Air Wisconsin minimums lowered?

[BankAccount=0$]

Just as an outsider to the whole regional industry, I find it puzzling to see Air Wisconsin lowering their minimums below 1500/500. I've been an instructor for 4 years, and during that time I've seen the mins go up and down for various regionals. When I got out of school CoEx was hiring anybody they could get their hands on,(and a lot of other regionals as well). Then 9/11 hit and the industry hit the dumper, the stakes were quite a bit higher to get a job. I always thought that Air whisky was the top of the heap when it came to regional airlines, they had the highest mins, and therefore were able to get exactly what they wanted in pilot applicants. Perhaps it's the lack of growth in the regional arena that is driving the mins down. If a company knows that their upgrade times are going on 5-6 years plus, maybe they just realize that they are no longer attractive to higher time pilots who are looking to upgrade and subsequently move on to greener pastures.

I'd like to think that the knowledge gained by teaching, and flying an old rust bucket twin for four years will come in handy when I get my "big" break at an airline, but that remains to be seen. If a particular airline decides to roll the dice on a bridge type of program then that's their choice. From the AWAC captains that I've met, I'd have to say that the low time guys being hired have a great resource to learn from. It's obvious that anybody can learn to be a FO on a jet, but the same isn't true when it comes to being a captain. Nobody was there to help me when an engine quit on take off in the twin I was flying, and nobody was there when everything went dark flying along in the middle of the night. If all you have to fall back on as far as experience as a pilot is what you were taught in a sim, then you might be lacking in the ability to make a PIC decision when it really counts. The flip side to that is that if you're low time, but trained in the RJ that you are flying and if you use your time as an FO to really learn from your captains and apply those lessons learned for when you upgrade, then perhaps being hired at a low total time would be offset by the experience gained.
In the meantime I'll just cross my fingers that AWAC might give me the chance to interview, and hopefully be able to be a part of a great company.

Good luck to all of you,
TJ

 

[lurker]

From what I understand, Air Willy hired a lot of high time furloughees after 9-11. Once the Frontiers and Air Trans and ATAs and such started hiring again, it was the high time people that were first to leave, especially with the lower morale in the past couple years.

From what I have heard, they're hiring more low time folks to slow the attrition, thus the lowered minimums.

I know of one guy (not a furloughee, but had fairly high time) that was hired at Air Willy, got through sim 6, and then gave notice after ATA offered him a class.

I would guess this is good news for lower time folks.

 

[pipejockey]

I have never before entered the discussion on this type of program simply because there are plently of other people out there that share my opinion about why anyone with less than 1500 hours has exactly no business anywhere near the cockpit of an RJ

Why must you see everything in black and white? So the 3000 hour pilot is more competent than the 2500, the 2000 hour more competent than the 1500, and so on and so on.
You figure one has 300 hours before beginning to flight instruct. So assuming one flight instructs 1000 hours in a 172, 200 hours in a seminole, this person is now OK to get the near the cockpit of an RJ? But someone with 650 Multi, 300 turbine with part 135 experience but only 750 total is not competent to be an RJ pilot? This is why I say some people need to "get over themselves" as you made a point to insult me for saying.

Just one more thing I want to respond to before I go - A quick qoute from pipejockey that to me really demonstrates why some people really dont take their jobs and the implied consequences therein seriously enough.

Quote:
This is the only profession I know of where so many people concern themselves about how someone gets the required experience necessary for a job. Some of you need to get over yourselves.
OK with all this said I wil get off my soapbox and I welcome any intelligent discussion and will cheerfully ignore everything else. Good luck to us all.

Twotter,
Im sorry to hear you find my discussion unintelligent. I think I'll live. You took a quote from me and completely took it out of context and you know it!

How many of you out there really believe that your average 500 hour pilot has enough skills to make a safe landing going in to LGA at night in winter in moderate turbulence and icing with an incapcitated captain in a 35 knot crosswind single engine?

