Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Never Give A Kid A Jet!

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
acaTerry said:
What you fail to understand is the selection criteria between airlines and the military:
Military: College degree, severe academic aptitude testing, personality testing, very rigid physical exams, pshycological profile testing and boot camp/OCS as well as 1.5 to 2 year FLIGHT SCHOOL with DEEP subject matter and testing.
Airline: 1000 hrs (often less), pulse, fill out an application (often with the grammar and spelling of a 7th grader), and memorize the gouge from the internet.
See the idea?

Ignorant Egomaniac. Goes along with "hey ya'll, watch this"....

I'll take MOST of our 20 something Riddle/FSI punks ANY time. Great system knowledge, humble (most of them) eagar to learn.
 
jimcav said:
neither is a 5000 hr tprop guy with 200 hrs of jet time. No offense to the youngsters ( hell I'm one myself ) but a majority of responders really fit a certain profile, or else you wouldn't be so offended by these remarks.QUOTE]

So if a company has all turboprops and gets jets, should they hire off the street capts with jet time? How are the turboprop captains supposed to transition? Just curious
 
It's a tough call. I'm just speaking from experience. I know that when I had 200 hrs of jet time I wasn't ready to be capt and my skills are on par with everyone elses. I have also had the chance to fly with very seasoned tprop captains with almost 10000 hours and witness the struggle to transition from prop to jet. Usually the basics come quick but it takes a while (500-1000 hrs) to reach the level of proficiency required to do the job. Most seasoned pilots I know would roll their eyes if you told them a jet crew with the background of this Pcl crew had sufficient experience. My company requires 2 years on property or a review of a board for those with less time to be capt. The exception is for those with prior 121 capt time or mil jet time.I just think that 200 hrs of jet time for a capt who is going to be paired with a 500hr ERAU grad is asking a lot. Look at ASA, Eagle, & CMR, they may hire low timers but these people are well seasoned when they upgrade because they sit in the right seat for a while. Some of these other places hire low timers and upgrade them in less than 2 years. AT least my company requirement applies to those who already have at least 3000-5000 hrs. In answer to the question I do not know what these places should do, I just know that I am skeptical. Just my opinion, it is not intended to offend.
 
Oh... and by the way, both the CAPT and FO were both PFT. Way to go PFT!!! Keep the money coming and the hard work!! LOL
 
Stifler's Mom said:
Can somebody please post at what point one becomes mature enough both age and hour wise?
The day prior to retirement, until then you gotta be learnin' all the time.
Unfortunately these guys came up short in many ways and areas.
PBR
 
DX Rick said:
Never Give A Kid A Jet!


Ok, better tell the Navy and U.S. Air Force that one. I believe those are "kids" with only a couple hundred hours jumping in those Jets.
Ok, try again, the military selection and training process is the most stringent in existence. Not really a good analogy. These guys just proved, what you don't know will kill you, regardless of age. The only advantage age would have provided them was the opportunity to have experience the effects of altitude and swept wing dynamics with on other flights/airmen.
PBR
 
TIS said:
I have several thoughts. I'll begin with this one. Speaking only for myself I can say that you’re just plain wrong about my comments. Perhaps I didn’t articulate clearly enough what I’ve been trying to say but here’s the essence of it: Believe it or not, age IS a factor in assessing the probable maturity level of any particular individual.

As for supporting evidence here are a few things you seem to have missed in your argument.

To whit:
1. You have to be 16 (in most states, if not all) to get a driver’s license.
2. You have to be 14 to solo in a glider.
3. You have to be 16 to solo in a powered aircraft.
4. You have to be 17 to get your private license.
5. You have to be 18 to get a commercial certificate.
6. You have to be 23 to get an ATP.
7. You have to be 25 to rent a car.
8. You have to start paying higher premiums for auto insurance when your kids reach 12 or 13.

Are you suggesting that these things occur in a vacuum? Every one of these things exists because something about a persons age can be directly correlated to an individual’s maturity level and experience – at least in part. It is silly to suggest that age has nothing to do with a person’s maturity level when there are so many clearly demonstrable instances in which it DOES.

Now, does this mean that the younger guys don’t have advantages? Absolutely not! Their unencumbered lives (no wife/kids) mean that their dedication to the job at hand is greater – or at least it has the potential to be. Their clarity of thought is what mine used to be – but now I’ve got a wife, kids, a mortgage, and I’ve got ”a crabgrass problem” (just a little Tim Allen “Men are Pigs” line – for the older guys out there). They can remember things like nobody’s business - just like I once could! personally I subscribe to the "useless BB" theory on this - too many things stuffed in = things coming out the other side.

But they, in general, have very little experience. Now, this is not to say that they don’t have a lot of flight time – they might well have. But I DO insist that flight time only gets you so far. Longevity is an important part of the equation – important enough that under the right combination of circumstances I might consider the number of years someone has been flying a particular aircraft type to carry more weight than their total time in it. Those years represent time to reflect and consider. They indicate the number of times a person has thought through entering winter or the thunderstorm season. They represent living one’s life as a pilot and remaining alive. It just takes time in the seat to pay the necessary dues. You said so in the very post I’m responding to. That doesn’t happen as you get younger. It happens as you get older.

