Willing to • myself out!!!
- Thread starter Chris_Ford
- Start date
CapnJim
Well-Known Member
So now you're misquoting me? And you're trying to tell me that 'conventional wisdom' trumps statistical fact? Are you kidding?
And no, the scientific world absolutely does not hold popular convention higher than statistical evidence. Only the scientists with a career, reputation, or pride to worry about stick thier head in the sand when all the evidence is against them. Sound familiar?
Popping pills? Re-writing history books? Your syllogistic reasoning has taken a sharp downward turn. If you want to convince me or anyone else, you're going to have to come up with some facts and avoid mangling any members quotes to your own argument.
And no, the scientific world absolutely does not hold popular convention higher than statistical evidence. Only the scientists with a career, reputation, or pride to worry about stick thier head in the sand when all the evidence is against them. Sound familiar?
Popping pills? Re-writing history books? Your syllogistic reasoning has taken a sharp downward turn. If you want to convince me or anyone else, you're going to have to come up with some facts and avoid mangling any members quotes to your own argument.
propilot3574
Well-Known Member
B767Driver said:Very diplomatic response, Jim. I'm sure you could have easily come unglued with my response.
Where do the jobs come from? Well, first off...this will never happen unless the FAA revises the minimum qualifications for Part 121. But if it did happen...I think there would be plenty of pilots who'd meet the mins. But then, the charter/part 135 industry would begin to suffer experience problems...and that segment of the industry could suffer significant safety lapses. On the other hand...this segment would prove a mighty training camp for a young pilot. A charter outfit would need to hire, and compensate well, an experienced captain. A young guy would co-pilot and build experience in a lower paced, less sophisticated operation. The young guy would then cycle thru to the airline after 2 to 4 years of building quality multi engine/ifr experience. The charter co-pilot job would be a rotating door...and probably very low paid.
This is where a 500 hour pilot should be entering the workforce...not in a Part 121 RJ.
This permits the RJ copilot to come to the airline with experience and confidence and also with the ability to earn a higher wage...given his depth of experience over a person not yet qualified to fly for the airline.
Right now...the regional f/o is filling a job that I think should be going to a KingAir/Citation copilot.
But that's just me...and I don't think to many people in the government are going to adopt my recommendations.
I run an FBO and I see these Charter operations in and out all the time. I would love to sit right seat and get experience from the captains but there is no way because that seat is also taken by an over sixty ex-airline captain. Better yet tell the charter op you want fly with them for pennys let alone for free and they will probably give you something like "You are not qualified to sit in a position as an FO. Our insurance won't allow it." I agree there needs to be a level of maturity but theoptions of a charter op are far and few between.
B767Driver
New Member
propilot3574 said:
Well this should tell us something right here. The insurance companies won't let a low time guy sit in the right seat of a corporate charter airplane. I'm sure the actuaries have all the numbers you'd need for this discussion.
A pilot can't sit in the right seat of a KingAir....but he can fly the paying public at a Part 121 airline?
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
No, I am asking Y-O-U to present the "statistical facts" that you are right.CapnJim said:
Really???? So if I decided to state that the dinosaurs evolved from duck snot, paleontologists would just take my word for it and change their "conventional" wisdom? Yea.....good luck with that.
You actually are misquoting me. I never said that conventional wisdom trumped statistical evidence. My point was that you must present that evidence before our conventional wisdom is modified. Conventional wisdom rules until evidence is presented to the contrary. Other than bickering, no evidence has been presented to prove your point.
Just a few post ago, you yourself followed conventional wisdom when you stated: Yes, of course a 1500/500 pilot is going to be better, safer, and more capable in emergency.
propilot3574
Well-Known Member
B767Driver said:
However most of the time they say this, it is an easy copout for: We don't want to pay you or have a none needed person up front. Since the charter theory is out what next. I relize there still is instructing but 2500TT with 2000 dual instruction given? Are you qualified in your mind then?
tonyw
Well-Known Member
NJA_Capt said:
The problem is, you cannot do this on a statistically significant level. Even with hundreds of reported incidents, given the number of operations we have every single day, much less year, those numbers are insignificant.
You can have hundreds of reports, but if you've got tens of millions of operations....
B767Driver
New Member
propilot3574 said:
Well...that is a lot of instruction. I would think that there are charter opportunities out there...may have to look hard and move to find them. However...well over 50% of the guys I learned to fly with never could find a job...instructing or otherwise and all are out of aviation.
