CL-601 down in Montrose, CO

[Singlecoil]

I think singlecoil was assuming the aircraft landed clean and did a quick turn.

Obviously if it came in all caked up, well...

Thanks. That is exactly what I was trying to say.

One other thing, I'm not familiar with these engines. Do they have EPR gauges? Could not having the engine anti-ice on have caused a reduced thrust situation like the Air Florida 737 in DC?

 

[surplus1]

Gulfstream200,

I think you sidestepped the questions because you really don't have any logical answers.

PFT is an economic issue and it has nothing to do with piloting skills or the lack thereof.

We all make mistakes but none of those mistakes have any real relationship to who signed the check.

Given the same level of experience and the same scenario, who paid for the training will have no verifiable impact on the outcome.

I think you're p_issing into the wind.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Gulfstream200,

I think you sidestepped the questions because you really don't have any logical answers.

PFT is an economic issue and it has nothing to do with piloting skills or the lack thereof.

We all make mistakes but none of those mistakes have any real relationship to who signed the check.

Given the same level of experience and the same scenario, who paid for the training will have no verifiable impact on the outcome.

I think you're p_issing into the wind.

Umm, well I think it is well understood that those who pay for their training are less qualified than those who can command a job which doesn't require it. I don't see Northwest or Delta pilots paying for their training. And guess what? They are way more qualified than those paying for training at the regional level. You can't possibly make an argument based on "everything else being equal", because it's not! Try that lawyer logic...

 

[LXJ31]

I understand all the objections to PFT, etc. but I still have a dumb question(s) ---

Two pilots, each with the same basic qualifications and flight time, go to Flight Safety. Each takes an "initial" course in a particular airplane, completes the course, takes a check ride and emerges with a new type rating on his certificate. They attend the course at the same time (same instructor for classroom and sim) and they take the checkride with the same FAA inspector.

One of them (#1) writes a check to FSI for $20K, says goodbye and leaves. The other (#2) gives FSI a voucher from his company for $20K, says goodbye and leaves.

Q-1. Was the course and checkride for pilot #1 different from the course and checkride for pilot #2?

Q-2. Which one is more qualified and a better pilot at the end of the course, Pilot #1 or Pilot #2.

Q-3. One year later, after flying the same airplane for approximately the same number of hours, one of them is involved in a fatal accident. The investigation shows that the probable cause was pilot error. Which one had the accident, pilot #1 or pilot #2?

Q-4. What is the reason for your answer(s)?

I've seen your answer to G200 and I disagree with you, here's why:

Q1: You and I both know that ideally the course and checkride are the same.
Q2: This is the rub. The term "better pilot" is open to debate. Better at what? Flying? Flying a jet? Flying a Challenger? Flying a Challenger 601? Better pilot is not specific enough to not run into the canned answer you have waiting. Some pilots are better at understanding systems. Some are better at actually flying the aircraft. Some are better at managing a crew. They both met the minimum criteria for passing a checkride, but one can be quantified as being "better" than the other. Same as being in school, some kids get an A, some get a C, both graduate.
Q3: Again, a general question. "A plane has an accident." Well, what kind of an accident? An accident caused by judgement, mechanical problem, unforseeable weather conditions....You'd have to know the specifics to make any sort of predicition regarding who is more likely to be involved in an accident, but it CAN be done.

Someone's body of experience may keep them from getting in an accident a more inexperienced person may not avoid. This goes to the issue of overall resume, is a company willing to hire a less experienced person if that pilot is willing to subsidize the company?

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Gulfstream200,

I think you sidestepped the questions because you really don't have any logical answers.

PFT is an economic issue and it has nothing to do with piloting skills or the lack thereof.

We all make mistakes but none of those mistakes have any real relationship to who signed the check.

Given the same level of experience and the same scenario, who paid for the training will have no verifiable impact on the outcome.

I think you're p_issing into the wind.

PFT has EVERYTHING to do with pilot skills.

Add to that personality traits, sketchy backgrounds, experience, education (or lack thereof)

There is always a reason a PFT'er couldn't get a real job. I dont care what it is, but you bet there's a reason!

NOBODY likes to pay for thier job, but some HAVE to just to get into the cockpit. I also seriously question companies who need pilots to subsidize thier operation...I myself would want to attract top talent. PFT operations simply dont! A heartbeat and a check.....thats all ya need. Check the boxes and off he flies with John Publics family in the back.

If we disagree, we disagree....so be it.

You fly with em, Im not.

 

[surplus1]

I don't see Northwest or Delta pilots paying for their training.

If tomorrow the management(s) of NWA and DAL decided to charge for initial training, what do you think would happen? Would they go out of business for no takers? Would their airplanes suddenly start falling out of the sky? People don't pay to go to work at those companies because they don't charge. If they did, I respectfully submit they would have just as many applicants as they do today, i.e., more than they can hire.

I don't like the concept of PFT and I don't support it, but I still think it has nothing to do with piloting skills.

PFT, just like the "age 60 rule", is an economic issue and nothing more. If every company did it the complaints would soon stop and the very same people would be hired. If they didn't have the money they would just borrow it, like they do to go to college. The controlling factor is the availability of pilots vs the availability of jobs.

