Stating the obviously unbovious

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by B767Driver

That is correct. The requirements for a proficiency check, largely, are no different from a rating ride.

The only advantage I can see is a potentially lower wash out rate due to familiarity of the airplane. I'd imagine that's a nominal rate at best, but have no statistics to support it or nullify it. And most applicants are just getting the type rating with no experience in the airplane at all...which doesn't make any sense to me. The real world advantage to SWA would be time in type...not a type rating. I probably have 1200 hours in 737s but SWA wouldn't be interested in me. Someone with 8 hours in a simulator is more valuable to them. I've never figured out that rationale.

But from a regulatory standpoint...no cost differences.

Copy that. . .thanks.

[GalaxyIFE]

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

Not exactly. . .let's say perhaps you can fly it, however, the level of competence/proficiency is always subjective, right? The April 2006 Dover incident proves no one is perfect even in flying their own typed aircraft.

Now, back to the Military Channel; thoroughly enjoying the shows to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the U.S. Air Force. Go Air Force! Beat Navy! Go Army! Beat Air Force!

I don't think the argument has anything to do with being perfect...no one is perfect. The Dover mishap was very unfortunate, and like all accidents before it and for the ones that are to come, there was a chain of events that led up to it, and the chain wasn't broken. I would BET you a large sum of money that ANY of those pilots on that airplane could get through SWA training WITHOUT the rating.

I still don't see what the rating does for you...except PAYING for something to GET you the job.

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by GalaxyIFE

I don't think the argument has anything to do with being perfect...no one is perfect. The Dover mishap was very unfortunate, and like all accidents before it and for the ones that are to come, there was a chain of events that led up to it, and the chain wasn't broken. I would BET you a large sum of money that ANY of those pilots on that airplane could get through SWA training WITHOUT the rating.

I still don't see what the rating does for you...except PAYING for something to GET you the job.

. . .and that's not my point either. I'm not so arrogant as to believe that simply because you've C-5 typed, it makes any other training such as SWA a piece of cake. Quite the contrary. Is that what you were implying by your comment? My point relates to your comment:

IF you can fly a C-5, you sure as hell can fly a 737-200-300-500-NG-and whatever else stupid configuration the thing comes in.

My point? Fly YOUR OWN typed aircraft with zero tolerance before you assume you can transition without effort to another aircraft type without issues. Maybe if you were to have said a C-17, I might have agreed with you. . .A C-5? A couple of 737 "stupid" configuration might make a C-5 jock soil one's flight suit.

Oops, I digressed.

[GalaxyIFE]

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

. . .and that's not my point either. I'm not so arrogant as to believe that simply because you've C-5 typed, it makes any other training such as SWA a piece of cake. Quite the contrary. Is that what you were implying by your comment? My point relates to your comment:

IF you can fly a C-5, you sure as hell can fly a 737-200-300-500-NG-and whatever else stupid configuration the thing comes in.

My point? Fly YOUR OWN typed aircraft with zero tolerance before you assume you can transition without effort to another aircraft type without issues. Maybe if you were to have said a C-17, I might have agreed with you. . .A C-5? A couple of 737 "stupid" configuration might make a C-5 jock soil one's flight suit.

Oops, I digressed.

I will not digress. No point in it. I do have one question for you though. What is the difference between the C-5 and the C-17 in respect to the flightcrews that opeate them? If you are in the know with the AF, take a trip down to your local flight safety office and look up some reports on the C-17 and some of those crews and what they have done to some perfectly good airplanes.

The original argument is WHY does SWA REQUIRE the type?!? It is so accepted and no one ever questions it, but those in the av community bash the living hell out of all the PFT programs out there. I only asked the question...If I want to fly for SWA, I HAVE to PAY for the rating to BE PAID by that company.

What configuration of the 737 would you be referring too? I am pretty sure if you can fly an airplane 200 feet off the ground at 350kts @ 769,000 pounds, then there isn't a 737 that is going to soil your monkey-suit. Now a SAM taking out an engine...that is a different story.

Finally, I didn't mean to say that the training is a piece of cake...I simply think that if you make it through the rigors of AF flight training, then you will *most likely* make it through SWA's groundschool....even without the type.

[MFT1Air]

Finally, I didn't mean to say that the training is a piece of cake...I simply think that if you make it through the rigors of AF flight training, then you will *most likely* make it through SWA's groundschool....even without the type.

Excellent summary. Makes you sound less arrogant and pompous.

PS - Being a former stinger guy, our cliche' always was, "if it flies, it dies!" No matter what configuration it is, if it had wings, and it was targeted as a bogey, it was going down. Fortunately, no Allied force had to contend with the skills instilled in our motto, "tough training makes combat easy."

