parmandjack
New Member
Why?
Rumot mill running fast: New ASA mins come Jan 08
- Thread starter surreal1221
- Start date
- Status
Why?
bike21
9-5 Ruins Lives
Since I also have a background in construction, let me put it this way. Putting a 300 hour pilot on the right seat of a 121 operation with 19 - 80 people in the back is akin to putting a small town contractor in the role of project manager for a new skyscraper in NYC.
While the small town contractor is experienced/mature/smart etc, it doesn't mean he is ready to take on such a huge project.
Can a 300 hour new hire handle the entire plane by himself if the Captain kicks the bucket during the flight? What if it is night time with thunderstorms with tops to FL400 ahead and you have less gas onboard than orginally planned and now the FA calls and tells you have a sick passenger? Would you want your family on that flight?
We don't 'build time' by flying 121. Just as a laborer doesn't take on a multi-million dollar project.
I hope that sheds some light.
parmandjack
New Member
I see what you're saying and I can appreciate your take on it.
...and don't think for a minute I disagree with any of the safety concerns you mention... in fact I even mentioned at the start here that I wouldn't be comfortable if I was a passenger flying with me as the low time FO...... but thats not the point....
It is my understanding that the FO is fully trained and qualified to the same level technically (barring experience of course) in flying the machine as the CA, should a situation arise, BEFORE they ever get the opportunity to fly it. However, Personal maturity levels and the ability to cope with stressful situations is not a given due to higher total time. Just ask the 18 year old military folks in the middle east sitting in a hide protecting civilians depending on them, while they are under fire...I wouldn't want my family there either, but that doesn't mean that the young soldier isn't as capable in protecting them as the vet... he just has less time in...
...and check out this quote from the US Centennial of Flight Commission, titled "Civilian Pilot Training Program (CPTP)"...
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, MS Sans Serif]"Following the precedent established by the Europeans, the CPTP was established as a civilian program but its potential for national defense was undisguised. The program started early in 1939, with the government paying for a 72-hour ground school course followed by 35 to 50 hours of flight instruction at facilities located near eleven colleges and universities. It was an unqualified success and provided a grand vision for its supporters—to greatly expand the nation's civilian pilot population by training thousands of college students to fly."... note the 35 - 50 hours of flight training, then these folks were considered competant and able to fly our skies and defend us if called upon...
[/FONT]As a further personal example... I managed to survive and safely land (on the runway directly behind me no-less) my Muskateer after an engine failure at roughly 900' AGL, on my second solo, just after departing the airport... I had maybe 20 hours TT, but a sufficient maturity level and ability to cope with pressure, and a competent CFI for those first 20 hours !:nana2: ... now while I realize that a Muskateer isn't an RJ, 20 hours TT also isn't 250 hours TT... what further ability would I have with a further 230 hours under my belt?
Anyway...My whole point is 2 pronged though. The employer should foot the bill for training new employees in their trade as a business expense before expecting to profit from your skills. Or, if training you from 0 time is not an option, then pay a hefty signing bonus (as I get in the IT world), to compensate me, or in this case the pilot, for the expenses I/he/she have incurred in gaining the level of experience that the airline is asking for. I've been around the block enough times in the blue collar world and the corporate world to know that if the airline mgmt thought they could get away with charging the pilots gas money or usage fees for the privilege of flying their machines while the airline earns a profit, they would... The ballsy-ness of some airlines in demanding a debt-bond be signed by the new-hire that they must pay if leaving prior to some arranged date, is proof of this. It is form of indentureship, which, if you look it up in the dictionary, is an apprenticeship agreement. Why does an employer feel that they should be compensated because the employee actually learned something while they were working for... and earning profit for the company, while in the employ of said company??? Please don't misunderstand MY level of understanding here.. this is commonplace... lawyers, doctors, dentists.. etc... the diff here though is quite often after paying for their training, these folks immediately open their own practice, or at least have that option... they are not then moving into poverty level paying positions, as pilots do, struggling to pay back the debts they incurred just to get started in the career they chose...
