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
FDX 2003 hiring
- Thread starter Gumbydammit
- Start date
- Watchers 16
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
NightFlyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 157
VaB
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 512
Re: MD-11
Some people think that MD-11 training is hard, and that it would even be harder for a new hire. I guess in the beginning of the MD11 program here at FedEx, some folks had a hard time and it wasn't has user friendly as it is now. Alot of the older guys here don't even think that a guy who has been here 2 years should be on the Maddog yet. Granted 2 years isn't a long time to be here, but if you can fly one plane you can fly another. The 727 FE training was alot harder than the 11 training.
Oh yeah, and to you guys that are senior to me that want to come over to the 11, it is really hard training and the flying stinks. You should probably go to the Airbus.
CCDiscoB said:
Some people think that MD-11 training is hard, and that it would even be harder for a new hire. I guess in the beginning of the MD11 program here at FedEx, some folks had a hard time and it wasn't has user friendly as it is now. Alot of the older guys here don't even think that a guy who has been here 2 years should be on the Maddog yet. Granted 2 years isn't a long time to be here, but if you can fly one plane you can fly another. The 727 FE training was alot harder than the 11 training.
Oh yeah, and to you guys that are senior to me that want to come over to the 11, it is really hard training and the flying stinks. You should probably go to the Airbus.
profile
Shem Malmquist
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 279
Just to address the MD-11 training. There is zero chance that the company will put new hires in the airplane at this time, in fact, if they could find a way to do it, they'd like to limit who could bid it even more (i.e. can't bid it straight from an FE seat). Personally, if you were to go to it straight without some serious previous "front seat" experience, you'd be taking a chance. Going to a large widebody that has the fastest approach speed of any commercial jet in the world (sans Concorde), that has the highest automation possible, full glass, all the FMS stuff and hybrid FBW controls, and that operates literally world wide without limitations is a lot to bite off all at once.
banned username 2
Banned User
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 3,254
profile
Shem Malmquist
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 279
High due to the weights with essentially the DC-10-30 wing. Vapp flaps 35 at max landing weight (for us 481.5, it can be increased to 491.5) is 167kts. That is the slowest we can get and only gets higher if we have gust or strong wind additives. Flaps 50 can reduce that by 5 kts but the margin for the flap limit speed is so small that it isn't useful in gusty or windy conditions.
Incidentally, our clean min maneuver speed at max TOGW is 289 kts, so that is our speed from 3000 AGL until we reach 10,000 on climbout, where we accelerate to 355 kts IAS on our normal climb profile.
Incidentally, our clean min maneuver speed at max TOGW is 289 kts, so that is our speed from 3000 AGL until we reach 10,000 on climbout, where we accelerate to 355 kts IAS on our normal climb profile.
VaB
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 512
Like I said earlier:
or maybe it's the old guys THINK the younger guys should have problems, because they did 8 or 9 years ago when the training wasn't that great. I was in the backseat for a year and went straight to the right seat of the MD11, and I didn't think the training was that hard and didn't have much problem. I know of several guys around my seniority that did the exact same thing, and they all did well and had no problem. It seems like it's the older guys ("Can't teach an old dog new tricks" syndrome) that have the problems.
That being said, I agree that there is ZERO chance of putting new hires in the the airplane. However, spending just a few months in the backseat and seeing the operations goes a long way to making the front seat transition smoother. What'll happen when we don't have plumbers in a few years, who knows.
Profile:
I mean no disrespect at all to your post, because I think everything you said is exactly right, and I'm not even remotely implying that you had trouble learning the airplane, it was just a generalizationof the attitude of alot of the captains that I've run into. Not all, but alot. "You've only been here at FedEx how long? and you're already in the right seat of the 11? humph"
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what happens when we hire 1000 pilots next year, where we put them all. Now that we've wandered off the original topic sufficiently...
VaB
or maybe it's the old guys THINK the younger guys should have problems, because they did 8 or 9 years ago when the training wasn't that great. I was in the backseat for a year and went straight to the right seat of the MD11, and I didn't think the training was that hard and didn't have much problem. I know of several guys around my seniority that did the exact same thing, and they all did well and had no problem. It seems like it's the older guys ("Can't teach an old dog new tricks" syndrome) that have the problems.
That being said, I agree that there is ZERO chance of putting new hires in the the airplane. However, spending just a few months in the backseat and seeing the operations goes a long way to making the front seat transition smoother. What'll happen when we don't have plumbers in a few years, who knows.
