767 Hard Landing IAH ???
08-05-2023, 01:04 PM
#191
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,525
I think you made my point for me. Experience is a good thing. A necessary thing. Bean counters can't put it in their calculator, so it ****es them off. When there's a problem and experience is a part of the equation they will change the subject. Maybe the industry is growing too fast for the amount of qualified applicants available in the potential hiring pool? The USAF doesn't lower it's hiring standards for their test pilot school. They also don't lower the bar for their end product out of basic pilot training, or their follow on airframe specific training. The airlines aren't designed to "teach" the fundamentals of flying swept wing jets. It's not a "flight school." They teach you systems via CBT and give you cockpit trainers, and simulator sessions designed to teach professional pilots how to be successful as "airline pilots." Go from a corporate jet, or a turbo prop, or a military jet, or an RJ, and I think this is a "can do." But, I am presuming you already have about 2000 hours PIC time and a good amount of jet time. That's what AQP is all about.
08-05-2023, 01:17 PM
#192
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
Unfortunately "diversity programs" cloud the discussion of experience. While NOT a "driver" it is NOT "pedestrian" or an "innocent bystander" either. It's not just "experience" that needs to be evaluated, it's the overall qualification level. Any factor that can be used to lower the entry level qualifications of an applicant is a factor that needs to be fully explained, and understood, to include the ramifications of that factor. The "non pilot" issue is this: HR will touch any program it can. Their role in all corporations is hire/fire. That's their job. If they get to supervise, or control hiring, they will use what they learned in college. The 2 or 3 courses they had at the Baccalaureate level in hiring standards do not qualify them to make hiring decisions in any company that has "Flight Operations" as a center of gravity in their operation. The HR program designed to promote DIE at UA is going to be closely scrutinized, or at least it should be. The bigger study question for PHD students will become: "Are DIE programs having an impact in Airline Hiring practices and what impact, if any does it have on their training, checking, and safety management systems and does it increase risk to the operation?" These programs are now being discussed at the PhD student level. I expect some interesting publications within the next 18 to 24 months. Data doesn't lie. Good, bad, or ugly, it will be dug up and discussed.
08-05-2023, 01:18 PM
#193
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,085
The alternative is you either put safety a priority or you don't. Hiring of experienced pilots should take precedence and priority. Privately, many LCA's speak very negatively on what's going on. You can either tap the brakes voluntarily, or it will be done for you. The FAA is definitely going to increase in their surveillance of everything. They just don't have a choice. The AQP training program was designed for "experienced pilots." The entire training program from zero to hero needs to be re-thought of, and re-imagined if we are going to hire pilots with this low of an experience level. There were more qualified applicants out there the day this person was hired. This was a self-induced problem that corporate HR created and the LCA's are forced to solve.
A MX inspection for a tail strike is one thing, but removing 3 airframes from service is a bigger deal. Thats 9 CA positions and 16 to 20 FO's per airframe that can't be/won't be staffed. That's how many RASM's/PRASM's of lost revenue? How many routes will be cut and removed? You really can't replace WB airframes. How many gates will UA lose because UAcan't service the route. Many air frames scrapped during heavy checks due to corrosion. Combine those fleet reductions due to heavy mx problems with these problems and you see a fleet that is dying very fast.
A MX inspection for a tail strike is one thing, but removing 3 airframes from service is a bigger deal. Thats 9 CA positions and 16 to 20 FO's per airframe that can't be/won't be staffed. That's how many RASM's/PRASM's of lost revenue? How many routes will be cut and removed? You really can't replace WB airframes. How many gates will UA lose because UAcan't service the route. Many air frames scrapped during heavy checks due to corrosion. Combine those fleet reductions due to heavy mx problems with these problems and you see a fleet that is dying very fast.
the funny thing is that most people have a confirmation bias were their own experience clears the hurdle but somehow others don’t.
no one is born with experience. I am sure they will adjust AQP to make sure they can train zero to hero folks. It’s not unheard off in Europe and that seems to work out fine or at least good enough.
Losing a WB isn’t fun but that’s all part of the equation. Once it gets too expensive management may want an LOA that makes it more attractive for senior folks to bid WB, deal with global reserve etc. or they don’t because losing a 767 that is way past it’s prime every few years is cheaper that that LOA
assuming that any of these mishaps had anything to do with experience in the first place - who knows what the conclusion will be
08-05-2023, 01:33 PM
#194
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
what experience is enough? Only AF pilots who were on an AF1 detail?
the funny thing is that most people have a confirmation bias were their own experience clears the hurdle but somehow others don’t.
no one is born with experience. I am sure they will adjust AQP to make sure they can train zero to hero folks. It’s not unheard off in Europe and that seems to work out fine or at least good enough.
Losing a WB isn’t fun but that’s all part of the equation. Once it gets too expensive management may want an LOA that makes it more attractive for senior folks to bid WB, deal with global reserve etc. or they don’t because losing a 767 that is way past it’s prime every few years is cheaper that that LOA
assuming that any of these mishaps had anything to do with experience in the first place - who knows what the conclusion will be
the funny thing is that most people have a confirmation bias were their own experience clears the hurdle but somehow others don’t.
no one is born with experience. I am sure they will adjust AQP to make sure they can train zero to hero folks. It’s not unheard off in Europe and that seems to work out fine or at least good enough.
