How intelligent/smart must you be to be a pilot??

[NYCPilot]

I don't mind a little debate. Most points raised against mine have plenty of merit and I'll agree to an extent.

Just acknowledge that my point has some merit as well!:smash:

 

[NYCPilot]

thanks sled!





maybe I just want to see that being able to achieve a 121 position reqiured some level of competency.

 

[Lead Sled]

Sorry for belaboring the point...

But lets say a commerical pilot who has very little multi time is probably not competent to fly a large turbine twin.
Once he's acquired a fair amount in smaller twins, he's made himself eligable or competent to begin flying a bigger twin.

Competency can be acquired.

FWIW, I've taken a couple of 1500 hr pilots with just a wet ME rating and sent them to school to ride right seat in a Lear. One now is a senior Net Jets guy the other a captain for one of the majors. They were nothing special - just average. It just took a little time and patience for them to get the lay of the land.

'Sled

 

[A Squared]

Is it really becasue I'm a low timer that I formulate these ideas? The amount of time has little to do with the idea of promotion within any occupation.

Well, actually, It hadn't occured to me that you were a low time pilot until you mentioned it. I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to your profile. But since you mention it, the answer isn't simple. I agree that flight time often has no relavancy in discussions of factual matter. I always roll my eyes when some tool tries to claims he's correct about, say a legal question, because he has X thousand hours, and the guy he's arguing against is a student pilot. I have on more then one occasion seen this in cases when the student pilot was correct, and the multithousand hour ATP was out to lunch. So, no in a case like that, time is irrelevant. This is not such a case. Those with more experience in the industry, with a wider range of experience in a variety of airplanes and operating, who have close personal acquaintences who have travelled many of possible the career paths within aviation, will have a more relevant perspective on an issue. As a CFI who's total experience in aviation (and I'm assuming here, apoogies if it's incorrect) has been flight school, your understanding of the situation is limited to things you have read in a book, inevitably this will be a less valid perspective then those who have lived it, often for decades.

Generally, advancement in aviation, particularly advancement within a single airline is driven more by longevity than any other factor. Marginal Pilots make captain before exceptional pilots do if the marginal pilot was hired before the outstanding one.

But lets say a commerical pilot who has very little multi time is probably not competent to fly a large turbine twin.
Once he's acquired a fair amount in smaller twins, he's made himself eligable or competent to begin flying a bigger twin.

Competency can be acquired.

That negates your initial thesis, which says that people have an inherent level of competency, and cannot proceed beyond that.

 

[NYCPilot]

Well, actually, It hadn't occured to me that you were a low time pilot until you mentioned it. I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to your profile. But since you mention it, the answer isn't simple.

I was responding to sled who assumed correctly that I was. Thats why I mentioned it.

That negates your initial thesis, which says that people have an inherent level of competency, and cannot preceed beyond that.

I think I may be back peddling and talking in circles over here!:0

Most of what you guys have said has changed my opinion. My knoweldge really comes out of assumption, as I havent had as long and varied of a career.

 

[mar]

A matter of culture

maybe I just want to see that being able to achieve a 121 position reqiured some level of competency.

It's all politics by the time you get to this point.

I mean, you're expected to be able to recognize which end of the airplane moves through the air first.

But after that, it's really a matter of corporate culture and exactly who do the "movers and shakers" care to hire and adopt into their little club.

Look at the difference in hiring between the various companies (when they were actually hiring).

I'm one of those guys that Asquared mentions but let's be honest: there's a reason why my company hires DC6 pilots from Alaska. It's not because we're Sky Gods that's for damn sure.

It's because we know how to move old broken down airplanes and not bitch about the fact there's no diet Coke on the airplane. Know what I mean?

That said, I think there are certain lessons that need to be learned *before* you get to the controls of a jet transport.

Is the 747 easy to fly? Yeah, she's sweet.

But she's fast and sucks down the fuel real fast. To an experienced pilot that means your reactions and decision making needs to be honed. We often block out just above min fuel required, sometimes with marginal weather. That means if you start your descent you must be fairly certain you're gonna make it...that takes skill, judgement and decision making. If you're down low, on a missed approach, with min gas you need to have a plan because you're burning gas like nobody's business.

And it goes without saying, this is all done on the backside of the clock after an eight hour flight. The fatigue issue alone is a good reason to expect some experience from your crew.

So I think it's silly when certain companies require so much time "in type" or so much turbine time, or whatever other arbitrary prerequisite they stipulate but like I said it's all politics and culture.

The degree requirement itself is nothing more than another filter to narrow the field of applicants. It has nothing to do with intelligence or ability or anything else.

Good luck.

 

[A Squared]

I'm one of those guys that Asquared mentions but let's be honest: there's a reason why my company hires DC6 pilots from Alaska. It's not because we're Sky Gods that's for dang sure.

Just to clarify, I mentioned that not to suggest that DC-6 pilots are the be-all and end-all of aviation, but to give a point of reference with which I am very familliar and which dovetailed nicely with nycpilot's mention of the 747

 

[mar]

Understood

But I think DC6 pilots are pretty dang cool. It's still probably the most intense CRM experience I've ever had.

 

[NYCPilot]

I just googled some pics of the DC-6 cockpit. Those things look prehistoric! Probably pretty intense to fly in comparison to the newer jets.

 

[pilotyip]

Oh my gad!, Mar just say a degree had nothing to do with flying an airplane, it was just a box you check to get an interview. Where have I heard that before?