Profile:
I mean no disrespect at all to your post, because I think everything you said is exactly right, and I'm not even remotely implying that you had trouble learning the airplane, it was just a generalizationof the attitude of alot of the captains that I've run into. Not all, but alot. "You've only been here at FedEx how long? and you're already in the right seat of the 11? humph"
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what happens when we hire 1000 pilots next year, where we put them all. Now that we've wandered off the original topic sufficiently...
VaB
md8pilot
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2002
- Posts
- 46
TWA
We went through this a few years ago at TWA when we retired the 3 man airplanes (727, 747, L1011). We hired directly into the MD80 and 717 (717 cockpit is nearly identical to MD11)...many who were still in new-hire training received 767 bids. Interestingly, the new hires had little trouble...it was the pilots who had spent a couple of years on the panel that had the most trouble. Of course, unlike the MD11 and 717, the MD80 and 767 are only partial glass.
We went through this a few years ago at TWA when we retired the 3 man airplanes (727, 747, L1011). We hired directly into the MD80 and 717 (717 cockpit is nearly identical to MD11)...many who were still in new-hire training received 767 bids. Interestingly, the new hires had little trouble...it was the pilots who had spent a couple of years on the panel that had the most trouble. Of course, unlike the MD11 and 717, the MD80 and 767 are only partial glass.
profile
Shem Malmquist
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 279
I agree that the older pilots had more problems. I found it fairly easy to transition, but it depends a lot on what your previous experience was. Many of those coming from back seats have had a lot of trouble. I'm glad you didn't. Personally, I love to hear about people in the right seat with less than a year with the company and I enjoy flying with new hires in general.
As to the post about the 717, the difference is that the MD-11 is a fairly touchy and fairly heavy widebody (about 150% the weights of the 767), with the international route system being extremely challenging, which is a big part of the problem.
As to the post about the 717, the difference is that the MD-11 is a fairly touchy and fairly heavy widebody (about 150% the weights of the 767), with the international route system being extremely challenging, which is a big part of the problem.
It drives me crazy when I hear people say young guys need more experience flying something like the Boeing before they fly the Mad Dog.
We send nugget Naval Aviators of the front end of the ship at night with 2 LGB's, ask them to drop them while being shot at, and then recover at night after being airborne for 7 hours. All of this with just about 400 hours total time. Maybe we should let them fly a 172 for two years first.
The RJ captain straight from a commuter seems to be the best suited to the task. He has been flying one of the newest aviaonics packages out there, and probably does it great. Maybe we should make him step back 20 years and fly the Boeing for 2 years to get some experience first also.
I fully see the point of not hiring into the Mad Dog, but I see nothing wrong with trying to get it as soon as possible.
It seems that Gemini has no problems of hireing right in to the Mad Dog or Atlas into the 747.
Sorry for sounding bitter, but this thread hit a nerve.
We send nugget Naval Aviators of the front end of the ship at night with 2 LGB's, ask them to drop them while being shot at, and then recover at night after being airborne for 7 hours. All of this with just about 400 hours total time. Maybe we should let them fly a 172 for two years first.
The RJ captain straight from a commuter seems to be the best suited to the task. He has been flying one of the newest aviaonics packages out there, and probably does it great. Maybe we should make him step back 20 years and fly the Boeing for 2 years to get some experience first also.
I fully see the point of not hiring into the Mad Dog, but I see nothing wrong with trying to get it as soon as possible.
It seems that Gemini has no problems of hireing right in to the Mad Dog or Atlas into the 747.
Sorry for sounding bitter, but this thread hit a nerve.
I have to completely agree. Obviously I haven´t been through the training, but when I talk with guys and say I´m thinking about the MD, I question whether I should bid it because the majority of my flying (>2500 hours) is in a glass cockpit single seat fighter. Off the boat, at night, getting shot at, etc. as above. But for some reason I think maybe I should `learn` how to fly something else heavy first, but everyone who has flown the MD tells me, but your time is in Hornets, a glass cockpit, you´ll have no problem. It seems that when I talk with the older guys who flew the standard fighter w/out glass they don´t want to make the jump. Is it the `heavy airframe`or is it the glass that makes it such a challenge? Personally I´m a helluvalot more comfortable in a glass cockpit no matter what the size than I am in a 1965 vintage 727.
