GoJet vs RAH
06-17-2012, 02:52 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 744 CA
Posts: 4,772
God forbid an airline actually washout some of the new hires.... ***? And thinking a high washout rate would suggest a BAD training programs... thats just BS.
Using that sorta thinking the Military must have had a crappy training system for decades......
Get a clue.. sometimes new hires NO matter what their experience just do belong in the cockpit of a passenger jet and get washed out.
As to the original question.... they are both regional companies...nuff said. I would pick the one that afforded me the best quality of life.
Using that sorta thinking the Military must have had a crappy training system for decades......
Get a clue.. sometimes new hires NO matter what their experience just do belong in the cockpit of a passenger jet and get washed out.
As to the original question.... they are both regional companies...nuff said. I would pick the one that afforded me the best quality of life.
06-17-2012, 08:10 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: Eff Oh Won Fo Fife
Posts: 325
If half a class washes out there is a breakdown somewhere. Is it recruitment? Is it quality of training? Both?
When we were phasing out the CRJs a lot of the pilots (FOs and CAs) were swapped over to the Republic and Shuttle certificates. Multiple classes on the Shuttle side had 50% failure rates. But, on the Republic side they had near perfect pass rates. Similarly experienced pilots going through two different training programs for the same equipment with two polarized results.
The talent pool on the military side is much deeper and wider. Many more kids want to be Maverick than they do Waterski, Brickyard or Chautauqua.
Before a pilot ever burns his/her first drop of highly refined diesel they've gone through a much more rigorous selection and training process. ASVABs followed by AFOQT/AFAST test. Rigorous physicals. Background/ security checks. Pilot selection boards. Service academy or officer candidate training. And a much more in depth ground training program.
Even then, for a pilot to get completely washed out of military flight training due performance issues is pretty rare. Most washouts are due to personal issues (family, injury, security clearance revocation, DUI, ect.). By the time they have failed a checkride, gotten the retraining, retaken the checkride, failed it, done the 88 and 89 rides, and gone to the review board, whatever issue the student has is usually cleared up.
That's not even close to what happens on the airline side.
Usually after you bust a checkride you get another training session and a retest. After that it's out to the flightline or unemployment line.
When I went through indoc and initial we had quite a few mil pilots. Mainly helo, -130, and taker guys. Probably eight in all. Three of them failed their checkrides the first time. They all did pass on the second try. Another first time failure was a Mesa guy who was already typed on the -145. We lost a 135 cargo guy and one of the four guys who came straight from the instructing route. And that was a high pass rate compared to some of the other classes.
That's a whole other topic that I'm too lazy to tackle tonight.
06-17-2012, 09:32 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 744 CA
Posts: 4,772
Maybe/ maybe not.
If half a class washes out there is a breakdown somewhere. Is it recruitment? Is it quality of training? Both?
When we were phasing out the CRJs a lot of the pilots (FOs and CAs) were swapped over to the Republic and Shuttle certificates. Multiple classes on the Shuttle side had 50% failure rates. But, on the Republic side they had near perfect pass rates. Similarly experienced pilots going through two different training programs for the same equipment with two polarized results.
The military comparison is not an apples to apples comparison.
The talent pool on the military side is much deeper and wider. Many more kids want to be Maverick than they do Waterski, Brickyard or Chautauqua.
Before a pilot ever burns his/her first drop of highly refined diesel they've gone through a much more rigorous selection and training process. ASVABs followed by AFOQT/AFAST test. Rigorous physicals. Background/ security checks. Pilot selection boards. Service academy or officer candidate training. And a much more in depth ground training program.
Even then, for a pilot to get completely washed out of military flight training due performance issues is pretty rare. Most washouts are due to personal issues (family, injury, security clearance revocation, DUI, ect.). By the time they have failed a checkride, gotten the retraining, retaken the checkride, failed it, done the 88 and 89 rides, and gone to the review board, whatever issue the student has is usually cleared up.
That's not even close to what happens on the airline side.
Usually after you bust a checkride you get another training session and a retest. After that it's out to the flightline or unemployment line.
When I went through indoc and initial we had quite a few mil pilots. Mainly helo, -130, and taker guys. Probably eight in all. Three of them failed their checkrides the first time. They all did pass on the second try. Another first time failure was a Mesa guy who was already typed on the -145. We lost a 135 cargo guy and one of the four guys who came straight from the instructing route. And that was a high pass rate compared to some of the other classes.
