Willing to ##### myself out!!!

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by BobDDuck

Just to throw fuel on the fire, the ONLY person in my newhire class that washed out was the 3000 TT pilot who had been flying Citations and King Airs. Does that prove anything? Nope... not at all.

Same here. To add insult to injury, both were former PFT'ers. One from Gulfstream who upgraded to Captain and had 1000+TPIC, and another from Colgan who did the TabExpress thing and paid Colgan $18k for training.

One was let go for attitude, the other during the sim. I know of one that got cut in the class after mine during his actual checkride as well, he was a right seater in a kingair.

I think lower time guys might be easier to train, and be more motivated. I had a lot of bad habits to get out of when I went through training.

~wheelsup

[NJA_Capt]

Originally Posted by BoilerPilot2007

50 years ago, pilots were being hired by airlines with very low time and private pilots licenses. Did they pay their dues?

Keep in mind 50 years ago the airlines were still flying propeller driven aircraft that flew at FL200-250. The newbies back then flew "the panel" for 10-15 years. They didn't usually put new pilots in the from right seat of a B707.

I guess what bothers us most is that the learning curve is now vertical. Knowledge used to be gained over years and hours flying progressively larger and more complex aircraft. Now they just cram in a few hours in a sim and stamp you go to go.

Seriously though,
Good luck with the job and the career.

[Kingairer]

250TT is to low for a typical civilian trained pilot (a few exceptions) . Youve never really been in charge of anything, you just dont have enough experience at flying in general. What do you have to add to any decision?

[BoilerPilot2007]

Originally Posted by Kingairer

What do you have to add to any decision?

I agree. 250TT does seem low. I wasn't entirely comfortable at 250TT. But what's the cutoff? That's the question.

A lot goes in to adding to decisions. Personality type, experience, etc. There are really no right or wrong responses. So much is dependent upon the individual. Looking simply at the number of flight hours is a start, but there's a reasons airlines do interviews, tests, sim checks, and IOE - to weed people out.

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by BoilerPilot2007

Experience matters. No one can argue with that. I will have 600TT and about 30 multi when I graduate. I may very well take a job at a regional when I graduate. My "experience" will include 10-15 hours in a King Air 200 (right seat), 50 hours in a B727 sim, and several hundred hours of dual given. Along with my degree (as useless as it may seem to many), I feel as though I would be capable to fly in the right seat of a regional. Obviously, some regional airlines do too, or they would not be hiring Purdue grads.

Does flying in the right seat for 1000 hours constitute experience? Some... maybe. There are things you learn, but how applicable is it to Part 121 flying? Now, I've never experienced an engine failure, total electric failure, or landing gear failure in my entire flying "career." We do these things in a crew environment in the 727 sim, however.

So, being a CFI for an additional 1000 hours is "paying my dues." 50 years ago, pilots were being hired by airlines with very low time and private pilots licenses. Did they pay their dues? Perhaps. Not as much as 2000 hour CFIs, maybe. Not everyone has to pay their dues. It's a cutthroat industry, where networking is everything.

You can ONLY gain experience flying an RJ, in an RJ. I find it hard to believe that sitting in the right seat of a 172 for 1000 hours will make someone more prepared than me. I believe that the training we get here at Purdue more than makes up for the difference.

So Chris, I am officially ####### myself out...

BoilerPilot,

You sound to me like you are "owed" an airline job. 600TT and 30ME is not airline material. This is not about paying dues...it's about being qualified to function effectively in a Part 121 cockpit.

I think you are right. Another 1000 hours in a 172 is not going to improve your skills substantially. However, any flying you can acheive under 1000 hours is going to materially improve your developing skill set.

To be competitive for a Part 121 job from here, I would like to see the industry require you add some charter...maybe night freight...some corporate flying. You will probably be a "professional" rj pilot...however, you wouldn't even be insurable on a Baron for a couple of thousand more hours. Something is wrong with that.

