Observations from an outsider

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I am unsure if you have any proof to support this..... I know of guys with 3500TT and their Turbine PIC who are now off to legacy carriers... Some of the best damn aviators out there..... Now they are flying the heavy metal after they got their upgrades at regionals.... They never once had an accident, report or complain of anything questionable.... Just seems like a far fetch assumption and we all know what happens when you assume.

And what vast experience do you have at the airlines to make a determination as to what is an appropriate level of experience to be a Captain? I don't mean to be an ass, but it's somewhat presumptuous of a Cessna CFI to tell a few airline guys that they're off base about what qualifications an airline Captain should have.

 

[SmoothLanderJ]

Really who do these first officers think they are, they need to earn it. These guys come along and immediately all the pay increases that the pilots received in the last few years stopped.

And all these guys are going to expensive schools and having their parents pay, I wonder why Sallie Mae even continue to advertise in these schools because everybody knows none of these guys are actually paying for it themself.

Well, I go to a pretty expensive university with a flight program and no one but me is paying for it. Thank god for Sallie Mae for the loans I was able to get to cover flight and extra costs even though I had financial assistance from playing basketball here.

Trust me, everyone doesn't have parents that can afford to pay for school. I certainly don't. How do you determine if someone has earned "IT"? I may not have as much flight time as the next guy or got "their" the exact same way as someone before, but that doesn't mean myself or anyone else that goes to a particular (expensive) school isn't working their A$$ off trying to achieve their goals. I know I am.........

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

However many of those who are commenting are lower guys themselves who were a Cessna pilot all of 1-2 years ago and have little time.

And those guys are in the right seats of RJs, not the command seat. Big difference. There's nothing wrong with being a low-time pilot. There is something wrong with being a low-time Captain.

 

[jtrain609]

And what vast experience do you have at the airlines to make a determination as to what is an appropriate level of experience to be a Captain? I don't mean to be an ass, but it's somewhat presumptuous of a Cessna CFI to tell a few airline guys that they're off base about what qualifications an airline Captain should have.

Hold on there partner, there's no reason to go after the throat. It's better to educate guys instead of being a horses ass to the youngin's. After he gets outta OE he'll understand what we're talking about, understand the mistake and be on our side of the argument. If you ostracize him now, he'll just think you're a prick and never listen to what you have to say.

 

[wheelsup]

You're aware you just tied bad luck and high time pilots together, right? That would be a spurious statement at the very best.

Of course, that was the point. Low time CA's can have bad luck too.

There's just no way to quantify what you are suggesting...it sounds good on paper though.

 

[depot_jr]

"Inferior instruction? How do you figure.... Again an assumption and horrible one if that.... To say places such as an academy have inferior instruction blows my mind. The guy at the FBO who is a new instructor is a new instructor. Instructors are only as good as their experience and willingess to learn and do a good job by putting in hard work..... Just b/c a CFI is instructing at a DCA or a RIddle or a ATP FALCON Skymates Ariben doesnt make them any less of an instructor......"
__________________
Paul
CFI/CFII/MEI


I know I don't have anywhere near the experience in flying an aircraft as most of you here. My personal experience with flight school CFIs vs. FBO CFIs is pretty clear cut. The FBO, of course, has many new instructors that are just looking for time building and will soon move on. There are also instructors that have been there a long time for a multitude of reasons. These guys often times have a ton of experience. Those are the guys that I think the "pilot schools" are sorely lacking. My experience with the big schools is they've got a ton of low time people. Who would you rather learn from? A guy with 250 hours or a guy with a thousand or two whose done this for a while? That said. Let's say I'm wrong and you're right about the CFIs at the big schools. Let's compare apples to apples. Good instructors from both. The same curriculum and a/c. But, one costs two to three times as much as the other. For me, it's a no brainer.

 

[jtrain609]

Of course, that was the point. Low time CA's can have bad luck too.

There's just no way to quantify what you are suggesting...it sounds good on paper though.

You may want to write a letter to the NTSB then, that way they can stop putting time and effort into changing the FAA rules and just issue one statement: "Stop crashing planes you jackholes."

 

[meyers9163]

And what vast experience do you have at the airlines to make a determination as to what is an appropriate level of experience to be a Captain? I don't mean to be an ass, but it's somewhat presumptuous of a Cessna CFI to tell a few airline guys that they're off base about what qualifications an airline Captain should have.