Losing a WB isn’t fun but that’s all part of the equation. Once it gets too expensive management may want an LOA that makes it more attractive for senior folks to bid WB, deal with global reserve etc. or they don’t because losing a 767 that is way past it’s prime every few years is cheaper that that LOA
assuming that any of these mishaps had anything to do with experience in the first place - who knows what the conclusion will be
08-05-2023, 01:50 PM
#195
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,085
I think it takes about 3000 hours and 1500 jet, and 1000 turbine PIC. But that just gets you in the door. I think a bigger problem that is yet to be discussed is why is their no simulator evaluation ride during the interview? Bring back the sim check. Lets see what were going to hire before we invest in them. Lets see if the training program will be appropriate to the applicant. Can we train this person? That's the first question that needs to be answered. You can't train everyone. You have to know that going into this. Experienced evaluators should be trusted to honestly evaluate the applicants chances of success in the training program to include 1 or 2 OE trips worth up to 20 hours per trip, so 40 hours of OE is the benchmark to get through the program. You get about 1 week of indoc, 5 weeks of simulators and 2 OE trips.....more than that, we really aren't set up for that.
and than what?
why not bring back PIC and degree requirements?
this is all about supply and demand. Demand outstrips supply and it’s time to get used to the new reality. Find the folks that have the right attitude and can be trained. Maybe our training needs an overhaul to accommodate the talent pool. The regionals have done it successfully.
08-05-2023, 01:52 PM
#196
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2020
Posts: 2,321
more experience is clearly better than less. But what marginal returns do you get? And does it really matter?
all pilots hired meet FAA and insurance standards. The occasional tail strike or hard landing is the cost of doing business. At least that’s how management looks at it
whats the alternative? Not hire folks and stop growing / falling behind?
all pilots hired meet FAA and insurance standards. The occasional tail strike or hard landing is the cost of doing business. At least that’s how management looks at it
whats the alternative? Not hire folks and stop growing / falling behind?
08-05-2023, 01:55 PM
#197
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,085
The alternative is to increase our training requirements due to the reduced experience of our new hires. We’ve already started some of that. All new captains now get the long course for upgrade, and according to the potential AIP, there will be situations that require 100 hours of OE. We’ve always had the luxury of hiring very experienced pilots and 25 hours of OE was more than enough time in most cases. In this environment we will have to adapt our training program to compensate for the lower experience levels of our applicants and to deal with rapid upgrades of those inexperienced pilots. More classroom time, more simulator time, and more OE is needed. Of course airline managers will do a cost analysis between increased training cost and the occasional incident and take the cheapest path.
filler
08-05-2023, 02:01 PM
#198
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
bring back sim evaluations will just feed a cottage industry of interview / sim prep more than it already does.
and than what?
why not bring back PIC and degree requirements?
this is all about supply and demand. Demand outstrips supply and it’s time to get used to the new reality. Find the folks that have the right attitude and can be trained. Maybe our training needs an overhaul to accommodate the talent pool. The regionals have done it successfully.
and than what?
why not bring back PIC and degree requirements?
this is all about supply and demand. Demand outstrips supply and it’s time to get used to the new reality. Find the folks that have the right attitude and can be trained. Maybe our training needs an overhaul to accommodate the talent pool. The regionals have done it successfully.
08-05-2023, 02:15 PM
#199
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,085
As a Captain I don't want to "baby sit" I have no training in this area, and that's not my job. I can mentor, and offer tips, but I have too many other priorities to juggle to include basic pilot training. The training department needs to provide me with a FO that is fully ready for the mission/job. I simply offer that their training program cannot "simulate" flight experience. The biggest barrier to communication we were taught in CFI training was "lack of common core experience." That barrier still exists today. You can't train that, or out train that. There's no substitute for experience. In aviation, like in baseball there are "levels" you must attain before going to the show. HS, college, A ball, AA ball, AAA ball... The same thing correlates in aviation. You do good at level 1, then get to level 2. Do good there, and get to level 3. The sum total of all of those experiences is what builds a pilot. At each level there was training and checking, proficiency, and experience. It all adds up. I think a great attitude is awesome. But their "attitude" doesn't help with airmanship. A good attitude does correlate to receptiveness in learning, but not necessarily in judgment and airmanship.
what do you think management will pick?
08-05-2023, 02:57 PM
#200
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,954
As a Captain I don't want to "baby sit" I have no training in this area, and that's not my job. I can mentor, and offer tips, but I have too many other priorities to juggle to include basic pilot training. The training department needs to provide me with a FO that is fully ready for the mission/job. I simply offer that their training program cannot "simulate" flight experience. The biggest barrier to communication we were taught in CFI training was "lack of common core experience." That barrier still exists today. You can't train that, or out train that. There's no substitute for experience. In aviation, like in baseball there are "levels" you must attain before going to the show. HS, college, A ball, AA ball, AAA ball... The same thing correlates in aviation. You do good at level 1, then get to level 2. Do good there, and get to level 3. The sum total of all of those experiences is what builds a pilot. At each level there was training and checking, proficiency, and experience. It all adds up. I think a great attitude is awesome. But their "attitude" doesn't help with airmanship. A good attitude does correlate to receptiveness in learning, but not necessarily in judgment and airmanship.
When I was “playing AAA ball” I was almost always flying with 100-500 hour 121 FO’s. Mentoring, taking the airplane when necessary, all that jazz was part of the job of being captain. This is the cost of admission of higher wages, better seniority, fleet expansion, etc during a pilot shortage.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
