ASA 4 Days

[Mookie]

nope...I'll take quantity over your supposed "quality" every time, and twice on Tuesday. how many of these pilot farm guys driving perfectly good planes into the ground does it take for Senator DBag to realize what the real problem is. i think that time is now...

Mookie

 

[Tarzan]

I tend to agree. The guys with the structured programs may do better in the sim but they don't have time watching people make mistakes over and over again. Hence, they may be somewhat more inclined to have the attitude of, "It can't happen to me." Right after the Comair accident, I listened to some young pilots saying they would never make the same mistake. I could see it happening to me simply because if someone else did it. Simply fact of life. I think we lose that with the sort low time folks from structured programs.

 

[Abernathy]

The data is pretty clear that quality outweighs quantity. Structured program people do better than those with a lot of hours who didn't attend some sort of structured program.

That doesn't mean that there are some who do well who didn't come from a structured environment, but on average, structured low-time pilots are better at getting through training and IOE than non-structured high-time pilots.

This makes sense, since the part 121 world is so structure-heavy.

Quality over quantity, every time.

What data? Do you have any references to empirical studies that show that "Johnny Wunderkid" from embry riddle and his 250hrs does better than the other guy who went to mom and pop flight schools, instructed for a few years and worked odd right seat jobs till he could get on at a regional?

I'm the other guy, and I don't think the 250hr guy who took "how to fly 101" at embry riddle has any edge over me or any other CFI airport rat that instructed for a few years in beat up 1960s cherokees and 152s, and spent countless hours fixing problem students. I think it's the opposite.

The only time I ever heard of such study was from an embry riddle-hired attorney during the Congressional hearings of recent past, who Jeff Skiles determined was citing an INTERNAL study performed by Embry Riddle Inc.

When you say "on average, structured low-time pilots are better at getting through training and IOE than non-structured high-time pilots," you need to support that highly subjective opinion with actual independent studies, none of which really exist. When this topic comes up with Instructor Pilots at the 121 level, the polar opposite tends to be their response.

So much for your theory.

 

[SLUF4]

what if you have both a structured background and then flew a crapload of hours instructing and flying charter-you must be a super pilot!

 

[LazyLightnin']

What a horrible debate topic.

 

[Tarzan]

What data? Do you have any references to empirical studies that show that "Johnny Wunderkid" from embry riddle and his 250hrs does better than the other guy who went to mom and pop flight schools, instructed for a few years and worked odd right seat jobs till he could get on at a regional?

Your life must be miserable. So angry at the world. At my company, the instructors will tell you that Embry Diddle guys do well in the sim and IOE. The numbers back them up. More of the guys released from training come from outside and not Diddle programs. Why, because they do alright in situations that are controlled. Fly the heck out of the sim but not fly a visual worth a flip. Talk on the radio? Not a chance. However, I've also had an instructor tell me that a 1500 captain equals a 10000 hour captain due to the fact that training is the same.

 

[JettBoii]

Back to 4 days. They would be ok if they were worth something (22 hrs and up) but 16 hour 3 days suck. 5-2-2-4. What a waste of time

 

[ASA_Aviator]

What data? Do you have any references to empirical studies that show that "Johnny Wunderkid" from embry riddle and his 250hrs does better than the other guy who went to mom and pop flight schools, instructed for a few years and worked odd right seat jobs till he could get on at a regional?

I'm the other guy, and I don't think the 250hr guy who took "how to fly 101" at embry riddle has any edge over me or any other CFI airport rat that instructed for a few years in beat up 1960s cherokees and 152s, and spent countless hours fixing problem students. I think it's the opposite.

The only time I ever heard of such study was from an embry riddle-hired attorney during the Congressional hearings of recent past, who Jeff Skiles determined was citing an INTERNAL study performed by Embry Riddle Inc.

When you say "on average, structured low-time pilots are better at getting through training and IOE than non-structured high-time pilots," you need to support that highly subjective opinion with actual independent studies, none of which really exist. When this topic comes up with Instructor Pilots at the 121 level, the polar opposite tends to be their response.

So much for your theory.

The data supports it. It also makes sense intuitively. If you fly circles around in the sky for 1500 hours, you aren't getting the same quality experience as a person who is getting structured training. It is the same reason you couldn't compete with a military fighter pilot. They are training in the specific set of skills necessary to accomplish that mission. Structured programs train the pilots for the specific skills necessary to accomplish the airline mission.

After 3 months of "line" experience, a structured training pilot has just as much to offer as any other line pilot, and likely is better than a 1500 hour pilot from part 91 land with no adult supervision for 1300 of his 1500 hours.

It doesn't mean that there aren't quality pilots out there who didn't go to a structured school. It means that the quality of their education is highly dependent upon 1, their instructor, and 2, their personal work ethic. Those values are unknowns, and the airline gets a more reliable, predictable product from the structured schools. Like it or not, that is the way of the industry, and the way hiring is heading, and for good reason. Again, the industry data supports it.


