ready2fly
Well-Known Member
Wow. Sensitive?
Dude, seriously, I meant nothing sarcastic by my response. I was affirming what you said, but you're obviously on the defensive.
Geezus!
More disgusting 3407 cartoons
- Thread starter SpiraMirabilis
- Start date
Dude, seriously, I meant nothing sarcastic by my response. I was affirming what you said, but you're obviously on the defensive.
Geezus!
granlistillo
Well-Known Member
It looks exactly like him on purpose. That is what is so mean spirited and personal about it. The man had kids...
Trip7
Well-Known Member
Devil's Advocate:
At new hire ground school here at ASA the welcome letter stated statistically 135 pilots had the toughest time making the transition to 121. Any theories?
ctab5060X
Well-Known Member
What part of 121?
Training? The airplane itself? Rules and regulations?
Also, how long did they fly 135? Six month? Year? Two years?
Reason I ask all this is I thought the transition was overall fairly straight forward. Didn't really have any major problems. Curious as to the individuals that make up the statistics.
JoelT
Well-Known Member
Brain dumping 135 stuff and replacing 121 stuff? I've been at four airlines and I have a hard enough time keeping everything straight.
Trip7
Well-Known Member
It didn't say a part specifically but I believe they were talking about the flight training part of operating in a crew environment. One of my classmates was a 135 King Air pilot and during training he said he was having a tough time learning the jet. Said he was so used to doing everything himself.
ctab5060X
Well-Known Member
I can see the issue with the crew environment, and being used to doing everything themselves. I flew in a semi-crew environment before going to 135, so I didn't have any problems picking up on that part of 121.
ZapBrannigan
If it ain’t a Boeing, I’m not going. No choice.
Doubt it. Tell that to the many, many military pilots of single pilot jets who did just fine transitioning to a crew environment.
I am amazed that ASA would insult its new pilots by making such a statement in its "Welcome" letter. But, I'll take your word for it. Perhaps low timers have an easier time completing training because they're accustomed to being a part of that training pipeline (whether giving or receiving). They are a sponge and would easily adapt to learning just another set of standard callouts and procedures.
Nonetheless, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that a 300 or 400 hour CFI is better prepared to act as an integral part of the cockpit crew than a 1500+ hour freight pilot who has real world experience flying within the IFR system, to busy airports, at night, and in all kinds of weather.
I'm sorry if it appears as though i'm attacking the path that led you to your seat... I'm not. As a Captain my comfort level is much higher with a newbie who only has to become accustomed to the airplane and not potentially their first exposure to "actual" IFR. They're at home flying approaches to minimums and operating seamlessly in IFR.
I am amazed that ASA would insult its new pilots by making such a statement in its "Welcome" letter. But, I'll take your word for it. Perhaps low timers have an easier time completing training because they're accustomed to being a part of that training pipeline (whether giving or receiving). They are a sponge and would easily adapt to learning just another set of standard callouts and procedures.
Nonetheless, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that a 300 or 400 hour CFI is better prepared to act as an integral part of the cockpit crew than a 1500+ hour freight pilot who has real world experience flying within the IFR system, to busy airports, at night, and in all kinds of weather.
I'm sorry if it appears as though i'm attacking the path that led you to your seat... I'm not. As a Captain my comfort level is much higher with a newbie who only has to become accustomed to the airplane and not potentially their first exposure to "actual" IFR. They're at home flying approaches to minimums and operating seamlessly in IFR.
KLB
Well-Known Member
I only know of one guy from my company who washed out of 121 training. I don't know anything about his flying skills or anything, but I can tell you that he was a 1900 driver that flew the same 45 minute leg back and forward for years and nothing else. To add to that he was training in one of the toughest aircraft to fly in the MD80. I heard that his flying skills weren't up to par.
He is the only guy that I have heard of that washed of any type of training of the many that have moved on from the company in the 2.5 years that I have been here! Mainline, regional, corporate, fractional, and you name it! And thats telling you something when I started out as 205 on the seniority list and now I'm in the low 80's!
