Check it out folks.
If you need an RJ course to get through airline ground school, you do not belong at an airline flying an RJ.
It's that simple.
It might not be what you want to hear, but it's true.
Pan Am Academy has a regional jet program that's something like $3k or $4k, can't remember.
A good RJ/CRM course introduces you too:
- CRM techniques
- 121 ops
- standard callouts
- weather flying (really bad wx)
- handling emergencies
From a business standpoint, I would imagine that those with an RJ course have a higher success rate in initial training than those without (assuming roughly similar flight experience). It makes sense then that an airline would look highly upon this - it's a simple cost/probability function. My point is, if that's what an airline wants to see, then why not?
In your situation, i would not do a rj course on an interview "offer", nor would I buy 90 hrs for a chance to interview.So I got the call today from ASA, was told they want me and will offer me an interview but I need either 90 more hours (to reach 500TT) or a RJ transition course. I'm instructing in NE Ohio, the weather is getting crappy and the hours (and my pay) are diminishing. Ideas, thoughts, help.
Please don't make this into a "let me preach my philosophy" thread. Keep that in the Lav. Thanks:nana2:
Take the RJ course - it will increase your odds of making it through training successfully. It's not a PFJ type of deal, they just want you to have more hours: either X hours of actual flight time, or Y hours of RJ training.
Plus flying the RJ simulator is safer.![]()
"now you bitch about a program designed to make them a better FO...I just don't get it."
RJ courses don't make you a better F/O. For one, they make the odds better that you won't fail out of 121 ground school. My take on that is 121 ground school can be a way to weed out some of those who maybe shouldn't be in the profession to begin with. It's not all that hard if you pay attention and have a good attitude. The other thing is, the RJ sim time will give you a good introduction to an RJ sim. That's great. Better chance you'll get through the sim. But, trust me, that won't make you a better F/O. The more experience a guy has as a pilot, the better F/O he'll make.
I don't think it's a matter of people needing it - check this ...
Say I have a MCPL with 250 hours total time. A regional airline tells me that I really need an extra 100 hours to interview, but in lieu of that, I can take an RJ course and be invited for an interview. So I've got three options
One: Get my CFI (around $3k plus a couple months of training) and do that for a few months to get the extra 100 hours
Two: Pay for the extra 100 hours at a cost of $7,500-$10,000
Three: Take the RJ course ($4k), be done with it in two weeks, and increase my likelihood that I'll successfully finish that airline's training program.
To each his own, I wouldn't say any option is better than the others, but it's all up to the person. For me, if my goal was to make it to a regional, I'd take the RJ course. Not because I need to, but because it gets me to my goal quicker (without having to PFJ)
From a business standpoint, I would imagine that those with an RJ course have a higher success rate in initial training than those without (assuming roughly similar flight experience). It makes sense then that an airline would look highly upon this - it's a simple cost/probability function. My point is, if that's what an airline wants to see, then why not?
I think you may be looking at this from the perspective of it being the equliviant of some graduate credits, or possibly a professional certification, but it's not. It's really nothing more than snake oil. Or am I reading you wrong?
Further, if you want to approach this from a Machiavellian standpoint your argument may have some merit, but it concerns me we're not talking about the educational aspects involved here. The RJ course will most likely advance your skills and experience a net total of zero, where an extra 100 hours ESPECIALLY when you're low time is a HUGE impact. It's hard to see that when you're sitting there at 250 hours, but those first few hundred hours of dual given necessitate one of the steepest learning curves in your aviation career.
So do we want about making good pilots, or do we want to talk about minimum standards for the guys up front when your wife is riding in back?
And I've got some helpful hints for how to ace training:
-Listen
-Pay attention
-Don't be a •
-Don't mouth off
-Don't suck
-When you DO suck, correct your mistakes and most importantly...
-Have a good attitude
If you do all that, I can assure you that you'll make it through school. Now you didn't need to pay somebody $4,000 to prep you to do all that, it's the same way you got through graduate school.
Sorry for the double post people.
This is the problem right here. You're right. It's great for you. It's great for the airline. The only person it sucks for is the captain you have to fly with when you divert for the first time or some other nonstandard procedure comes up.
All that said, it's up to each person. There really aren't many who can say they didn't jump at their first chance to get on flying the big planes, but there are many people who want to make sure they at least have some of the experience they will need when they get out on the line.
121 ground school is not as bad as people make it out to be. The problem is not the complexity of the stuff you're dealing with, but instead the gauge of material you're required to shove down your throat. The material itself is easy, to be real honest with you, but the amount of it that they throw at you is the challanging part. If you think that the actual material is hard, well....
(By the way, this isn't a slam on Bike at all. Just playing Devil's Advocate.)
Most excellent. Unfortunately some folks don't get that during their training.I learned CRM and multi crew stuff through out my training from pretty much day one. Even beyond the ATP stuff they had us doing. Same thing with standard call outs. From day one of my PPL my CFI had me making standard call outs.
Agreed. However, my point wasn't 'real' weather flying it was 'really bad wx flying'. Stuff that you can't duplicate safely in the real world and make the students do diversions and decision making. Basically choosing between several bad options.Real weather flying? In a sim? I don't think so. Go instruct somewhere where thunderstorms can pop up or where it's always foggy or where you have ice and you will see 10x more weather then a sim can throw at you. And the best part? It's real. If you make a bad decision, you die.
Yep, you had some great (crazy) experiences. Problem is some folks never see so much as a bald spotted tire during training. Similar to the wx flying in the sim, you can do multiple emergencies and really bad scenario training in the sim safely.And emergencies? Sure, I never saw a V1 cut before I got in the sim here, but I sure as hell had my student kill the right after I had already failed the left. I had a student stamp on the wrong rudder at 300 feet climbing out simulated single engine. I had an engine explode (for real) turning cross wind. I had smoke in the cockpit once too. I think I'll take me "real life" emergency stuff over sim based ones any day thank you very much.
...121 ground won't be any big deal to you. If you're a hack on the other hand, it might be a handful.