Does how you did in college really matter

[atpcliff]

Hi!

AU-1984. Todd Storey was one of my instructors.

Cliff
YIP

 

[RP170]

I don't think it really matters how you did in school. I personally was the salutatorian of my high school class. Went to the Air Force Academy till I damaged a nerve in my shoulder. Was medically discharged and then went to Riddle. Graduated with a 4.0 there and am now on my third regional in about as many years of being in the industry. I think it's more luck of the draw as to where you were hired to start with and not how well you did in school. Unfortunately, I've been at the wrong places at the wrong times.

 

[Bringupthebird]

There was a time when the airline job was so good, the airlines could be selective and one way was a college degree requirement (and 20/20 vision and being male was another). But one day a fellow named Frank Lorenzo woke up and saw the future of aviation and it didn't include overpaid pilots college grad or not.

At one time, the airline's philosophy was, "we're going to teach you to fly our way anyhow" (in fact Eastern used to have an Aero Commander to get single-engine jet guys their multi-engine rating). There was a pride in their operation and they chose who was eligible to get one of the best careers in the world. Then they progressively made the job less technically demanding (the Airbus which is designed to save the passengers from their pilot) and less financially rewarding ('nuff said). Now the entry-level job (or it's equivalent) is likely the one most pilots will be facing for their entire careers. They get hired at Pinnacle or some place with 500TT but due to the shrinking number of mainline jobs, there is nowhere for them to aspire to and there they sit with their stepping stone jammed up their butt. But it's a shiny new jet with a teeny tiny paycheck.

So study something in school that you really love, give the flying thing a shot and then go back and be successful, maybe discover a derivitive of Prozac that is legal to fly with!

 

[Mugs]

If the Airbus was truly designed to save the pax from the pilots by reducing technical demands as you say, what happened in that Gulf Air accident a few years ago? Oh yeah, they couldn't figure out the technical side of things to save their.....

 

[Bringupthebird]

The Airbus isn't crash-proof, but it doesn't rely as heavily on valued skills that justified selectivity and demanded the pay rates of the aircraft of years gone by.


(I had a much more detailed reply that got zapped by the posting button,doggone it!)

 

[Mugs]

Some might argue that those with good stick and rudder skills that were baffled by the complexities of a glass cockpit --- and in some cases bid around it as the career permitted -- didn't deserve the payrates you are talking about. If you get to the point in the Airbus where you feel uncomfortable manually flying an ILS without autothrottles to low mins, then you are a victim of your own prolonged laziness. The old skills still apply.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Some might argue that those with good stick and rudder skills that were baffled by the complexities of a glass cockpit --- and in some cases bid around it as the career permitted -- didn't deserve the payrates you are talking about. If you get to the point in the Airbus where you feel uncomfortable manually flying an ILS without autothrottles to low mins, then you are a victim of your own prolonged laziness. The old skills still apply.

The point is that the Airbus was designed to be flown in full automation which either makes it flyable for the inexperienced or boring for the accomplished. The Airbus is only complex to those who haven't flown it or refuse to dig enough into it's systems to thoroughly understand it (or at least convince yourself you have).

The Airbus has employed protections that, for example, override stick inputs to avoid overspeeding. It limits bank angle and automatically applies TOGA thrust if it senses a critical angle of bank is being approached. All these things are predicated on an inept pilot getting himself into a situation he shouldn't. Predictive Windshear technology eliminates the need for judgement to avoid departing into windshear since the box tells you not to. The synthetic voice will tell you to "RETARD" the trust levers on an autoland, but the thrust is already retarded, you are simply putting the levers where it wants. If you want to put the gear down at too high a speed, too bad it won't let you (with the gear handle). The point is that an Airbus could very likely be operated competently by an ab-initio pilot trained only in the Airbus. He has no need for an understanding of carburetor heat or true course lines on a sectional. 20 hours in the sim would be more productive than 1000 hours of shooting touch and goes in a C-152. And this fact is not lost on those who hire and negotiate pay rates for Airbus pilots.

I think that these technologies probably contribute to safety and have some value. I don't think you should avoid safety equipment out of respect for the pilot's ego. The Airbus was designed with the worst case scenario pilot in mind. The airline executives see this as an opportunity to allow technology to offset experience which in the past came at a high price. The Gulf Air accident was an example of someone getting so far behind the airplane that he became the forewardmost passenger. Had he operated the airplane in full automation (if that was possible given ATC restraints, etc.) the accident likely would not have happened. An otherwise unacceptable level of flying skill would have gone unnoticed.

So getting back to the point of this thread, the profession may not need experienced pilots, let alone college educated ones given the direction that technology has gone.