Union coming at Flexjet!

[FraxJockey]

Actually Jetmaster it ,the raw data approach, is in the ATP PTS with this caveat:

"NOTE: Two precision approaches, utilizing NAVAID equipment for
centerline and glideslope guidance, must be accomplished in
simulated or actual instrument conditions to DA/DH. At least one
approach must be flown manually without the use of an autopilot.
The second approach may be flown via the autopilot, if appropriate,
and if the DA/DH altitude does not violate the authorized minimum
altitude for autopilot operation. Manually flown precision approaches
may use raw data displays or may be flight director assisted, at the
discretion of the examiner.

If the aircraft is equipped with advanced flight instrument displays,
the raw data approach should be flown by reference to the backup
instrumentation as much as is possible with the airplane’s
configuration.

For multiengine airplanes at least one manually controlled precision
approach must be accomplished with a simulated failure of one
powerplant."

http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/airmen/test_standards/pilot/media/FAA-S-8081-5F.pdf

Page 61 of the ATP PTS PDF. I don't know about you, but I would rather fly without a flight director instead of peanut gyros. We don't make this stuff up. As far as a single engine raw data approach, take it up with the 135 certificate holder's D.O. they require this, not Flexjet.

 

[TWA 2 ASA FO]

. If your under the delusion everything is fine in the TC and no changes are needed, then maybe your not the guy for the job. Just sayin.

So your attacks now become personal because you don't like the response given. Sorry I respond to your post with logic and facts. Is that iceberg still "dead ahead"?

Since you seem to think you have a greater understanding of what we should be doing at the training center, please give us some honest suggestions that are workable under the FAR's we operate. We are always open to suggestions on ways to improve "your" training experience.

TWA 2 ASA FO

 

[doh]

it's the union's fault.....


haha

Now that's funny! I don't care who you are!:laugh:

 

[can99]

After seeing both the Flex training and the Bombardier instructors training , give me the guys at flex any day. (now I have offended the Bombardier instructors, so my next recurrent is going to be an adventure).

But out of my last 4 Bombardier based training events, I feel I am actually going backward in standards each time, the standards seem really lax on the other side of the fence, and as for the ground school, its really day and night, what you learn and have to memorize at flex I feel does make you a better pilot than what you do for the 135 world under Bombardier training .

 

[lr45drvr]

The sim the night before the flight check is a practice flight check. When is the last time you had any failures similar to what you had on your type ride? This is what i'm refering to. Not ground training. If you read my second post, you would see i just said their is serious room for improvement and there is. Clearly a nerve is struck here with you. Also, why does only one person have control over ones employment in regards to training rather than your committee who actually still flies the line? I'm Not trying to scare anybody into the union because I don't have to. You guys are doing it all by yourselves. Convince me your training is above and beyond industry standard. If your under the delusion everything is fine in the TC and no changes are needed, then maybe your not the guy for the job. Just sayin.

The only "one person" that controls the destiny of ones employment is YOU. If a pilot goes to a TRB (the commitee, which has line pilot representation, that you seem to disregard) makes a recommendation. I have never seen anyone not recieve more training. In fact the only time DG over rode the recommendation was when the TRB recommended a person be removed from training. He asked the pilot what they thought they needed. That pilot stated she could take her check right now and pass without any problems. She subsequently failed her checkride in stellar fashion and was terminated. So there is one person in control of your employment BUNMAN, and that person is you!

 

[lr45drvr]

If not FAA required then why do it? This is the problem with you guys; when someone makes a valid point you get all defensive and attack the person. I'm
hardly afraid of flying without the FD as I have been doing this for a long time. I mean according to your logic, we should shut down both engines because it could happen, right?
I would seriously question the judgement of a captain who continues to an airport on one engine with the weather at mins and no FD. But what do I know, I've only been flying transport cat airplanes for over 20 years!

