Rumot mill running fast: New ASA mins come Jan 08

Status
Not open for further replies.
surreal1221 said:
The aforementioned liability and additional cost to those of us making a career change and trying to reduce any further additional cost aside. . .the reason I hate these courses is real simple. Usually the people (I won't call them pilots) that come through these types of courses, can't fly a single piston all to well anyway - why? Don't know, but they can't.

So, what do they do? They sign up for a "Get there quick" course, and they still can't fly a twin piston that is used to simulate RJ approach speeds.

It's just ridiculous. If you can't fly a light single piston, much less a light twin-piston that has FADEC, G1000, then you have no place (IMHO) in the right seat of a regional jet.

That simple. Don't complicate things. Work on your single / twin engine piston flying ability before you try to jump into an RJ transition course with the hopes of side stepping the fact that you suck at flying.

But hey - what do I know. . .the courses make a lot of schools, a lot of money. So, more power to the marketing gurus for this one. But, for those of us who strive to keep the profession honest and safe, these courses are a very very bad idea.
Click to expand...

......usually........profession and assumption rarely make the same sentence ie, "side stepping the fact that you suck at flying"

don't know of any piston twin that advertise itself with "RJ apprroach speeds"...enlighten me

this strikes me as festering mind rife with misknowledge----->familiar withe the term, "and a butterfly flaps its wings"?
 
On the Treo, so typing sucks.

But to elaborate on the flying a twin at RJ approach speeds is a technique a company I'm familiar with uses to demonstrate how quickly an ILS appch happens.

Example, light twin aircraft's normal appch speed is 90 with flaps TO. To demonstrate, approach is flown at 120-140KIAS.
 
directenterenter said:
Just curious...how many of ya'll that hate the RJ course's, have been through one of afore mentioned Rj course's. Just curious why they are so horrible and such a waste? Expierence lends itself to creditablity...
Click to expand...

I went through one. This was back in July 2004 after I had just finished instructing at DCA. They had just set up their own CRJ transition program with a week of ground school and 25 or so hours in a CRJ FTD. Since I had been instructing there for a while (since Aug. 2001, long before the idea of a jet transition course was even conceived), I didn't have to pay a penny for it. They even gave me a free place to stay while i was in Sanford for 2 weeks completing the course.

It was definitely a good prep for Regional training. However, it wasn't worth paying the several thousand dollar price tag that current students at the time (and today) were (and still are) paying for it. They didn't teach anything that a competent pilot with good instrument skills couldn't learn going in cold into regional airline training. I can't believe people are dropping in excess of $10,000 for these courses.

If you want my advice....go get a CFII. Teach a lot of instrument students for a few hundred hours. It's what I did, and I think it was the best prep I ever got for flying at the airlines. Much more so then any RJ course.

Oh, and as a side note, do the isntrument training in something with an ADF and a standard six pack setup. Like myself, you might unexpectedly find yourself training in an aircraft with no glass cockpit. Believe it or not, not all airliners flying around have fancy FMC's and MFDs.
 
ComplexHiAv8r said:
I have flown approaches at 130-135kts in the Cirrus, just need ALOT or runway for float. It does give a different view from the normal 85-90kts.
Click to expand...

Yup. That is what this company does. Low approaches only, and I think it's much better than being in an SFT3000 sim doing it.
 
chrisdahut1 said:
I went through one. This was back in July 2004 after I had just finished instructing at DCA. They had just set up their own CRJ transition program with a week of ground school and 25 or so hours in a CRJ FTD. Since I had been instructing there for a while (since Aug. 2001, long before the idea of a jet transition course was even conceived), I didn't have to pay a penny for it. They even gave me a free place to stay while i was in Sanford for 2 weeks completing the course.

It was definitely a good prep for Regional training. However, it wasn't worth paying the several thousand dollar price tag that current students at the time (and today) were (and still are) paying for it. They didn't teach anything that a competent pilot with good instrument skills couldn't learn going in cold into regional airline training. I can't believe people are dropping in excess of $10,000 for these courses.

If you want my advice....go get a CFII. Teach a lot of instrument students for a few hundred hours. It's what I did, and I think it was the best prep I ever got for flying at the airlines. Much more so then any RJ course.

Oh, and as a side note, do the isntrument training in something with an ADF and a standard six pack setup. Like myself, you might unexpectedly find yourself training in an aircraft with no glass cockpit. Believe it or not, not all airliners flying around have fancy FMC's and MFDs.
Click to expand...

I second that! Take chrisdahut's advice and don't waste your money. You don't need a Cirrus or an RJ "transition" course to get "Mad glass cockpit skillz".
 
Pilot877 said:
I second that! Take chrisdahut's advice and don't waste your money. You don't need a Cirrus or an RJ "transition" course to get "Mad glass cockpit skillz".
Click to expand...

And what would you recommend you get "Mad glass cockpit skillz" in?
I actually heard a recruiter recently indicate that they would prefer some glass time, believe it or not.
 
ComplexHiAv8r said:
And what would you recommend you get "Mad glass cockpit skillz" in?
I actually heard a recruiter recently indicate that they would prefer some glass time, believe it or not.
Click to expand...

Get it in a (expletive deleted) regional jet. Just don't drop $10,000 trying to get to one.
 
Pilot877 said:
Get it in a (expletive deleted) regional jet. Just don't drop $10,000 trying to get to one.
Click to expand...