The above quote by twotter followed, interestingly enough, by this:

You want to know why I concern myself with how you got your experience (or lack thereof)? Because some that I care about might be riding with you at some point.

I think it is apparent from the last 2 quotes that the fear you have for the safety of those you care about is not when they will be flying with me, but with you!!! Someone who apparently will exceed not only the aircraft manufacturer's limitations but also the limitations of the airline. That is why we have a 27 knot crosswind limitation on a dry runway, 24 wet, and 15 on ice or snow covered. And you will land at LGA during these conditions, single engine, and with an incapacitated Captain to boot when EWR, and JFK are close by?? And you worry about MY judgement!

 

[J32driver]

I think it is apparent from the last 2 quotes that the fear you have for the safety of those you care about is not when they will be flying with me, but with you!!! Someone who apparently will exceed not only the aircraft manufacturer's limitations but also the limitations of the airline. That is why we have a 27 knot crosswind limitation on a dry runway, 24 wet, and 15 on ice or snow covered. And you will land at LGA during these conditions, single engine, and with an incapacitated Captain to boot when EWR, and JFK are close by?? And you worry about MY judgement!

That is a PATHETIC argument and...YOU KNOW IT.

This all boils down to experience. An instructor sees more unusual situations than a guy who buys 200 hours of multi time and flys point to point just to build time. The person that bought the time is not building alot of "experience", just time.

 

[Propsync]

Not to bash this post at all, but it still comes down to the person. Unfortunately, all you low time hires are lumped together. I got hired at 1300/100. I was a smash and dash MEI. The difference was I WANTED it. Most of the new generation of low timers think it's owed to them. That's the diffeerence, if someone cares enough to want it. I just posted a reply for some guy who just got hired at PDT worried about bases, like there are more chicks at one place or another. Please, at 500 hrs. I was trying to be a better pilot, and to be a better instructor. Not where my base will be.

As far as Air Whisky is concerned, I'm not suprised mins. have lowered. Long upgrade, feed to in trouble, high costs to use as MESUCK and SHATAQUA are lower bidders. Could be worse with abinitio PFT'ers!

 

[pipejockey]

J32,
I'm just irritated that someone took a quote of mine and took it out of context to make me seem as if I don't take my job seriously. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I strictly adhere to company policy and always play it safe when lives are in the balance.

Propsync,
I agree about all the lowtimers being lumped together. It's unfortunate. I also agree about those who feel they are OWED an airline pilot job. Unfortunately it is impossible for HR to weed all these candidates out.

I truly feel priviledged to be where I am and I'm excited at the oppurtunity that has been offered to me. So when I hear many of the comments posted here it's a bit discouraging. I think what I need to do is stay off these boards, they are to depressing. Case in point is the "screw this industry" thread.

 

[Twotter76]

I am not going to be drawn into a name calling match with pipejockey however I would like to address some of his (and others) comments on previous posts.

Firstly, to Ace757's query on why a 1200 hour CFI is more qualified than a 500 RJ wonder-pilot it again boils down to experience. Someone who has spent some time in the right seat teaching more than likely has been presented with situations where they are forced to exercise their judgement in order to ensure a safe outcome. Setting aside for the moment that the CFI in the situation you present has 2.5 times the amount of flight hours as the RJ typed guy - for those of us who taught we all know that the primary goal of the student is to try and kill you off and (or) get you violated. To that end you exercise your good judgement to prevent either of these things from happening. You also get the benefit of watching common pilot errors and from that learning how to prevent them. By teaching someone the fundamentals of flying you learn to better hone your own skills in the process. Someone who got their ratings then bought a block of time to build hours does not see any of that - all they get to see is whatever situations happen to present themselves while they are flying, which the odds say will be very few and far between. J32driver makes an excellent point when he said that there is a large difference between building experience and building time.

