Zero to Hero Concept

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by Itchy

Military people are hired because they are more likely to get through training, have demonstrated a proven discipline, fairly smart, and can do the same thing the same way, time after time. And for many more reasons.
That said, there are always a few who buck the trend.
I'm not a fan of very low timers in front of an RJ, but for the most part it has worked out, and is a proven idea.
As much as that sucks, it is what it is.
I can think of at least one known accident where total time did not play a part, but maturity did.

Could it be more than they have degrees being a primary reason? Just trying to offer THAT perspective. They don't all succeed as pilots, but hello. . .?

[BobDDuck]

Originally Posted by modernicarus

Sorry, I didn't mean to beat a dead horse, but I didn't know that horse was dead.

No worries about dead horses and what not. Just because it may have been, doesn't mean it can't be discussed.

As far as training time and effort put forth, a civilian is just as capable of working and training as hard or harder than his/her military counterpart so I don't buy that argument. There are "true aviators" and there are "airplane drivers" in both of those worlds and it is up to the individual to decide which one he/she wants to be.

Remember, a military pilot is a civilian before they enlist so yes, you are right, everybody is just as capable of working and training hard. However, not everybody is capable of being highly successful doing so. That's why there are a whole lot of people shooting for each military pilot slot and most of them never make it there. On the flip side, if you have enough time (not flight time but time to spend) and money and are willing to sit it out, there is a pretty good chance that someday you will get in the right seat of a 121 jet. The selection process for the civilian world is NOTHING compared to the military world. So yes, civilian pilots can be "true aviators" as you call them, but many of them just are "airplane drivers" because that's the highest skill set they can attain.

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

Me thinks, from all this discussion, that perhaps, despite its size, maybe an RJ is an aircraft that can easily be flown single pilot except for the obligatory regulation that places an SIC in the cockpit?

Thought?

No. It's a two pilot airplane for a reason. That said when you put a 300 hour guy up front it gets flown as a single pilot airplane some times. But, there is a good reason it's not certified as one. And there's the problem with 300 hour pilots right there.

[Baronman]

Originally Posted by Pilot84

A CFI with 1500 hours flying the traffic pattern in a 152 is a lot more experienced than someone with 500 to fly a passenger aircraft? Lets get real, in my class there were pilots with 300 hours and 3000 hours. 4 of the hired that had over 3000 hours did not pass the sim while everyone else did.

What a narrow perspective of what CFI's do...Either you never were or were poor example of a CFI.

I'll tell you what. Some guys who do well in the sim are the same guys that spent 10000 hours playing flight sim. I see it every day on the line. From the time the nosewheel is in the air till 50' there head is buried in the 6inch x 6 inch screen horizon and speed tape. They are unimpressive to say the least.

[Itchy]

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

Could it be more than they have degrees being a primary reason? Just trying to offer THAT perspective. They don't all succeed as pilots, but hello. . .?

The degree at that point is a given.

Also, a lot of total time does not mean (as has been pointed out) that they are great pilots. Just means they have a lot of total time. I know of someone that has somewhere in the hood of 7 or 10K hours, and I would not put my family on board with them.

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by BobDDuck

No worries about dead horses and what not. Just because it may have been, doesn't mean it can't be discussed.

Remember, a military pilot is a civilian before they enlist so yes, you are right, everybody is just as capable of working and training hard. However, not everybody is capable of being highly successful doing so. That's why there are a whole lot of people shooting for each military pilot slot and most of them never make it there. On the flip side, if you have enough time (not flight time but time to spend) and money and are willing to sit it out, there is a pretty good chance that someday you will get in the right seat of a 121 jet. The selection process for the civilian world is NOTHING compared to the military world. So yes, civilian pilots can be "true aviators" as you call them, but many of them just are "airplane drivers" because that's the highest skill set they can attain.



No. It's a two pilot airplane for a reason. That said when you put a 300 hour guy up front it gets flown as a single pilot airplane some times. But, there is a good reason it's not certified as one. And there's the problem with 300 hour pilots right there.

I understand you completely, but there's something else missing in this equation (and I don't know what it is & truly, I can't put my finger on it).

Explain the difference, if possible, between an RJ and a C-17 as it relates to a low time right seater. I really need some help understanding why it works in one situation and it's frowned upon elsewhere. More specifically, what's in a military person that, generally speaking, is not in a civilian?