Now someone is probably going to offer you an airline job given your educational channel into specific opportunities. And given the opportunity, you should take it. For a company to hire someone with your profile is not your problem. This in an industry standards problem...and one that I hope to be able to address industry wide in the future.

As such, I want to emphasize that my perspective is not against any individual, nor do I want to limit their potential for an introduction into a career. It's a great career and I want to see everyone succeed. If an opportunity for employment presents itself...any motivated pilot should give due consideration to accept such employment.

I know this is a sensitive topic for young guys trying to find jobs. I'm mostly critical of the industry, specific companies, and the FAA for allowing pilots with 30 hours of multi engine time to occupy a Part 121 cockpit.

An airline job should require rigorious training, a proven track record, and a miminum and defined level of experience brought to the first officer position. Not everyone will acheive this level of experience. Not everyone will meet the standards for the position. For some pilots, it will take years to meet these requirements. I understand that. For the industry to adopt airline pilots with less than 5 years and 1500 hours in the industry is not good for this profession; both from an individual development standpoint and a quality assurance issue.

Heck, even a journeyman welder or master carpenter must be an apprentice for 5 or 6 years before becoming certified.


I'm getting off this dead horse here. It's not a particularly enjoyable topic for me...although I have fairly strong feelings towards it...it does nothing but piss off low time guys...which is not my intent. The proliferation of training companies, that expand the expectation that 30 hours of multi time due to an accelerated curriculum is an adequate baseline for a typical airline new hire is not good for our industry.

I'll look forward to getting back to some technical topics and discussions, where maybe I can learn something new...now that's fun.

[jonnyb]

I wasn't entirely comfortable at 250TT

I didn't know jack at 250 hours. That point is still a civilian aviators infancy. During my time on these forums over the last five years, it kind of amazes me how many people (most of them young) actually think they know what they're doing with such little experience.

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by jonnyb

I didn't know jack at 250 hours. That point is still a civilian aviators enfantcy. During my time on these forums over the last five years, it kind of amazes me how many people (most of them young) actually think they know what they're doing with such little experience.

I didn't know jack at 1800 hours. That's when I took off into my first blinding snowstorm on my first freight job realizing....that I really hadn't done any flying until that takeoff. It sure was different than all the time I'd accumulated in the simulators.

[jonnyb]

Originally Posted by B767Driver

I didn't know jack at 1800 hours. That's when I took off into my first blinding snowstorm on my first freight job realizing....that I really hadn't done any flying until that takeoff. It sure was different than all the time I'd accumulated in the simulators.

Exactly.

From B767Driver:
But much more important, IMO, than stick skills...is the ability to make decisions that will hamper the low time guy. A pilot who has been in the air for a couple of thousand hours will begin to know what's right and what's not. What does adequate visibility look like from DH? Does that amount of icing require a diversion? What does poor braking action feel like? Is my captain exhibiting good decision making skills...is that normal to fly that why? Or is he operating outside of normal boundaries? Should we be diverting? How long can we hold with this gas? Are we holding too long...or diverting too early?

The above are my thoughts and concerns exactly. This is what I wish everyone would read over and over. These things define experience and understanding. Without these experiences, one simply lacks exactly that, experience.

[Stone Cold]

Originally Posted by JEP

Come On TX. It's been in the upper 30's all week. It is welll above normal and you can walk around with your jacket undone. It is actually quite nice now.

Yes, I realize it's nice and warm right now. Most of the country I've been around this winter has been relatively warm. I know what could happen to the temps if/when a good Nor'easter blows through. Do you seriously think it'll be that way at the end of the month? I hope so, but will (try to) be prepared for whatever I come across, as always.

[BoilerPilot2007]

Originally Posted by B767Driver

BoilerPilot,

You sound to me like you are "owed" an airline job.

Nobody is owed anything in this profession. Nothing's gauranteed.