Last edited:
active_herk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2002
- Posts
- 188
F18-FDX,
I don't know much about the hornet, but if it has anything like an FMS, it'll help you quite a bit. I flew the T-1s for a while, and found the transition to the MD-11 FMS not too bad at all. I think that once you learn an FMS, its really not too difficult to learn a new FMS, you just have to pick up the little differences between the two. Besides that, I've found with all FMS systems, the hard part isn't in knowing what the system can do, its figuring out how to get it to do what you want it to do. Besides that, I noticed you are coming out of the back of the 10, that will help you quite a bit with the systems since they are essentially the same. Since I came from the back of the boeing, that was more challenging to me than the FMS stuff.
The training program has changed quite a bit over the last year. When I went through, there was very little systems training, but a great deal of training on the FMS. Now, however, there seems to be a much greater emphasis on systems with less emphasis on the FMS. I've heard that the training is very cyclical in the MD-11 dept. They will emphasize systems more for a while, and then change the training to emphasize the FMS, and then back. I guess the pendulum is swinging towards the systems right now.
VaB, where did you hear that about the 1000 pilots? Sounds great to me (and to quite a few others on this board I imagine) if true!
I don't know much about the hornet, but if it has anything like an FMS, it'll help you quite a bit. I flew the T-1s for a while, and found the transition to the MD-11 FMS not too bad at all. I think that once you learn an FMS, its really not too difficult to learn a new FMS, you just have to pick up the little differences between the two. Besides that, I've found with all FMS systems, the hard part isn't in knowing what the system can do, its figuring out how to get it to do what you want it to do. Besides that, I noticed you are coming out of the back of the 10, that will help you quite a bit with the systems since they are essentially the same. Since I came from the back of the boeing, that was more challenging to me than the FMS stuff.
The training program has changed quite a bit over the last year. When I went through, there was very little systems training, but a great deal of training on the FMS. Now, however, there seems to be a much greater emphasis on systems with less emphasis on the FMS. I've heard that the training is very cyclical in the MD-11 dept. They will emphasize systems more for a while, and then change the training to emphasize the FMS, and then back. I guess the pendulum is swinging towards the systems right now.
VaB, where did you hear that about the 1000 pilots? Sounds great to me (and to quite a few others on this board I imagine) if true!
VaB
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 512
Dispelling the "big airplane" myth
Ya know it's funny. I was a little bit worried about going into such a big airplane before I got there. But once you're sitting in the front end with your hands on the controls coming down the pipe, it's just like sitting in any other airplane. Since you can't see behind you and you can't see the wings, there really is no perception of how big the sucka is. Or maybe I'm just thick-headed. The only time I thought the thing was big was during IOE when I sat down in the seat for the first time and saw how high off the ground I was. You get over that quick though, obviously.
Come on over, it ain't that hard. Especially come over if you're junior to me, because there aren't to many down there.
Herk: I was kind of joking about the 1000 thing since that number has been thrown around here a few times in the last week. I doubt that'll happen. I don't think training could handle it without guys going straight to a right seat, which as we discussed, isn't going to happen anytime soon. On the other hand, I wouldn't be upset if they did try to get 1000 in. We'll see.
Later all
Ya know it's funny. I was a little bit worried about going into such a big airplane before I got there. But once you're sitting in the front end with your hands on the controls coming down the pipe, it's just like sitting in any other airplane. Since you can't see behind you and you can't see the wings, there really is no perception of how big the sucka is. Or maybe I'm just thick-headed. The only time I thought the thing was big was during IOE when I sat down in the seat for the first time and saw how high off the ground I was. You get over that quick though, obviously.
Come on over, it ain't that hard. Especially come over if you're junior to me, because there aren't to many down there.
Herk: I was kind of joking about the 1000 thing since that number has been thrown around here a few times in the last week. I doubt that'll happen. I don't think training could handle it without guys going straight to a right seat, which as we discussed, isn't going to happen anytime soon. On the other hand, I wouldn't be upset if they did try to get 1000 in. We'll see.
Later all
Last edited:
Huck
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2001
- Posts
- 1,076
Boys, indulge me. I was an MD11 Capt. at my last job (sorry, I try not to say that too much but it's hard). Some points:
1. We had a transition program for senior Professional FE's who wanted to move to the front seats. They had (usually) about 1500 total non-FE time, with 500 multi, usually in light twins that they owned. The company chose to let them onto the MD, not the -10 (except for one). I flew with several of them, and they were great. The bottom line: EVERYBODY has a first big jet to fly. Whether it's the 727 or MD-11, I think the challenge is pretty comparable.
2. Sitting on the panel has been a great way for me to transition into the company. Hub-turning is alot more demanding than I thought. I agree that all new-hires ought to sit sideways.