[GalaxyIFE]

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

Excellent summary. Makes you sound less arrogant and pompous.

PS - Being a former stinger guy, our cliche' always was, "if it flies, it dies!" No matter what configuration it is, if it had wings, and it was targeted as a bogey, it was going down. Fortunately, no Allied force had to contend with the skills instilled in our motto, "tough training makes combat easy."

The stingers alway intrigued me...shooting down a "fairly good airplane"

And glad I could clarify...it's sometimes difficult to get your point across on these boards...I can only think of a few people who actually say I was a "pompous, arrogant ass"...

[Velocipede]

IFE, I think he's referring to a 737 in manual reversion...no hydraulics. He's not talking about airspeed/altitude.

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by GalaxyIFE

The stingers alway intrigued me...shooting down a "fairly good airplane"

And glad I could clarify...it's sometimes difficult to get your point across on these boards...I can only think of a few people who actually say I was a "pompous, arrogant ass"...

I aint mad at you; believe me. My first trip in a C-5 was February of 1972. I was amazed with the flight deck and CRM but even more amazed with seats facing the opposite direction. You brought me in and out of the Republic of Vietnam, so who am I to ever say I'm not impressed with a C-5 pilot? Exactly, no one can ever say I have the utmost for you guys, for I truly do. Thanks for bringing me home on many an occasion.

[GalaxyIFE]

Originally Posted by Velocipede

IFE, I think he's referring to a 737 in manual reversion...no hydraulics. He's not talking about airspeed/altitude.

The only thing I was saying about airspeed and altitude was in reference to the SOLL II crews. Hydraulics...who needs that? Well, except C-5 crews, of course!

[Rocketman99]

Hydraulics are for wussies. We didn't need that stuff to fly the KC-135...

[skydog]

Originally Posted by GalaxyIFE

Last thing and I'll shut up. Someone brought up the point about SWA requiring the 737 type...why is it that no one will call BS on this? You have to PAY for it to gain employment, right? How is this right?!?

Because it is not BS. Southwest has the right to specify any qualifications for hiring that they wish. Just as you would if you owned and operated a business. No, Southwest does not require you to pay for a 737 type rating. They simply require that you have the rating. How you get it is up to you. There are many ways to get a 737 type without paying for it. They are: United, Delta, Continental, Air Tran, Alaska, US Air, plus any number of supplemental operators.

And yes, having the type does make training cheaper for SWA. It costs a bunch of money for SWA to train a pilot. If that pilot fails training, that is tens of thousands of dollars the company has spent with nothing to show for it. Requiring a type rating prior to hire provides much greater assurance that the people they hire will successfully complete their training, which is what SWA ultimately wants.

I suspect that the type rating requirement is a holdover from the start-up days, when they did not have a lot of money for training. Hell, back then it might have been a way to avoid training costs altogether. We're talking early 1970's here.

However, if you really feel that strongly about it, I suggest the following: Apply, get hired, show up on day 1 without the type, and call BS on it. I'm sure you will make your point.

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by skydog

And yes, having the type does make training cheaper for SWA. It costs a bunch of money for SWA to train a pilot. If that pilot fails training, that is tens of thousands of dollars the company has spent with nothing to show for it. Requiring a type rating prior to hire provides much greater assurance that the people they hire will successfully complete their training, which is what SWA ultimately wants.

I suspect that the type rating requirement is a holdover from the start-up days, when they did not have a lot of money for training. Hell, back then it might have been a way to avoid training costs altogether. We're talking early 1970's here.

.

Are you just talking? Or can you back this stuff up? Is seems my company can hire folks of sufficient aptitude to complete training in minimum time with nary a washout.

If it's all about being proficient in the airplane, why aren't they interested in hiring first officers with lots of time in the airplane sans type rating? What good is a type rating with no time in the airplane?

[GalaxyIFE]

Originally Posted by skydog

Because it is not BS. Southwest has the right to specify any qualifications for hiring that they wish. Just as you would if you owned and operated a business. No, Southwest does not require you to pay for a 737 type rating. They simply require that you have the rating. How you get it is up to you. There are many ways to get a 737 type without paying for it. They are: United, Delta, Continental, Air Tran, Alaska, US Air, plus any number of supplemental operators.

And yes, having the type does make training cheaper for SWA. It costs a bunch of money for SWA to train a pilot. If that pilot fails training, that is tens of thousands of dollars the company has spent with nothing to show for it. Requiring a type rating prior to hire provides much greater assurance that the people they hire will successfully complete their training, which is what SWA ultimately wants.