You bring up a lot of good points. I won't know jack at 1800 hours myself. There's so much I don't know now, and there are things I won't know at 10,000 hours. I'll have gained experience to help me cope with certain situations, but the thing that makes flying so interesting is that it changes day-to-day. One must rely on their experience (which I'm aware I have very little).

As I've said before, experience matters. It counts.

BUT - does a pilot with 2000 hours flying in San Diego have as much experience as a pilot with 500 hours in the Pacific northwest or in areas with less than desirable weather? Maybe, maybe not. Experience is just that. Hours do NOT equate to experience.

Didn't mean to stir the waters. I'm only speaking based on my limited experience and views. I know I've got much to learn and greatly appreciate the comments left by everyone. Thanks for the opportunity to express my viewpoint.

Oh, I'm getting off the dead horse now. It's starting to smell bad

[FlyChicaga]

I didn't want to interject into this conversation, but I changed my mind and figured I would anyways. I have probably an unpopular opinion in regards to this subject, maybe because of my own personal experiences in aviation so far. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with hiring low-time pilots, if it is done correctly.

The problem that we are having now is the quality and focus of modern training programs, particularly those schools which train specifically for RJ operations and that first regional job. Pilots today in America don't seem to be learning how to be aviators anymore. Pilots are learning to be airline pilots... how to read checklists, make callouts, understand the 121 FARs and SOPs, and fly the airplane in a specific way that the airline dictates. Problem is, that's great for normal operations and a handful of emergency situations which will arise, but not for the grand scheme of operating an aircraft, airline or not.

There are great differences between pilots and aviators. Aviators see the big picture, and know when it's advisable to stray from the SOPs to operate the aircraft safely. There are times where the book won't have guidance on what to do in a situation. Yes, experience helps here. But it matters not how much time you have and experience you have, because if you don't have the basics of "thinking outside the box" and head of the airplane deep within you from the beginning of your training, you are at a great loss.

When I was doing my training, I always asked why we were falling behind other schools in offering "advanced training", like what's offered at places like Purdue or Embry-Riddle in their transport-category simulators. Our Chief Pilot, God-bless-his-soul-now-passed, didn't want anything to do with that stuff. He wanted to create aviators, who knew how to fly airplanes and think outside the box. He was "old school", thinking that stick and rudder will always win over procedural knowledge. Yes, you must know the procedures down pat, and know your systems inside and out. But when it comes down to it, whether you are in a B777 or B-1900, you are flying an airplane, with wings, an empenage, a rudder, ailerons, elevators and engines. It's the pilots who can't revert to the basics of aircraft control in emergencies who get in the most trouble.

If our schools in the US would focus on teaching pilots to not fear an airplane, but learn how to fly and respect it at all edges of the envelope, then they'd be at a much greater advantage at a much lower time. This however brings risks with the reward. You are flying airplanes at the edge of the envelope, and that increases risk of error. But if you'd ask me, I think that knowing what the limits are and when you'd exceed them are better than flying restricted with very conservative limitations, focusing only on procedures and callouts.

I see it all the time. Pilots who get nervous when the operation and aircraft start to exit the normal shell of comfort that we fly in daily. When fuel starts getting low, it's turbulent, you have heavy rain and high winds at your destination, and options are running out, instead of thinking like aviators, pilots today close-in, get nearsighted, and shut-down. It's because they were never trained to think outside the box. To think about weather patterns, the edge-of-the-envelope limitations of the aircraft, and so on. Now, I'm not advocating taking risks or being unsafe in the operation of an aircraft, or risking the lives of your passengers. What I'm saying here is when it starts getting rough, the pilots must focus on stick-and-rudder skills when they should be thinking about options and making decisons.

I don't think airlines will stop hiring low-time pilots anytime soon. They have proven success with it at times, and have been unsuccessful at other times. Same goes for pilots with lots of flight time. Yes, experience is important. But it needs to be the right kind of experience. I think more than any number of flight hours, professional pilots of today need to have a better start in their basic training, moving on and continuing to build stick and rudder skills while learning advanced topics like aerodynamics, the physics of flight, and thinking outside the box. You can learn memory items, procedures, callouts, CRM, etc. when you get to an airline. Regardless of your flight time, you won't be worth a d*mn as a crewmember if you can't realize when it's time to revert to the basics and just fly the airplane.

