Why would you work for "them"?
- Thread starter meritflyer
- Start date
intern_mike
E-175 f/o
What about us folks that just got done with 141 training and are looking at an extra 22k just to become a CFI (CFII-MEI)? And all that to work 6 days a week, make very little, and get treated like crap. I'd rather suck it up at (some) regional. The Direct Track program at Flight Safety is 17k (after commercial). I personally know two guys who did it and were offered 10k by American Eagle. So 7k to become an "airline" pilot straight away isn't bad in my opinion. These places are giving the oppertunity to start a career for low time pilots. That's why you fly for "them".
ZapBrannigan
If it ain’t a Boeing, I’m not going. No choice.
Unfortunately that puts the Captain in the position of becoming and unwilling flight instructor.
Despite what many pilots think the First Officer position is not that of a "student" or "apprentice", but rather a partner. The Captain should be able to draw on the first officer's talent and experience in order to make the conservative decision. When you take someone directly from 121 with little to no real world IFR experience, that individual is a liability to the Captain... not an asset.
Despite what many pilots think the First Officer position is not that of a "student" or "apprentice", but rather a partner. The Captain should be able to draw on the first officer's talent and experience in order to make the conservative decision. When you take someone directly from 121 with little to no real world IFR experience, that individual is a liability to the Captain... not an asset.
That's not what many new pilots think anymore. I swear the more I talk to people the more I hear they think regional FO training is just another step on the training ladder.
To them it goes:
PPL - INST - COMM - MULTI/COMM (CFI - CFII - MEI - Maybe but doubtful) - Regional FO Training
Mike, you have a valid point from a strictly monetary point of view. I know many new in the industry think this way and many will say jump on any opportunity you're offered - but there's something to be said for not being responsible for a jet full of passengers with a wet commercial cert.
And 22k for instructor certs? Go somewhere else, bro!
intern_mike
E-175 f/o
Speaking purely out of ignorance, how much more "experienced" is a high time instructor with little (>50 hours) multi time as compared to the direct track student? How is their experience teaching basic maneuvers and landings making them a better pilot in a jet? The direct track student gets intensive advanced cockpit training, Level D sim time, and airline specific training. How does one need more "babysitting" than the other?
Seggy
Well-Known Member
These fast track direct students can't think outside of the box. They are trained in controlled setting, put something out there they haven't seen, and they freeze up because of the lack of experience.
The more you instruct, the more experience you have dealing with people, dealing with difficult situations, and the more you learn to think outside of the box.
The more you instruct, the more experience you have dealing with people, dealing with difficult situations, and the more you learn to think outside of the box.
intern_mike
E-175 f/o
While I agree with the latter part of your statement, how could you possibly make the arguement that "These fast track direct students can't think outside of the box"? These are some of the sharpest individuals I've ever met. The program is INTENSE. You don't just pay your money and get hired. If I were a captain I'd be happy to fly with such a sharp, highly motivated individual. Furthermore, what exactly has an instructor seen to prepare him for a problem in a jet, a student that had trouble with x-wind landings?
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
Regional captains are flight instructors to a large extent. This is no secret at my airline. My airline is very up front about FO's; they are "captains in training". Who is training these FO's? Its the CA's.
But I do agree that the fundamentals of flying can't be learned in a regional jet or turboprop.
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
A LOT more experienced.
I hate to break the news to you, but flying a jet is nothing more than basic maneuvers. When I turn, I do it just like I did in a 152. When I want to climb, I point the nose up - just like I did in a 172. If I want to "level off from a descent at a higher speed than my descent speed", I do it the same way that I learned to do it in a 172. If the tower clears me for the visual from the downwind, I do it just like I did in a 172 (albeit from a little bit higher . . .
).There's no need for "advanced cockpit training" . . . an airline will provide that for you.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
I can make the argument because I have flown with guys both as a first officer and captain who have multiple training backgrounds.
Usually within five minutes (if not already discussed before hand) you can tell what the background of the other person is from. Being sharp has NOTHING to do with being able to think outside of the box.
Usually within five minutes (if not already discussed before hand) you can tell what the background of the other person is from. Being sharp has NOTHING to do with being able to think outside of the box.
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
You're obviously speaking from your vast instructing experience, eh?
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
I'm sure you can tell the freight guys from our shifty behavior, rough-around-the-edge manners, and a desire to do the weight and balance in the climb, between picking up the clearance and picking a magazine to read . . .