And as to learning the equipment I agree that when transitioning from a piston to a jet it is whole different universe but where I disagree is that in saying the CFI and low time pilot are both back to first base. The CFI has a huge advantage over the 500 hour pilot in the he has been continously immersed in the learning environment the whole time whereas the 500 hour pilot was simply out tooling around. I would argue that most CFI's have a better understanding of the learning process and can more quickly adapt to the new challenges presented by flying a jet.

pipejockey,
In my experience there is no such thing as black and white only many many shades of gray. There is not (nor will there ever be) a hard number where someone is qualified to serve as a flight crewmember on a high performance jet. Some people can do an excellent job of adapting to the needs of a new environment even with low time and others with thousands of hours cant fly worth a d@mn. However as a generalization I feel it is fair to say that those with more experience will do a better job of it than someone with less experience. As I am sure you know the actual ability to fly the airplane well is only a small part of my job. I have to be able to think well ahead of my 500 knot airplane and know what I can and cannot do within the confines outlined for me in the FARs and my FOM/FCM. I believe that this is the area where low timers get themselves in trouble not so such much the actual flying of the aircraft.

I never said that competency is determined by the number of hours that a pilot possesses - we all know its not. That is something that is totally determined by the individual and their ability to operate in a given environment. I have flown with incompetent 4000 hour pilots and extremely competent 2000 hour ones. I would still be leery of your 750 hour pilot in the RJ cockpit. While he or she certainly has some good experience flying a Kingair is not the same as flying an RJ. While the RJ is not a difficult airplane to fly by any means she is extremely unforgiving, as are the environments that we operate in. Add to that the stresses of dealing with flight attendents, gate agents, angry passengers, and then going into O'Hare or Hartsfield and think it gets to be a bit much for any low timer. Certainly there are individuals that can excel under these circumstances but I am speaking in broad terms here.

As to your whole last paragraph I am not going to respond to what you said other than two say two things:

I did not mean to attack you personally and if you read it as such then I apologize. However I stand by my interpretation of your comments earlier on this thread and I dont think I took anything out of context. Do not kid yourself, this is a very serious business that we are involved in - millions of dollars worth of equipment are entrusted to us, to say nothing of the human lives that we also safeguard. I think many of us forget about this from time to time (myself included) when things are going well (as they usually do) and I am only trying to bring this to the forefront. In what other industry are the keys to a $20 million piece of equipment tossed to a pair of 20-somethings without direct supervision?

In an emergency (which is definitely what I described) I am d@mn well going to do whatever the hel| I need to in order to ensure as safe an outcome as possible up to and including breaking every limitation on the airplane and every reg in the books if I think it will help. I am confident that I can handle any situation that presents itself - by myself if I have to. I believe that most of us feel the same way.

Norskman2 also made a good point that there are many of us here that would fall into what we will call the "high risk" category. This is very true, I know because I was one. I got hired at my first 121 carrier (i've worked for three) with only 600 hours and I was one of the high time guys in my class - most had only 250-300 hours. I had no CRM training to that point and was not a product of an airline oriented flight academy. I certainly didnt think I was high risk at the time but when I look back now I realize that I didnt know nearly as much as I thought I did. But then isnt that always the case? I learn something new every day I go to work. I will say that flying a Twin Otter to smaller airports at 600 hours is not the same as flying an RJ into JFK with an equivilant amount of time.

I am not so naive as to think that AWAC will change their hiring practices - it makes financial sense to hire lower time pilots that will stay with the company longer and we did indeed have a problem with higher time pilots getting a few hundred hours and then leaving for greener pastures and this is one way to prevent that from happening. I just hope that nothing gets bent as a result of it. And if by discussing it we can learn to better adapt to the new realities of the situation then so much the better. Thanks to all for keeping this an interesting read.

Twotter76

 

[pipejockey]

I respect your feelings Twotter. Lets call a truce. Although I dont think we were at war, just a disagreement. I just want to be treated with the respect and courtesy that I will show my Captains and any other fellow pilot. I don't want my background to be an issue. Let my performance dictate my treatment. I just seek to be an asset in the cockpit and to conduct myself professionally. I hope one day you we will have a chance to fly together, as you do sound like a professional.

