"Navigator or Helicopter time is meaningless at 'company X'"

[pilotyip]

Junglejet, I agree with your 10 FW and 1500 RT need more fixed wing. But I was referring to the stupid airline mangers that want 5000TT and will not accept 1500 RW in IFR, multicrewed turbine aircraft as real flight time, but will look at 1500 in a piper cub flying VFR in AZ as quality for the 5000TT. BTW how do you think airline will look at V-22 time in the future, lands like a helo?

 

[GoingHot]

name that company or send a PM

Mountain Air Cargo (MAC) fits the description. I have a friend who was turned down there because he only had 1100 hours of fixed-wing. However, he was an IP with 2300 hours of MH-60 time, much of it in combat, at night, in all kinds of nasty weather, in that senic vacation spot called Afghanistan.

 

[JungleJett]

Junglejet, I agree with your 10 FW and 1500 RT need more fixed wing. But I was referring to the stupid airline mangers that want 5000TT and will not accept 1500 RW in IFR, multicrewed turbine aircraft as real flight time, but will look at 1500 in a piper cub flying VFR in AZ as quality for the 5000TT. BTW how do you think airline will look at V-22 time in the future, lands like a helo?

Agreed.

There may also be an insurance issue as well. A friend of mine was a MiG-21 Pilot (Squadron Commander, Instructor....) with over 1800 hours of fast jet time....BUT..all of it was single engine. He had only about 30 hours of multiengine time. The airline that I work for would not hire him due to insurance reasons. They had thier mins too!

 

[pilotyip]

Put MAC on the stupid airline list

 

[viper548]

Ok...so what your saying is I can only really use about 30 minutes of that?

Exactly

 

[bssthound]

You get absolutely NO sympathy from us RW guys. It is a discrace to even lump us into the same category as NAVs.

Were you trying to spell "disgrace?"

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I worded my resume' so that my nav time would reflect my experience in fast-movers and heavy aircraft operations. I was careful to differentiate between that and my pilot time and make it very clear I wasn't trying to pad my pilot hours. Also, I worded my resume' where the interviewer would ask "what's it like flying an F-4" or "what's it like flying into a hurricane?" Your nav experience is unique and if you can spend some time wording your resume' to highlight that time you'll be able to set yourself apart in an interview.

 

[JimNtexas]

" I too agree that his Nav time has made him a better crew member but not a better stick and rudder guy."

To be fair, some navs have a fair amount of stick time. But I can't come up with a formula F(nav) = pilot.

I do think it is very silly to not count helicopter time. I got to ride in the jump seat for several CH-47 lift missions when I was in Korea. That's a big complex jet plane. Yes, it doesn't go as fast as some other jet might, but then it can go sideways and backwards. And in a CH-47 if you don't have good CRM, you just die.

I also got an hour of Cobra time, that was a lot like a cross between a Bonanza and robocop, except for the hovering part.

 

[talondriver]

Maybe we need to look at it from another angle when it comes to companies not counting nav time.

We can all agree that there is no shortage of applicants when it come to airline (freight or pax) hiring. If there was a shortage, company requirements for hire would flex. If they were hurting bad enough, you all may be able to put your Falcon 6.0 flight sim time on your app.

I don't think I could sit through an interview (out of sympathy) listening to a nav try to explain why his/her nav time could help a company earn a buck.

As far as I'm concerned, my 1K hours of nav time only counted when it came to me applying for UPT. Sorry.

RW guys could make a better argument...but then again, how many apps with fixed wing time are stacked at company X?

 

[JimNtexas]

I don't think I could sit through an interview (out of sympathy) listening to a nav try to explain why his/her nav time could help a company earn a buck.

As far as I'm concerned, my 1K hours of nav time only counted when it came to me applying for UPT.

That statement makes no sense. You're saying that the Air Force was right to consider YOUR nav time when it hired you to be a pilot, but that no other nav's time should be considered for any pilot slot other than yours?

As you must know pior navs have a much higher success rate in pilot training than persons without prior flying experience. The same is no doubt true in the civilian world.

As far as "...to explain why his/her nav time could help a company earn a buck", maybe it would tell them that he's less likey to fail training than someone who didn't have the happiness of military flight training.

When you think about it, that's pretty much the ONLY way that one pilot's background makes him more likely to "help a company earn a buck" than another pilot.

 

[talondriver]

That statement makes no sense. You're saying that the Air Force was right to consider YOUR nav time when it hired you to be a pilot, but that no other nav's time should be considered for any pilot slot other than yours?

Well...not to sound harsh. But, one point is that nav time doesn't mean much when it comes to applying for a "PILOT POSITION" (apparently, lots o' companies take this position). It might have meant a little when it came to applying for a "I WANT TO BE A PILOT" position. Other things were thrown in the mix and I'm sure my "nav time" was not that much of a factor when it came to the UPT selection board (my other point).

I think showing nav time may actually be a potential hurdle in getting hired. One question that your nav time may bring up during an interview is "why didn't you got to UPT OR why didn't you make it through UPT?"

Hey!! I know navs that are airline pilots solely on their tenacity to get a butt load of pilot hours flying civilian. That's an accomplishment that can't be argued during an interview. But arguing about nav time......?

 

[JimNtexas]

" One question I'd ask a nav during an interview is "why didn't you got to UPT OR why didn't you make it through UPT?""

And I'd ask you, why weren't you good enough to go to UPT to begin with?

ETA:

But you didn't address my point. A nav is far more likely to suceed in flight training than his clone who wasn't a nav. That goes for "wants to be a pilot" and "pilots" equally.

 

[talondriver]

" One question I'd ask a nav during an interview is "why didn't you got to UPT OR why didn't you make it through UPT?""

And I'd ask you, why weren't you good enough to go to UPT to begin with?

Eyes

Dude..if you fly for a company now...GOOD ON YA! I'm just being the devil's advocate on this one.

 

[talondriver]

"But you didn't address my point. A nav is far more likely to suceed in flight training than his clone who wasn't a nav. That goes for "wants to be a pilot" and "pilots" equally.

Urban legend. I spent a lot of time as an IP and navs have to show "hands" just like the rest of the kids. Unfortunately, I've seen my share of navs wash out.

 

[JimNtexas]

Urban legend. I spent a lot of time as an IP and navs have to show "hands" just like the rest of the kids. Unfortunately, I've seen my share of navs wash out.

I base that on a study comissioned by the Air Force in the early 90s to determine what factors were predictive of success in UPT. It was commissioned because there were a number of high profile AFA cadets who washed out. I don't think this was released to the public, but it was passed around at ACC/DOT where I worked at the time.

What the numbers showed was that prior flying experience as a pilot or nav was the only reliable predictor of UPT success.

Interestingly there was almost no correlation between success as a cadet as measured by Cadet rank and success in pilot training.

That's not to say that a person with qualification X will never wash out by any means.

 

[Pistlpetet]

Were you trying to spell "disgrace?"

Sorry, couldn't resist.
quote]

Oh you got me Teach. However, not bad considering I was drunk, at 3am, in Bangkok.