Skywest Questions

Autothrust Blue said:
Yeah.

A general word of advice from someone who's spent plenty of time in the khaki division that is the training environment: whether or not they're big on it in the interview, instrument flying is bread-and-butter stuff, so please know how to do it and be reasonably well practiced at it before you get here. It'll make your life a LOT easier (and mine, too).
Click to expand...

Thank you, thank you.
I never understood why you need to draw out the systems for your previous plane, in your places interview. No one else is still doing this. It bears no relevance, to what your future duties include. Emphasis on IFR knowledge & related skills, in the interview ... huge. YUUUUGE!
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
Thank you, thank you.
I never understood why you need to draw out the systems for your previous plane, in your places interview. No one else is still doing this. It bears no relevance, to what your future duties include. Emphasis on IFR knowledge & related skills, in the interview ... huge. YUUUUGE!
Click to expand...
Well, FWIW, not understanding the Brasilia well could easily kill you; we had one aircraft that had a massive short following an attempted APU start back in "the day" in IMC down near the rocks, and they were down to just the standby attitude indicator until the Captain, acting on his knowledge (because there actually isn't a checklist for that) reached up and put the ELECTRICAL EMERGENCY switch into EMERGENCY, which gave them back a comm radio, a nav radio, and (I think) an ADI and HSI so they could shoot an approach.

I'm okay with requiring more in-depth system knowledge than just "as directed by the QRH," as a result. While the overwhelming majority of situations are addressed by Bombardier's or Embraer's abnormal and emergency procedures, not all of them are.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Well, FWIW, not understanding the Brasilia well could easily kill you; we had one aircraft that had a massive short following an attempted APU start back in "the day" in IMC down near the rocks, and they were down to just the standby attitude indicator until the Captain, acting on his knowledge (because there actually isn't a checklist for that) reached up and put the ELECTRICAL EMERGENCY switch into EMERGENCY, which gave them back a comm radio, a nav radio, and (I think) an ADI and HSI so they could shoot an approach.

I'm okay with requiring more in-depth system knowledge than just "as directed by the QRH," as a result. While the overwhelming majority of situations are addressed by Bombardier's or Embraer's abnormal and emergency procedures, not all of them are.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a strong emphasis on systems, on the plane you're in systems class learning to fly. But just wondering the importance, of drawing out the systems, of say a Piper Warrior in your interview. I mean yeah, I guess it demonstrates that you're teachable, and able to retain info. But in this environment, we also no longer build the plane from the ground up in training. Shrugs shoulders... what do I know. Right?
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be an emphasis on systems, on the plane you're in systems class learning to fly. But just wondering the importance, of drawing out the systems, of say a Piper Warrior in your interview. I mean yeah, I guess it demonstrates that you're teachable, and able to retain info. But in this environment, we also no longer build the plane from the ground up.
Click to expand...
I drew out the 145's electrical system, and the interviewer looked at me and said the tech portion was considered complete, and then we shot the breeze, talked HR, and generally bullcrapped about airplanes. Note, this was Camielle's process, not the new one.

Mastery of your current aircraft is, to me, important.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
I drew out the 145's electrical system, and the interviewer looked at me and said the tech portion was considered complete, and then we shot the breeze, talked HR, and generally bullcrapped about airplanes. Note, this was Camielle's process, not the new one.

Mastery of your current aircraft is, to me, important.
Click to expand...
So are you going to quiz your FO's while in cruise?
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Yeah.

A general word of advice from someone who's spent plenty of time in the khaki division that is the training environment: whether or not they're big on it in the interview, instrument flying is bread-and-butter stuff, so please know how to do it and be reasonably well practiced at it before you get here. It'll make your life a LOT easier (and mine, too).
Click to expand...

