My current thoughts and options

I'm sorry, time in a logbook just doesn't equal good airmanship...it just doesn't.

How about in the military? How many hours do those pilots have in their logbooks prior to seeing the frontline?

How many 121 accidents have had pilots onboard with less than 1,500 hours? I'll give you a hint, in the last 15 years, only one had an FO who had less than 1,500.
 
candiddeck said:
I'm sorry, time in a logbook just doesn't equal good airmanship...it just doesn't.
Click to expand...

Programming a GPS or setting an auto pilot to fly an approach is not airmanship. A monkey can be trained to push buttons. Airmanship is having the experience to handle a situation where there is no step by step guide available in the QRH, say landing dead stick in the Hudson.
 
Matt13C said:
Programming a GPS or setting an auto pilot to fly an approach is not airmanship. A monkey can be trained to push buttons. Airmanship is having the experience to handle a situation where there is no step by step guide available in the QRH, say landing dead stick in the Hudson.
Click to expand...

Completely agree...who wouldn't? My point is the number of hours in the logbook does not correlate to airmanship. The evidence is overwhelming.
 
candiddeck said:
Completely agree...who wouldn't? My point is the number of hours in the logbook does not correlate to airmanship. The evidence is overwhelming.
Click to expand...

The study you are referencing and using as your proof of this however is not concerning airmanship, it is concerning teachability. Airline training does not teach airmanship, it teaches how to fly the airplane, their way, for a desired result time and time again...if A happens do 1,2 and 3 to correct. Airmanship is X happened...what do I do and having the ability(airmanship) to make it out.

You don't learn airmanship in a classroom or in a sim, you learn it in the air. More time in the air does not guarantee airmanship as there are certainly pilots who only do the bare minimum to get by putting little effort into honing the craft. However, for what I hope is most of us, when we are flying we are learning and storing every flights lessons for future use making us better, more competent, capable and knowledgeable pilots.
 
Guys I think that there is more to the aviation universities than just flying. Also there are more benefits than getting hired early. The academics, ground school and all the other classes help the pilot more than scanning through a Gleim book.
 
Matt13C said:
You don't learn airmanship in a classroom or in a sim, you learn it in the air.
Click to expand...

What about military pilots? A front line F-22 pilot will have about 270-290 hours in the logbook when they are turned loose. Does that pilot have enough "airmanship" to make good decisons? Why couldn't this be emulated in the civilian world?
 
aviatoralex said:
Guys I think that there is more to the aviation universities than just flying. Also there are more benefits than getting hired early. The academics, ground school and all the other classes help the pilot more than scanning through a Gleim book.
Click to expand...

You are correct, that's why Delta is moving ahead with their aviation college program (see the article listed above). Delta has stated that college-educated pilots from accredited aviation universities are more productive (less sick days, discipline) and less extra-training events. They claim they have 15 years of data to back this up.
 
candiddeck said:
What about military pilots? A front line F-22 pilot will have about 270-290 hours in the logbook when they are turned loose. Does that pilot have enough "airmanship" to make good decisons? Why couldn't this be emulated in the civilian world?
Click to expand...

Again, just like commercial pilots, military pilots are trained to do a job a specific way. They have extensive training and knowledge of their aircraft, its capabilities and its systems but that does not mean they have airmanship. The military would agree also, it was one of the reason for the creation of the Red Flag training exercise as their pilots survivability increased with the more combat missions they flew. It allows them to think and make decision in a combat like environment giving them experience to draw upon when in the real thing.

Hacker and the other military pilots on here could provide real insight into what its like as a new military pilot. However even Sully commented on the erosion of airmanship from the profession.
 
aviatoralex said:
Guys I think that there is more to the aviation universities than just flying. Also there are more benefits than getting hired early. The academics, ground school and all the other classes help the pilot more than scanning through a Gleim book.
Click to expand...
MOST places you go for an aviation degree are going to do more than just scan through a gleim book. the school I work for is not one of the BIG well known universities, and we cost a fraction of what the big ones do. All said and done our students are just as sharp in the airplane as someone from UND/ERAU. A Lazy-8 is a lazy-8 and regs are regs...it doesn't take 100k+ in debt to learn how to do either.
 
candiddeck said:
You are correct, that's why Delta is moving ahead with their aviation college program (see the article listed above). Delta has stated that college-educated pilots from accredited aviation universities are more productive (less sick days, discipline) and less extra-training events. They claim they have 15 years of data to back this up.
Click to expand...
I am forced to question the correlation between the two. Maybe they have a study but the conclusions may be derived from the wrong cause/effect scenario.
 
"What about military pilots? A front line F-22 pilot will have about 270-290 hours in the logbook when they are turned loose. Does that pilot have enough "airmanship" to make good decisons? Why couldn't this be emulated in the civilian world?"

It could be emulated in the civilian world but who's gonna pay a the cost? Well over a million to turn out a good pilot with low time. Not gonna happen with the airlines. So until then, time in the logbook equals competency in the civilian world. You can quote outliers that violate the rule but how many times has it been successful? I'll say enough of the time that there is no reason to mess with success.....
 
poser765 said:
MOST places you go for an aviation degree are going to do more than just scan through a gleim book. the school I work for is not one of the BIG well known universities, and we cost a fraction of what the big ones do. All said and done our students are just as sharp in the airplane as someone from UND/ERAU. A Lazy-8 is a lazy-8 and regs are regs...it doesn't take 100k+ in debt to learn how to do either.
Click to expand...

