Focus Air Second Officer

[Draginass]

Sounds like the captains are complaining if they can't get a better job where the entire crew is qualified to fly into crappy airports like in South America.

Actually, the captains I was talking about weren't flying South America lines, they were doing Europe, Middle, and Far East. And even then they said most of these inexperienced FOs couldn't handle that, much less SA.

 

[JohnnyP]

...

Just curious, what type of problems were the FO's having going into europe/asia? Also, how did you guys get YOUR first experience's down south? I wonder if those captains were talking to their buddies about you not being able to handle it.....everyones gotta be new at something some time or another.........

 

[NuGuy]

RANT ON

I read quite a bit here about people who do not want to instruct, who do not think they are cut out for instructing, or who think it is a waste of time, and yet complain about how they cannot get enough hours.
I know very few people who WANT to instruct. I sure didn't WANT to. Those that do are few and far between and are truly a rare resource. The majority of former instructors I meet did it because they had to. No one gets rich doing it. You do it because it is necessary. You do the best you can to provide your students with the absolute best education you can give them because you are a professional. If you are not good with students, you find a way to become good with them because you must. This job is filled with things I don't want to do. I do them so I can do the things I DO want to.
If you are not willing to do the difficult things you must occasionally do, find some other field of work that doesn't require it.

There are never any guarantees about the state of the industry. Everyone finds thier own way of coping with the uncertainty.

RANT OFF

I've said in other threads that if it were up to me, I'd switch around the CFI mins and the part 135 IFR mins for cargo.

That way, those who don't want to instruct could launch right off into the gloom with night cargo, and those who really want to instruct would have the experience to be a worthwhile instructor, a could command a living wage doing it.

Nu

 

[McNugget]

Just curious, what type of problems were the FO's having going into europe/asia? Also, how did you guys get YOUR first experience's down south? I wonder if those captains were talking to their buddies about you not being able to handle it.....everyones gotta be new at something some time or another.........

Wow, I went from flying the "Barbie Jets" to flying a DC10 to SA and didn't have any problems. It isn't friggin rocket science. I also didn't have to fly with any crappy captains who treated me like some kind of dumbass for being an FO.

 

[L-1011-500]

Did you mean CAPT?

No I meant CAT (Custom Air Transport). They have a PFT agreement with Henry George's Jet Center or something like that. Seeing he and Tommy Duckworth(CAT DO) are both Eastern SCABS they are adept at taking the easy route. Pilots are our own worst enemies. That I'm afraid will never change.

As for Focus Air there are a few Cadets here but not all of them are. There are some FO's in class right now that have enough experience to be Captains at most places I've worked. The Second Officer minimums are just that. With all the FE's on the street right now and more to come seems like that's what they are hiring.

 

[Draginass]

Just curious, what type of problems were the FO's having going into europe/asia? Also, how did you guys get YOUR first experience's down south? I wonder if those captains were talking to their buddies about you not being able to handle it.....everyones gotta be new at something some time or another.........

Yes, everybody's new at one time or another . . . . but not new to heavy jets (much less a 742F) AND the world's most demanding flying environment. Since I was an FO at the time, I didn't fly with the guys that were having trouble so whatever info I have is, like I said, second hand. However, I heard it from enough good Captains whose judgment I trusted to believe it 100%. I remember one Captain (whom I hadn't flown with before), after leveloff departing the UK, said "I really appreciate flying with you." I said "ah, ok, whatya mean by that? He said "You can run a checklist, you can talk on the radio, you anticipate what I want when I'm flying the airplane . . . believe me it's really refreshing compared to a lot of the FOs we've gotten recently." They were going after the individuals per se, the rather blaming the company for hiring inexperience, then winking them through training instead of washing-out those who just couldn't cut it. At that time the majors were sucking the good and experienced FOs out of the company at a rate of 25 per month. The company was back-filling seats with whatever they could find.

Company training in SA operations varys from outstanding (AA & Delta I believe have a ground school and an extensive check airman flight orientation), to a joke (many supplemental carriers with a "yea, read the Jepps airport pages" and "don't worry, your Captain will show you the ropes.")

