The Wall Street Journal is on to us...
12-18-2007, 06:59 PM
#41
On Reserve
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 20
Point missed....
I was refering to the part of the article that said something about airlines possibly looking at paying for lower level training, not overall experience. Really none of us knew how to fly a plane till we pulled back on the yoke.
The real point I was trying to make was that there are a lot of good pilots ( and bad ) out there that the only thing keeping them back from gaining the time they need to fill the open positions out there is money. This sponsored training idea is not new, there are MANY industries that will pay for qualifided people to go to school. Take health care for example (nursing shortage) there a re numorous hospitals and care centers in EVERY state that will pay for Medical Assistants to go to school for their RN. Now I am not saying every one that daydreams about flying get free training, This should be given only to top tier students.
Imagine if a regional had payed for your flight fees for you tro work for them.... Wouldnt you feel obligated to lookat that company as more than just a stepping stone? Would you be more apt to not only start, but finish your career with the company that haned it to you? My guess is that turnover at an airline like that would be better than average.
Heck I would fly for Mesa for three years if they paid for my schooling
Age and experience varies from person to person... A lot of people out there have experience but do not have the aptitude to use it. I am not a young buck, and I was an Opperations Specialist in the Navy so I can read a chart. THe hard lesson for everyone reading this is that we ALL should be learning ALL of the time. Some people tend to forget to keep learning that is what gets them in to trouble.
The real point I was trying to make was that there are a lot of good pilots ( and bad ) out there that the only thing keeping them back from gaining the time they need to fill the open positions out there is money. This sponsored training idea is not new, there are MANY industries that will pay for qualifided people to go to school. Take health care for example (nursing shortage) there a re numorous hospitals and care centers in EVERY state that will pay for Medical Assistants to go to school for their RN. Now I am not saying every one that daydreams about flying get free training, This should be given only to top tier students.
Imagine if a regional had payed for your flight fees for you tro work for them.... Wouldnt you feel obligated to lookat that company as more than just a stepping stone? Would you be more apt to not only start, but finish your career with the company that haned it to you? My guess is that turnover at an airline like that would be better than average.
Heck I would fly for Mesa for three years if they paid for my schooling
Age and experience varies from person to person... A lot of people out there have experience but do not have the aptitude to use it. I am not a young buck, and I was an Opperations Specialist in the Navy so I can read a chart. THe hard lesson for everyone reading this is that we ALL should be learning ALL of the time. Some people tend to forget to keep learning that is what gets them in to trouble.
12-18-2007, 08:51 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 330 B
Posts: 1,627
Are FOs really as bad as everyone is saying? Or are we taking the minorities problems and pinning it on the group? I'm hearing lots of FO bashing lately and I don't understand why people are seeing the FO as an unruly child that needs to be disciplined and supervised by the captain. I am all for learning from Captains and more experienced pilots. There are a lot of pilots out there that are smarter than me and I happy to learn from them. But being a first officer myself I feel like I am a second rate citizen sometimes and that I have prove that I can even keep the blue side up.
I don't remember this culture in the corporate world where we considered the first officer as a second in command or a Deputy Captain if you will. Doesn't it seem like we are going back to the days when Captain was God and the 'copilot' was there to do whatever he said without question? If I remember correctly that didn't work out so well.
I don't remember this culture in the corporate world where we considered the first officer as a second in command or a Deputy Captain if you will. Doesn't it seem like we are going back to the days when Captain was God and the 'copilot' was there to do whatever he said without question? If I remember correctly that didn't work out so well.
12-18-2007, 11:01 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 103
What I was saying was that the article said the lowest airlines are hiring at is 500TT. Those companies I listed are hiring people with half that time. So either the research wasn't thorough or it was thorough and they made the intentional decision not to write the facts.
12-19-2007, 05:09 AM
#44
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: EMB-145, FO
Posts: 93
Eagle
I know American Eagle was looking at the school, I worked at, to pay for someones school if they signed a 5 yr. contract with them or something. It is getting to that time where airlines are looking to pay for training for day one as long as they can own their soul for as long as they want to in the regionals.
12-19-2007, 07:06 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Stretched Barbie Jet
Posts: 239
I can't take it anymore:
When using "their" in the possessive sense it is as I wrote it "T H E I R". Example: "Also they don't like seeing someone who is younger than THEIR kids".
"There" implies a place. I don't have to go there.