Chris_Ford said:$19/hr isn't bad though, if you're coming from a school where instructors are paid $7/hr
That's a damn shame. The instruction I received here last semester was much more thorough compared to what I got back home at my FBO. My instructor there was probably making around $20/hr...I thought he was underpaid.
If you have a chance, find a Purdue salary guide somewhere. Just flipping through, the pay for the lowest hourly employee is around $8/hr. I doubt the people raking leaves have the qualifications of a CFI.
Sucks to think I'm going to take a pay cut from the mindless job I have back home (pushing carts/cashier @ $8.25/hr.) to TEACH PEOPLE HOW TO FLY AN AIRPLANE at a respected university. Oh well, maybe LafAv hires Purdue kids?
Chris_Ford
Well-Known Member
amd87 said:
Hahahaha don't work at LafAv, go work at another FBO. LafAv is a joke ever since BJ took over. There are lots of places around that hire and pay more than LafAv, if you're willing to drive down to Indy for work (it's well worth it)
txpilot said:Will do. Surprisingly, I haven't been sent up there in quite a while. Been in MEM the past week, going to BHM this next week for a couple days, and LCK after that, and going to St Paul the following week. I'm gonna freeze my A$$ off.
Come On TX. It's been in the upper 30's all week. It is welll above normal and you can walk around with your jacket undone. It is actually quite nice now.
In case others didn't scroll back, here he a study I came across on AOPA. I believe it may be GA slanted, but it does speak to experience levels:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf
B767Driver
New Member
JEP said:
Interesting numbers. Highest percentages by far are those under 2000 to 2500 hours. Creeps up some over 10k...but that will be due to the length of exposure to flying. You only spend a short while under 2500 hours...yet accident rates spike high....you could spend 20 years over 10,000 hours. So the rate percentages even in this data are somewhat misleading.
Definitely, though, under 1000 hours is a critical time in the maturation of pilot skills.
BoilerPilot2007
Well-Known Member
Another Purdue Student's Perspective
Since Chris actually started this thread (I warned him not to), I feel that I should respond as diplomatically as possible.
I'm going to express my view, and logic through this mess. Now:
Experience matters. No one can argue with that. I will have 600TT and about 30 multi when I graduate. I may very well take a job at a regional when I graduate. My "experience" will include 10-15 hours in a King Air 200 (right seat), 50 hours in a B727 sim, and several hundred hours of dual given. Along with my degree (as useless as it may seem to many), I feel as though I would be capable to fly in the right seat of a regional. Obviously, some regional airlines do too, or they would not be hiring Purdue grads.
Does flying in the right seat for 1000 hours constitute experience? Some... maybe. There are things you learn, but how applicable is it to Part 121 flying? Now, I've never experienced an engine failure, total electric failure, or landing gear failure in my entire flying "career." We do these things in a crew environment in the 727 sim, however.
So, being a CFI for an additional 1000 hours is "paying my dues." 50 years ago, pilots were being hired by airlines with very low time and private pilots licenses. Did they pay their dues? Perhaps. Not as much as 2000 hour CFIs, maybe. Not everyone has to pay their dues. It's a cutthroat industry, where networking is everything.
You can ONLY gain experience flying an RJ, in an RJ. I find it hard to believe that sitting in the right seat of a 172 for 1000 hours will make someone more prepared than me. I believe that the training we get here at Purdue more than makes up for the difference.
So Chris, I am officially whoring myself out...
Since Chris actually started this thread (I warned him not to), I feel that I should respond as diplomatically as possible.
I'm going to express my view, and logic through this mess. Now:
Experience matters. No one can argue with that. I will have 600TT and about 30 multi when I graduate. I may very well take a job at a regional when I graduate. My "experience" will include 10-15 hours in a King Air 200 (right seat), 50 hours in a B727 sim, and several hundred hours of dual given. Along with my degree (as useless as it may seem to many), I feel as though I would be capable to fly in the right seat of a regional. Obviously, some regional airlines do too, or they would not be hiring Purdue grads.
Does flying in the right seat for 1000 hours constitute experience? Some... maybe. There are things you learn, but how applicable is it to Part 121 flying? Now, I've never experienced an engine failure, total electric failure, or landing gear failure in my entire flying "career." We do these things in a crew environment in the 727 sim, however.
So, being a CFI for an additional 1000 hours is "paying my dues." 50 years ago, pilots were being hired by airlines with very low time and private pilots licenses. Did they pay their dues? Perhaps. Not as much as 2000 hour CFIs, maybe. Not everyone has to pay their dues. It's a cutthroat industry, where networking is everything.