The point is . . . one step at a time. Going from a prop or small jet to a 742F is too big a bite for all but a small minority of exceptionally skilled guys. Most need to grow their way into it. If this was the military where you had hard crews, and were groomed, cared for, and constantly trained & evaluated, it'd be different. The tramp freighter biz is completely different. Unsatisfactory guys get passed through the system with almost no supervision or quality control and the Captains, rightfully so, do not see it as their job to provide remedial training to weak FOs . . that's the company's job. And of course, we know what the companys do about it, even when the Captains complain to the Chief Pilot.

Yea, a few guys can come from small airplanes and do fine. But looking at it objectively with a wide-angle lens, from safety concerns alone, you can't justify it as a sound policy to hire inexperienced pilots in 747s, much less into highly demanding flying environments . . . and ESPECIALLY into supplemental carriers whose training programs are marginal anyway.

 

[Draginass]

Wow, I went from flying the "Barbie Jets" to flying a DC10 to SA and didn't have any problems. It isn't friggin rocket science. I also didn't have to fly with any crappy captains who treated me like some kind of dumbass for being an FO.

That's great. Glad you made the transition well. "Isn't friggin rocket science?" No it's not . . . it's a lot more serious and deadly than that. Arrogance, a low maturity level, and inexperience does not serve a pilot well in a demanding flying environment.

 

[V1andgo]

Dear Draginess,
I have flown with CA and FO alike, some with many 1000s of hours, that could not decide what side goes up in an airplane. Experience is a not all that matters, it is attitude and the ability/willingness to learn. Hiring the right person for the job and training is what matters. By the way I have flown the Classic and currently train on the 400.
To all out their - yes size does matter- but the 747 is a very easy flying piece of equipment, a pilot’s airplane. Truly she is the Queen of the sky. You do not have to have heavy experience or flown the Shuttle to fly her. What you do need, the willingness to learn and apply yourself. That's all. Anyone who tells you different is blowing smoke.

 

[kevdog]

Dear Draginess,
I have flown with CA and FO alike, some with many 1000s of hours, that could not decide what side goes up in an airplane. Experience is a not all that matters, it is attitude and the ability/willingness to learn. Hiring the right person for the job and training is what matters. By the way I have flown the Classic and currently train on the 400.
To all out their - yes size does matter- but the 747 is a very easy flying piece of equipment, a pilot’s airplane. Truly she is the Queen of the sky. You do not have to have heavy experience or flown the Shuttle to fly her. What you do need, the willingness to learn and apply yourself. That's all. Anyone who tells you different is blowing smoke.

Are you referring to dragon breath?

 

[Draginass]

Dear Draginess,
I have flown with CA and FO alike, some with many 1000s of hours, that could not decide what side goes up in an airplane. Experience is a not all that matters, it is attitude and the ability/willingness to learn. Hiring the right person for the job and training is what matters. By the way I have flown the Classic and currently train on the 400.
To all out their - yes size does matter- but the 747 is a very easy flying piece of equipment, a pilot’s airplane. Truly she is the Queen of the sky. You do not have to have heavy experience or flown the Shuttle to fly her. What you do need, the willingness to learn and apply yourself. That's all. Anyone who tells you different is blowing smoke.

If you read my posts carefully instead of knee-jerk reacting, you'd see that I don't necessarily disagree with you. I never said that experience is the ONLY thing that matters, just that it matters A LOT for vast majority of pilots. If an experience track record isn't important, then almost all the airlines' recruiting departments are "blowing smoke" according to you. "Hiring the right person for the job" is a pretty platitude, but isn't very useful when making a practical decision on hiring. A person can have all the great attitude and willingness to learn, but past performance (experience, attitude, and willingness to learn) is the best predictor of success. Maybe that's why the airlines with the most lucrative positions don't have ab initio programs and generally hire those pilots with a track record of relevent experience. As far as training goes, airlines do the minimum necessary to get the quality they want due to cost considerations. Again, a pilot with relevent experience is almost certainly going to be easier/faster to train than one without it.

As far as flying the 74 goes, yes it is a nice flying airplane, but as a 74 pilot yourself I find it disturbing that you grossly underestimate it's ability to tax an inexperienced pilot. In my day I've flown quite a few military aircraft and have type ratings in 3 wide-body and 1 narrow-body airliners. To my mind the 747 is, by far, the most challenging civil aircraft I've flown. 747 freighters especially are very often flown at max gross weight (either structural or runway) out of marginal high airports, at night, onto complex departure procedures with high terrain all around. That's tough enough for an experienced pilot, much less an inexperienced one. And to remind you, BTW, I never said you had to have "heavy" (used in the formal definition sense) experience.