The issue was not my instrument flying, or knowledge in general. The issue was I have never paid for a jep subscription nor have I worked for a company who used them. I was always used to using the Maltese cross on gov charts as my FAF. During the interview, I was told that is not correct when using jep charts, the FAF is apparently the lowest published altitude that is prior to the GS intercept on the chart. Once you are at that altitude with the GS intercepted, that becomes you FAF. Now my argument was that is obviously going to be the same point every time in the approach, even though it is not a "marked" fix. It was just a different way of looking at it I suppose

With that being said, I am sure I will be just fine in the instrument dept, kind of the bread and butter of any airline obviously. Especially one that flies caravans in the NW through the winter where you accrue more time actual than time in the clear.. Thanks for the advice though! Last thing I want to be is one of the guys that they say wouldn't hack it if the company was desperate for pilots.
 
Last edited:
JDean3204 said:
The issue was not my instrument flying, or knowledge in general. The issue was I have never paid for a jep subscription nor have I worked for a company who used them. I was always used to using the Maltese cross on gov charts as my FAF. During the interview, I was told that is not correct when using jep charts, the FAF is apparently the lowest published altitude that is prior to the GS intercept on the chart. Once you are at that altitude with the GS intercepted, that becomes you FAF. Now my argument was that is obviously going to be the same point every time in the approach, even though it is not a "marked" fix. It was just a different way of looking at it I suppose

With that being said, I am sure I will be just fine in the instrument dept, kind of the bread and butter of any airline obviously. Especially one that flies caravans in the NW through the winter where you accrue more time actual than time in the clear.. Thanks for the advice though!
Click to expand...

Did you get the job?
 
JDean3204 said:
The issue was not my instrument flying, or knowledge in general. The issue was I have never paid for a jep subscription nor have I worked for a company who used them. I was always used to using the Maltese cross on gov charts as my FAF. During the interview, I was told that is not correct when using jep charts, the FAF is apparently the lowest published altitude that is prior to the GS intercept on the chart. Once you are at that altitude with the GS intercepted, that becomes you FAF. Now my argument was that is obviously going to be the same point every time in the approach, even though it is not a "marked" fix. It was just a different way of looking at it I suppose

With that being said, I am sure I will be just fine in the instrument dept, kind of the bread and butter of any airline obviously. Especially one that flies caravans in the NW through the winter where you accrue more time actual than time in the clear.. Thanks for the advice though!
Click to expand...

On a precision approach wth the govt charts, the final approach fix is noted with the lightning bolt. This coincides with the lowest altitude at the GS intercept. The Maltese cross is for the non precision approach.
 
That is correct. I had a conversation with my current CP about that and was corrected that day. Now if I recall, most of the approaches I have shot the bolt and cross were very close together so as far as setting up the approach and assuring a stabilized approach I would use the fix. Honestly this is why I love this job though, constantly learning, growing and fine tuning everything you can to become a better pilot everyday.
 
Zondaracer said:
On a precision approach wth the govt charts, the final approach fix is noted with the lightning bolt. This coincides with the lowest altitude at the GS intercept. The Maltese cross is for the non precision approach.
Click to expand...

So are there lightning bolts on jep charts then? Because I did not see any on the 2 ILS's I looked at during the interview.
 
JDean3204 said:
I did get an offer yes, going to ERJ ground next month. In the meantime, I am going to study as much as I can these darn jep charts because my brain looks at it and it just does not flow like the govt charts. I need some time to acclimate myself to that layout, as all of my approaches and IFR flying was done utilizing govt charts.
Click to expand...
What date? 5th or 24th?
 
JDean3204 said:
So are there lightning bolts on jep charts then? Because I did not see any on the 2 ILS's I looked at during the interview.
Click to expand...

On a precision approach, government charts use a lightning bolt to depict the lowest published glide sope intercept altitude, Jeppesen charts use the end of the feather. Two different means of depicting the same thing. Neither of them use the Maltese cross as the FAF for a precision approach.
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
Lol, harsh... :bounce:
Click to expand...
Yeah, funny stuff. We do have bid avoid, but I have yet to fly with anyone here I'd consider listing. Really a great group here.

There is one guy though, great guy and a pleasure to work with but every time I fly with him something breaks, and the go home leg ends up delayed. Whenever I see him now I start yelling "BID AVOID! BID AVOID!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top