I suspect that the type rating requirement is a holdover from the start-up days, when they did not have a lot of money for training. Hell, back then it might have been a way to avoid training costs altogether. We're talking early 1970's here.

However, if you really feel that strongly about it, I suggest the following: Apply, get hired, show up on day 1 without the type, and call BS on it. I'm sure you will make your point.

As I stated before, this is my opinion. If I choose to apply to SWA, I understand their policy...I however at this time decline to PAY for a type-rating. This is just my opinion. The world of aviation is ever changing. So, do you expect me to believe the SWA hasn't changed since 1970? I find that hard to believe. I also do not think that getting a 37 type is a guarantee of anything, not anymore than an RJ "transition course."

Last point here...I am not attempting to argue with anyone here, I just haven't agreed with SWA's policy and have stated my opinion. This horse has been beaten to death, and I personally done posting about it...

[B767Driver]

At one time, United would not allow an applicant to list a type rating on their application if they had less than 300 hours in type.

I don't think it's unreasonable to request the type rating...it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me how they go about it. They'll accept a type rating with no practical experience, but reject practical experience without the type.

I suppose the cynic in me is skeptical about a good ole boy network making money off of potential applicants. Don't a majority of SWA pilots get hired through certain type rating courses/schools?

[GalaxyIFE]

Originally Posted by B767Driver

At one time, United would not allow an applicant to list a type rating on their application if they had less than 300 hours in type.

I don't think it's unreasonable to request the type rating...it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me how they go about it. They'll accept a type rating with no practical experience, but reject practical experience without the type.

I suppose the cynic in me is skeptical about a good ole boy network making money off of potential applicants. Don't a majority of SWA pilots get hired through certain type rating courses/schools?

The last 3 guys I know going to SWA got internal recommendations. They went to 2 different courses. Good 'ole boys club? No comment.

[Seggy]

Originally Posted by B767Driver

I suppose the cynic in me is skeptical about a good ole boy network making money off of potential applicants. Don't a majority of SWA pilots get hired through certain type rating courses/schools?

Yep

Originally Posted by GalaxyIFE

The last 3 guys I know going to SWA got internal recommendations. They went to 2 different courses. Good 'ole boys club? No comment.

It is a good ole boys club.

It is WELL known that going to a certain school in Dallas is pretty much a smaller extension of the Southwest Airlines training department.

[jtrain609]

Originally Posted by LoadMasterC141

Good points John. I give up. Gonna go buy into that pretty Mooney on the field and call it good.

WTFO!? That wasn't the right response! Argue with me!

Ok I take it back, I'm finally off work and will hopefully ignore this forum for a few days...

[greaper007]

Hey, my Dad got a job at SWA without paying for a type rating.....Of course he got "People's Express" to pay for it .

I'm not sure how I feel about SWA requiring a type rating. The big difference I see between paying for an RJ program and a 737 type is the pay. It's not unheard of to bank 100,000 your second year at SWA. That makes a $7000 type rating a little more managable. Whereas it's going to take a very long time to get your money back at an RJ operator.

[skydog]

Originally Posted by B767Driver

Are you just talking? Or can you back this stuff up? Is seems my company can hire folks of sufficient aptitude to complete training in minimum time with nary a washout.

If it's all about being proficient in the airplane, why aren't they interested in hiring first officers with lots of time in the airplane sans type rating? What good is a type rating with no time in the airplane?

A friend who flies for United told me a story about his new hire training partner. They both came to UAL from from the ATR at American Eagle. My friend made it through 727 FE school. His partner failed out.

UAL spent 10's of thousands of $ to train that guy, and in the end got nothing to show for it. No company, not even UAL or SWA, can afford to absorb that kind of cost for very long

I never said it was about being proficient in the airplane. If anything, it is about hedging their bets. This is just what makes sense to me. If you show up on the property with a 737 type, that is pretty much proof positive you can get through the training. Nothing is guaranteed of course, but knowing that my applicant has already successfully completed training somewhere else makes me much more interested in hiring that person.

[flyover]

Originally Posted by aloft

"unbovious"?

More like totally bovious.

[Doug Taylor]

The company is spending a lot less training you than they're willing to admit. Especially as a new hire because they're not pulling you off the line, needing to replace that position, and then paying you your previous rate while in training.

Having a type rating in an aircraft and undergoing training does not guarantee success.

Speaking of new hire ground schools, the guys that had difficulties during 727 engineer school were some of the guys who were engineers at other airlines. Differing training philosophies, different limitations but were given less simulator time prior to evaluation so they had less time to 'exorcise the demons' from their previous employer.

Some people can "free their mind of Carrier X", others can't.

Depends on the individual.