3. The MD FMS is about 10 years older than the CRJ's. It is not as intuitive, is incredibly slow, and was challenging for me to learn, even though I had flown CRJ's and Citation 5's. Another bottom line: not all FMS knowledge is 100% transferrable. It probably does help, however, to understand the concept.
4. Big Jack was in the training center yesterday, and did not disagree with the rumor of a bid in Jan-Feb. timeframe. But he probably doesn't know either.....
5. You guys were talking about approach speeds. We used to take the Mighty Dog into Quito (9200 msl!) It was a challenge to touch down below 182 knots groundspeed (tire limit).
That's all - back to the panel - "Two A off, one B on....."
1. We had a transition program for senior Professional FE's who wanted to move to the front seats. They had (usually) about 1500 total non-FE time, with 500 multi, usually in light twins that they owned. The company chose to let them onto the MD, not the -10 (except for one). I flew with several of them, and they were great. The bottom line: EVERYBODY has a first big jet to fly. Whether it's the 727 or MD-11, I think the challenge is pretty comparable.
2. Sitting on the panel has been a great way for me to transition into the company. Hub-turning is alot more demanding than I thought. I agree that all new-hires ought to sit sideways.
3. The MD FMS is about 10 years older than the CRJ's. It is not as intuitive, is incredibly slow, and was challenging for me to learn, even though I had flown CRJ's and Citation 5's. Another bottom line: not all FMS knowledge is 100% transferrable. It probably does help, however, to understand the concept.
4. Big Jack was in the training center yesterday, and did not disagree with the rumor of a bid in Jan-Feb. timeframe. But he probably doesn't know either.....
5. You guys were talking about approach speeds. We used to take the Mighty Dog into Quito (9200 msl!) It was a challenge to touch down below 182 knots groundspeed (tire limit).
That's all - back to the panel - "Two A off, one B on....."
active_herk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2002
- Posts
- 188
PurpleInMEM
Solipsist
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2001
- Posts
- 637
Just another opinion
Huck and others
While I agree that the MD11 is a challenging aircraft to operate I think that it's a sad statement about our training program if there's that much doubt in a newhire making it through. Most airline newhires (lets assume that there are newhires for the sake of discussion) now go directly to the right seat of something because of the demise of the 3 man crew concept. During my short time at another AAirline as newhires we were getting 76's and maddogs if you were senior enough. While the training was difficult, it wasn't impossible. Nothing I've encountered thus far at FedEx or the other AAirline was nearly as demanding or exacting as things we've probably all done in the past. I think it boils down to a training center that's committed to actually training you to proficiency and not just passing the type ride.
While I agree that sitting the panel is a great way to see how the company operates, I know it didn't do me much good when it was time to fly again. Now maybe y'all are more like Chuck Yeager than I am, but flying is not like riding a bicycle. I'm only good at it when I do it frequently. My transition to the right seat would probably have been much easier had I gotten the chance when I was first hired and not after losing 'the touch' by sitting on the panel. FedEx has a distinctly different philosophy concerning bidding and training than other airlines. Not better or worse, just different.
PS....a Jan/Feb bid sounds good to me. Maybe some of the homesteaders in my seat will realize that it's time to move on to that fourth stripe.
Huck and others
While I agree that the MD11 is a challenging aircraft to operate I think that it's a sad statement about our training program if there's that much doubt in a newhire making it through. Most airline newhires (lets assume that there are newhires for the sake of discussion) now go directly to the right seat of something because of the demise of the 3 man crew concept. During my short time at another AAirline as newhires we were getting 76's and maddogs if you were senior enough. While the training was difficult, it wasn't impossible. Nothing I've encountered thus far at FedEx or the other AAirline was nearly as demanding or exacting as things we've probably all done in the past. I think it boils down to a training center that's committed to actually training you to proficiency and not just passing the type ride.
While I agree that sitting the panel is a great way to see how the company operates, I know it didn't do me much good when it was time to fly again. Now maybe y'all are more like Chuck Yeager than I am, but flying is not like riding a bicycle. I'm only good at it when I do it frequently. My transition to the right seat would probably have been much easier had I gotten the chance when I was first hired and not after losing 'the touch' by sitting on the panel. FedEx has a distinctly different philosophy concerning bidding and training than other airlines. Not better or worse, just different.
PS....a Jan/Feb bid sounds good to me. Maybe some of the homesteaders in my seat will realize that it's time to move on to that fourth stripe.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
