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

[mar]

Ah, c'mon. Let's not split hairs!

Black or white would be nice. Attiutde, knowledge (regs., systems etc.), ability, interest, judgment and much more is needed to be a good pilot.

If it were just attitude, then we could select all the good pilots by their attitude and reject all the bad ones.

Just a thought though.

eP.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...Everything ELSE being equal...attitude makes the difference.

 

[ePilot22]

Alright, I'm a pilot not a barber. I won't split hairs.


eP.

 

[FN FAL]

You're making a big assumption here. Are you saying that guys only make a career out of flying "little" planes (bizjets for example) because they're not good enough or have the ability to fly the big ones (airliners)?

'Sled

Isn't it funny how the lowest flight time people know all about what the deal is at the majors and who is this and who is that.

We have a recently retired EMB regional jet pilot on IOE this week and single pilot flying in the Caravan is kicking his ass. I'm sure he'll do O.K. but he's definitely missing the easy life back at 121.

In another case, one of our pilots ran off to Spirit and eventually became a captain. He left for Midwest Express and then got furloughed twice. He then went back to spirit and became an FO. After he gets furloughed again, he goes home and sells insurance or cars. Eventually, he gets on with the national airline SWA after buying his 737 type rating on the WIA funds. Now he is not happy and can't stand it over at SWA and wants to go back to selling cars or insurance. You'd think that anyone "smart" enough to fly large turbine aircraft would know whether they "liked it" or not.

 

[NYCPilot]

You're making a big assumption here. Are you saying that guys only make a career out of flying "little" planes (bizjets for example) because they're not good enough or have the ability to fly the big ones (airliners)?

'Sled

Of course thats not what I'm saying. You're putting words in my mouth. Where do I specifically state this? Little planes? I never said anything about that. But your wording does sound good for your arguement.

Flying a biz jet can be every bit as demanding as flying a 767 overseas. I'm aware of the higher experience requirements for these types of operations. Many times it takes more to get hired there then at a lot of regionals.

My example was someone flying a light twin and a heavy jet. The skills and competency you posses at the time you get this job flyign checks is not the same when you walk into an inteview at Delta. Granted, you build upon your skills and airmanship at these various intermediate stations as you progress through your career.

 

[A Squared]

NYCPilot,

Since you have advanced the 747 as the pinnacle of aviation acheivement, I'll say that I know quite a few pilots who have made the transition from flying freight in a DC-6 to flying a 747, in both seats. The overwhelming majority opinion is that once you get past the challenges of operating in an unfamiliar airplane and environment, the flying is much easier.

 

[Lead Sled]

Isn't it funny how the lowest flight time people know all about what the deal is at the majors and who is this and who is that.

We have a recently retired EMB regional jet pilot on IOE this week and single pilot flying in the Caravan is kicking his ass. I'm sure he'll do O.K. but he's definitely missing the easy life back at 121.

In another case, one of our pilots ran off to Spirit and eventually became a captain. He left for Midwest Express and then got furloughed twice. He then went back to spirit and became an FO. After he gets furloughed again, he goes home and sells insurance or cars. Eventually, he gets on with the national airline SWA after buying his 737 type rating on the WIA funds. Now he is not happy and can't stand it over at SWA and wants to go back to selling cars or insurance. You'd think that anyone "smart" enough to fly large turbine aircraft would know whether they "liked it" or not.[/quote]

Well said. I'm a corporate pilot by choice and I love my job. I used to fly for a major airline, but once the novelty of flying a "big" airplane wore off I was bored out of my mind. It took the "fun" out of flying. (After all, how tough is airline flying really? Takeoff, fly a SID or take vectors for the departure, fly to "where ever", then a STAR and/or vectors to an ILS and land - then repeat ad nausium.)

I prefer the variety and "hands on" aspect of corporate flying. Could I have had a career in the majors - I have no doubt, it just that I chose not to and I have never regretted making that choice.

'Sled

 

[NYCPilot]

Isn't it funny how the lowest flight time people know all about what the deal is at the majors and who is this and who is that.

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.

The concept of being promoted based upon competency is not new. One does not advance to the next level without being qualified. I dont understand why this is being disputed.

If you dont possess the abilities or qualifications you dont advance or progress. Some people stop progressing and remain stationary.

Some acquire the skills and abilities and move on. Other don't. Competency can be viewed as building upon knoweldge and skill.

If you havent acquired them, you arent competent and you dont move up. Period.

For instance, who isthe ideal candidate for a major airline position. Someone who has proven to possess some measurable level of competency. This might be prior 121 exp., a specific amount of PIC turbine exp., etc. These all translate into being competent. If you've acquired them and hung around long enough, you demomonstrate the ability to perfrom under these situations and conditions.

 

[NYCPilot]

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.

 

[DC8 Flyer]

NYC:

Not trying to hop on the band wagon "against" you here. Just to put things in perspective flying large "heavy" or "widebody" airplanes overseas or even flying them period is no big deal and requires no great skill. There are a few procedures to learn when flying the NATs or phraseology when in ICAO only airspace, but nothing a few hours with a north atlantic orientation chart and a quick conversation with someone who has done can't overcome. I "earned" my DC8 type and was flying international with only 2200 hours and the DC8 was my first jet. It aint no thang.

Size, powerplant, area of operation, etc make no difference in flying. Flying is flying, pull up the houses get smaller, push down they get bigger, keep pulling up and they will eventually get really big...

Attitude is everything, anyone can fly any kind of airplane in any kind of enviroment given the proper training and supervision while still "green" and that all falls under attitude. It works both ways, the pilot has to have a can do attitude as well as the employer.

Just sumpin to chew on...

 

[Lead Sled]

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.

The concept of being promoted based upon competency is not new. One does not advance to the next level without being qualified. I dont understand why this is being disputed.

If you dont possess the abilities or qualifications you dont advance or progress. Some people stop progressing and remain stationary.

Some acquire the skills and abilities and move on. Other don't. Competency can be viewed as building upon knoweldge and skill.

If you havent acquired them, you arent competent and you dont move up. Period.

For instance, who is the ideal candidate for a major airline position. Someone who has proven to possess some measurable level of competency. This might be prior 121 exp., a specific amount of PIC turbine exp., etc. These all translate into being competent. If you've acquired them and hung around long enough, you demomonstrate the ability to perfrom under these situations and conditions.

I agree that the Peter Principle (You rise to the level of your incompetence.) is alive and well in most areas of business. I don't think that it is controlling in aviation and other professions. Do all doctors become heart or brain surgeons? Why not? Not all MDs want to be surgeons, not all pilots want to fly airliners. (There's a lot of airline pilots out there that are wishing they went corporate.) One of the best pilots I ever met made a choice to be a career CFI. Would he not have been good enough to fly 121? He could have done well at it, but he chose not to.

'Sled

 

[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?