Oh no not a cessna guy..... Wrong plane by the way.....and no longer a cfi... anyways... Just showing cause and correlation.... If you cannot show me support for accidents or these guys with 3500 hours that this guy is talking about then you have no proof yourself.... In addition you said you might feel comfy with the 121 guys getting upgrade at 2500.... But again we already stated very FEW guys are upgraded at atp mins... And you mr airline pilot are the one who used the term of high performance airplane and I was just saying look up the definition so we dont get confused about what we are talking about. A jet being used as a high performance aircraft is rather interesting. Any how again as you have already said you have no issues with 9e's 2500 mentor thing as opposed to the guys with 1500 and upgrading (which RARELY happens). By the way JH and I talk all the time so I am just giving him crap ! But perhaps i need to explain myself to you !

 

[Dugie8]

Righto, but I was also WELL aware that 3,500 hours didn't make you Jesus in the cockpit.

I'm ultra low time, and I conduct my legs as such. I'm ultra conservative in how I'm flying my airplane right now, and that'll continue for a while.

Just because I'm a low timer myself does not mean that I can't say that we're lowering safety because of the lack of experience in the cockpit. I very much believe that we are.

John,

This attitude should NEVER change. What you see as "ultra" is being safe. Don't let Total Time and comfort lull you into complacency where you think you can start cutting corners or doing things a bit more "cowboyish". Not saying you would, making a point.

Flying conservative will keep you out of trouble, safe and legal. The extra minute or two you 'waste" will never be noticed nor missed.

 

[meyers9163]

And those guys are in the right seats of RJs, not the command seat. Big difference. There's nothing wrong with being a low-time pilot. There is something wrong with being a low-time Captain.

Then the argument should be with the FAA and the ATP mins being 1500?

 

[depot_jr]

"It is too bad you don't fly commercial anymore with your hundreds of hours in small single engine aircraft it would be great if you were available on the flight when the captain has to send the incompetent first officer (who has passed all FAA tests, all airline training) on a time out.

When I get on a regional flight now I always make sure I go up to the captain and let him know if anything happens with his first officer I can step in because of my extensive ms flight simulator time.

Really who do these first officers think they are, they need to earn it. These guys come along and immediately all the pay increases that the pilots received in the last few years stopped.

And all these guys are going to expensive schools and having their parents pay, I wonder why Sallie Mae even continue to advertise in these schools because everybody knows none of these guys are actually paying for it themself."


I love sarcasm. I use it myself....often. Do you think I touched a nerve here?

 

[jtrain609]

John,

This attitude should NEVER change. What you see as "ultra" is being safe. Don't let Total Time and comfort lull you into complacency where you think you can start cutting corners or doing things a bit more "cowboyish". Not saying you would, making a point.

Flying conservative will keep you out of trouble, safe and legal. The extra minute or two you 'waste" will never be noticed nor missed.

Point taken! I should have been more clear. I'm simply extending my approaches out further on visuals because I can't cut things in close very well yet (the sight picture isn't there yet), adding extra miles to my crossing restrictions so I don't blow through one, stuff like that. I'm not operating the aircraft at anywhere near it's full efficiency yet, I don't expect to for some time.

 

[meyers9163]

I know I don't have anywhere near the experience in flying an aircraft as most of you here. My personal experience with flight school CFIs vs. FBO CFIs is pretty clear cut. The FBO, of course, has many new instructors that are just looking for time building and will soon move on. There are also instructors that have been there a long time for a multitude of reasons. These guys often times have a ton of experience. Those are the guys that I think the "pilot schools" are sorely lacking. My experience with the big schools is they've got a ton of low time people. Who would you rather learn from? A guy with 250 hours or a guy with a thousand or two whose done this for a while? That said. Let's say I'm wrong and you're right about the CFIs at the big schools. Let's compare apples to apples. Good instructors from both. The same curriculum and a/c. But, one costs two to three times as much as the other. For me, it's a no brainer.[/QUOTE]

I can agree when it comes to cost.... There are TOO many ways out there to get your training (all of it) under 30k.....

 

[wheelsup]

You may want to write a letter to the NTSB then, that way they can stop putting time and effort into changing the FAA rules and just issue one statement: "Stop crashing planes you jackholes."

That one statement sums up exactly why they make those recommendations. It's to prevent airplanes from crashing. Why would I want them to stop making safety recommendations to the FAA?

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.

 

[jtrain609]

That one statement sums up exactly why they make those recommendations. It's to prevent airplanes from crashing. Why would I want them to stop making safety recommendations to the FAA?

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.

Check it out.

You're saying the best safety metric is to not crash airplanes. So I say why don't you just make all the rules say, "Don't crash airplanes." That should fix the problem of crashing airplanes right?