BTW, there is no need to be a jerk. Of course, you probably can't help it.

 

[ASA_Aviator]

Your life must be miserable. So angry at the world. At my company, the instructors will tell you that Embry Diddle guys do well in the sim and IOE. The numbers back them up. More of the guys released from training come from outside and not Diddle programs. Why, because they do alright in situations that are controlled. Fly the heck out of the sim but not fly a visual worth a flip. Talk on the radio? Not a chance. However, I've also had an instructor tell me that a 1500 captain equals a 10000 hour captain due to the fact that training is the same.

No question, the low time guys require more OE, and require more mentoring from line captains. (There is a reason that the ATP is a de facto instructor license for 121 ops.) In 3 months, however, you cannot tell the difference between a low time guy, and a high time guy.

BTW, I know a couple pilots with over 3,000 hours who couldn't talk on the radio or operate in the IFR environment. They didn't make it through training. QUALITY over QUANTITY. Every time. 10,000 hours of VFR flying never talking to anyone is not going to make you a better pilot than a 400 hour guy flying out of ATL every day.

Anyway, the data supports my position.

 

[Tarzan]

BTW, I know a couple pilots with over 3,000 hours who couldn't talk on the radio or operate in the IFR environment. They didn't make it through training. QUALITY over QUANTITY. Every time. 10,000 hours of VFR flying never talking to anyone is not going to make you a better pilot than a 400 hour guy flying out of ATL every day.

Anyway, the data supports my position.

I am not arguing the data. I believe anything can be skewed. If they hire guys that have been flying checks in all sorts weather, single pilot and guys that have been real instructors, I.E. lots of IFR and not just circling the patch, these guys will blow by low time guys everytime. Mainly this is because they've have experienced more and can contribute more to whatever scenario they find themselves in. Additionally, they don't seem quite as arrogant since they have watched students make the EXACT SAME mistakes over and over.

BTW, this idea that instructors just circle the patch have not had any real time teaching. When I taught and the clouds rolled in, good time to go fly. I even took my PPL students up in it because it was a heck of alot better than foggle flying. If a guy reaches 1500 hours and has a bunch of time teaching, he/ she likely has done quite a bit more than just "circle the field."

 

[ASA_Aviator]

I am not arguing the data. I believe anything can be skewed. If they hire guys that have been flying checks in all sorts weather, single pilot and guys that have been real instructors, I.E. lots of IFR and not just circling the patch, these guys will blow by low time guys everytime. Mainly this is because they've have experienced more and can contribute more to whatever scenario they find themselves in. Additionally, they don't seem quite as arrogant since they have watched students make the EXACT SAME mistakes over and over.

BTW, this idea that instructors just circle the patch have not had any real time teaching. When I taught and the clouds rolled in, good time to go fly. I even took my PPL students up in it because it was a heck of alot better than foggle flying. If a guy reaches 1500 hours and has a bunch of time teaching, he/ she likely has done quite a bit more than just "circle the field."

We are talking apples and oranges.

When ASA was hiring last, those CFIs you were just talking about were already gone. They were at ASA already, or Xjet, or somewhere else. What we had to choose from was a low-time pilot with exceptional training or a 2000 hour dude who has been flying pipeline patrol for 1800 hours. Between those two there is NO comparison.

Someone flying checks in bad weather, or a CFI who has been doing quality instruction and/or flying in the system, clearly they have more experience, and as long as they are a disciplined type, will likely do just fine in part 121 training. Of course, some of those check guys had some REALLY bad habits.

Remember, I'm not talking about the perfect candidate. The perfect candidate is a 10,000 hour furloughed captain from a 121 carrier. I'm talking about the realistic candidate we will have in 3 years when the hiring boom returns in full force. The only point I'm making is that, when the chips are down, the structured guys have an advantage, quality-wise, over the non-structured guys. Quality training makes quality pilots. How is that controversial? LOL

 

[Tarzan]

Not controversial at all in my book. I've heard all the same arguments you have evidently. Either way, the regionals are in for a tough time in the near future regardless of if this passes or not. It simply costs too much to sign on for the wages you can expect these days.

 

[ASA_Aviator]

Not controversial at all in my book. I've heard all the same arguments you have evidently. Either way, the regionals are in for a tough time in the near future regardless of if this passes or not. It simply costs too much to sign on for the wages you can expect these days.

Agreed. The regionals are going to be hurting badly in 2 years, maybe 3.

 

[Abernathy]

you two should get a room.

 

[Tarzan]

Awwww. Did the angry little lib get his feelings hurt? I'll pay attention now if it will make your feelings all better.

 

[JumpersAway]

Do I really need to point out that not all Embry-Riddle folks wake up and find themselves in the right seat of an airliner so quickly? I know many that have paid their dues, and some who haven't. Just like any other pipeline- E/R simply trains pilots with varying levels of competency- some are good and some are not.