AlaskaBound

The OP based his whole statement on which training dept has the worst instructors which would cause someone to fail out among other things. He named every single issue that someone could use as excuses if he failed out. My point is if someone works hard enough and doesn't come up with a million excuses as to why they suck then they'll be fine. It's your job to study and come prepared and to use all resource available to you to be successful. I don't agree that anyone should base their decision on where to work due to the training dept. With that attitude you're setting yourself up for failure. Have a positive attitude, work hard, focus, study, use all available resources and be professional. You'll be fine.

NeverHome

Thats a silly thing to do.

Consider that perhaps he was asking for a reason that you never considered. Than if that were the case You would be the stupid one. Id be careful of assumptions regarding others. We cannot assume anything in this industry. Especially when it comes to people. Just saying.

When it comes to best and worst training departments, this is a valid question. There are places that either have poorly constructed training programs or even instructors that are best left to line flying. How many times have you seen training slides that are either flat wrong or out of date. Personally I have seen dozens. For a newhire into 121, how will they know the difference?

I think the reality is that every regional has good and bad parts of their training department. I have been at two regionals and have that to compare. I suspect somebody wanting to know this information, is merly trying to do their homework. How many timeson APC have we blasted somebody for not researching the airline they got hired on at? Again just saying

450knotOffice

Everything you have said in this thread is naive, at the very least. In 25 years in the airlines, I've never had one single issue, however, with that said, much of it (besides attitude) is/was due to the two airlines having excellent training programs (some of it more so than others). I've known of airlines with well known horrendous training programs, and as far as I and most pilots are concerned, those awful training programs are a reflection of the airlines themselves - airlines most sane pilots would NOT allow themselves to work for.

Therefore, why NOT ask for opinions about training departments in general? It could help keep a pilot out of a bad operation.

justflytheplane

Just give the guy a break .There are good instructors and bad. All things being equal, I would find the airline that gave me the best shot at success. When ever I did any training as a check airman, it was a good idea to remember how stressful it could be, and you always got better results the more relaxed the environment was.

rickair7777

Yeah, why risk your ENTIRE FUTURE on the vagaries of a training program which is anything but fair, thorough, and goal oriented?

I'd be asking this question too in today's climate.

AlaskaBound

Agree to disagree. When did personal merit and good old fashioned hard work go out the door? If your opening statement is "which airlines have the crappiest instructors and most unfair situations" then you're looking for an excuse if you don't pass the training. I've been through 3 very different 121 training programs and one was extremely unfair with crappy instructors. But I passed with no issues. I had to work extra hard and dedicate a ton of extra time. I could have talked crap about the crappy instructors (crappy in my opinion) but I didn't. I buckled down, acted like a professional and did my job. Quite the concept. And I'm hardly naive as I've been through more training departments than you have.

iFlyRC

I can think of a certain 135 operator that flew c210's that "has never furloughed a pilot" that used the line check process as a way to remove excess pilots. The OP is not out of line, there are some really scummy operators out there, but I don't believe it is a "thing" in the 121 world. I personally have no interest in leaving the 121 world, with this being one of the reasons. I watched 60 people show up to this operators ground school, by day 2, only 12 of us remained. Their sim had a bug where it would go into a spiral nose dive. The first ******** instructor failed everyone that it happened to. I was one of the last to go, I had the chief pilot for my sim eval. Spiral nosedive happened to me as well. The chief pilot laughs and says, "Yes, the sim has a bug, don't worry about it".
By the way, the company is out of business, the chief pilot got nailed by the FAA for abusing the system and lost his ratings. The sad part is that the other guy is now at Jet Blue.

NeverHome

Well this is one area I certainly do agree with. Regardless of the training dept every new hire must buckle down and give 100%. I too have seen many times where somebody is slacking. In my opinion that is fairly rare but yes it does happen.

Most common is when somebody slips up and then trashes the instructors and flames the airline. We really need self responsibility in this industry. Along with that we really need integrity. In my most humble opinion I feel that one philosiphy has mostly departed this industry.

Just my .02$

ebuhoner

Been on two training programs, envoy a few years back EMB145 and recently at Endeavor.

I think they were both very good and most of the instructors were good. I was a little bit more concerned at envoy cause it was a couple of "paper tigger" sessions with an instructor and 8 or 9 sim sessions (cant remember) and then a checkride. I think their limit was that you couldnt repeat more than 2 sessions. And for some reason I always had the feeling that my job was threatened. Of course that never changed not even after flying the line.

Then at Endeavor it was 5 FTD sessions (not paper stuff but actual interactive touch screens), 10 full motion sim sessions and then an AQP checkride (slightly easier than a full normal checkride, but same stress level). So I actually felt more prepared for my checkride (16 sessions total at endeavor vs 10 at envoy). I think they can give you like 4 or 5 extra sessions or even more if you are always showing progress and good attitude ( there is no specific number of extra sessions). However the stressful part for me was ground training because if you fail 2 written tests you are out. And some of those tests have very tricky questions.

So overall I think Endeavor was a better experience And YES its a good question I dont understand why so many people got irritated, you wanna know about QOL, PAY and ALSO training so what the hell is wrong with that? Geez...

FlameNSky

I personally know of a new hire that was given 5 additional sims before they finally let him go. In the end, he really couldn't pass the standard of being a competent, safe pilot. If someone is putting forth the effort, they will help and work with him. The ones let go after 3 failures are the ones with the bad attitude.

I could understand one's desire to pursue an easier training program. I think most of the negative reactions to the idea is based on a more broad cultural shift toward taking the easiest route. The "Participation Trophy" Generation if you will. Think of it this way, as you are being put under anesthesia for surgery, would you want a Doctor cutting you open that went to the "easiest medical school" in the industry?

As Airline Pilots, we have a great deal of responsibility while operating in a highly complex and dangerous environment. There is a reason that Military Pilots are favored by mainline HR departments and its not because military flight training is the easiest training around.

I'm sure that the passengers aboard Asiana Airlines Flight 214 wished that their pilots had been "challenged" a little more during their flight training.