He is the only guy that I have heard of that washed of any type of training of the many that have moved on from the company in the 2.5 years that I have been here! Mainline, regional, corporate, fractional, and you name it! And thats telling you something when I started out as 205 on the seniority list and now I'm in the low 80's!
ready2fly
Well-Known Member
One of my best friends whom I met at the Eagle interview and subsequently roomed with during training, was also one of our higher time new-hires at the time. He came from the Part 135 world.
I can tell you that his aeronautical knowledge far surpassed mine, and from the captains I know who flew with him (before he left to fly for a frac), he is a very, very good stick.
He did, however, struggle with the sim, but that was more on a personal/stress level than it was his background in Part 135.
He just got his second type-rating two weeks ago, and suffered the same anxiety he experienced at Eagle.
That said: From my experience, the Part 135 guys whom I currently fly with are very good sticks and didn't exhibit any of the transition problems being discussed here.
I can tell you that his aeronautical knowledge far surpassed mine, and from the captains I know who flew with him (before he left to fly for a frac), he is a very, very good stick.
He did, however, struggle with the sim, but that was more on a personal/stress level than it was his background in Part 135.
He just got his second type-rating two weeks ago, and suffered the same anxiety he experienced at Eagle.
That said: From my experience, the Part 135 guys whom I currently fly with are very good sticks and didn't exhibit any of the transition problems being discussed here.
Screaming_Emu
Well-Known Member
I was in Trip7's newhire class and it was indeed there.
The MD80 is certainly not a tough airplane to fly. This guy may have had other issues but the MD80 being tough to fly could not possibly have been one of them.
Zap,
Flew with guys from/of every ilk and stripe. The single seat guys had no more trouble than guys from multi-crew airplanes (Part 135 guys were no worse/no better than anyone else).
I'll give you the secret to success but don't tell anyone: "Attitude is not just one factor; it's the ONLY factor.
My favorite guys to fly with ? The late 40s, early-to-mid 50s. Grown ups...nothing left to prove...did their homework...been there/done that...glad to be where they were now...came to work to make a contribution/play by the rules...no John Wayne...pros.
Depends on the perspective. It's a very busy airplane, weird automation and flies, at least in my opinion, a lot more like a turboprop than a jet -- two handed, put it where it's got to go and you really can't "baby" it.
Certainly a man's airplane!
CrippleHawk
Well-Known Member
Depends on the perspective. It's a very busy airplane, weird automation and flies, at least in my opinion, a lot more like a turboprop than a jet -- two handed, put it where it's got to go and you really can't "baby" it.
Certainly a man's airplane!
I have heard some pilots in AA that love flying the MD-80.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
:laff::laff::laff:
Well, my perspective is 6000 hours in the airplane. And, you can baby it.
If one found the airplane had to be muscled around, he was doing something wrong.
Was the airplane "...weird..." ? Well, that is a matter of "perspective". They took the DC9, improved somethings and messed up a few others.
Dial-a-flap...two-position slats...stick pusher...ARTS...bitshin' Betty??? Yep...mistakes...unnecessary complications.
Still the best electrical, hydraulic, pressurization and flight control systems you could hope for. Simple is good because operating complicated systems doesn't get you into Heaven. It just tortures you on the way there.
Anyone who couldn't learn to speak MD80 was just in the wrong line of work.
Oh, snap!
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
I've been up front in the MD-80 a few times. Seen various crews operate under stress, even. Once saw a Captain take it inside the marker and make that landing happen most ricki-tick because of an onboard medical emergency.
Ultimately, the MD-80 might have atypical automation or systems, but it really all comes down to the crew on board.
Are you master of your vessel?
A good pilot always is.
The complexity of the MD-80 compared to some of the more 'optimized' aircraft does not relieve the pilot at all of his or her ultimate responsibility.
Frankly, sometimes I think such an aircraft is a good thing. It reminds a pilot of who must really master the craft. Them, or the software logic.
Ultimately, the MD-80 might have atypical automation or systems, but it really all comes down to the crew on board.
Are you master of your vessel?
A good pilot always is.
The complexity of the MD-80 compared to some of the more 'optimized' aircraft does not relieve the pilot at all of his or her ultimate responsibility.
Frankly, sometimes I think such an aircraft is a good thing. It reminds a pilot of who must really master the craft. Them, or the software logic.