You can ONLY gain experience flying an RJ, in an RJ. I find it hard to believe that sitting in the right seat of a 172 for 1000 hours will make someone more prepared than me. I believe that the training we get here at Purdue more than makes up for the difference.
So Chris, I am officially whoring myself out...
Chris_Ford
Well-Known Member
Nice thought out response, Evan, but you wouldn't be whoring yourself out as much as those with the Purdue minimums.
Also, I'd have to say that it's not really whoring yourself out if you're taking the obvious choice. Regional or CFI for 2 more years before going to another regional? I'll take Door #1 please.
Also, I'd have to say that it's not really whoring yourself out if you're taking the obvious choice. Regional or CFI for 2 more years before going to another regional? I'll take Door #1 please.
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
BobDDuck said:
Same here. To add insult to injury, both were former PFT'ers. One from Gulfstream who upgraded to Captain and had 1000+TPIC, and another from Colgan who did the TabExpress thing and paid Colgan $18k for training.
One was let go for attitude, the other during the sim. I know of one that got cut in the class after mine during his actual checkride as well, he was a right seater in a kingair.
I think lower time guys might be easier to train, and be more motivated. I had a lot of bad habits to get out of when I went through training.
~wheelsup
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
Keep in mind 50 years ago the airlines were still flying propeller driven aircraft that flew at FL200-250. The newbies back then flew "the panel" for 10-15 years. They didn't usually put new pilots in the from right seat of a B707.BoilerPilot2007 said:
I guess what bothers us most is that the learning curve is now vertical. Knowledge used to be gained over years and hours flying progressively larger and more complex aircraft. Now they just cram in a few hours in a sim and stamp you go to go.
Seriously though,
Good luck with the job and the career.
BoilerPilot2007
Well-Known Member
Kingairer said:
I agree. 250TT does seem low. I wasn't entirely comfortable at 250TT. But what's the cutoff? That's the question.
A lot goes in to adding to decisions. Personality type, experience, etc. There are really no right or wrong responses. So much is dependent upon the individual. Looking simply at the number of flight hours is a start, but there's a reasons airlines do interviews, tests, sim checks, and IOE - to weed people out.
B767Driver
New Member
BoilerPilot2007 said:
BoilerPilot,
You sound to me like you are "owed" an airline job. 600TT and 30ME is not airline material. This is not about paying dues...it's about being qualified to function effectively in a Part 121 cockpit.
I think you are right. Another 1000 hours in a 172 is not going to improve your skills substantially. However, any flying you can acheive under 1000 hours is going to materially improve your developing skill set.
To be competitive for a Part 121 job from here, I would like to see the industry require you add some charter...maybe night freight...some corporate flying. You will probably be a "professional" rj pilot...however, you wouldn't even be insurable on a Baron for a couple of thousand more hours. Something is wrong with that.
Now someone is probably going to offer you an airline job given your educational channel into specific opportunities. And given the opportunity, you should take it. For a company to hire someone with your profile is not your problem. This in an industry standards problem...and one that I hope to be able to address industry wide in the future.
As such, I want to emphasize that my perspective is not against any individual, nor do I want to limit their potential for an introduction into a career. It's a great career and I want to see everyone succeed. If an opportunity for employment presents itself...any motivated pilot should give due consideration to accept such employment.
I know this is a sensitive topic for young guys trying to find jobs. I'm mostly critical of the industry, specific companies, and the FAA for allowing pilots with 30 hours of multi engine time to occupy a Part 121 cockpit.
An airline job should require rigorious training, a proven track record, and a miminum and defined level of experience brought to the first officer position. Not everyone will acheive this level of experience. Not everyone will meet the standards for the position. For some pilots, it will take years to meet these requirements. I understand that. For the industry to adopt airline pilots with less than 5 years and 1500 hours in the industry is not good for this profession; both from an individual development standpoint and a quality assurance issue.
Heck, even a journeyman welder or master carpenter must be an apprentice for 5 or 6 years before becoming certified.
I'm getting off this dead horse here. It's not a particularly enjoyable topic for me...although I have fairly strong feelings towards it...it does nothing but piss off low time guys...which is not my intent. The proliferation of training companies, that expand the expectation that 30 hours of multi time due to an accelerated curriculum is an adequate baseline for a typical airline new hire is not good for our industry.
I'll look forward to getting back to some technical topics and discussions, where maybe I can learn something new...now that's fun.