There is much more to it that makes a successful low time (or, for that matter, any successful) pilot. Desire, drive, attitude, and study habits are big players too. You need to have the desire to gain knowledge at an exponetial rate. You need to have the drive to suck it up, turn off the autopilot, and fly the airplane. Get a feel for it. Turn off the automation, and revert to the good ol' scan and fly. You need a positive attitude, turning off the ego and listening to those giving you advice, good and bad. Then, you need to have good study habits, so it won't bother you to put your nose in the books on your time off work to advance yourself. The only way to succeed with low time is to not let yourself fall into the "comforts" of being an airline pilot. Forget the autopilot, stripes, flight attendants, and all that. Study, fly, turn off the automation, and work hard to be a fluid, precise pilot. Real airline pilots fly airplanes smoothly, with grace, and to exact standards of perfection in speed, altitude, and heading. You aren't a CFI anymore, where being 5 degrees off heading or 5 knots fast is "good enough." It's not, you need to work towards perfection, knowing that it is impossible to achieve, but still worth the effort. That is the hallmark of a professional pilot.

Anyways, sorry for the long rant, but this is just my take on the issue at hand. I think if we could improve how we train, and start screening pilot candidates with better attitudes and desire for success, you'd find a much better batch of qualified aviators operating in the 121 system. Same applies for other facets of aviation as well, but this thread seems to be focusing on airlines.

[Swen]

There is much more to it that makes a successful low time (or, for that matter, any successful) pilot. Desire, drive, attitude, and study habits are big players too. You need to have the desire to gain knowledge at an exponetial rate. You need to have the drive to suck it up, turn off the autopilot, and fly the airplane. Get a feel for it. Turn off the automation, and revert to the good ol' scan and fly. You need a positive attitude, turning off the ego and listening to those giving you advice, good and bad. Then, you need to have good study habits, so it won't bother you to put your nose in the books on your time off work to advance yourself. The only way to succeed with low time is to not let yourself fall into the "comforts" of being an airline pilot. Forget the autopilot, stripes, flight attendants, and all that. Study, fly, turn off the automation, and work hard to be a fluid, precise pilot. Real airline pilots fly airplanes smoothly, with grace, and to exact standards of perfection in speed, altitude, and heading. You aren't a CFI anymore, where being 5 degrees off heading or 5 knots fast is "good enough." It's not, you need to work towards perfection, knowing that it is impossible to achieve, but still worth the effort. That is the hallmark of a professional pilot.

What you said there I agree with totally. Early on I was of the belief high TT equals a good pilot. However, as can be seen, thats only part of the equation. As has been said, a good pilot is always learning, whether they have 100 hours or 15000 hours. Don't get me wrong, experience can come with age, meaning hours, but there are other ways to become an excellent pilot that just putting hours in the book.

[I_Money]

Guys that is nothing in the UK 300 hours will find you a right seat of a 737/320/757 - -

[DE727UPS]

"Pilots are learning to be airline pilots... how to read checklists, make callouts, understand the 121 FARs and SOPs, and fly the airplane in a specific way that the airline dictates. Problem is, that's great for normal operations and a handful of emergency situations which will arise, but not for the grand scheme of operating an aircraft"

Well said. That's why I don't like ab initio and why I think having some CFI time is beneficial. CFI's have to learn to think "outside the box", be flexible.

"I see it all the time. Pilots who get nervous when the operation and aircraft start to exit the normal shell of comfort that we fly in daily" That's scary, since you're an F/O. If the Capts are getting nervous how much worse would it be to have a 250 hour F/O in the right seat?