Agreed. But, they should be weeded out long before they get on property, before the sim and definitely before they get to the checkride. And the training should be much more consistent between what FSI teaches and the Company checks, sim and ground instructors who have flown the actual airplane, and indoc instructors that have flown for any 121 carrier and not coming straight from a Purdue classroom.
That's a whole other topic that I'm too lazy to tackle tonight.
If half a class washes out there is a breakdown somewhere. Is it recruitment? Is it quality of training? Both?
When we were phasing out the CRJs a lot of the pilots (FOs and CAs) were swapped over to the Republic and Shuttle certificates. Multiple classes on the Shuttle side had 50% failure rates. But, on the Republic side they had near perfect pass rates. Similarly experienced pilots going through two different training programs for the same equipment with two polarized results.
The military comparison is not an apples to apples comparison.
The talent pool on the military side is much deeper and wider. Many more kids want to be Maverick than they do Waterski, Brickyard or Chautauqua.
Before a pilot ever burns his/her first drop of highly refined diesel they've gone through a much more rigorous selection and training process. ASVABs followed by AFOQT/AFAST test. Rigorous physicals. Background/ security checks. Pilot selection boards. Service academy or officer candidate training. And a much more in depth ground training program.
Even then, for a pilot to get completely washed out of military flight training due performance issues is pretty rare. Most washouts are due to personal issues (family, injury, security clearance revocation, DUI, ect.). By the time they have failed a checkride, gotten the retraining, retaken the checkride, failed it, done the 88 and 89 rides, and gone to the review board, whatever issue the student has is usually cleared up.
That's not even close to what happens on the airline side.
Usually after you bust a checkride you get another training session and a retest. After that it's out to the flightline or unemployment line.
When I went through indoc and initial we had quite a few mil pilots. Mainly helo, -130, and taker guys. Probably eight in all. Three of them failed their checkrides the first time. They all did pass on the second try. Another first time failure was a Mesa guy who was already typed on the -145. We lost a 135 cargo guy and one of the four guys who came straight from the instructing route. And that was a high pass rate compared to some of the other classes.
Agreed. But, they should be weeded out long before they get on property, before the sim and definitely before they get to the checkride. And the training should be much more consistent between what FSI teaches and the Company checks, sim and ground instructors who have flown the actual airplane, and indoc instructors that have flown for any 121 carrier and not coming straight from a Purdue classroom.
That's a whole other topic that I'm too lazy to tackle tonight.
As for Military guys being rare to wash out totally...Negative ghost rider.....that has not always been the case and until just the past 5-10 years was certainly not the case... in my time.. I went to UPT in 1986... historic washout rates in UPT averaged around 30-40 percent of each and every class...some much higher than that.... my class started 66...of those 27 of us graduated......its only been the in kinder, gentler days of now that it has become nearly an act of congress to wash out a UPT student. "Back in the day".... If you had a bad two or three day stretch... you could find your self as the new duty officer in some far flung dung heap around the world. Hell ATTITUDE could wash you out as quickly as being "ham handed".
06-18-2012, 05:26 AM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,536
06-18-2012, 05:31 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,536
Also, Delta's story is the new planes are required as "bribes" to force DCI regionals to swap out their 50s early. GoJetsss doesn't fly 50s for Delta, therefore no reason for Delta to bribe them.
06-18-2012, 01:46 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: CFI
Posts: 416
ExpressJet EMJ training was pretty easy. If you just made note cards of the review questions each morning at ground school, you can pass the systems test and oral without opening up a manual. I studied like 2 hours a night AT MOST. The oral was 60 mins, And sim is AQP so instead oF worrying about bustin you can enjoy it. We're still accepting apps budd
06-18-2012, 01:54 PM
#49
patience
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,068
I found the following info from another thread.
Advance Qualification Program training. It's different than "conventional training" in that there is no technical "check ride". Usually an MV (maneuvers validation) and a LOFT (line orientated flight training). The MV is just that, maneuvers. Steep turns, stalls, whatever. To make sure you do them to the appropriate standard. The loft is for the judgment and overall captain/fo assessment for line operations. It's a train to proficiency method vs doing the required items and doing them either pass/fail. If you screwup, you get training till you get it right vs. getting a pink slip for an unsat performance.