... Anyway, I don't want nor mean for this to degenerate in to an argument of any kind...while I agree with your safety comments, I just don't feel or like the idea that ANYONE should have to pay for the privilege of working and earning a living at a poverty level income for the first few years, while corporate management gouge millions for themselves in bonuses, at the expense of the very employees who actually own and utilize the very skill sets that the corp mgmt expect to utilize in order to profit from..... :banghead: I'm ex-military, ex-blue-collar, and now in mgmt in the corporate world... The only thing I paid for is my degree, and that out of my pocket, no gov't subsidies... the rest I've learned at my employers expense, and I've went to the highest bidder, after highest bidder...I've seen enough BS to fill a neighbourhood full of pools... I just think that this line of argument helps the corporations, as you are empowering them to continue the subjugation of the people in the field via low paychecks and bad (from what I hear on this board) working hours/conditions in numerous cases. I think the aviation unions are not pushing back hard enough, as the pilots holds the primary skills... but hey... my posting isn't going to change your mind, or the aviation industry, so lets just be pals
Two last point though, then I'll shut up, and give you the last word
...1- I've read that at one point in time, the airlines did in fact do the very thing I'm saying, is that not correct? If it is correct, then I wonder if the discontinuation of said practice was due to financial reasons in favour of the Corporations? Back in the day, corporations also fought against the formation of unions, because unions did away with the slave labour conditions the employers had created...why are we letting them slip back in time now?
2- and lastly, what about military pilots? - 0 TT and trained to fly what they fly, with so much resting on their shoulders? I could easily argue/reason that as they are getting a free ride on taxpayers money for a really cool and apparently much-sought-after job, not to mention a large paycheck in civilian life afterwards, that corporations should be doing the same thing, OR at the very least we require those competing for entry-level military pilots to also foot their own bills to meet a 500 or 1000 TT pre-req, for the same reasons you basically stated above, but with the additional responsibilities of nukes attached their planes... I could reason this, but I'm not going to, I'm just playing devils advocate now...
I think that at 250 hours TT (assuming all the requisite ratings, and a normal sane, rational mind with a responsible level of maturity), a person has proven their ability to fly, and their ability to learn, as the airline wouldn't hire them, or even consider hiring them at 250 hours TT, if they thought they would not be capable of success, nor ability to cope... I personally think you may be confusing ability, with personal preference...
And here is the second prong I mentioned...To be able to get in to the industry with such a low TT in my opinion, is great, as it balances your wants with mine...
Cheers
zmiller4
Well-Known Member
No offense, but at 250hrs and a commercial certificate a civilian pilot hasn't proven anything other than the ability to fly lazy 8's. (There is an enormous difference between military training and US civilian flight training, btw...they are not comparable.)
I made *so many* mistakes and learned so much between the time I had 250hrs and the time I got hired at an airline that the idea of having 250hr pilots in the cockpit makes me cringe.
It's the kind of thing where you don't know how little you know until you get more experience. It may feel like you'd be ready to hop in a jet with a wet commercial certificate, but no one belongs in an airliner with those hours. The idea that the first time someone gets paid to fly an airplane is with a bunch of people in the back is simply ridiculous.
sorrygottarunway
Well-Known Member
I got ticked the other day flying with a 300 hour pilot that pointed out something he thought I was doing wrong due to something he had heard said in training by an instructor. I first told him what was actually correct, but he still was determined and acted like I was being a jerk, "focusing on the little things!" I then showed him the book and still got the same attitude "man you guys are so anal up in the northeast."
HUH!? Me? Anal? (Max will probably chime in here LOL)
Seggy
Well-Known Member
If you don't do the 'little things' you will end up a burning hole into the ground. He needs a complete attitude adjustment.
parmandjack
New Member
No offense taken at all - its only my opinion, and I'm not dogmatic on it... and there is also no argument from me that there is always more to learn
Cheers.
CRJDriver
Well-Known Member
Minimums for Advanced Jet Training:
A multi-engine commercial instrument rating and completion of an advanced jet course is sufficient for an interview.
* No minimum flight time requirement
* Advanced Jet Training; includes:
o Transport Category Systems Training
o Level 5/6 Jet FTD or Category C/D Jet Full Motion Simulator
o Crew Concept Training
o FMS Training Preferred
o Glass Cockpit Preferred
o Crew Resource Management (CRM) Training
o Accelerated Jet Ground School
<--------
A multi-engine commercial instrument rating and completion of an advanced jet course is sufficient for an interview.
* No minimum flight time requirement
* Advanced Jet Training; includes:
o Transport Category Systems Training
o Level 5/6 Jet FTD or Category C/D Jet Full Motion Simulator
o Crew Concept Training
o FMS Training Preferred
o Glass Cockpit Preferred
o Crew Resource Management (CRM) Training
o Accelerated Jet Ground School
<--------
- Status