I would love to learn more about your university's aviation program. I will research it and definitely consider it :)
 
poser765 said:
I am forced to question the correlation between the two. Maybe they have a study but the conclusions may be derived from the wrong cause/effect scenario.
Click to expand...

It's their airline, they can hire who they want. A few weeks ago, Delta announced their new hiring program at the WATS/RATS conference (I listed a link above). They are moving forward with the program which involves the major aviation universities. You or I may not agree, but it doesn't matter, they won't ask us.

As far as questioning the correlation, they claim they are using a weighted regressionary model that has followed a cohort hired back in the late 80's, and then a cohort each major hiring class thereafter. They use a Ph.D group out of North Carolina that has since been hired at many of their regional affiliates. The stuff they are discussing is straight out of Freakonomics...they may be wrong as you suggest, but they have the momentum and they have shown ROI.
 
candiddeck said:
What about military pilots? A front line F-22 pilot will have about 270-290 hours in the logbook when they are turned loose. Does that pilot have enough "airmanship" to make good decisons? Why couldn't this be emulated in the civilian world?
Click to expand...

Two things:

1. A new Raptor pilot isn't 'turned loose' with a very long rope. He spends his first year (until 300-ish hours in type, about 500 hours total time) as a wingman, tied to the decisionmaking and judgment of his more experienced flight leader. During that time, he is essentially an 'apprentice', observing his lead's tactical and administrative decisions and giving him a framework within which to develop his own airmanship. Once it's his turn to upgrade to flight lead, he goes through a tightly controlled and rigorous program to learn how to actually be a lead.

2. Unfortunately, there is simply no equality between the intensity of a USAF pilot's first 200 hours of training and any civilian's first 200 hours of training. Although there are certainly a lot of civilian-trained guys who love to debate this point, I don't see how it's even arguable. I was civilian-trained (Part 141 and Part 61) before I joined the USAF, and nothing I'd experienced as a civilian pilot even approached what was expected in terms of student knowledge and performance in SUPT.

Side note: Although I can't do it this summer because I'm deployed, I will continue to offer any of you the opportunity to come on out to Vance AFB in OK to see the USAF's student training process in action, and you can assess for yourselves what the differences are.
 
candiddeck said:
Wrong or right, it may be that in the future the most inexpensive and fastest route to the airlines will be at public, not-for-profit universities (WMU, UND, Oklahoma, etc.).



Either way, the OP will probably start at a regional...I guess it's possible to jump from flight instructing or freight-hauling to the majors; but it is much more likely he would start at a regional. And if so, does he want to do that with 500-800 in his logbook, or 2500+ in it? Not sure how the later works.

.
Click to expand...


Precisely why I avoid flying on a regional as a pax if at all possible.
 
Matt13C said:
The study you are referencing and using as your proof of this however is not concerning airmanship, it is concerning teachability. Airline training does not teach airmanship, it teaches how to fly the airplane, their way, for a desired result time and time again...if A happens do 1,2 and 3 to correct. Airmanship is X happened...what do I do and having the ability(airmanship) to make it out.
Click to expand...

Important point that a lot of pilots fail to think about: airmanship is, in may ways, a completely different concept than the technical skill of flying an airplane.

Technical skills can be taught to a monkey -- how to take off, maneuver, and land. That monkey will never have 'airmanship', which is the aviation judgment and decisionmaking skills that are developed through experience.

Let's take the example of a major airline pilot who was a 737 FO and suddenly is able to bid 747 Captain. When he shows up to day 1 of training on the 747, he does NOT have the "technical skill" required to go fly it -- he must learn the systems, he must learn the airplane's characteristics in the simulator, he must learn that airplane's avionics. He DOES, however carry with him ALL of the "airmanship" he has developed over the years and hours he has been flying. Although he may not know HOW to accomplish a particular task in the Whale (yet), he certainly understands WHAT should be done because of that airmanship. If given a complex scenario, he has the airmanship to think of a safe and logical solution, although he may not have the technical expertise to execute that plan in the airplane he is upgrading to.

Airmanship skills largely transcend the technical stick-and-rudder skills (although certainly in the larger picture a good 'airman' has those technical skills as part of his 'airmanship'), which is why success in a regional airline's FO training program (which is largely a technical skill training program, and not an airmanship training program) is really not a relevant piece of evidence in this part of the discussion.
 
Hacker15e said:
Important point that a lot of pilots fail to think about: airmanship is, in may ways, a completely different concept than the technical skill of flying an airplane.
Click to expand...

Airmanship is mostly a relic. It just isn't supported by many newer civilian pilots. Look at any regional airline interview gouge, it isn't airmanship they're looking for... It's technical knowledge and CRM type stuff. This is what most schools teach directly towards: meeting the requirements and checking the boxes.
 
ryan1234 said:
Airmanship is mostly a relic. It just isn't supported by many newer civilian pilots. Look at any regional airline interview gouge, it isn't airmanship they're looking for... It's technical knowledge and CRM type stuff. This is what most schools teach directly towards: meeting the requirements and checking the boxes.
Click to expand...

Fortunately Uncle Sam's flight school still feels that airmanship is the cornerstone of actually being a pilot.

Real aviators always understand that they don't know everything, and should continually be seeking to improve their airmanship through new experiences. I like it when I hear airline pilots (both regional and major) who talk about the different types of flying they do on the side, especially when it's something completely different than straight-and-level-autopilot-on; soaring, or aerobatics, or formation, etc, because that's a pilot who is trying to make himself more rounded as an aviator and build that airmanship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top