There is usually a different grading criteria, like intentionally exceeding a limitation, safety of flight in doubt, etc are showstoppers or un sats, just like under conventional training.
It can also be A LOT more paper work and head ache for the company as many times the data is tracked by the FAA, and there are more criteria that has to be met as far as how the training was conducted, etc. Especially of the AQP program is new to the airline.
I forgot, on the MV you get "mulligans" as they are called. You can screw up one thing twice or two things once without getting an un sat. If there is time left at the end of the MV (usually is), you can repeat the one thing you messed up, up to twice. Or the two things once, before getting and un sat and additional training. At least, it was like that at the AQP operator I was at, don't know if it's carrier specific or not.
Advance Qualification Program training. It's different than "conventional training" in that there is no technical "check ride". Usually an MV (maneuvers validation) and a LOFT (line orientated flight training). The MV is just that, maneuvers. Steep turns, stalls, whatever. To make sure you do them to the appropriate standard. The loft is for the judgment and overall captain/fo assessment for line operations. It's a train to proficiency method vs doing the required items and doing them either pass/fail. If you screwup, you get training till you get it right vs. getting a pink slip for an unsat performance.
There is usually a different grading criteria, like intentionally exceeding a limitation, safety of flight in doubt, etc are showstoppers or un sats, just like under conventional training.
It can also be A LOT more paper work and head ache for the company as many times the data is tracked by the FAA, and there are more criteria that has to be met as far as how the training was conducted, etc. Especially of the AQP program is new to the airline.
I forgot, on the MV you get "mulligans" as they are called. You can screw up one thing twice or two things once without getting an un sat. If there is time left at the end of the MV (usually is), you can repeat the one thing you messed up, up to twice. Or the two things once, before getting and un sat and additional training. At least, it was like that at the AQP operator I was at, don't know if it's carrier specific or not.
06-18-2012, 02:34 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: CFI
Posts: 416
I found the following info from another thread.
Advance Qualification Program training. It's different than "conventional training" in that there is no technical "check ride". Usually an MV (maneuvers validation) and a LOFT (line orientated flight training). The MV is just that, maneuvers. Steep turns, stalls, whatever. To make sure you do them to the appropriate standard. The loft is for the judgment and overall captain/fo assessment for line operations. It's a train to proficiency method vs doing the required items and doing them either pass/fail. If you screwup, you get training till you get it right vs. getting a pink slip for an unsat performance.
There is usually a different grading criteria, like intentionally exceeding a limitation, safety of flight in doubt, etc are showstoppers or un sats, just like under conventional training.
It can also be A LOT more paper work and head ache for the company as many times the data is tracked by the FAA, and there are more criteria that has to be met as far as how the training was conducted, etc. Especially of the AQP program is new to the airline.
I forgot, on the MV you get "mulligans" as they are called. You can screw up one thing twice or two things once without getting an un sat. If there is time left at the end of the MV (usually is), you can repeat the one thing you messed up, up to twice. Or the two things once, before getting and un sat and additional training. At least, it was like that at the AQP operator I was at, don't know if it's carrier specific or not.
Advance Qualification Program training. It's different than "conventional training" in that there is no technical "check ride". Usually an MV (maneuvers validation) and a LOFT (line orientated flight training). The MV is just that, maneuvers. Steep turns, stalls, whatever. To make sure you do them to the appropriate standard. The loft is for the judgment and overall captain/fo assessment for line operations. It's a train to proficiency method vs doing the required items and doing them either pass/fail. If you screwup, you get training till you get it right vs. getting a pink slip for an unsat performance.
There is usually a different grading criteria, like intentionally exceeding a limitation, safety of flight in doubt, etc are showstoppers or un sats, just like under conventional training.
It can also be A LOT more paper work and head ache for the company as many times the data is tracked by the FAA, and there are more criteria that has to be met as far as how the training was conducted, etc. Especially of the AQP program is new to the airline.
I forgot, on the MV you get "mulligans" as they are called. You can screw up one thing twice or two things once without getting an un sat. If there is time left at the end of the MV (usually is), you can repeat the one thing you messed up, up to twice. Or the two things once, before getting and un sat and additional training. At least, it was like that at the AQP operator I was at, don't know if it's carrier specific or not.
A friend of mine works at JetBlue and he said his new hire training a year and a half ago was much like your description. Can any JetBlue guys reading this confirm or did I misinterpret what he told me?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
