Quality of Regional Training

[PCL_128]

For once I have to agree with you Russian. The training at GIA was top notch. Great instructors like Rocky and Adrian really made the difference. I just wish that Pinnacle's training came even close to Gulfstream's. No such luck.

 

[CapnVegetto]

Mesa's training dept. CRJ is OK, not the best training I've ever received, but OK. Sim was OK again....but I didn't really like the way the CFM was written.....there were a couple of head scratcher things in the checklist that made you think, "who wrote this stupid $hit? have they ever even flown the airplane?" But for the most part, it got the job done, and allowed you to get a good basis for actually flying the line.

The DHC8 dept. is another matter. At least a 50% fail rate in it. And it's all due to a bunch of 'club' instructors. If they like you, you pass, if they don't you fail. I was never a student in that dept. but they shared a building with us, and some VERY GOOD people I know never made it through the ground school. The people on this board are right....most of the time a high failure rate, (especially one that high), is due to poor instruction.

The ERJ ground school is very good also. Had beers one night with one of their instructors, and I swear, if you marooned the guy on a desert island he could build a dam ERJ out of coconuts and sticks to fly home in. He was FANTASTIC. He was an old mechanic on it, and he knew it front and back. But the best thing about him was, he didn't expect you to build the airplane, he just wanted you to know it. But any question you asked him, he knew the answer, without even thinking. The folks teaching the CRJ ground school were all line F/O's. It was a crap shoot whether or not you got a good one, but I got lucky and did.

 

[RampTower]

Training is what you make of it. If you have never experienced an airline groundschool, it's like what you've heard- drinking out of a firehose. Study ahead of time, and study every break you have.

But don't expect the instructors/department to hold your hand every step of the way. You gotta put your fair share into it and most important have a good attitude, especially when it comes to sim. training. The first couple of lessons, you'll feel so far behind the aircraft that you'll wanna quit. When it's time for the descent check, you're still working on the takeoff check. Eventually, it will click and come together. Don't do something just because the checklists/flows says you have to do it. Also understand WHY you're doing it.

It's safe to say that all airlines have a high degree of training. Sure, a few bad seeds will always slip through training, but eventually it will come back to them.

 

[NEDude]

Interesting to follow this thread as an instructor for a 121 company.

I don't view a high failure rate as a sign of "tough" training. Every time one of my students fail (thankfully rarely) I take it personally, as a failure at least partially on my hands. Now there is only so much you can do, and only so much extra time that you can spend with someone. But when I do hear of a student failing, I often try and think about what I may have done different to help that person pass.

Most instructors I have experience with realize that a regional airline is a stepping stone for most people, and we want the students to be successful to help them move on in their careers. Failing people is a last (but sometimes nessesary) resort, not an opportunity to pad our failure rate.

 

[Dr.Hwang]

AWAC training is very good. I flew at PSA before coming here, and AWAC was very different. PSA training was absolutly insane. I had instructors yelling, students dropping out, directors of training(Brad S., anyone familiar?) coming down personally to evaluate, then ask the pilot to leave training. AWAC training is totaly reasonable. Much of the BS is cut out. There is still that line pilot vs. instructor mentality that clashes sometimes. I think that exsists at any company. Our failure rate is one of the lowest for CRJ operators because of the quality of the candidates and instructor within the training program. Great training program.

 

[mamba20]

Someone who says that a 1900 is harder to fly then a jet has obviously never flown a jet before.

 

[I.P. Freley]

Have you ever flown a 1900, or are you just making assumptions that you know nothing about?

 

[The_Russian]

Someone who says that a 1900 is harder to fly then a jet has obviously never flown a jet before.

I have flown a few different types of jets actually. I also see that you have never flown the 1900. A checkride in a turboprop without an autopilot IS comparably more difficult than a checkride in a jet with autopilot. Not that you couldn't do it, it just happens to be a fact in this discussion.

 

[white E]

training is what you make of it...yes I'll agree with that, but there are limfacs. The biggest one being the amount of training you actually receive. The regional that I work for (I used to be in the training department) spent the absolute bare min on your training. You only did exactly what was required. Now if you came from bug smashing then you are going to think the training was awesome.

 

[exchexflyer]

Someone who says that a 1900 is harder to fly then a jet has obviously never flown a jet before.

Someone who says flying a jet is harder than flying a 1900 obviously has never flown the 1900! Don't say things like this if you aren't even going to humor us to why you are right.