"I don't think airlines will stop hiring low-time pilots anytime soon. They have proven success with it at times"

Yeah, ASA loves em'. Nothing like having a bunch of super-low-time-just-happy-to-be-there guys on the list when you're trying to raise the bar.

"I don't necessarily see anything wrong with hiring low-time pilots, if it is done correctly."

I suppose I don't, either, if they have the same standards, training, and ability to wash out as the US military. The problem is when you make this sort of thing a for profit business and have deals with the regionals to make it work. Matt, you don't speak much to what sort of experience you'd like to see in a low time pilot. Ratings, hours, experience levels, extra IOE, ect. What do you think?

[fender_jag]

Great post, flychicaga.

If our schools in the US would focus on teaching pilots to not fear an airplane, but learn how to fly and respect it at all edges of the envelope, then they'd be at a much greater advantage at a much lower time. This however brings risks with the reward. You are flying airplanes at the edge of the envelope, and that increases risk of error. But if you'd ask me, I think that knowing what the limits are and when you'd exceed them are better than flying restricted with very conservative limitations, focusing only on procedures and callouts.

Agreed. Low-time guys definitely have a tendency to err on the side of caution and don't know how far they can push the airplane. Staying within one's perception, or realm, of safety is (ostensibly) very important, but I think there is this notion of fear of exceeding one's conservative limitations (this is most evident during a student's first Vmc demo) and the consequences of doing so.

[DE727UPS]

"Guys that is nothing in the UK 300 hours will find you a right seat of a 737/320/757"

As a 757 guy, I can tell you that a 300 hour guy in the right seat of a 757 like a 757 being flown single pilot. It works, and they do it, but it's far from an ideal situation....at least that's how I'd see it. Perhaps the system in Europe, as it is, produces low time airline pilots that are as capable as low time US military pilots. If not, I think it's a bad idea.

Brings up a good point, though. How would the airline pilot career situation in the US change if one could buy their way to the right seat of a 757? Say for 200K, Northwest will make you an FAA approved, company trained, seniority number holding, 757 Boeing jet F/O. What's to keep it from happening?

[TonyC]

Just 4-1-0 it, dude.





.

[KLB]

I agree with Chicaga. Thats one thing I hated about the University training I had. They steadily tried to beat into my head that there is only one way to do something.

[CapnJim]

Originally Posted by NJA_Capt

No, I am asking Y-O-U to present the "statistical facts" that you are right.

Really???? So if I decided to state that the dinosaurs evolved from duck snot, paleontologists would just take my word for it and change their "conventional" wisdom? Yea.....good luck with that.

You actually are misquoting me. I never said that conventional wisdom trumped statistical evidence. My point was that you must present that evidence before our conventional wisdom is modified. Conventional wisdom rules until evidence is presented to the contrary. Other than bickering, no evidence has been presented to prove your point.

Just a few post ago, you yourself followed conventional wisdom when you stated: Yes, of course a 1500/500 pilot is going to be better, safer, and more capable in emergency.

Man, gone for two days and look at how much I miss!
NJA, I don't have to waste my time googling up all the stats on the low-timers to prove me right, and you don't have to google stats to prove me wrong. I think that would simply take more time than either of us are willing to exert on an online forum debate. We can go back and forth each saying "I'm right! Prove me wrong!" and "You're wrong! Prove you're right!" to no avail, so how about we agree to disagree on this one?

One thing though: If you can explain how the phrase "conventional wisdom trumps statistical evidence" is profoundly different from saying "you must present that evidence before our conventional wisdom is modified", then you can say I misquoted you. To me, it looks like the same thing said two different ways. That would be paraphrase, rather than misquotation.
By contrast, you took my post that read:

Originally Posted by CapnJim

What I am arguing against is that the low time guys are unsafe. Clearly, they are not. You could declare almost anything you like to be unsafe, and when someone says "well, I really don't see any evidence that you're right..." you could come right back with "That's WEAK! Show me the evidence that I'm wrong!!!" and then storm off in an 8-cylinder huff.

and blatantly modified it to read:

What I am arguing against is that the low time guys are unsafe. Clearly, they are not. That's WEAK! Show me the evidence that I'm wrong!!!"

which, to anyones eyes, is misquotation writ large, and hurts the credibilty of your argument.

