Remember 3407 Project Strikes a Chord

F

Firebird2XC

Well-Known Member
Taken from another web forum:

Wow... Maybe they do care!
<hr style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> Back in in mid-May I sent a letter to both my Senators and my Congressman regarding the hot button issues for regional airline pilots. I focused my letter on fatigue, qualifications and pay using many of the topic points that FIREBIRD2XC has addressed on his web page Remember 3407 Project

I just received a call back from a senior staffer for one of the Senators I had written. She had a few follow-up questions to my letter and wanted to assure me that legislation is moving through the House and the Senate to address issues I had written about.

I have seen XXXXXXXXXX's posts alerting us to the need in the coming few weeks to take a few moments to contact our representatives. I want to encourage everyone to take that request seriously. It appears that somebody is finally listening and as the senior staffer said to me "We here all fly frequently, so this is an issue we all care about!"
 
Me too.

It's not about making noise.. it's about making sure the right people hear the noise you're making.

This time, perhaps, things will work out better.
 
#4. airline minums are based on supply and demand.

#5. you can wash out of 'pay-for-job' programs, i have seen it.

everything else is fine with me but us guys with low hours have no voice and i am personally living on less then a FO making $20k a year and im not building hours or traveling around the country. it is hard to find any job right now and especially if you have low hours. i dont know what raising the minum hours for getting a job will do other then push up total cost of training because you will have to hourbuild to get the same position with no more actual instruction.
 
OregonTrail said:
#4. airline minums are based on supply and demand.

#5. you can wash out of 'pay-for-job' programs, i have seen it.

everything else is fine with me but us guys with low hours have no voice and i am personally living on less then a FO making $20k a year and im not building hours or traveling around the country. it is hard to find any job right now and especially if you have low hours. i dont know what raising the minum hours for getting a job will do other then push up total cost of training because you will have to hourbuild to get the same position with no more actual instruction.
Click to expand...
I feel for your situation but getting to build time after only 300 hours and travel around the country is not what the regionals are for. Flying for an airline is a serious job and demands serious compensation but hey, I'll just settle for a livable wage to start (> $40K). I think there is a lot to be said for the traditional route of CFI'ing until 135 mins, then Cargo until 2500-3000 hours to start at a regional (granted I got on at Eagle with 1150/100).
 
subpilot said:
I feel for your situation but getting to build time after only 300 hours and travel around the country is not what the regionals are for. Flying for an airline is a serious job and demands serious compensation but hey, I'll just settle for a livable wage to start (> $40K). I think there is a lot to be said for the traditional route of CFI'ing until 135 mins, then Cargo until 2500-3000 hours to start at a regional (granted I got on at Eagle with 1150/100).
Click to expand...

Yeah i get what you are saying, i was just pointing out some of the perks of the job though, obviously it has its downfalls...fatigue low pay for actual hours put in, and the list goes on. I decided to go the cfi route for the experience and i would love to do frieght or regional. I dont just want to be a time builder cfi, i like to teach the subject and could be happy with making a career out of it. The point i am trying to make is that the first step in aviation is no doubt the first one any of us make, and making that harder... well is just harder :D
 
OregonTrail said:
i dont know what raising the minum hours for getting a job will do other then push up total cost of training because you will have to hourbuild to get the same position with no more actual instruction.
Click to expand...

Raising minimum qualifications is honestly the single most important thing we actually have a shot a changing right now. If you raise qualifications, the quality of the applicants will go up. If the quality and experience of the applicants go up, pay and work rules will go up.

You don't have to pay to "hourbuild" any more than you would if you got hired at 300 hrs. Find a job as a CFI, towing banners, fly the Grand Canyon, and work up to the new minimums. It may be frustrating to hear, but the recent ultra-low-time hiring was pretty much unprecedented in it's scope.
 
How many hours did Renslow and his FO have at the time of the accident? You're not likely to get any experience with IFR or icing conditions from towing banners, traffic watch ect.
 
Killtron2000 said:
How many hours did Renslow and his FO have at the time of the accident? You're not likely to get any experience with IFR or icing conditions from towing banners, traffic watch ect.
Click to expand...

That is honestly a problem. They *had* experience..... but we can spotlight that guys get hired (rightly or wrongly) with 250 hours or less (I was hired with 406 TT and no jet course).... the minimums to start should be up there at ATP mins.
 
cencal83406 said:
That is honestly a problem. They *had* experience..... but we can spotlight that guys get hired (rightly or wrongly) with 250 hours or less (I was hired with 406 TT and no jet course).... the minimums to start should be up there at ATP mins.
Click to expand...

I don't think a minimum hour requirment is a good idea though. I've flown with some ATPs who are lousy pilots and I've seen a lot of guys with less than 200 hours that are very good. I don't think total time says a whole lot about piloting skill and knowledge level.

I think a lot of people would decide against becoming a pilot if there was a high minimum giving the airlines less applicants to chose from and at the same time this would do nothing to stop people from buying their way into a job infact it would make it easier for them with less competition. In a way it would exaserbate the problem.
 
Killtron2000 said:
I don't think a minimum hour requirment is a good idea though. I've flown with some ATPs who are lousy pilots and I've seen a lot of guys with less than 200 hours that are very good. I don't think total time says a whole lot about piloting skill and knowledge level.

I think a lot of people would decide against becoming a pilot if there was a high minimum giving the airlines less applicants to chose from and at the same time this would do nothing to stop people from buying their way into a job infact it would make it easier for them with less competition. In a way it would exaserbate the problem.
Click to expand...

