Ameriflight
#5561
Hey everyone. I'm a CFI over at a university flight school ready to move on and get some air carrier experience. I've been checking the application window nonstop to see if the FO portal has opened again. Its either Ameriflight or JSX because I committed to the United Aviate program and with the amount of time that I have I feel as though Ameriflight is a little more realistic. Anybody have any information on when hiring will pick back up for FOs? I kinda figure that the company has more of a need for captains since the majors are cleaning them out almost everywhere. Thanks for any info passed my way, I greatly appreciate it.
#5563
Originally Posted by flyboy2022
Nowadays, What is the typical schedule like in DFW
Emb 120, Metro, 1900, and 99's.
I got an offer for metro- is metro a better pick out of three ? Is it single pilot most of the times
Emb 120, Metro, 1900, and 99's.
I got an offer for metro- is metro a better pick out of three ? Is it single pilot most of the times
#5564
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 180
ON "typical" scheduled contract work you fly 5-2 or possibly 4-3 on a few runs, usually single pilot, but if working charter the schedule is more of a 3week on, one off, sometimes weekends off, typical with a copilot more often than not.
As for which flies the most... largely route dependant.
Some scheduled runs get a few hours a day, some less as "milk runs" .. charter work is highly cyclical ...busy months you max out of legal hours, slow months you might barely fly. So it's largely a lifestyle choice and where you want to live.
#5567
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,409
The report isn't out yet. No fatalities. The dogs survived. The only reason I know is I live nearby, so people ask about this as I'm out eating fish-fry with my family. I'd say "I don't know.". Then people would move on to some other pilot they know until eventually they find somebody with a pilot's license who likes attention. (Sort like all of us on this forum, right?)
This takes me back to when I was flying cancelled checks and later UPS-feeder freight in my twenties. There'd be an incident. Sometimes with the loss of a friend. Then I'd be drinking coffee at an FBO waiting for my freight, and I'd listen to someone over-simplify an event. If you're silent, it sucks. If you tell someone to be quiet, you come off as a nut and they find the next person who'll opine. If you start saying "Yes, but it's more complicated than that when you consider...", you wind up in a spot with everyone digging their heels into their preconceived notions of what occurred (This also happens on the boards themselves. They're composed of human beings with human faults and biases.). So there's no good option here. I'd just say consider the people involved, the pilots, the families, etc. and choose what flavor of bad you want to deal with.
I'd also say there's an ecosystem of people who capitalize on airplane crashes. There are the insurance companies, salvagers, lawyers, etc. There are also the people who use airplane crashes to gain local and internet fame and fortune. To do this they offer comments before the facts are out in an effort to get views and likes before interest in a mishap fades. Look at their initial commentary (if they left it up) around that MD-87 event in Houston last October. Worse these guys will frequently mention their qualifications as they do this. These people are nozzles. I am too. I just spray at these guys rather than mishap crewmembers and families.
There are some really good efforts out there to look at. Mentour Pilot looks at reports after the facts are out. He'll go into explanations around the systems, and make obscure reporting accessible to laypeople. I have to say that I really like some of the analysis offered by Paul Bertorelli too. Both of these people dig into facts which is less flashy and takes more work, then they make it accessible. So before we try to get incomplete and inaccurate lessons from recent events, why not get real information and useful lessons from better sources?
Also let's not be a jerks some crew who are dealing with a mountain of mud right now.
(Note to mods: I'm not sure if I can say "I like these folks" on APC. If you have to take this post down, I get it.)
This takes me back to when I was flying cancelled checks and later UPS-feeder freight in my twenties. There'd be an incident. Sometimes with the loss of a friend. Then I'd be drinking coffee at an FBO waiting for my freight, and I'd listen to someone over-simplify an event. If you're silent, it sucks. If you tell someone to be quiet, you come off as a nut and they find the next person who'll opine. If you start saying "Yes, but it's more complicated than that when you consider...", you wind up in a spot with everyone digging their heels into their preconceived notions of what occurred (This also happens on the boards themselves. They're composed of human beings with human faults and biases.). So there's no good option here. I'd just say consider the people involved, the pilots, the families, etc. and choose what flavor of bad you want to deal with.
I'd also say there's an ecosystem of people who capitalize on airplane crashes. There are the insurance companies, salvagers, lawyers, etc. There are also the people who use airplane crashes to gain local and internet fame and fortune. To do this they offer comments before the facts are out in an effort to get views and likes before interest in a mishap fades. Look at their initial commentary (if they left it up) around that MD-87 event in Houston last October. Worse these guys will frequently mention their qualifications as they do this. These people are nozzles. I am too. I just spray at these guys rather than mishap crewmembers and families.
There are some really good efforts out there to look at. Mentour Pilot looks at reports after the facts are out. He'll go into explanations around the systems, and make obscure reporting accessible to laypeople. I have to say that I really like some of the analysis offered by Paul Bertorelli too. Both of these people dig into facts which is less flashy and takes more work, then they make it accessible. So before we try to get incomplete and inaccurate lessons from recent events, why not get real information and useful lessons from better sources?
Also let's not be a jerks some crew who are dealing with a mountain of mud right now.
(Note to mods: I'm not sure if I can say "I like these folks" on APC. If you have to take this post down, I get it.)
Last edited by Elevation; 11-19-2022 at 09:24 AM.
#5569
Solid post, Elevation! Well put. These “crash ghouls” need to put themselves in the place of the people affected by an incident before they get on their keyboard. Sadly empathy seems in short supply with some people.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post