In House SIC

[CelticCitation]

We are a 135/91 company with a couple of Citations. Notice that some other companies are using SICs that are trained in-house, as opposed to sim training. How common is this? Pros or cons?

 

[Buckeye]

Deleted....stupid computer!!!!!

 

[G100driver]

Unfortunatly it is very common.

Charter/management companies are not willing to do it correctly because it costs too much money. The leadership of such companies is unwilling to inform owners of such airplanes that properly trained pilots are a necesity and not sending them to school not only put them and their families in danger but also the general public (charter customers) as well.

Unfortunatly there are still a lot of old-school folks out there who think this is OK. Unless you have a large training department this will not work. I can tell you from experience most charter/corporate operators are ill-equipt to properly handle training.

My .02 ... only in this case, I know I am right.

 

[oiltycoon]

Your questions is related to another thread:

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=96251

 

[CelticCitation]

For sake of argument, I have a few positives that aren't related To $$$$.

1. The Captains who would conduct the training are all high time in type, current CFIs, Company Instructors and Check Airman in non-turbine aircraft, all who would do annual training at FlightSafety.

2. We live in a difficult to airline area. It adds at least a day to both ends of training events to travel. Training in-house would have the pilots at home each night, and not sitting another night in a hotel. This would also save money, but let's pretend it's not about money.

3. It still takes 100 hours give or take a few to get guys up to speed after they return from a sim school. They know systems well, and are ready for a check ride, but they still take a lot of IOE before they can assimilate in with our SOP. And yes, we do let SICs fly every other leg, and maybe more. If I'm scared, I take the flight controls, as we have briefed. Doesn't happen often.

4. Not discounting the value of a sim, but many industry instructors have not ever flown the actual aircraft. They are good at reading the slides, but almost all of our pilots are literate. Those who can do.

5. Many of the maneuvers that are safe to do outside of the sim never are done. How often does a crew go to a safe altitude, after fully briefing, do a stall series as part of a training syllabus? Or a steep turn that wasn't ad hoc?

Having said that, I would rather spend the money where it should be spent, and we have the budget to continue using industry schools. If those who are doing in-house training are having a positive experience, I'd like to know. Maybe there is something to be learned.

 

[Count Dracula]

For sake of argument, I have a few positives that aren't related To $$$$.

4. Not discounting the value of a sim, but many industry instructors have not ever flown the actual aircraft. They are good at reading the slides, but almost all of our pilots are literate. Those who can do.

Well, I was an Instructor at a large training organization for five years with considerable amount of "real" aircraft experience. Unfortuately, if the training industry were more willing to step up and compensate professional instructors similar to what their Fortune 500 customers get paid, then you would have experienced people teaching these courses. I've worked next to barely 1000 hour simulator instructors who didn't know how to adjust the seat let alone teach the airplane. And many think they pay too much for recurrent training as it is.

 

[JohnnyP]

.....

If the guys are going to be flying for you, send them to a proper school.

In my last deal, I got hired overseas, and sent to school on the airplane in some back door conversion course (the course was overseas also). The guy was decent in his presentation and knowledge, but even still. It wasnt an establised training program, and just wasnt very good.

If they had just sent me to flightsafety or something of the sort, it would have solved a lot of problems.

In the longrun it would save them money on training, because then guys like me wouldnt quit after a year because the company is trying to pinch pennies on training, among other things. But what do I know, im just a lowly pilot. Just drive the plane idiot!!!!

 

[alaskaborn]

I did a Part 135 in house training about a year ago for my last job and then went to Flight Safety for my current Part 91 job. I can tell you, hands down, that the FSI training was superior in every way to the in house training. Of course since it was 135, we had a training syllabus, guidelines, qualified high time instructors, and were even able to sleep at home every night. We trained on the aircraft that we would actually be flying on the line, we even did the manuevers in that airplane. With all of that said, the 135 training was CRAP compared to Flight Safety. A huge part of the classroom training was dedicated to company politics, gossip and war stories. It was no secret that we were "checking the boxes" for the FSDO and just meeting the requirements. At Flight Safety, a completely different atmosphere. . .it was all about learning that airplane inside and out, understanding the systems, memorizing the limitations, flying the airplane (sim) to ATP standards. After my experience, I would be suspicious of any company that told me their in house training would be comparable to anything I could get at a training facility. Now then, maybe if the company had the resources to put together a training program along the lines of Delta or United, I'd feel differently. . .but that's not what we're talking about, is it?

 

[FO4life]

To be the one in a Million. My Previous job was 135. All initial and six month checks were done in house. Once a year the captains would go to FS or CAE for training and checkrides. The FO’s would tag along for training but no checkride. The in-house training was very detailed and demanding, they took training VERY Seriously. We did all maneuvers required for 293, 297. When I came to my current employer I was sent to FS for a recurrent class….. 4 day recurrent with ATP and TYPE, And proud to say Passed with out a problem. Although many companies want a warm seat, Some do not.

 

[Capt1124]

For sake of argument, I have a few positives that aren't related To $$$$.

4. Not discounting the value of a sim, but many industry instructors have not ever flown the actual aircraft. They are good at reading the slides, but almost all of our pilots are literate. Those who can do.

Well, I was an Instructor at a large training organization for five years with considerable amount of "real" aircraft experience. Unfortuately, if the training industry were more willing to step up and compensate professional instructors similar to what their Fortune 500 customers get paid, then you would have experienced people teaching these courses. I've worked next to barely 1000 hour simulator instructors who didn't know how to adjust the seat let alone teach the airplane. And many think they pay too much for recurrent training as it is.

I heard quite a few Flight Safety instructors from Teterboro left last year to go to Simuflite, for a pay increase- and living in a lower cost of living area. I think that is what prompted Flight Safety to move some simulators to New Castle, where they can hire retired Air Force guys who have a pension and won't ask for much money.