"The High Cost of Low Experience"

In the 60's, airlines hired with a commercial/instrument and paid for the Multi. One of those guys was stuck in the right seat of a DC3 in the midwest. First hand knowledge.

Didn't a crew with at least 10k each just sign off and overfly MSP in a super automated aircraft...

I'd chalk it up to the 5% rule.....
 
This is simple.

Until there is a financial, and/or seniority related, reason for pilots to wait to take a job until they reach a socially acceptable level of experience, pilots will continue to do what is in their best interests. Clearly, this means that pilots will continue to strive to be employed as soon as they can possibly can. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.
 
A-300F4-622R said:
So pilots that take airline jobs with no adverse weather experience are not responsible for handling an adverse weather event incorrectly? I say that they are irresponsible for taking the job in the first place with no experience.
Click to expand...

So, how would one get experience first? Take a 172 into known icing to get it? Even if you get hired at a freight hauler, odds are good your first time up in the ice that you DON'T try to get out of immediately is gonna be with them. Your other option is to go out and rent a Baron with boots and fly into ice just to get some experience.

I'm seeing a lot of complaining, but no solutions here. I guess I'm a tool since the first time I was in icing conditions and didn't land almost immediately, I was in the right seat of a CRJ. What the hell was I thinking?
 
Clocks said:
The mindset is "It was OK when I did it 10 years ago, it's not OK for you to do it now you fricking SJS'er".
Click to expand...

I still contend that there is a difference. When we did it (I only WISH it were ten years ago.) 15 years ago the barriers to entry were high. 2500 TT/ 500 ME was common for the "good" commuters. 1500 TT / 200 ME was common for the scumbag operators (including the one I worked for) who also tended to require a $10,000 "investment" in training. Those were minimums of course -- rarely competitive.

So how did one achieve a competitive resume in that environment? Flight instructing took you part of the way, but multi-engine instruction positions were few and far between. Those who were most competitive for the coveted commuter airline pilot positions were those who were flying freight, charter, corporate, etc.

So yes, I was new at one time as were we all. I had frightening encounters with thunderstorms, icing, winter weather... you name it. Much of the time I had those encounters alone and escaped by the virtue of luck or good fortune. It doesn't take long operating in that environment to build a library of war stories -- most that you would never share. The pilot's ego and fear of being caught prevented those stories from being told. But, nonetheless, with each story young aviators build a foundation of experience that - in time - will make them valuable members of the cockpit crew.

That is not to say that such experiences can't be obtained in the right seat of a CRJ. But you must admit that it's harder to do so. Operating as a first officer in a regional you are essentially a yippy dog tied firmly to your stake in the ground. The operation, by virtue of the fact that you sit next to a Captain whose certificate rides on whether or not you're capable of following SOP, is likely to protect you from the lion's share of stupid decisions. Better for safety? Undoubtedly... until the day that YOU are the PIC with precious little experience to draw from when the situation arises that requires you think outside the box.

So it's not that you're an SJSer. That's really not the problem. The problem is that you're an SJSer without the virtue of any measurable real-world decision-making experience. (Some of) you bark and yip like that little dog but there's just not enough chain for you to really do any damage.

Until the day that you are the PIC (with a much longer chain albeit still chained by the protections of part 121, ops specs, dispatchers, etc)... you are flying with a low time FO (much shorter chain)... and some situation occurs that wasn't covered in the textbooks at Embry Ridiculous.
 
I'm sure in many ways you are correct Zap. And not to discount it's relevance, but I've read, thought about, and understood what your point is several times on these forums. My one sentence post seems to have said a lot more than I meant it to.
 