From a business standpoint though.... :D ..... would it not be better for a union and a company to establish a minimum hiring criteria.... both to help the company hire "better" pilots and for the union to help justify higher pay rates? In non-union industries there is most definitely "minimum" criteria with the exception that HR is human and they will look at resumés that have other strong areas. In general though, experience is a requirement at other sorts of employment opportunities.
 
cencal83406 said:
From a business standpoint though.... :D ..... would it not be better for a union and a company to establish a minimum hiring criteria.... both to help the company hire "better" pilots and for the union to help justify higher pay rates?
Click to expand...

Nice idea in principle, but I want you to do me a favor...

Take your idea, take the work company and insert "9E Management", rethink the idea with how they would butcher any agreement with the union, then resubmit...:D:D:D:D
 
cencal83406 said:
From a business standpoint though.... :D ..... would it not be better for a union and a company to establish a minimum hiring criteria.... both to help the company hire "better" pilots and for the union to help justify higher pay rates? In non-union industries there is most definitely "minimum" criteria with the exception that HR is human and they will look at resumés that have other strong areas. In general though, experience is a requirement at other sorts of employment opportunities.
Click to expand...
In my opinion the airlines do a very poor job evaluating candidates. The question they were were asking at colgan interviews last year were a joke because they were really really basic stuff. Hours can factor into it but they shouldn't be the biggest consideration IMHO.

If I was doing the hiring I would rather take the 300 hour pilot who knows every single chart symbol than the 1500 hour pilot who can't tell me the basic dimensions of a victor airway. I think the more applicants they have the tougher they can make the interview. I've also never understood why they evalute canidates in pairs on an unfamilar (unless you've bought the time) simulator. I think they would get a better idea of a pilots skill if they put them on something they should familiar with. No one can fly a jet simulator very well their first try and just because somebody might do ok their first try doesn't mean they are a displined pilot where as I think the qualities that make a good pilot would be more apparent if they were evaluated on something familiar.
 
Killtron2000 said:
If I was doing the hiring I would rather take the 300 hour pilot who knows every single chart symbol than the 1500 hour pilot who can't tell me the basic dimensions of a victor airway.
Click to expand...

So, you would take basically a wet commercial, no experience pilot over someone who might have more experience in real world IFR operations?:confused:

Killtron2000 said:
I think the more applicants they have the tougher they can make the interview.
Click to expand...

Tough interviews are running applicants through like cattle?? That is what happens when you have more applicants. There is limited interview time and you just basically brush the surface of what you can talk about. Fewer applicants means you can spend more time with each one and really get a good feel for them as a person and their experience level as a pilot.

Also, as far as putting them on something that is not familiar, you can see just how good they really are better than something that is familair. Think of it this way, you are able to evaluate just how quickly someone can adapt to a different situation/scenerio. Every airplane flies on the same basic principles... it is how you can apply those principles to different airframes and types that really shows your knowledge and understanding, not flying something you are familiar with.
 
ctab5060X said:
So, you would take basically a wet commercial, no experience pilot over someone who might have more experience in real world IFR operations?:confused:
Click to expand...
If the guy has plenty of hours and experience flying IFR and still misses a lot of questions about it and doesn't do well on a simulator of a plane he is familiar with I would say he is not someone I would want working for my airline.

ctab5060X said:
Tough interviews are running applicants through like cattle?? That is what happens when you have more applicants. There is limited interview time and you just basically brush the surface of what you can talk about. Fewer applicants means you can spend more time with each one and really get a good feel for them as a person and their experience level as a pilot.
Click to expand...
That's another area they could improve on. Doing a more thorough interview and evaluation of each candidate would be something I would do if I was incharge of it and was tasked with picking better pilots.
 
I really don't know the basic dimensions of a victor airway either, but I've got some Beech 1900 time (left and right seat), 727 engineer experience, MD-88/90 time, 737-200, 757-200/767-300 domestic (a little) and international (a lot), but if a company is going to pick a candidate that can quickly regurgitate exactly what useable range of a VORTAC is to fly a 1900 (which I'm typed in), good luck to 'em! :)
 
ctab5060X said:
Also, as far as putting them on something that is not familiar, you can see just how good they really are better than something that is familair. Think of it this way, you are able to evaluate just how quickly someone can adapt to a different situation/scenerio. Every airplane flies on the same basic principles... it is how you can apply those principles to different airframes and types that really shows your knowledge and understanding, not flying something you are familiar with.
Click to expand...
I think you can come up with difficult scenarios that will test your ability to adapt to a new situation on a familiar type of aircraft. An airplane you're familiar with put in a new chalenging situation is what you would see in real life right? I think they use jet simulators on interviews because they want someone who can learn to fly a jet in a very few number of hours which isn't the same as being a displined pilot IMHO.
 
Killtron2000 said:
If the guy has plenty of hours and experience flying IFR and still misses a lot of questions about it and doesn't do well on a simulator of a plane he is familiar with I would say he is not someone I would want working for my airline.
Click to expand...

You didn't say lots of questions, you only singled out one.

Not knowing the exact dimensions of a victor airway and missing a lot of questions are two totally different things.
 
ctab5060X said:
You didn't say lots of questions, you only singled out one.

Not knowing the exact dimensions of a victor airway and missing a lot of questions are two totally different things.
Click to expand...
I was using it as an example of something I thought was a basic question. I didn't mean to imply it should it all hinge on one question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top