[BobDDuck]

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

Explain the difference, if possible, between an RJ and a C-17 as it relates to a low time right seater. I really need some help understanding why it works in one situation and it's frowned upon elsewhere. More specifically, what's in a military person that, generally speaking, is not in a civilian?

The low timer in the right seat of the C17 has made it through a VERY tough selection process and thorough training process. From the very beginning she had the ability to learn to be a good pilot. Then the military spent a whole lot of money maximizing her skill set. Throw her in the RJ with normal 121 training and she'll probably be ok because she's naturally good. Throw her in the RJ with the same amount and type of training that the military gives and chances are she'll be good to go.

The low timer in the right seat of the RJ was hired because they showed up for the interview and were able to fly a sim for 15 minutes. Then the airline spends some money to train them to pass a specific checkride. If they have problems they will get more training (up to a certain point) so they can redo whatever maneuver they failed the first time around. Now, if you are lucky, this pilot is a naturally good pilot and when they get into the right seat of the RJ they can keep their head above water. They aren't too helpful because they are limited by their amount of training but they've got a good attitude and they can mostly stay out of trouble as long as the situation stays normal. Even if they are good, the level and amount of training they've received up until they get into the actual plane is the bare minimum required (per the FAA) to be "compentent" in the operation of the aircraft.

Recap

Military pilot slots are HIGHLY selective. You don't get a spot unless they think you will be a strong pilot.

Civilian pilot slots are not as selective. It has more to do with who you know and how you interview than how skilled you may be.

Military training programs are train to excel.

121 Regional training programs are train to pass.

I'm not saying there aren't bad military pilots out there who are weak when they finish training. I'm sure it happens, but it's rare because most of them washed out a long time ago or were never offered a spot to begin with.

EDIT: I see you asked about the planes. There is no difference. A plane is a plane.

[granlistillo]

Originally Posted by MFT1Air

Explain the difference, if possible, between an RJ and a C-17 as it relates to a low time right seater. I really need some help understanding why it works in one situation and it's frowned upon elsewhere. More specifically, what's in a military person that, generally speaking, is not in a civilian?

I think there is a subjective difference that is apparent to most folks, but is still subjective. Kinda like the difference between Madeliene Albright and say jennifer Aniston. Not sayin' one is better than the other, just sayin'.

[MFT1Air]

OK guys. I understand your perspectives. I can't agree or disagree, as truly I don't know. Everything you've addressed makes sense to me.

[SteveC]

My experience has been that the women pilots that I know have been, on average, better than their male counterparts. Probably because as a group they have to put up with more BS (witness the attitudes prevalent in this thread for prime examples) that if they don't have what it takes both in skill and in positive mental attitudes, they are looooong gone. (There are always exceptions to the rule of course. Save yourself the effort of pointing out y'alls examples of poor female pilots - I've met some of them as well.)

Personally I'm pretty disappointed with some of the Neanderthalian attitudes prevalent in this thread.

[ILSstud]

Originally Posted by SteveC

Personally I'm pretty disappointed with some of the Neanderthalian attitudes prevalent in this thread.

No where in the thread did I make the distinction between female and male pilots. It is purely coincidental that the person I was talking about happened to be female. If this thread came across as sexist that was not my intention AT ALL.

[BobDDuck]

Originally Posted by SteveC

Personally I'm pretty disappointed with some of the Neanderthalian attitudes prevalent in this thread.

Steve, I don't think you are reading for content here... I really didn't see anybody commenting anywhere on male vs. female pilot skill levels. I saw plenty of people commenting on newbie vs. experienced pilot skill levels as well as people commenting on the ability of male vs. female pilots to get hired but I don't see how those two are remotely related.

Do tell.

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by BobDDuck

Steve, I don't think you are reading for content here... I really didn't see anybody commenting anywhere on male vs. female pilot skill levels. I saw plenty of people commenting on newbie vs. experienced pilot skill levels as well as people commenting on the ability of male vs. female pilots to get hired but I don't see how those two are remotely related.

Do tell.

OK

Hehe. Yeah she's a little defensive. Funny thing, I noticed when I graduated in '03 (couldn't even get a CFI job) all the girls got hired then with low time too... hu. That's kinda weird.

On a side note: when I get furloughed I'm putting a wig on for my interview.

...she felt like she had numerous job interviews simply because she was female.