You don't see anybody refusing to apply at SWA because they have to buy a 737 type rating, do you? I hope you're not going to tell me that NWA and DAL pilots are more qualified or better people than SWA pilots, are you?.

People went to work at JTBlue when they were only paying $72 hr. for an A320 captain. One year of that is a lot more expensive that paying for a type rating and getting a job at SWA. There was no shortage of applicants at JBlue. Do you think their pilots are less competent because they pay less than NW or DAL?

Do some more thinking.

 

[goofyleftwich]

I have to agree with surplus1.......I have started another thread in the general section. We have strayed quite a bit from the original posted subject

 

[Daveman]

Sorry 'bout hijacking this "PFT" thread, but any new news about The CL-601 Montrose case?

(Oh, PFT is an abomination!)

 

[Oakum_Boy]

If tomorrow the management(s) of NWA and DAL decided to charge for initial training, what do you think would happen? Would they go out of business for no takers? Would their airplanes suddenly start falling out of the sky? People don't pay to go to work at those companies because they don't charge. If they did, I respectfully submit they would have just as many applicants as they do today, i.e., more than they can hire.

I don't like the concept of PFT and I don't support it, but I still think it has nothing to do with piloting skills.

PFT, just like the "age 60 rule", is an economic issue and nothing more. If every company did it the complaints would soon stop and the very same people would be hired. If they didn't have the money they would just borrow it, like they do to go to college. The controlling factor is the availability of pilots vs the availability of jobs.

You don't see anybody refusing to apply at SWA because they have to buy a 737 type rating, do you? I hope you're not going to tell me that NWA and DAL pilots are more qualified or better people than SWA pilots, are you?.

People went to work at JTBlue when they were only paying $72 hr. for an A320 captain. One year of that is a lot more expensive that paying for a type rating and getting a job at SWA. There was no shortage of applicants at JBlue. Do you think their pilots are less competent because they pay less than NW or DAL?

Do some more thinking.

Southwest and JetBlue attract quality applicants because:

1. They are relatively well paying, employee friendly organizations that survive because their pilots have provided for a safe an efficient operation.

2. PFT pilots cannot really guarantee a safe and efficient operation. I've seen it first hand. At PFT airlines and operators, it is a single pilot proposition. The seat warmers to the right are just that. Not ideal, but my reality for now. Sooner or later that will catch up with any company who chooses to do so.

Why? Because they are less qualified, and probably did not have the skill and/or education to become a highly sought after professional. Your argument does not really work. Why? Because I work for a company who has long since stopped PFT, but the people getting hired are still useless. Maybe you're right on some level, but the bottom line is that sh1tty companies attract sh1tty applicants. Safety aside, the actuaries and beancounters are figuring out which is more expensive- accidents, or $$$ spent on good pilots....

 

[LXJ31]

Why doesn't NWA or AA require new hires to pay for their training? After all, they are in business to make money; it would make perfect sense of they could shed the cost of training new pilots. Do you think it might be because it would affect the quality of their applicants? Its not a union issue; new hires aren't in the union and the union would probably support an action that helped the corporate bottom line (especially profit sharing organizations.)

Are the pilots at JTBlue less competent than the ones at AA? Why would a pilot, if given the choice between the two, go to an organization that will pay them less and may not be around a few years down the road? Answer is, if given the choice, they would choose AA. (This is a few years ago.) Ergo, the vast majority of pilots who went to JTB likely went there because they were not being offered better positions elsewhere at the time.

How come you don't see firefighters, fresh out of school going to big municipal departments and saying, "Hey, I know I'm green, but if you hire me I'll help buy a new firetruck?" There are always far more applicants than jobs, just like aviation.

Not only is PFT wrong and unethical, it could be argued to be a discriminatory practice. Since, to get hired at a hypothetical company, you need to be able to finance yourself 20K worth, if you are poor it is unlikely you could do that. (The college loan analogy doesn't fit since there is a whole section of the government in place specifically to secure loans for people who otherwise wouldn't get them on the open market unsecured.) Try going to a bank if you are poor with few assets and saying, "Yes, I'd like twenty grand to buy a job..." Since most poor people come from backgrounds other than Caucasian, they are far less likely to be able to work at places that require PFT.

 

[Kingairrick]

Okum:
Jetblue pay $ucks. check out www.airlinepilotpay.com

 

[goofyleftwich]

How come you don't see firefighters, fresh out of school going to big municipal departments and saying, "Hey, I know I'm green, but if you hire me I'll help buy a new firetruck?" There are always far more applicants than jobs, just like aviation.

Isn't this what UA, AA, NW, DL doing. They are taking money from the employees and buying fuel, etc. Seems like I am paying for my job.

Not only is PFT wrong and unethical, it could be argued to be a discriminatory practice. Since, to get hired at a hypothetical company, you need to be able to finance yourself 20K worth, .

Okay so the type at SW only costs 6-10K

 

[goofyleftwich]

this is getting fuc king silly

 

[Daveman]

Sorry 'bout hijacking this "PFT" thread, but any new news about The CL-601 Montrose case?

(Oh, PFT is an abomination!)

........

 

[goofyleftwich]

all the majors required a application fee of what 50 - 100 bucks....you didn't pay for the training but you certainly paid to be considered for employment