So when I say that age has something to do with maturity, this is what I’m talking about. I don’t expect too many of the younger folks who’ve argued most fervently against this point to understand – they haven’t unplugged from the Matrix, so to speak – but I think nit’s important to understand that age DOES play a role in maturity level whether one likes it or not. Maturity, like most things in life operates on a continuum, which makes it difficult to assess in particular individuals based on key indicators. Age is however, IS a key indicator that is, more often than not, a pretty good litmus test. That’s why so many things in our society and in our profession have age related restrictions.

Now, before I move on I'd like to take exception to this part of you post because I think it's just inaccurate:


What about UAL 173 - the DC-8 in Portland that resulted from the attitude of the captain and fathered CRM training as a mandate?

What about DAL 191 - where the pilots were faulted for continuing their approach to DFW with an active cell on the final approach?

I could go on and on but rather than do so how about we just say that pilot error is a factor in considerably MORE than the majority of aircraft accidents, and that this is so stated in the NTSBs findings as published, and leave it at that.


By “gee whiz” I HOPE you’re not referring to a Gulfstream pilot per se (that’s usually what people mean when they say “gee whiz,” you know). And what does 1500 hours have to do with it, anyway?


There you go! You’ve hit the nail on the head here. I would just say that if you’re longevity in the business is high, you’ll be ready to be the CA In that thing sooner than a guy with twice your time in it and a lucky connection that got him the job at age 25. You’ve just thought the business of being off the ground over more times, more completely, and more effectively than he has.

TIS

TIS

I think you and I are talking around each other. I agree age does play a role in maturity, blah blah, blah, BUT!!! What I take offensed to is the blanket statement that all young guys/gals (I'm 28) are irresponsible and shouldn't be given the same responsibilities and privelages as someone twice our age. Thats all. You brought up a good point with your table of ages for different things, but you forgot the most important one:

18 years old to go to war and die for your country, pretty big responsibility there.

The gee whiz thing, you learn something new everyday, I did not know that was a nickname for Gulfstream drivers, woops. The 1500 hour thing was just a number. I see and hear a few people talking about how 1500 hour pilots have no business in the front end of an airliner much less a jet, so I just through it out there.

Maybe it's a generation thing, and I don't know if I can seperate myself from those born in the early 80's since I was born in the late 70's, but all of my friends, people from High School, College and most that I meet that are my age or a few years older have a good head on their shoulders. It could be all in where you are from and how you are raised too, who knows. But age isn't the ONLY way to determine maturity and ability, it shouldn't even be used as a zero point either.

Again, I think you and I agree for the most part but me being a younger guy put more emphasis on actuall ability than perceived ability and refuse to label someone, GOOD or BAD, soley on some numbers, be it age or total time.

ps

TIS, I just realized how I may have offended you with the gee whiz comment. Rest assured that it and all of my rantings, where in no way directed at you. Gee whiz is a term I use to describe a great many things and it just so happens to have a double meaning in this context. Sorry for any confusion.
 
Last edited:
jimcav said:
Just my opinion, it is not intended to offend.

You didn't offend me. I see where you are coming from and I agree. Personally, I think (and I am not solely blaming this on training by any means) that training at commuters is subpar. I don't think that helps the situation. From my experience, I have been on my own in regards to learning jet/high altitude operations. Of course, even with the best training you will always have goofballs that do stupid stuff.
 
capt. megadeth said:
Of course, even with the best training you will always have goofballs that do stupid stuff.

That's the truth, even the best training and years and years of experience can't compensate for stupidity.
 
This may be the only post where I am not trying to kick the beez nest. After reading the information off of reports related to the unfortunate Pinnacle Accident, I feel the tone on the flight deck on that particular flight...( I'm not saying the pilots where unprofessional!) was the lack of professionalism. From the the conversation that was recorded on the CVR and antics that occured on the flight, I feel that complacency was abundant in this situation. Yeah pilots may have many conversations on the flight deck that one would think, is only something you would hear at the bar, but Sometimes that along with ego, and experience. It may elevate the opportunity for something to go wrong. As with the discussion on age (or years of experience) definetly plays a role on how a flight crew handles an emergency. And I have even seen experience make the wrong decision, I have also seen Experience make an exceptional. I guess that is why we have a QRH and we have to not get complacent.
 
Deth you hit the nail right on the head. At least you understand that there is a difference in the two types of flying. Nobody spoonfed me the differences either. Just having a clue would have prevented this tragedy.By the way I like your taste in music.
 
jimcav said:
Deth you hit the nail right on the head. At least you understand that there is a difference in the two types of flying. Nobody spoonfed me the differences either. Just having a clue would have prevented this tragedy.By the way I like your taste in music.

SWEET! :)
 
Speed Mode...


Are we talking single pilot IFR,135, I'ma bada$$ let me try and show you up ...or


They screwed up, bad news and don't be stupid.
 
oldskoolbronco2 said:
I am so FU*#ing tired of hearing about the pimple faced young pilots and how stupid they are and don't know what they are doing because they have not "earned their place" by spending 15 years as a CFI to get a job flying cargo for 10 years, each night in thunderstorms at night in icing with windshear alone in a 310 with freight!
oh yeah also on one engine with partial panel, did I get it all?

Don't forget "uphill, BOTH ways", and "in 3 feet of snow, barefoot". :)
 

Latest resources

Back
Top