I agree on not dropping the money, but I would get some glass time before going. Multiple times it has been mentioned that some pilots have had problems with everything else having glass first introduced in the RJ was NOT a good thing.
 
If you can't quickly adapt to flying on glass, then I don't want you flying an airliner. I did it, thousands of other pilots have done it, and you should be able to do it. Paying a crapload of money just to get "glass experience" is asinine.
 
PCL_128 said:
If you can't quickly adapt to flying on glass, then I don't want you flying an airliner. I did it, thousands of other pilots have done it, and you should be able to do it. Paying a crapload of money just to get "glass experience" is asinine.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying to pay a crapload, but it was mentioned on here that getting some experience was good. I tried to search, but not much luck, to find the thread I am thinking about. It basically was with everything else, some had done fine until they got to the glass and it was enough to effect. They still passed (atleast most) but it was mentioned that some would be better then none.
 
ComplexHiAv8r said:
I agree on not dropping the money, but I would get some glass time before going. Multiple times it has been mentioned that some pilots have had problems with everything else having glass first introduced in the RJ was NOT a good thing.
Click to expand...

And multiple times pilots have gone through RJ training with no glass experience and have done just fine. Pilot877 did. So did PCL_128. So did many other pilots on this board.

I stand by my earlier comments....if you have solid instrument skills and are a competent pilot, you will do fine. I'll also add though that I think that 250 or so TT hours and no instrument time outside of what you got in the instrument rating (being baby sat by a CFII) typically don't make for a solid grounding in instrument skills.

BTW...glass is easy. It's not the glass transition that murders some guys in training....it's trying to adapt to glass AND trying to improve their instrument skills to a a consistently good standard that airline training departments expect to see that does.
 
Another thing that is concerning are these very very inexperienced new hires able to think outside the box and problem solve with no experience to draw from.

I have heard horror stories from my friends that have had to babysit some of these PFT guys. They all say it would be easier to fly the plane single pilot and essentially do when the Sh$T hits the fan.

So examples are they cannot hand fly the plane. Constantly behind the plane when ATC picks up the pace. Do not know what to do if there is no specific checklist for a problem or if there is no published profile. One of the most scary things I heard was tha a new FO was completely fine stalling the plane out during a climb. The capt was forced to intervene when he say enough. What exactly are they teaching in the CRJ transition class?

I may be old school here: but an airliner isn't where you should be doing the bulk of your learning. Go be a CFII or fly freight first. I am very thankfull I did both and learned a ton as a CFII and even more flying single pilot IFR twins.

my .02
 
Here's what I don't get. If ASA is understaffed on the CRJ and extremely overstaffed on the ATR, and also getting rid of the ATR starting in July, why are they hiring into the ATR at all.....
 
Cjordan said:
The first number is total time, but what's the second number... is it total multi engine PIC time? And wouldn't they want the multi engine PIC time to be turbine instead of piston or do they care?

I find it incredible that, in theory,being currently a 160 hr PPASEL only, and probably a 200 hour PPASEL IA when I get the instrument ticket, that putting in only 50 more hrs plus 25 specific multi engine after commercial and multi engine rating, would qualify me to co-pilot a regional jet. Incredible in an uneasy way, in that being one who tends to err on the side of caution I'm not sure I would be comfortable as a passenger with me up in the co-pilot seat with 250/25.

Just my take as an outsider.
Click to expand...

I would agree, and say the exact thing for myself... however, the Captain though, is the principle in the cockpit, and it is HIS experience that the plane is operating under... so a good learning experience for the FO if you ask me!

As a new guy starting, I'm pleased to see this trend, as it allows me into the career path earlier, and lets me build professional time in a professional environment, and allows more time learning my new trade doing the real thing... rather than fartin around in a 172 spending scads of my own cash until I am able to hit the 500 TT mark, and THEN beginning the learning... I'd rather get in low time, and let the airlines teach me from the "ground-up", so to speak, no pun intended.... As far as I'm concerned, airlines should be hiring off the street, and training the new pilot completely, from "0 hours" up. Plumbers, Electricians, Carpenters etc, generally don't spend multiple tens of thousands of dollars just to meet the basic entry level requirements of an apprenticeship (I know, almost 30 years ago I started out as an apprentice electrician)... the "employer" is expected to train his new employee, why should pilots be any different, or airlines get away with anything less?...

Anyway... thats just 30 odd years of workin and annoyance at "the man", as well as my 2 cents... added up together they wouldn't buy ya a donut :rolleyes:

Cheers.
 
P&H said:
Here's what I don't get. If ASA is understaffed on the CRJ and extremely overstaffed on the ATR, and also getting rid of the ATR starting in July, why are they hiring into the ATR at all.....
Click to expand...

Good question...44FOs for 24 lines. I think there's alot of movement though so that may be why
 
parmandjack said:
... the "employer" is expected to train his new employee, why should pilots be any different, or airlines get away with anything less?...
Click to expand...

Because the Captain and First Officer of a 121 operation are the 'President' and 'VP' of the cockpit or in construction terms the 'Foreman' and 'Journeyman' of the cockpit. The apprentice level is done at the CFI level and other time building enterprises.

Experience is priceless. I agree that airlines should pay for training (no RJ programs, no buying type ratings, supply uniforms, pay for hotels, etc.) but not train you how to fly and become a pilot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top