ZapBrannigan
If it ain’t a Boeing, I’m not going. No choice.
I might add that even instructing does not fully prepare a pilot to fast-track to the right seat of a regional jet.
As recently as a decade ago career tracks were somewhat different.
Minimums for many regionals around the country were in excess of 1500TT and 500 ME... and that was to fly a turboprop such as the B1900, J31, or SF340.
What's the difference? The turboprop was a reasonable stepping stone from flight instructing or flying checks. Approach speeds were comparable with light twins. Descent planning was simpler. Most often the operating theater included one or two high density airports (hubs) but the turboprop would frequently spend it's time flying to and from small airports. The RJ is an entirely different animal. The learning curve is steep. You will fly into LaGuardia, Logan, Washington National, etc... This is not the environment to "learn" to operate within the IFR system.
Today we are asking pilots to make the tremendous leap from an Apache or Seminole directly to a high performance jet aircraft.
I have no doubt that the low time pilot can master the mechanics of flying the aircraft. What they lack is experience in real world decision-making. Flight instructing and flying freight teaches pilots to fly the aircraft within complex airspace in varied weather conditions and, most importantly, when to say "no". No to ATC... No to scheduling... No to their own desire to get the job done.
So how can they be expected to support a Captain's decision making when they've never had to make those decisions on their own?
Do I need to deice? Can I make that crossing restriction? Is this circling approach at night in mountainous terrain a good idea just because i've been cleared for the approach?
You can teach a 500 hour pilot to fly the airplane beautifully. But you can not teach him the experience required to be an asset to his crewmembers. That comes with experience. Take it from me, there is a HUGE difference in the first officers who come from a single-pilot night freight background, vs. those who came from fast track wonder-stick schools.
As recently as a decade ago career tracks were somewhat different.
Minimums for many regionals around the country were in excess of 1500TT and 500 ME... and that was to fly a turboprop such as the B1900, J31, or SF340.
What's the difference? The turboprop was a reasonable stepping stone from flight instructing or flying checks. Approach speeds were comparable with light twins. Descent planning was simpler. Most often the operating theater included one or two high density airports (hubs) but the turboprop would frequently spend it's time flying to and from small airports. The RJ is an entirely different animal. The learning curve is steep. You will fly into LaGuardia, Logan, Washington National, etc... This is not the environment to "learn" to operate within the IFR system.
Today we are asking pilots to make the tremendous leap from an Apache or Seminole directly to a high performance jet aircraft.
I have no doubt that the low time pilot can master the mechanics of flying the aircraft. What they lack is experience in real world decision-making. Flight instructing and flying freight teaches pilots to fly the aircraft within complex airspace in varied weather conditions and, most importantly, when to say "no". No to ATC... No to scheduling... No to their own desire to get the job done.
So how can they be expected to support a Captain's decision making when they've never had to make those decisions on their own?
Do I need to deice? Can I make that crossing restriction? Is this circling approach at night in mountainous terrain a good idea just because i've been cleared for the approach?
You can teach a 500 hour pilot to fly the airplane beautifully. But you can not teach him the experience required to be an asset to his crewmembers. That comes with experience. Take it from me, there is a HUGE difference in the first officers who come from a single-pilot night freight background, vs. those who came from fast track wonder-stick schools.
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
That's sad.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
I'm sure you can tell the freight guys from our shifty behavior, rough-around-the-edge manners, and a desire to do the weight and balance in the climb, between picking up the clearance and picking a magazine to read . . .
and they smell bad, but think they are the ladies man.
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
Zapp, you're a dispatcher too, eh?
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
Hehehe
intern_mike
E-175 f/o
No, I'm not. I do however make it a point to ask every instructor I meet how they feel about their instructing experience. The most common answer I get is, "I feel more seasoned and have a better feel and concept of maneuvers." Now, I've never met an instructor that has not impressed me with their skills. But once again, how does that translate to being a better airline pilot as compared to a direct tracker? If anything I would think the direct track guy would have a leg up. He's like a groomed airline pilot.
And ZapBrannigan,
These instructors coming out of flight safety, for the most part, have never had to make crucial decisions reguarding weather, or a mountain hold at night. They teach directly from the lesson plan which come directly form the PTS. When they meet mins they're out.