USA Today article on Regional Pilots

[Max Powers]

You obviously know nothing about military training. Do you really think cost is not a factor and therefore pilots get an unlimited amount of training?

Military pilot training is very regimented. A set number of flights in each phase, followed by check rides. The pace is very quick, and you either keep up or get eliminated. No more training because daddy has enough money to buy you more hours.

Well your wrong about me knowing nothing about UPT. You are correct in much of your assessment but, Part 61 training is very slow, expensive and NOT regimented. That is part of the problem. Civy guys can't afford to fly straight for 1.5 years with lots of sim time that UPT guys get.

Not all civy guys are bank rolled by rich daddys. Many take several years slowly gaining experience and that means quality is sacraficed in training. Doesn't mean they will suck as a pilot once they gain further experience.

I have flown with both military and civilian and know a many fighter guys some of which couldn't come close to the skill of b-1900 former great lakes guy. And vice versa.

Anyway it is a very complex problem and the key is GOOD TRAINING once that person is hired.

 

[major payne]

you dont have to did to deep to find a major crash with experienced pilots either

 

[Wesb737fo]

you dont have to did to deep to find a major crash with experienced pilots either

That's a true statement. It's probably in bad taste to start keeping score here. But statistically speaking, do you want pilots with more experience or less experience in the cockpit? It's fairly simple. The commuters used to be a place to get 121 experience on smaller equipment. Now it's a place where bigger airlines can farm out 50-100 seat flying at very low cost.

 

[Mike man]

...bandwagon...

Where? How do I get on blindly?

 

[Mike man]

...do you want pilots with more experience or less experience in the cockpit?

Where does one gain enough experience to satisfy you? And how much is enough? 1000 hours, 3000, 5000? In my opinion 5000 hours as a minimum isn't going to change much or 10,000 hours, 5000 or 10,000 hours in a 152 isn't going to change anything. You can still have multiple failures in a 141 program with examining authority and not disclose it.

 

[Wesb737fo]

Where does one gain enough experience to satisfy you? And how much is enough? 1000 hours, 3000, 5000? In my opinion 5000 hours as a minimum isn't going to change much or 10,000 hours, 5000 or 10,000 hours in a 152 isn't going to change anything. You can still have multiple failures in a 141 program with examining authority and not disclose it.

I think you are reading too much into my response. It has nothing to do with me being satisfied with a certain amount of flight experience at the regional level. It has more to do with the relaxation of scope clauses that puts relatively inexperienced pilots in ever larger and more complex jets and turbo-props such as the Q400. Those aircraft should be flown by their respective carriers and not farmed out to the lowest bidder.

That benefits everyone in the long run, but , you see, unfortunately, I too was part of the problem over a decade ago when I was hired (with 500 hours) in the right seat of a US AIR express outfit up north with little experience in icing conditions. The difference being that I started in a 19 seat Beech 1900 and not 90 seat CRJ or Q400. Eventually I wound up in a 50 seat CRJ-200 for $56/hr, which at the time was a source of frustration for mainline pilots. Now we are up to 100 seats for "REGIONAL JETS" (insert laugh).

Bottom line, my concern is with protecting the jobs of senior more experienced pilots with stronger scope language in our contracts. Apparently that didn't even help MidEx.

Wes

 

[Dornier 335]

What I've been saying for a while... where there's smoke, there's fire.

1 case of multiple checkride failures in all the Major Airline accidents the last 10 years.

Regionals: in every single accident at least one of the crewmembers had multiple checkride failures except for one, and in that case, the F/O was terminated after it was discovered he lied on his job application in the first place.

They especially bashed Pinnacle, citing the Jefferson City crashes' Captain - 7 checkride failures before he was hired basically as a street Captain on the CRJ, plus the multiple other crashes in the last 5 years. One common thread: almost all of them had a low-time crew and/or GIA pilots.

You get what you pay for, and the system is going to be short of experienced talent in the right seat as long as the only people who will take the jobs are extremely low-time, low-experience, or sub-standard (multiple checkride failure) pilots.

Now the big question is: what are they going to do about it and will it have any kind of trickle-up effect on the majors? Will there be a push to incorporate the regionals back into the majors? Will there be a push to incorporate some type of higher standards for all Part 121 pilots?

Or will it all get swept under the rug next month?

not sure if it was mentioned before, but the Pinnacle street Captain was an ex Waterskier. Trans States used to have the biggest _______s in the training department (and some of them are still there!). If your regional airline has disgruntled old farts that need to take their frustration out on you, then the history of failed checkrides cannot really be used as a reference. My former airline used to have a real nutcase that oddly enough passed every checkride. On line he would do the most incredibly dumb/dangerous things until he got finally got busted.