Combine that with a personality that breeds a sense of entitlement and/or denial...

But yeah, I think we all know about women and aviation. I know a girl that crashed the Sim three times at her ASA interview and she still got hired...

You will never get a woman to admit she was wrong. EVER. So stop trying.

So funny you mention that. Yet another thing I've learned in training this week...

We were doing our pre-sim briefing today, and the last slide of the PowerPoint presentations is always a CRM circle to remind you to work as a crew. As the instructor, a male this time, clicked right by it, he said "yeah, that never seems to work with women"

Last hiring session at UND they hired 10 people out of 40. 3 females applied and 3 females got hired.

< shrug >

Whatever, I guess.

[ILSstud]

Quote 1: simply an observation; perhaps he DID see many girls with low time getting hired...not really sexist....somewhat of a neutral statement.

Quote 2: The woman he was mentioning stated that SHE thought she got an interview because she was a woman.

Quote 3: Mildly sexist. I'll give you that one.

Quote 4: More of a joke....and considering some of the other humor I've seen on this forum before, hardly anything to be disgusted about.

Quote 5: It seems the CRM guy was sexist, not the poster.

Quote 6: Statistic. Nothing sexist abut it.

[BobDDuck]

I see one sexist remark that really has nothing to do with flying.

Everything else is about females getting hired. Nothing to do with skills or lack there of.

[SteveC]

I read implications inherent in the statement "she got hired because she's a woman", and I certainly don't think that those could be considered positive implications. Others might not read it the same way I guess.

[MQAAord]

I'm with ya, Steve. :/

[ILSstud]

Well we are all free to interpret things as we choose. However, again, for the record my intention was not to spark some sexist diatribe against female pilots.

[ppragman]

Originally Posted by BobDDuck

The low timer in the right seat of the C17 has made it through a VERY tough selection process and thorough training process. From the very beginning she had the ability to learn to be a good pilot. Then the military spent a whole lot of money maximizing her skill set. Throw her in the RJ with normal 121 training and she'll probably be ok because she's naturally good. Throw her in the RJ with the same amount and type of training that the military gives and chances are she'll be good to go.

The low timer in the right seat of the RJ was hired because they showed up for the interview and were able to fly a sim for 15 minutes. Then the airline spends some money to train them to pass a specific checkride. If they have problems they will get more training (up to a certain point) so they can redo whatever maneuver they failed the first time around. Now, if you are lucky, this pilot is a naturally good pilot and when they get into the right seat of the RJ they can keep their head above water. They aren't too helpful because they are limited by their amount of training but they've got a good attitude and they can mostly stay out of trouble as long as the situation stays normal. Even if they are good, the level and amount of training they've received up until they get into the actual plane is the bare minimum required (per the FAA) to be "compentent" in the operation of the aircraft.

Recap

Military pilot slots are HIGHLY selective. You don't get a spot unless they think you will be a strong pilot.

Civilian pilot slots are not as selective. It has more to do with who you know and how you interview than how skilled you may be.

Military training programs are train to excel.

121 Regional training programs are train to pass.

I'm not saying there aren't bad military pilots out there who are weak when they finish training. I'm sure it happens, but it's rare because most of them washed out a long time ago or were never offered a spot to begin with.

EDIT: I see you asked about the planes. There is no difference. A plane is a plane.

While I think the pilot training for military slots is outstanding, and they come out of flight school a hell of a lot more qualified than I was at 250TT, really, they still only have 250TT. That's why the military is so cautious with where they send them, the weather that they can fly in etc. Just because you had some incredible training doesn't mean you are invincible, or a god among men. I'll still take the 3000TT freight dawg over the 500TT anything. Military pilot included.

The truth is, its about making decisions, and at sub 1000TT you haven't really made that many, and you're only starting to make them past 2000TT.

[jynxyjoe]

Originally Posted by SteveC

I read implications inherent in the statement "she got hired because she's a woman", and I certainly don't think that those could be considered positive implications. Others might not read it the same way I guess.

Since you used my statement on the multi-quote and others are walking it back or apologizing I'd just like to be clear with mine.

I am absolutely indicating, and in no uncertain terms, that my experience has universally shown women to get hired in preference to their male co-interviewees.

With that said, I have no universal facts based in science to show a global trend. I have seen it. In my experience, every single time the female applicant has been hired.