I'm done on the grammar lesson. First, I have no problem with "young" pilots. I was fortunate to get hired by a regional at a younger age and was one of the youngest DAL pilots back in the last hiring spree. The younger thing is thrown around because many new pilots don't know how to wear the uniform, walk with Ipods in their ears through the terminal, and in general don't seem to appreciate just how hard it used to be to pay their dues. I don't knock anyone succeeding at a young age. I definitely had some breaks. However, many new pilots don't come to the cockpit with any understanding of high speed aerodynamics, how to use a radar, fly without an autopilot or Flight Director. If you are lucky enough to fly an old technology airplane you will love it. It is flying as it should be. You and the airplane. Shoot an ILS with no automated help. Climb to altitude with no automation. Read a chart. The basics never go out. Someday you might use them.
BTW, I'm probably not more than five years your senior.
When using "their" in the possessive sense it is as I wrote it "T H E I R". Example: "Also they don't like seeing someone who is younger than THEIR kids".
"There" implies a place. I don't have to go there.
I'm done on the grammar lesson. First, I have no problem with "young" pilots. I was fortunate to get hired by a regional at a younger age and was one of the youngest DAL pilots back in the last hiring spree. The younger thing is thrown around because many new pilots don't know how to wear the uniform, walk with Ipods in their ears through the terminal, and in general don't seem to appreciate just how hard it used to be to pay their dues. I don't knock anyone succeeding at a young age. I definitely had some breaks. However, many new pilots don't come to the cockpit with any understanding of high speed aerodynamics, how to use a radar, fly without an autopilot or Flight Director. If you are lucky enough to fly an old technology airplane you will love it. It is flying as it should be. You and the airplane. Shoot an ILS with no automated help. Climb to altitude with no automation. Read a chart. The basics never go out. Someday you might use them.
BTW, I'm probably not more than five years your senior.
I dont know what kind of new FO's youve been running into. But alot of my new generation FO's learned how to fly on six pack analogs, regular old CDI's & sectionals.
All this automation in initial flight training is still fairly new. I think old technology airplanes still represent the majority of flight school equipment.
12-19-2007, 11:41 AM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 330 B
Posts: 1,627
I dont know what kind of new FO's youve been running into. But alot of my new generation FO's learned how to fly on six pack analogs, regular old CDI's & sectionals.
All this automation in initial flight training is still fairly new. I think old technology airplanes still represent the majority of flight school equipment.
All this automation in initial flight training is still fairly new. I think old technology airplanes still represent the majority of flight school equipment.
12-19-2007, 01:45 PM
#47
Gets EVERY weekend off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: SIC
Posts: 1,367
only time i really fly raw data is when the flight director is no good (switch runways on final, new runway doesn't have a GS, or seems a better decision to not fiddle with looking for frequencies) etc....On the contrary, i had heard major airline sim rides are without flight directors, so being able to do stuff raw data is a good "ability" to still have.
12-19-2007, 03:11 PM
#48
Used to get weekends off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: BusFo
Posts: 581
European airlines put low-time pilots in large equipment all the time. The difference is in the selection. Select 0-time pilots properly and train them right and it can be done safely.
The problem here in the US is all the corner cutting that takes place at every level.
Bring on the flames. But I've done it in Europe with JAA and here with FAA. The JAA stuff is way more selective.
At the end of the day, experience is the most important. But the fact remains that low-time pilots can be good pilots if they are selected properly and trained properly.
BTW, the washout rate and non-selection rate in Europe is very high. And no, flying an A320 or 737 is not harder than flying an RJ.
Just my $.02.
The problem here in the US is all the corner cutting that takes place at every level.
Bring on the flames. But I've done it in Europe with JAA and here with FAA. The JAA stuff is way more selective.
At the end of the day, experience is the most important. But the fact remains that low-time pilots can be good pilots if they are selected properly and trained properly.
BTW, the washout rate and non-selection rate in Europe is very high. And no, flying an A320 or 737 is not harder than flying an RJ.
Just my $.02.
Requirements for Position of First Officer - A330/A340 and B777
- A minimum of 4,000 hours total flying time
- A minimum of 2,000 hours multi-crew, multi-engined jet aircraft experience
- ICAO ATPL
- English language fluency (written and verbal comprehension)
- Experience commensurate with age
- Type rated would be advantageous
Minimum RequirementsRequirements
All First Officer applicants must meet the following minimum requirements:
- An ICAO Airline Transport Pilot's License (ATPL)
- A minimum of 1000 hours in one of the following categories:
- Airline Jet Transport
- Command Turbo Prop (MAUW greater than 20,000 Kgs)
- High Performance Military Jet
- Corporate Jet Command
- A current Class One Medical
- Fluent spoken & written English
- Experience commensurate with age
12-19-2007, 04:41 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,814
only time i really fly raw data is when the flight director is no good (switch runways on final, new runway doesn't have a GS, or seems a better decision to not fiddle with looking for frequencies) etc....On the contrary, i had heard major airline sim rides are without flight directors, so being able to do stuff raw data is a good "ability" to still have.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