[NJA_Capt]

CapnJim,
So instead of just presenting some simple data to prove your point, you would rather spend time finding misquotations and deflecting attention away from the details?

Lets try this again.
There are two schools of thought:
1)High timers who think low timers shouldn't be hired
2)Low timers who think they are just as qualified

Group number one is the larger of the two groups and constitutes the conventional or old school mindset. There is plenty of evidence supporting the conventional opinion. The only way any of us are going to change our collective reasoning is by presenting FACTS. So if you don't want to waste your time, then don't expect us to change our mind.

So in essence, yes you do have provide some facts. Otherwise, all we have is your opinion. And that as such is not factual.

And one final time:
The burden of proof is not on the old school to prove anything. If you want the old school thinking to go away, the Low Timers are going to have to provide proof. So far, no-one has done so. But they are more than willing to complain about it and point fingers.

To everyone else:
As a new CFI we think we know it all,
Then we get a single pilot 135 job and realize we didn't know anything as a CFI.
Then we get a job in the flight levels and wonder how we survived as a 135 pilot.

[NJA_Capt]

Originally Posted by fender_jag

Low-time guys definitely have a tendency to err on the side of caution and don't know how far they can push the airplane.

Although I mostly agree, I think the Pinnacle accident would go against this line of thought. Low time guys will err on the safe side, but only if they know that they are doing something dangerous. The problem with the Pinnacle guys was that they thought they were operating safely. They had no idea how much danger they were getting themselves in. If they had, they wouldn't have been doing it. More experienced pilots reading the transcripts started cringing before they got to FL200.

I think the main issue is that low timers don't know what they don't know.
And in a jet at FL410 is not a place to find out you missed a critical piece of knowledge.

Staying within one's perception, or realm, of safety is (ostensibly) very important, but I think there is this notion of fear of exceeding one's conservative limitations (this is most evident during a student's first Vmc demo) and the consequences of doing so.

I agree. I think low timers have problems because they don't know the envelope. High time pilots get in trouble because they try to push they boundaries of the envelope.

[FlyChicaga]

Originally Posted by NJA_Capt

I think the main issue is that low timers don't know what they don't know.

So there is a difference there with high timers, who don't know what they don't know? Time makes no difference here. You just flat out don't know what you don't know. You can be a 600 hour pilot with your nose packed in the books gathering up information left and right, or a 3000 hour pilot who just "gets by" and doesn't feel the need to learn more.

I don't see how you can reference the Pinnacle crash as "low timers getting in trouble", seeing as the Captain had plenty of time and experience by your definitions. They just didn't have a professional attitude and approach to the ferry flight they were doing.

It seems you believe that flying 1000 hours as a CFI, then another 1000 hours at FL200 in a King Air will prepare you for FL370 an Mach .80 in a regional jet. Fact is, at 2000 hours, or 4000 hours, you don't magically know how to operate an aircraft in the high altitude environment. This must be learned by doing it. How are you going to gain the experience necessary to be "qualified" to operate in the upper FL's if you never do it? There's always got to be a first time.

I still believe that how you will learn and fly starts at the most basic levels of training.

[FlyChicaga]

Originally Posted by DE727UPS

I suppose I don't, either, if they have the same standards, training, and ability to wash out as the US military. The problem is when you make this sort of thing a for profit business and have deals with the regionals to make it work. Matt, you don't speak much to what sort of experience you'd like to see in a low time pilot. Ratings, hours, experience levels, extra IOE, ect. What do you think?