FAA Doc. 8900.1 - Check Airman Handbook -VOL 5 Airman Certification ATP. Chapter 3 Sect 2 paragraph 5-832 APPROACH EVENTS. Sub-paragraph A. 2)

If the operator’s aircraft operating manual permits raw data ILS approaches to be conducted, the operator must provide training in the use of raw data for controlling an aircraft during ILS approaches. If the operator’s aircraft are equipped with a flight director system, the flight director must be used on at least one manually controlled ILS approach. While a raw data approach is not required to complete a flight test, inspectors and examiners should occasionally require a raw data approach to determine whether the operator’s training program is adequately preparing applicants.

When raw data is used on ILS or MLS approaches in an airplane, inspectors and examiners shall require applicants to use a DH of 200 feet above the touchdown zone.

To be fair to everyone, we don't discriminate. Everyone gets to do it. I would question having to fly with someone who was unable to do it and was too insecure in his or her own abilities to get it done. Its not always a matter of judgement, that may be your only choice. We train for the worst case scenario, not what actually happens day to day. If that were the case, we'd sit standby in the customer lounge and save on the sim expense.

Is that point valid enough for you? Do you feel attacked still? Those training guys are so out of control!!!! Help us IBT!!!! HELP US!!!!!

 

[DirtyBeech]

Look at all the office boys and girls coming out of the woodwork. Must be serious. Or hired bloggers.

 

[lr45drvr]

Merely stating the facts. I keep hearing and reading nonsense. I figured it was time to actually get on here and see what all the fuss was about. Clearly, the assumptions are just that. You want your voice heard? So do I. You have a campaign to start a union at flexjet based on rumor and paranoia. I will post what the reality is. The pilots can make their decision based on fact rather than the trash you continue to spew.

 

[bunman45]

So your attacks now become personal because you don't like the response given. Sorry I respond to your post with logic and facts. Is that iceberg still "dead ahead"?

Since you seem to think you have a greater understanding of what we should be doing at the training center, please give us some honest suggestions that are workable under the FAR's we operate. We are always open to suggestions on ways to improve "your" training experience.

TWA 2 ASA FO

James,

Feel free to post all of the private messages i've sent you. Thats fine because i'm not affraid of expressing my opinion. As always, feel free to call me on the number i sent you and we can discuss how to improve "MY" training experience. Take Care.

 

[John MClain]

You guys' are getting way too wrapped around the axle with regards to these alleged and so called in-justices that have been taking place in the past and supposedly present during training at Flexjet. First of all, the dreaded Raw Data Single Engine ILS!

This particular item that I am aware of has NEVER been the single cause for a TRB or a termination from this company. Period! Don't believe me? Call and talk to the Supervisor of Cockpit Training and ask. They track this stuff and you could always look at a specific individuals training record and see what they've had trouble with in the past. This item was never the smoking gun, it was always something much, much more.

I don't know of a single instructor who requires it during an Initial Type Checkride, I know I never did. Sure I had the students do it during training, numerous times. Its a great tool to develop or improve their scan and is also a great confidence builder. It also was a great indicator of who and who wasn't going to be a challenge, but for a Type Check the single engine precision approach was always done with the flight director and the Raw data approach with 2 engines. Usually by the time their type ride came around, it was a non event.

Now recurrent is a different story. Sure we all do our engine out approaches raw data, so what? is it required by the FAA? No. but what's wrong with training and flying to a higher standard? I'll say it again one last time: The Single Engine Raw Data ILS is not the reason guy's and gal's have failed training and lost their jobs. It has been for much, much more than just that one item.

I'll end by saying that those individuals that I have personally seen fail and go through the TRB process were treated more than fairly and given more than enough attention and additional training. They simply could not perform to the standards set forth, Not Flexjet's standards, I'm talking about the PTS standards as prescribed by the FAA. And those of you out there who are complaining about having to turn off the Flight Director during your single engine precision approach, I'd be willing to bet that if your truly honest with yourself, that's probably not the only thing you have problems with.

We don't need a union to protect those who can't perform satisfactorily, the system we have has done just fine so far, we need a Union for a lot more important things.