I say crashing airplanes is a process, so by cutting the crash off BEFORE it gets to the point of a crash increases safety. Your blanket statement of saying that the number of crashes equates to the amount of safety is an inaccurate one. Safety is how you approach a flight and how you execute a flight, not whether you land safely or not.

 

[wheelsup]

Check it out.

You're saying the best safety metric is to not crash airplanes.

Yes, it is the most quantifiable way to measure it currently.

So I say why don't you just make all the rules say, "Don't crash airplanes." That should fix the problem of crashing airplanes right?

Now you're just being stupid.

I say crashing airplanes is a process, so by cutting the crash off BEFORE it gets to the point of a crash increases safety.

OK outside of all the six sigma references, of course it is. The problem with that is there is just no way to correctly measure that.

When an entity (either a person, government, whomever) measures "safety", they do it based upon accidents and/or fatalities.

Here is a study by Boeing showing how "safe" flying is as a mode of transportation.

"Comparing the risk

In the United States, it's 22 times safer flying in a commercial jet than traveling by car, according to a 1993-95 study by the U.S. National Safety Council. The study compares accident fatalities per million passenger-miles traveled. The number of U.S. highway deaths in a typical six-month period -- about 21,000 -- roughly equals all commercial jet fatalities worldwide since the dawn of jet aviation four decades ago. In fact, fewer people have died in commercial airplane accidents in America over the past 60 years than are killed in U.S. auto accidents in a typical three-month period.
U.S. traffic accident fatalities in 2000 -- 41,800
Commercial airplane fatalities in 2000 -- 878"



Point being, measuring this way is the yardstick that safe vs. unsafe is measured. I'm sure there are better ways of doing it, yet they really aren't feasible on a large scale basis.

 

[jtrain609]

And there's where I disagree with you. I think that your argument is a slippery slope, because it allows us to degrade safety JUST to the point of killing people. You're measuring safety on an accidents per flight hour ratio, where I'd prefer to measure it on the nuances of the flight. Did the flight take off over weight? Not safe. Did the flight fly into a thunderstorm? Not safe. Did the pilots not run checklists? Not safe.

These are all quantifiable things that we can use to judge safety and I feel we're doing a disservice if we don't, because these quantifiable things give us focus points where we can decrease the risk of a crash.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Oh no not a cessna guy..... Wrong plane by the way.....and no longer a cfi... anyways... Just showing cause and correlation.... If you cannot show me support for accidents or these guys with 3500 hours that this guy is talking about then you have no proof yourself....

I don't want to wait for the planes to start falling out of the sky before I cry foul. That's the way the FAA works, and it usually results in lots of people dying before they finally institute the safety reforms that ALPA begged them for for years prior. Read Flying the Line and you'll get an idea about what I'm talking about.

And you mr airline pilot are the one who used the term of high performance airplane and I was just saying look up the definition so we dont get confused about what we are talking about. A jet being used as a high performance aircraft is rather interesting.

I know lots of pilots who log jet time as high performance. Technically correct? Probably not, but you could argue both ways. In any case, my point wasn't about technical definitions, my point was about the fact that everyone knows that a jet is a "high performance" in terms of airspeeds, climb rates, etc...

Any how again as you have already said you have no issues with 9e's 2500 mentor thing as opposed to the guys with 1500 and upgrading (which RARELY happens).

Whoa, hold up! I never said that I agree with Pinnacle's mentor program. As a union rep, I protested that program like crazy before I left Pinnacle. I thought it was a huge mistake, and I wanted to keep the upgrade requirements at 3500/3000. I merely said that 2500 hours, under the right circumstances, might be acceptable. Under the circumstances that Pinnacle is doing it, it is not.

 

[meyers9163]

I don't want to wait for the planes to start falling out of the sky before I cry foul. That's the way the FAA works, and it usually results in lots of people dying before they finally institute the safety reforms that ALPA begged them for for years prior. Read Flying the Line and you'll get an idea about what I'm talking about.

Will look for a copy... Mad props on the work... Just think the arguement should also be with the FAA to change the requirements for an ATP perhaps?

Ok I will admit this was me being a smart you know what (its all JH's fault)

might[/B] be acceptable. Under the circumstances that Pinnacle is doing it, it is not.

Ah, I re read and see what you typed.... Again the arguement perhaps should be at the faa rule of 1500? Or perhaps change the rule for Jet airplanes with certain amount of pax?

Also check your pM!

 

[wheelsup]

where I'd prefer to measure it on the nuances of the flight.

Here, I'll ask this again (you avoided it the first time, and the second time):

How would you measure this on a large scale basis? It would be almost impossible. That's why I don't like it.