What you do need, the willingness to learn and apply yourself. That's all.

I guess I and virtually the entire airline industry would disagree with you that "That's all" you need.

I think some of you "Doth protest too much" which maybe says something in itself.

 

[Draginass]

Are you referring to dragon breath?

I guess if you can't make your arguement stick, you resort to elementary school namecalling. Very mature. This is too easy. Keep digging.

 

[JohnnyP]

...

Draginass,

What I do agree with is that it would be out of line to put a 250hr piston pilot into a 747, panel or not, which is what I gather this SO program is. But, like i said before you gotta be new to the 747 at some time or another, and I guess im not sure where one would go to cut their teeth on a 747, other than a lower tier freight operation. I dont think guys are going to cathay or united to get initial 747/heavy time, then going onto one of the miami freight operator's heading down to latin america. I would think it would be a normal progression for someone looking to get into a 747 to get hired on by one of the cargo operators doing mainly international work. But then again, not having any heavy time myself I dont really have a dog in this one, just an outsiders perspective. Its possible I may be way off base, its happened before.

 

[kevdog]

I guess if you can't make your arguement stick, you resort to elementary school namecalling. Very mature. This is too easy. Keep digging.

Didn't know I had an argument. Keep blowing the smoke up your ass.

 

[Draginass]

Draginass,

What I do agree with is that it would be out of line to put a 250hr piston pilot into a 747, panel or not, which is what I gather this SO program is. But, like i said before you gotta be new to the 747 at some time or another, and I guess im not sure where one would go to cut their teeth on a 747, other than a lower tier freight operation. I dont think guys are going to cathay or united to get initial 747/heavy time, then going onto one of the miami freight operator's heading down to latin america. I would think it would be a normal progression for someone looking to get into a 747 to get hired on by one of the cargo operators doing mainly international work. But then again, not having any heavy time myself I dont really have a dog in this one, just an outsiders perspective. Its possible I may be way off base, its happened before.

The demographics of the tramp freighter outfits change (as you would expect) with the hiring patterns of the industry in general. Six years ago, the good paying carriers were hiring and attracting those with the best experience and credentials. In the past few years, with the massive furloughes from the majors, the supply of well-experienced pilots and lack of decent companies to work for meant a good supply of experience for the freighter outfits.

Several people on this board aren't reading close enough. I'm not avocating that you have to have 747 experience to fly a 747. Many of the 747 freighter crewmembers have lots of great previous experience in 727s, DC-8s, 737s or whatever, and flying internationally. That's great experience and and a good record there would lead me to believe that person would be also an easy fit in the whale. If I have a 727 captain or FO flying internationally with 15 years experience, a great attitude, personality, and record, and I've got an 7 year of 121 experienced Saab Captain flying almost exclusively in the US, also with a great attitude, personality and record, I'm going to go with the guy that has the proven experience closest to what I'm going to be asking him to do. It's only common business sense. I realize that may rankle some of the younger pilots out there, but the young guys don't have a monopoly on attitude and desire.

With regards to putting a very young pilot in a flight engineers panel for a year, AFTER a year of mailroom duty, that not right. Young and inexperienced pilots need to fly, and fly alot . . working themselves into more and more complex and demanding aircraft and flight environments. I think this second officer program is setting up some good guys to fail by ignoring their basic development in the profession.

 

[big_al]

the simple answer is for these companies that do anything for the bottom line is younger guys demand less $$ and are far easier to screw over and take it

 

[McNugget]

Arrogance, a low maturity level, and inexperience does not serve a pilot well in a demanding flying environment.

You got a problem I can help you with?

 

[Draginass]

You got a problem I can help you with?

Congrats. You've graduated to junior high. Kevdog must have handed you the shovel.

 

[McNugget]

That's what I thought, nothing but a punk.

 

[Draginass]

Me a punk? You're the one with your doll collection as your avatar.

This really is too easy.

 

[McNugget]

Me a punk? You're the one with your doll collection as your avatar.

This really is too easy.

You're pretty funny dude......