I doubt my life experiences offend you. The implication that I'm leaving open for others to decide offends you. You call that Neanderthal, I can accept that. I think it is a disturbing trend, I think we should talk about it, and I'm more than happy to discuss it as adults. It was a book called, "Freakonomics" which stated that even though proof may not exist, it is in the authors opinion that numbers are an indication of fact. I believe my experience is an indication of fact.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have an FTD in the same class as a young lady who is winning yet another type rating from the 99's. Wait, that was last week. Anyhoosle, back to Packers/Vikings football.

[SkyFlier33]

Not that I really care, but IMHO this thread did start off with several sexist comments.

[ILSstud]

....on that note, I am checking out of this thread and cooking dinner....

[jynxyjoe]

Sorry to be the loudmouth in the room.

[A300Capt]

I've flown with a WIDE variety of individuals in my 32 years of flying! I've also flown with a wide assortment of gender and ethnic backgrounds mixed with just about every training background known including military and civilian. I've instructed in everything from a C152 as a newly minted CFI to widebody jet IOE and sim instructor in my airline career.

I can usually tell within the first 5 mins of a flight what type of airman I'm paired with without knowing their background. First, I've learned to be very wary of the individuals who verbally recite their resume to me on the initial handshake. Second, I've learned that someones attitude tells me a lot about someone's flying ability. A piss poor attitude usually precedes a piss poor performance in the airplane. Third, Someone's flying background doesn't necessarily tell me what kind of airman you are or guarantee your "ace of the base" abilities in the airplane. Fourth, don't tell me...show me how good you are!

I've said it before that time in a logbook does not always correlate to ability in the airplane. I've flown with some very good low time pilots and some very bad high time airman. In general, the higher time folks tend to do a better job especially when things don't go as planned which is most of the time. They have the experience and judgement to adapt to new situations more easily than a low timer.

The only folks that think a 300 hr pilot is qualified and experienced enough to pilot a jet full of passengers are the 300 hr pilots themselves. Yes, technically they're probably right, they can get the airplane in the air and back on the ground.....as long as things go as planned. I wouldn't mind the 300 hr right seater near as much if I knew the Capt in the left seat had more than just a couple thousand hrs!

A 300 hr wonder in the right seat is kind of like my teenage daughter telling me she is old enough and prepared for all contingencies when she wants to go out alone with her friends on Friday night. As soon as I quiz her on her "what if plans" her thoughts begin to look like Swiss cheese with a lot of "I don't know...it probably won't happen anyway". So, while technically she is old enough to go out alone with her friends, she doesn't yet have the judgement and experience enough to see and avoid potentially dangerous situations.

In a perfect world most folks would agree that all airline pilots would have at least 10,000hrs and have a little gray hair to boot, much like their surgeons. I thought I knew it all when I was a 21 with 1600 hrs. 27 yrs later and I feel like I know less now then I did back then. I guess that's only natural as we age and become a little more cautious and feel a little less bullet proof. Even though I was a young 21 yr old "kid" when I first got hired by a commuter airline, I thought I was well qualified to be there. You know, every kid thinks they're well qualified to drive at 16 and know everything there is to know. I've since realized just how much I really didn't know. I realized how much I relied on my more experienced Capt's to keep me out of trouble until I had a chance to learn the lesson. I've realized I was initially more of a liability than an asset to these Captains even though most took it in stride and taught and mentored me along the way.

While I personally (and it's my opinion only) don't believe in these fast tracks/low time programs to the right seat of RJ's, most *eventually* become seasoned veterans and very good pilots over time. It's simply human nature to want the most seasoned and experienced pilot flying you around. Everyone wants the most seasoned and experienced surgeon if they ever need those services. To say otherwise, well..you're only kidding yourself. It's the time between 300 hr to experienced aviator I worry about.

[SkyFlier33]

Originally Posted by SkyFlier33

Not that I really care, but IMHO this thread did start off with several sexist comments.

To clarify - some comments, not the OP

Again, not that I care. Just an observation.

[MFT1Air]

Originally Posted by ILSstud

No where in the thread did I make the distinction between female and male pilots. It is purely coincidental that the person I was talking about happened to be female. If this thread came across as sexist that was not my intention AT ALL.

Alec, my brother. . .I hate to say this, but you kinda "slanted" a little towards female bashing. Now if I'm wrong, excuse my bias towards the underdog, but. . . .