UPS Sim Prep
07-18-2007, 10:03 AM
#41
New ride...
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Posts: 534
I think the above is good advice. You are getting checked in a sim, not an airplane, and if you have been flying magenta lines for a while it would be very smart to take a couple of hours to get that scan back. After 10 years on the magenta line I wouldnt have a prayer going in cold and flying a 727 sim.
When I was job hunting, I didnt bat an eye at spending 8 grand on a 737 type (when it was required to apply to SWA) and didnt hesitate to spend a few hundered bucks for some decent interview/sim prep. If it helps you get the job, you will recoupe the expenditure very quickly.
I do agree with one comment though, If you have been driving a Brasilia around for 8 hours a day for the last few years you should have no issues with the 727 sim once you get used to the pitch sensitivity. But still, why not spend a few hundered bucks for some piece of mind so you can actually be relaxed in the interview sim?
When I was job hunting, I didnt bat an eye at spending 8 grand on a 737 type (when it was required to apply to SWA) and didnt hesitate to spend a few hundered bucks for some decent interview/sim prep. If it helps you get the job, you will recoupe the expenditure very quickly.
I do agree with one comment though, If you have been driving a Brasilia around for 8 hours a day for the last few years you should have no issues with the 727 sim once you get used to the pitch sensitivity. But still, why not spend a few hundered bucks for some piece of mind so you can actually be relaxed in the interview sim?
07-18-2007, 04:48 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: I was acquired, Not Hired
Posts: 1,784
This is off the beaten path and not helping the guys that need to find info on sims. However, since I work and fly at Edwards AFB, I went out and looked at the KC-135, KC-10, C-5, C-130 and C-17 on the ramp - all HSIs were clearly visible from a normal sitting position. Even the T-43 (737-200) was more than 50% visible, and the old 747-300 NASA Shuttle Carrier had a clearly visible HSI. B-52, good, B-1, good, B-2, can't remember, that was 5 years ago, but I'm sure its good.
Line pilots will accept what is given to them and train to overcome deficiencies in the jet. In flight test, deficiencies are unacceptable and corrected early in the design process. Deficiencies get to the line when the manufacturer refuses to spend the money to fix it, or does not have the engineering solution at the time to get around the problem, which is why some jets have longer training programs than others.
Kouk,
I respect your opinion and background. Sorry to interpret your post as saying that only military aircraft have the HSI's in the correct position and that airline aircraft do not and would not pass the military's stringent flight tests.
Not sure why the military would procure the 707 (multiple roles), 727 (DC ANG), 737 (Navy/USAF), 747 (Air Force 1 and electronic warfare), 757 (C32 VIP Transport), DC9 (Medivac) and loose talk of the 767 for the replacement for the aging tanker fleet, if they were "unacceptable" aircraft.
Not sure if you have flown for an airline, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, from my experience, line pilots don't just accept what is given to them if there is a known deficiency. When it comes to safety, airline pilots aren't just bumbling fools. Of the few positive things ALPA and American's APA do, they do evaluate new aircraft and make recommendations to the manufacturer. In addition, their fingerprints are apparent during and after accident investigations to try and improve the equipment we operate.
Our training is not substandard. It is quite common for military crews to come to airlines and civilian contractors for training (Flight Safety). However, in nearly 20 years of airline flying, I have never had the opportunity to be trained by the military for any of the airline aircraft I've been trained on.
I dont have a bone with you personally, it just gets old when us civie guys are told how our airline training is substandard to the military's and how the airliners we fly are junk and then told by a military guy how they are much more qualified to get hired at an airline job over an airline guy who has 13,000TT, 5 type ratings and thousands of hours of airline captain experience flying airline flights.
Again sorry for the rant and no disprespect for the military folks, but hey, why come to work for the airlines, if all the planes are junk and the airline guys you're going to be working with are substandard because they weren't "formally trained" ???
