Piedmont Airlines News & Rumors
08-24-2017, 09:55 PM
#531
Custom User Title
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,271
For what it's worth, in a conversation with a chief pilot not too long ago, it was expressed to me that there is indeed some negative impact on the operation by the FAA in getting SOE instructors on the line.
The conversation moved on without details being shared. Just the messenger here, btw.
The conversation moved on without details being shared. Just the messenger here, btw.
08-25-2017, 03:06 AM
#532
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Position: Professional Eugoogoolizer at the Derek Zoolander Center For Kids Who Can’t Read Good
Posts: 1,191
For what it's worth, in a conversation with a chief pilot not too long ago, it was expressed to me that there is indeed some negative impact on the operation by the FAA in getting SOE instructors on the line.
The conversation moved on without details being shared. Just the messenger here, btw.
The conversation moved on without details being shared. Just the messenger here, btw.
08-25-2017, 07:20 AM
#534
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2015
Position: Gear slinger
Posts: 2,980
None of this supports your original claim that the FAA is slowing the training process down and has the airline's growth "handicapped"....
Sure, there were a ton of challenges to overcome and the company was not as prepared to take them on as they could've been. Additionally, unforeseen problems emerged after the jet program and transition were underway, causing us to go back and reevaluate processes and procedures. Would you not agree this sounds like our woes as an organization are from an inability to meet demand in addition growing pains?
How you arrived at a conclusion blaming the FAA and their alleged nefarious intentions to limit our growth still has me pretty confused. By all means, if there really are examples I would love to hear them because this would be news to me and i think most people I've flown with. From my perspective, it sounds like the FAA is signing off on a lot of our wishes by blessing a new simulator (and possibly a 3rd), qualifying new instructor pilots, and consistently moving forward on our EFB program.
Sure, there were a ton of challenges to overcome and the company was not as prepared to take them on as they could've been. Additionally, unforeseen problems emerged after the jet program and transition were underway, causing us to go back and reevaluate processes and procedures. Would you not agree this sounds like our woes as an organization are from an inability to meet demand in addition growing pains?
How you arrived at a conclusion blaming the FAA and their alleged nefarious intentions to limit our growth still has me pretty confused. By all means, if there really are examples I would love to hear them because this would be news to me and i think most people I've flown with. From my perspective, it sounds like the FAA is signing off on a lot of our wishes by blessing a new simulator (and possibly a 3rd), qualifying new instructor pilots, and consistently moving forward on our EFB program.
I honestly don't know enough about how the FAA and Piedmont interact to argue that point either way...
I've done a fleet transition once before- it was way less complicated than Piedmont's circumstances and still had more than it's fair share of hiccups and delays.
08-25-2017, 10:54 AM
#535
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,412
It's a FAA requirement that a qualified FAA inspector has to sign off new line check airmen at any FAR 121 carrier. Scheduling a FAA inspector can be problematic. I did this in a previous life.
08-25-2017, 08:51 PM
#536
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Position: Professional Eugoogoolizer at the Derek Zoolander Center For Kids Who Can’t Read Good
Posts: 1,191
First week in March...
08-26-2017, 08:04 AM
#537
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Position: Line holder, barely
Posts: 256
March 7, 2017
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
