Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

ACA new hires

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
I thought that the requirements were an apsect of the bridge program meaning the 600 hour bridge stuff. I didn't interpret it to include military rotary guys.

But since you bring it up, I can't agree that a 600 hour pilot, or 200 hour pilot, should be flying a 450 kt airplane in that type of environment. Sure, it's been done before, it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Maybe I don't know sh1t from shinola about helicopters, but I do know that it took me a long time to feel comfortable flying around in congested airspace in crappy weather with paying passengers in the back. With 200 hours, I simply can't understand it.
 
Perhaps I can give you a different perspective since I fly both on a daily basis. The 200 fixed wing hours is in addition to already having 1000+ hours in (usually) a multi-crewed, multi-turbine rotary wing aircraft.
Speed is relative: 300 knots at 20,000 feet feels nowhere near as fast as 120 knots at 50 feet (although I will admit, no helicopter accelerates like a Dornier.)
Congestion is already relative: New York approach certainly has a lot going on (especially on the radios) but "crowded airspace" takes on a whole new meaning with a flight of six (all fully loaded with troops), weaving back and forth 2 rotors apart, at 200 feet, trying to find an unlit landing zone instead of being vectored in trail for the ILS to a 12,000 runway lit by high intensity lights while watching the TCAS to determine the 3 miles of spacing between aircraft.
As for the Embry-Riddle grads with 600 hours, I have to say I have been very impressed by those guys. They really pick up on a lot of stuff quickly and do a good job. They may have only 600 hours but they know their stuff, and besides, they are flying as a copilot for the next few years anyway. For perspective, the military turns guys loose in single seat high performance fighters (with weapons systems) with only 300 to 400 hours of total time.....
 
I don't know anything about ACA's requirements or practices, but I feel the need to say something on behalf of the helo pilots as well as the low-time civilian guys/gals.

I've never flown a helicopter and only ridden in one on two occasions (both scary). However, over the last 20 years or so, I've had occasion to fly with a great many pilots with backgrounds in military helos and very little fixed-wing flight hours. Without exception, ALL were outstanding individuals and airmen. Not only could they do the job, but they did it well in everything from light twins (25,000 #) to 4-engine jet transports.

Of course they weren't perfect, but neither am I. In the beginning they made "mistakes" in ATC jargon in congested airspace, but no more mistakes than those made by B-52 Wing Commanders, F-15 "tigers", F-18 "top guns" or Harrier stand outs. What's more, they knew they weren't "experts" and were less arrogant by far (more than I could say for many of the other types). They understood the aircrafts systems as well as anyone else, were disciplined and professional in every way. It's been a privilege to fly with them and I wish we could hire them all.

[Not to mention how grateful I am for their very tough and dedicated service to our country, which applies to all military airmen, regardless of branch of service.]

In my present job, I've also flown with many very "low-time" civilian pilots, from places like ERAU, FSI, FIT and of course, the infamous Comair Academy. Those young people were alert, eager, bright, knowledgable, interested and above all compentent. They work hard, study harder, are often "challenged", but do a good job. Most are so "willing and eager" to learn, that its a real pleasure to fly with them. I never asked how many "hours" they had and frankly, I never cared. Whatever their flight time, or which "kite" it was in, it was enough to get hired at the moment, they got through training and they could do a good job. I say, bring 'em on.

In my opinion, WHO your company decides to hire is a lot more important than the hours in that pilot's logbook. The QUALITY of the training your company provides, is also more important than the hours in your log. Your "attitude" as a professional is also a key factor and perhaps even the most important.

If I had to find fault (and I don't) with the new low-time civilian pilots, it wouldn't be with their flying. It would be with the fact than many are more interested in how much money they make, how long they'll be on reserve or how fast they will "upgrade", than with how well they do the job. However, that's a societal problem, not a flight-time problem. If you chose this profession in search of the "big bucks", then you're probably in the wrong profession, in my book. Be a business man, you'll do better. And no, that does NOT mean I think pilots should not be well paid. I just don't think money is a reason to become a professional pilot.

Although I've logged more than 20K hours in command of a variety of T-category aircraft, I still make frequent mistakes and I learn something every time I fly. If you're flying for a living and you're not learning all the time, then I recommend you do something else, like get a good day job. We all make errors and the only thing that changes with lots of "hours" is the type of error that we make. There is no place for pride in the cockpit of an airliner. Save the pride for the time you spend between flights and you'll be ahead of the game.

In the few times I've had difficulty with another "new-hire" crew member it has always been with those who had more "hours" and were "experts" at everything before they came to the airline. It's much more difficult to modify bad habits picked up who knows where, than it is to instill good habits in those with relatively few flight hours and a desire to advance. The self-discipline evident in most former military helo pilots is a big plus in this regard.

So hat's off to the helo pilots as well as to the young pilots from the flight schools and ab-initio programs.

Good luck to all of you. Once you get the airline job you want, you will have joined a club like no other. It's the most frustrating, exciting, boring and rewarding job you could ever hope for.

Fly safe.
 
<<ACA was out here at ERAU the other day doing interviews, thats about all i know>>

I graduated ERAU in 1991.....presently furloughed from United. Being that ACA is currently benefitting from the outsourcing of my job, (RJ growth) are they giving preferential hiring to all furloughed UAL pilots???
 
from what I hear (do not quote me on this) is that they are not hiring anymore mainline guys or gals. maybe just a rumor going around. can't say for sure.
 
Surplus1,

Excellent post!! I couldn't have said it better. It's unfortunate how young inexperienced pilots are so quick to judge with ignorance. I fly both helo and fixed-wing, and without a doubt the helo flying is more difficult, especially military helo flying. Some of the missions I've flown in with the mil would make a civilian fixed-wing pilot run crying for mmma.

I've also seen 500 hour pilots fly better then 3000 hour pilots. It's about attitude and respect for professionalism that helps make a good pilot.

Timp
 
The intern program involves UND, ERAU and I believe one other university. There are many other "bridge programs" that are in place at several regionals but since hiring slowed down so has the bridge program. But, that's the wonderful aspect of ACA, they are still hiring lots of pilots.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top