Just some trivia, the 747(s) used to transport the shuttles is a tired old 747-100 retired from American's fleet and a decade later NASA picked up another one which was a JAL bird another -100. There was always a controvery why the C-5 wasn't used...
Best of Luck, sorry for the thread hi-jack
FF
Line pilots will accept what is given to them and train to overcome deficiencies in the jet. In flight test, deficiencies are unacceptable and corrected early in the design process. Deficiencies get to the line when the manufacturer refuses to spend the money to fix it, or does not have the engineering solution at the time to get around the problem, which is why some jets have longer training programs than others.
Kouk,
I respect your opinion and background. Sorry to interpret your post as saying that only military aircraft have the HSI's in the correct position and that airline aircraft do not and would not pass the military's stringent flight tests.
Not sure why the military would procure the 707 (multiple roles), 727 (DC ANG), 737 (Navy/USAF), 747 (Air Force 1 and electronic warfare), 757 (C32 VIP Transport), DC9 (Medivac) and loose talk of the 767 for the replacement for the aging tanker fleet, if they were "unacceptable" aircraft.
Not sure if you have flown for an airline, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, from my experience, line pilots don't just accept what is given to them if there is a known deficiency. When it comes to safety, airline pilots aren't just bumbling fools. Of the few positive things ALPA and American's APA do, they do evaluate new aircraft and make recommendations to the manufacturer. In addition, their fingerprints are apparent during and after accident investigations to try and improve the equipment we operate.
Our training is not substandard. It is quite common for military crews to come to airlines and civilian contractors for training (Flight Safety). However, in nearly 20 years of airline flying, I have never had the opportunity to be trained by the military for any of the airline aircraft I've been trained on.
I dont have a bone with you personally, it just gets old when us civie guys are told how our airline training is substandard to the military's and how the airliners we fly are junk and then told by a military guy how they are much more qualified to get hired at an airline job over an airline guy who has 13,000TT, 5 type ratings and thousands of hours of airline captain experience flying airline flights.
Again sorry for the rant and no disprespect for the military folks, but hey, why come to work for the airlines, if all the planes are junk and the airline guys you're going to be working with are substandard because they weren't "formally trained" ???
Just some trivia, the 747(s) used to transport the shuttles is a tired old 747-100 retired from American's fleet and a decade later NASA picked up another one which was a JAL bird another -100. There was always a controvery why the C-5 wasn't used...
Best of Luck, sorry for the thread hi-jack
FF
Last edited by FliFast; 07-18-2007 at 05:43 PM.
07-25-2007, 09:59 PM
#43
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Flying Fast
Posts: 28
Flifast,
Let's have a beer dude! I sincerely apologize if I have struck a chord with you or anyone else out there. I did not in any way intend, nor mean in any way to turn this into a mil v. civilian debate. I was only making an engineering observation.
It's all good...we are all living the dream. From the C-172 guys pounding the pavement building hours, to the crusty ol' captains flying a 14 hour trans-pacific flight, only to end it with an approach down to mins in a driving rainstorm...we're all living the dream. We all have our own perpective based on our experiencees, but none of us would be doing anything else. I hope to join the commercial side in the next few years, so maybe I can buy you that beer someday.
BTW, you're correct about the NASA -100s. The crew chief told me different. I think he meant the panel had been upgraded to a semi -300 level.
Friends?
Let's have a beer dude! I sincerely apologize if I have struck a chord with you or anyone else out there. I did not in any way intend, nor mean in any way to turn this into a mil v. civilian debate. I was only making an engineering observation.
It's all good...we are all living the dream. From the C-172 guys pounding the pavement building hours, to the crusty ol' captains flying a 14 hour trans-pacific flight, only to end it with an approach down to mins in a driving rainstorm...we're all living the dream. We all have our own perpective based on our experiencees, but none of us would be doing anything else. I hope to join the commercial side in the next few years, so maybe I can buy you that beer someday.
BTW, you're correct about the NASA -100s. The crew chief told me different. I think he meant the panel had been upgraded to a semi -300 level.
Friends?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
