rp2pilot

If you're referring to the episode that I think you are, there was a LOT more to it than that. Not trying to pick the fly feces from the pepper just to add some clarification. At the time, Boeing said that the engines would suction feed up to max altitude. Which apparently they WILL, but only if you climb to that altitude with the pumps off. But, switch the pumps off at ALT, and the flame goes away.

I think you and I are in agreement here. If experienced guys manage to dork things up on occasion, adding more less experienced guys to the mix might not be the best course of action.

- ACA parked a perfectly operating plane in a guys yard going into CHM.

- Avair (American Eagle) did the same thing going into Dulles.

- Two test pilots (right!) flamed out a CRJ doing high alt testing one day on a ferry flight. They then mishandled the in-flight relight which resulted in a lawn dart.

- Buffalo. He couldn't recognize an imminent stall which he had created, and had no idea what to do with the thrust levers even though his speed was ebbing and the stall warning was going off. Meanwhile, his FO had never been in actual icing conditions and thought that retracting the flaps was in order.

As a unionized and highly trained labor force, we ought to be at the forefront of demanding highly qualified and highly experienced labor to join our ranks. Not relatively low time piston engine CFI's who might have an in that the 8000-hour Turbojet RJ Captain (or high time MIL candidate) doesn't.[/QUOTE]

Not to mention the "in house" Air France babies that stalled an A330 at 37,000 feet and kept it in stall all the way down till impacting the ocean despite the airplane calling out "stall , stall" for 2 minutes. By the time they had roused the Captain from his break, they were already below a recovery altitude. Experience means something.

BMEP100

She did it twice.

Still here.

Just to add some clarification.

oldmako

I think that's an unnecessary and cheap shot. I've heard that rumor, but I don't have any proof. Do you?

There was a guy flying that 400 in SFO and another in the Guppy in DEN. And another doing -1200FPM inside the final going into Louisville (UPS). We could point fingers all day. Stuff happens. Sometimes bad stuff. Let's just agree that super low time guys ought to be cutting their teeth elsewhere.

Anyone can hold a jet straight and level on a nice day or follow simple profiles and SOP. That's not what we're (reasonably well) paid for.

Airhoss

Sure don’t read anything into it. The average new hire is in their mid 30’s to early 40’s and has between 6,000 and 9,000 hours. And of course there are outliers on either end of that bell curve. The lowest time pilots in a class are usually military pilots.

The fact that your U2 buddy didn’t get hired doesn’t change those numbers one tiny little bit. We’ve turned down an astronaught or two in the past too. One of the worst guys I’ve ever been involved with in a training capacity was an SR-71 pilot. But at least he was an arrogant horses axe to make up for it.

We don’t rest on our laurels in this industry. It almost never works out.

BMEP100

You are the one that's with the guy theme, instead of pilot.

So gals are exempt from experience requirements? I'd hoped that hiring philosophy passed with the old paint scheme.

krudawg

Not to mention the "in house" Air France babies that stalled an A330 at 37,000 feet and kept it in stall all the way down till impacting the ocean despite the airplane calling out "stall , stall" for 2 minutes. By the time they had roused the Captain from his break, they were already below a recovery altitude. Experience means something.[/QUOTE]

Can we change the subject. The direction of this discussion is getting uncomfortable and I don't think we should be airing our laundry like this in public.

oldmako

Nice attempt at deflection. Please show me where I suggested that anyone was exempt, let alone women. I was speaking in general terms. You chose to pinpoint gender. Last time I went to work it looked like we were a male-dominated profession. And I'll bet that most posters would agree that my post was not gendering specific and that yours was.

https://english.stackexchange.com/qu...r-for-pronouns

"English has no singular gender-neutral pronoun. For centuries, English speakers have used he as the default. At the same time, they have also used the plural they as well. There are no unbreakable grammar rules about this. It's strictly a matter of political correctness (PC). If you want to be PC, use the they/their/them forms for singular persons of unknown gender. If you want to be PI (politically incorrect) for whatever reason, stick to the traditional use of he, but don't be surprised if someone accuses you of sexism or intellectual gerontism (ancient & petrified brain). – user21497"

HuggyU2

Pilot hours: the easiest way to gauge experience and quality... and the least accurate.

Didn't UAL used to give a 300% hours multiplier on the app for military pilots from certain aircraft?

I guess you've been at TK for eons. All but one of the military SR-71 pilots are in their 60's, and the youngest is at SWA.

rp2pilot

True dat. A 1.6 hour sortie off the carrier is far more flying than 3 hours between Orlando and Houston on autopilot.. honestly, it's more "flying" than I do now in a week on the Airbus. I don't know if they still allow it , but FedEx used let you add a multiple to military flight time.

Airhoss

Absolutely agreed. Another inaccurate indicator of quality is background. I’ve run across some ex military and civillian guys who should be SH given their background who couldn’t hit their buttock with both hands. I’ve run across some folks with not to impressive backgrounds who absoloutley kick butt. A quality pilot is an individual thing more than a background thing.

I remember it being 2 for 1 for fighter and attack guys. But I could be wrong. I know they definitely used a multiplier though.

Yeah, I’ve been back at TK for about 2.5 years, that SR 71 guy was back when I was there the first time and would have been 15 or 16 years ago.

As far as your U2 buddy. The simple fact of the matter is that some very good people do not interview well. I’ve got a buddy right now who is a captain at a LCC, has 14 or 15,000 hours. We fly and teach competition aerobatics together, he was a Reno racer for years. He flies at the unlimited aerobatic level, he’s got a super solid background, night freight, corporate, 4 year degree, clean record, he’s in his mid 40’s multiple LOR’s etc etc. UAL hasn’t yet given him the time of day.

When I get the hiring process figured out I’ll PM you with the magic code. But your statement about UAL not hiring experienced pilots is still blatantly false because on average they do. They just didn’t hire your super good, highly experienced buddy nor have they hired mine.