 

[bafanguy]

I usually avoid threads on empassioned subjects without clear right/wrong answers. But this one began about one company's lowering of hiring mins and evolved into an interesting aspect of the subject so I'll take a shot at it. I hope the system will let me get it all in one post. Disclaimer: I'm not so bold as to say MY opinion is the last word but maybe just from another perspective.

Previous posters have made thoughtful, sometimes passionate statements of their position regarding 500/50 hours pilots entering the airline world. There is some validity to much of what I've read.

However, most posts appear to be from the 5000 and under pilots with a few of undetermined totals. You aren't interested in my bio but allow me a quick rundown to establish where I'm coming from. I spent 30 years with a major but did all of it in narrowbodies in short-medium haul in the eastern US as that's what I enjoyed. It amounts to "regional" work in bigger acft at a bigger airline...all the LGA, DCA, PHL, EWR plus the crummy excuses for airports in many other cities. Perhaps, I can look back with a functional grasp of what it takes to do this work and offer an opinion.

Assuming we're talking about candidates with the native ability, good attitude/motivation to meet the challenges, solid basic flight training with req'd ratings, a training dept dedicated to educating/supporting pilots, a corps of captains willing to pass on their knowledge, and an airline culture driven by safety, there is no reason why 500/50 pilots should be excluded from hiring.

The doctor analogy has been made and it's a good one. When you're rushed to the ER after a car accident, the last thing you want to see is last month's med school grad preparing to treat you without supervision. But, while this grad may work on you, he will be INTENSELY SUPERVISED, and allowed to conduct only those procedures for which he's competent. This is OK because he will meet the medical versions of the pilot attributes in the previous paragraph. If the going gets tricky, the attending doc will step in and take over. What better, all-around safer route to experience, knowledge and independent professional functioning than working under close scrutiny and experienced guidance ? This gives access to a variety and depth of knowledge unavailable to a person left to his own devices. Or, at least makes acquiring it easier and more comprehensive in scope. At a future point, this young doc will be better prepared to make decisions and accept the consequences in his own practise.

The 500/50 pilot fits this analogy to a tee. Now, of course, it's hard to argue AGAINST experienced people; I'm not doing that. I'm making a case FOR less-experience, but properly educated, motivated, and supervised people. They can make a valuable professional contribution in the right circumstances and should not be excluded from hiring consideration. The military, so highly regarded in aviation circles, is a great example.

The military takes properly-screened people who don't know the pointy end goes in the front, gives them a few hundred hours in a great program, then puts them in some very large, sophisticated acft in demanding environments. How do these low-time people do ? Very well, because they work under close oversight of experienced pilots in an environment that educates and supports them while they learn, gain experience, and make a valuable contribution to the goals of the outfit. It's worked rather well for a long time. There are other examples of ab-initio cadet programs from foreign carriers in Asia and Europe. Lufthansa has done it this way as long as I can remember. I'm not aware these carriers are making smoking holes in schoolyards.

Aviation outfits will have accidents involving pilots of ALL EXPERIENCE LEVELS but it's not guaranteed that having one less-experienced pilot on the crew makes for more accidents. I'm not a student of accident causes/stats but I've flown with lower-time pilots...and BEEN one. I don't see the threat to safety. One poster has a "what if" scenario about eng out, LGA, snow, 35kt Xwind, capt dead, low-time copilot. All I can say is that a meteor may hit earth before I finish this post and we'll all be killed, but it's not likely. The same can be said for his scenario.

Flying is a continuous learning process and everyone get his experience one hour at a time in a variety of ways. I say it's OK for a low-time pilot to work in an airline environment where there is close supervision, continuing education and support, willing knowledge transfer from the captains, and a tightly-controlled environment all the way around.

Now, I wrote this BEFORE happy hour and it's the best I'm capable of...so be kind !!!

 

[crashpad]

ATPCLIFF is so right! You have to think outside the box and for gods sake, don't listen to the experts.
Although, in ZW's case I've been hearing more talk on the 'San-Wisonsin' training school becoming a permanent fixture.