Personally, I'd like to see candidates who hold all certificates through their MEI (Commercial Instrument ASEL/AMEL CFI, CFII, MEI) with a four-year degree, who have appropriate signoffs for complex, high performance, high altitude, regardless of hours. I'd like to see them having recorded training in aerobatic aircraft, including spin training as both a trainee pilot and instructor. I'd have a very intensive interview process that includes many questions about decision making, one-on-one questions about their personal experiences while flying, and a written test consisting of questions relating to aerodynamics and flying, not FARs or 121 operations. I'd like to see knowledge of complex aircraft systems, going into the "why", not only the "how". As for OE, I'd expect the same amount of OE as for every candidate, that being enough to get them comfortable to fly the line. But before OE, I'd like to see the company provide a chance for the pilot to fly the actual aircraft without passengers for a minimum of two hours. I'd like to see more simulator training on high altitude stalls, and high altitude unusual attitude recoveries. The aircraft behaves much differently at FL370 in a stall than at 5000 feet. Just some ideas off the top of my head.

[NJA_Capt]

Originally Posted by FlyChicaga

I don't see how you can reference the …seeing as the Captain had plenty of time and experience by your definitions.

Not exactly. I never said the Capt had plenty of experience. He had a lot of B1900 time. He had very little Jet/high altitude experience. He had 5000 hrs below FL250 and a few hundred above. He demonstrated very little knowledge of high alt flight. And his FO (<500 hrs) just blindly followed him. I believe if a high timed/experienced FO had been aboard, he would have never let the Capt get in that situation.

I do agree with you that they had many more issues going on.

Fact is, at 2000 hours, or 4000 hours, you don't magically know how to operate an aircraft in the high altitude environment.

I agree, reference above.

How are you going to gain the experience necessary to be "qualified" to operate in the upper FL's if you never do it? There's always got to be a first time.

I still believe that how you will learn and fly starts at the most basic levels of training.

You gain the experience in building blocks along the way. Babies don’t learn to walk by running in a marathon. Pilots gain experience by accomplishing smaller goals on the way to the bigger goal. Gaining smaller blocks of learning and allowing them to sink into your thought process gives a firmer foundation. Cramming 50 hours in a RJ sim only gives you little pieces of knowledge with no time to sink in. It is a great foundation to “learn” the job, but far from creating a ready made experienced aviator.

It is a big jump from a Seminole to an RJ. Ironically, most of the RJ capts I know say that visual approaches are one of their FOs most common problems. Several years of “time building” jobs and a few years flying B1900, J31s, EMB120s help round that out.

You offer a great perspective and I respect your opinions. I think you even mentioned before that your mindset has changed since you have gained more experience.

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by FlyChicaga

I don't see how you can reference the Pinnacle crash as "low timers getting in trouble", seeing as the Captain had plenty of time and experience by your definitions. They just didn't have a professional attitude and approach to the ferry flight they were doing.

.

Just a theory here...it may not pertain to this situation...but one that concerns me. Captain's are not being groomed properly. It used to be that F/Os rode shotgun for 10 years or longer and learned a lot from guys who had been professional pilots for 25, 30 years or longer. Now we are seeing 1 - 3 year upgrades from pilots with limited backgrounds. We're leaving a big hole in the development of captains with this profile.

Things don't happen too often, thankfully, but every few years you see something that you learn a big lesson from. Especially, in the flight levels...recovering cruise mach after slowing for turbulence in the climb...some strange compressor behavior...some buzz in the flight controls that could be mistaken as chop or turbulence. Fuel flow fluctuations without any other indications (filter icing?) A lot of these things aren't taught...but observed and remembered. Chances are, if you're a low time hire...and a fairly quick upgrade...your pilot's toolbox of knowledge isn't as deep due to lack of experience.

I may be wrong...as I'm only going on hearsay...but didn't the Pinnacle deal happen because the engines stalled after getting to slow...then didn't the engines freeze because a relight was attempted outside the inflight start envelope?

Anyway...I've not known too many training programs that emphasize these facts...but over time...they become ingrained in a good captain's thought process. That process will improve as it ages.