Flight time is subjective, 600 hours of military time is going to come with much more experience than 600 hours of pt 61 flight training. Along the same lines, 1000 or 5000 hours of stalls, steep turns, and pattern work makes you a pro at just that, but when you're thrown in a 121 environment and have to fly through crap weather and make the most of it you're still a student. I either read or heard somewhere that if you dont learn something on every flight then its time to hang it up. Everyone says that a 121 flight deck is not the place to learn, well I tend to disagree...you haven't learned until you have experienced. As for the Colgan crash, I don't think experience or flight time had anything to do with it. They both met ATP mins which seems to have turned into the magical you're "worthy/unworthy" mark but in the end they still screwed up. Maybe the FAA's approved training program which taught them to maintain pitch and power out of a stall was the reason he fought the pusher. We just recently did sim training to a stall pusher and it is a totally different scenario then recovering from a shaker. The FAA never admits any fault but tries to find it in everyone else, it is a totally reactionary agency while the NTSB is proactive. I'm just tired of so much blame being put on regional pilots, while we do make mistakes, it is part of a chain of events.
 
I think perhaps you misread what I wrote. I agree with you that flight time is subjective. My point was that when entry requirements for the commuters were higher pilots had to find ways to achieve those higher entry requirements. Flight instructing for 2500+ hours was not likely to impress a recruiter (and wasn't much fun for wanna-be airline pilots either) so most of us went out and found other ways to build that time.

For me it was flying single pilot night freight where I first found myself faced with challenging PIC decisions. Mistakes were made and I learned from them -- each time adding to an ever-growing library of experiences that would shape the pilot I would become.

The hours I gained flying freight weren't nearly as relevant as the experiences I had while I was there. So I can only assume that I would have been LESS well prepared to be a commuter airline first officer had I skipped that step and gone from being a CFI (yes, I instructed for about 1000 hours too) directly to the right seat of the finest commuter airliner ever constructed: The mighty Jetstream 3100. (Undoubtedly the RJ of its time -- yes, I had DWPS - Dirty Wiggly-Pig Syndrome)
 
My problem with the argument that every regional pilot should first fly single pilot night freight, or something similar, is that over the last ten to fifteen years the regionals have grown immensely and the single pilot night freight jobs have stayed stagnant or declined. I personally would love to have the opportunity to do that type of flying, but it certainly isn't available to every pilot who is destined for the regionals.
 
Just count your lucky stars that Les Abend finds the time to write his articles between all his late night visits with our women.

With a stache like that, how can you fault the guy for writing a monthly ode to himself?
 
I agree with Steve in that there are some experiences that are hard to gain before the 121 world.

KCOS 071326Z 17010KT 2 1/2SM -SN BR FEW009 OVC015 M16/M17 A2991

I'm not going to rent a 172 to go up and get experience, yet I'm watching the rj's deice and go.

Thunderstorm avoidance and IFR experience I can see. But IFR AND icing conditions in a 172 to get experience sounds like a death wish to me.
 
Isn't this the same magazine that advertises for companies that will take you from zero to hero in 3 months?
 
Beating_a_dead_horse.jpg
 
ZapBrannigan said:
I think perhaps you misread what I wrote. I agree with you that flight time is subjective. My point was that when entry requirements for the commuters were higher pilots had to find ways to achieve those higher entry requirements. Flight instructing for 2500+ hours was not likely to impress a recruiter (and wasn't much fun for wanna-be airline pilots either) so most of us went out and found other ways to build that time.

For me it was flying single pilot night freight where I first found myself faced with challenging PIC decisions. Mistakes were made and I learned from them -- each time adding to an ever-growing library of experiences that would shape the pilot I would become.

The hours I gained flying freight weren't nearly as relevant as the experiences I had while I was there. So I can only assume that I would have been LESS well prepared to be a commuter airline first officer had I skipped that step and gone from being a CFI (yes, I instructed for about 1000 hours too) directly to the right seat of the finest commuter airliner ever constructed: The mighty Jetstream 3100. (Undoubtedly the RJ of its time -- yes, I had DWPS - Dirty Wiggly-Pig Syndrome)
Click to expand...

That was when "putting in your time" was worth it. It's kind of like which came first the chicken or the egg. The high paying jobs were waiting for you guys. Now it's just a completely different industry of low pay and even lower benefits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top