Checkrides are not the only way in measuring a skill IMHO.

 

[Bjammin]

Don't take it personally guys and gals!

Like it or not, our record as regionals sucks as of late. As I said in an earlier post, I WELCOME any crew (or passengers for that matter) to come on up and have a chat. I think that my professional bearing and knowlege should put any concerns to rest. My goal is to give you a safe and comfortable ride and it will be hard for you to feel comfortable if you are fretting about the crew up front. Ask anything you want... I understand.

No sir, this captain absolutely does NOT take the inquisitiveness personally. I see it as an opportunity to make a new buddy, to learn what else is going on in the industry and maybe find a better watering hole on the overnight.

Like it or not, we regional folks have a lot to prove. Respect isn't given freely... It must be earned over and over again. I personally don't mind earning the respect I get everytime I sit in the left seat. Got questions or concerns? Welcome aboard and come on up, I say.

Give me a copy of your schedule so I can make sure I fly my family on your aircraft. Awesome attitude!

 

[SLOTH]

I think that anyone who puts a value on how many check-rides someone has passed or not is deluding themselves into thinking that it is the best way to weed out the good from the bad pilots. Just like when we fly, it's all about trend monitoring and making the appropriate corrections. Only when someone has failed multiple check-rides because of the same problem in all of those, can you say that that person has no business in the world of airlines or aviation for that matter. Also, just because someone fails a check-ride doesn't mean that they didn't bust their ass hard enough to prepare or perform. Even when someone has passed all of their check-rides with flying colors, doesn't mean that they are the cats meow in the pilot seat. There's something such as attitude and command-ability, which is much harder to test for in a couple of hours.

 

[maru657]

This was never a case of just the pilots. It goes all the way back to de-regulation and then in order to prove that it wasn't an astonishingly bad idea, allowing airlines to cut back on training required in order to save money. After all the Delta crashes, incidents and re-inventing windwshear in the 80's was mere'ly symptomatic of the effects of bad law making. These bad descisions were repeated by one airline after another. Recently it seems that FedEx cannot land an MD11 without crashing. Furthermore airline flight ops management compounded these errors by imposing education and physical standards that had nothing to do with actual skill or experience and real experience was denigrated when the various airlines stated that they wanted to mold all new hires into a standard format and prior experience might defeat that process. When all of your pilots are over 6' tall and look like poster boys in double brested blazers, shouldn't you ask what the most important requirments are for employment with that airline?

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

Give me a copy of your schedule so I can make sure I fly my family on your aircraft. Awesome attitude!

Thanks for the compliment. If your family ever has a burning desire to go to LGA and experience some of the oldest Dash 8's in the biz, welcome aboard!

All of this training talk has had me thinking a bit... Someone here mentioned Trans States. As a former Waterskier myself, I can attest to the poor quality and mean spirit of their training staff (at least in the late '90s). I failed my initial new hire ATR checkout there... The instructor "faked" putting the gear down to when I called for it. When I caught it, he put them down. Now the landing checks got completed at DA +950 feet instead of the FOM mandated DA +1000 feet. I elected to continue, being single engine and all and I figured we were close enough to profile to make it safe. He busted me. Legit? Sure, I was off profile. Realistic? No. Mean spirited? Yes, especially the part where he told me he was glad I busted so he could go home early. I went out the next day, did one SE ILS and off to the line I went. Not really a positive learning experience, I must say. This is just my personal anecdote. I am sure other regional guy have similar horror stories.

At any rate, I got through it. I never had failed a ride before that point, and have never failed one in the nearly 10 years since. So obviously, one checkride bust cannot be indicative of future performance.

That begs the question: How would one measure the skill of a pilot over a career spent flying in such a way as to make analysis accurate and fair to all involved? How could this be done transparently, encouraging learning while protecting the flying public?

All of the checkrides we take outside of the airlines (and at airlines without AQP) are pass/fail. In analyzing the records, we see only the final grade, but necessarily the reason for that grade. At many airlines now we have AQP. AQP (when correctly administered) is a marvel of data collection. Each task is graded on a number scale and is data collected for two reasons: First, to measure the performance of the pilot over time and second, to identify areas of corporate weakness so that future training events can be focused on problem areas.

My thought is this: Change the way we keep records across the industry. If you see a record of failures, you can then go back and determine the reason for those failures. If the applicant has a history of failing the same sorts of tasks then you probably don't want to employ that individual. Every checkride should be treated as a data collection tool that can then be studied to determine pilot proficiency and industry effectiveness at managing the threats posed by that particular task.

Basically... Without a robust system of data collection, any attempt to use checkride history as a guide to hiring is doomed to be a weak half measure.