Pinnacle, had 4,000, and 121 time to beat the band. The lowest? Guy was 21 years old with 600 hours (nice kid though). Of all this experience, I would have to venture a guess that at the beginning of IOE, each of us was only slightly more able than any of the others to discern their ass from a hole in the wall. Six months later, we thought we were all sh't hot, even though I have since learned that I am not.

So while the new kids may not be quite as useful to the crew, I still don't think that usefulness is a factor of logbook time. As far as hiring goes, I'd agree with the 700/200 mins, but only from a standpoint of "percent chance of successfully knowing one's ass from a hole in the wall at the completion of the training cycle, and not washing out halfway through".
 
I may be misunderstanding Don as well, I am thinking he is using 250 hours as a catch all for people with less time than him????

I would argue that someone with 250 hours of actual time can make it through 121 training and be a good FO, but not everyone. This isn't because of some super pilot gene, some people can pick up on things faster than others. As CapnJim put it, it comes down to hiring a pool of applicants whos make up has the best chance of a high training completion rate.
 
Nah, Don is referring to the guys that come out of the Extreme Academy programs like GIA and MAPD with super low time. I got my CMEL with 260 hours, and it scared the crap out of that I could legally fly a King Air 90 by myself. I'd agree that someone with very little time outside of the training environment (like a majority of the MAPD/JetU guys) is gonna have a tough time in a crew environment in the 121 world. I don't care if your the world's best at stalls and steep turns, you'll only get to do those once or twice a year.

I used to be gung ho on MAPD, but there were several factors that steered me away from that route. Number one was being tied to one regional. Also, for the amount of money they charge for PACE, I could get all three of my CFI ratings and have $$$ left over. I don't regret the decision one bit. I learned SO much more instructing than I ever would have, and I'm glad the arena for that learning was instructing instead of being an FO. I doubt I would have known what the hell was going on much less had the time to absorb new information.

That being said, I made sure that not all of the time I got was spent tooling around in the pattern. I did a decent chunk of BFRs in a few different aircraft, I did a ferry job that about kicked my ass (SDL-GKY in a 172, through T-storms and picked up ice along the way), did a LOT of instrument training, wound up doing a lot of CFI-I and MEI training as well. Most of my ME time came from saving students from killing me, so that'll get you used to not only watching the plane, but the OTHER guy. If a CFI only sticks to what he's done in the past, he's not really preparing himself for the next jump.
 
I'm not a fan of GIA, or MAPD. . .much like many of us here. . . but I just got the impression that he was trying to imply all RJ right seaters as 250 hr individuals.
 
give it a rest noobs. i loaded up the comair scenario in flight sim 2k4 and i could take off just fine. i can also land a 747 in a hurricane at night with 3 engines failed. 2803TT (sim)

:nana2:
 
surreal1221 said:
I'm not a fan of GIA, or MAPD. . .much like many of us here. . . but I just got the impression that he was trying to imply all RJ right seaters as 250 hr individuals.
Click to expand...

"These are not the droids you are looking for"

Dang, that Jedi mind trick never works for me. :(
 
Are there any RJ first officers with 250 hours TT? I don't think so. There may be tprop FOs but I'd bet most of them are GIA. The lowest I've heard being hired is around 500 hours.
 
There were quite a few, but I'm not sure if there actually are now.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
That website is so stupid. "Build time in the right seat". Someone in the right seat is not there to build time, he or she should be a professional there to safely transport passengers.
Click to expand...
Yeah!! Like me!!
Now, of course, when I get to the left seat, I'll start building time again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top