Wash-out style of training

[b707guy]

I know that Airborne had a very tough DC-8 training program. I wonder that with the purchase of ATI, if some of the old Airborne philosophy has made it's way to ATI?

It's certainly possible, but we haven't really had any cross culture exposure between ABX and ourselves for that to be a factor, at least as far as I know. As my DC8-PFE bud said above, our CP mentioned to him a training department philosophy shift. Maybe they have been talking on the side. Either way, I'd be interested in hearing what's behind the shift, as I thought our program (and it's results) in the past has been excellent.

 

[Jurasicpilot]

Did ATI switch over to contract instructors? There was mention of that about a year ago.

I dont know what kind of shift in thinking would cause it but thats a big shift. Usually an airline in ATI's position will do whatever it takes to get someone through. Im sure potential new hires are looking at the profile and thinking Hmmmm.... Wont mention names but normally when other airlines have gone through 3 owners in 3 years, furloughs, 3rd year in contract talks etc etc. They basically try to hand you the keys to the jet, so to speak.

 

[jmreii]

Unfortunately, I think AMF dug themselves into a hole with such a reputation. It was fine when they had plenty of applicants, but now I have friends who won't even apply because they had friends who they looked up to who washed out of AMF training.

Things have definitely changed in the last couple years, there's a lot more forgiveness going on around here, but the reputation is hard to overcome until you see it for yourself.

Kudos to you, you are absolutely right. some people including myself will not even entertain the idea of going to some operator that has a policy of written or not of using the wash-out style of training.
I learn and watch those type of cheap tricks during my tour at mesa. an example for the purist would be questions that come right out of the maintenance manual, but the answer is no where in the POH.

 

[HeavyjetDC8]

I know that Airborne had a very tough DC-8 training program. I wonder that with the purchase of ATI, if some of the old Airborne philosophy has made it's way to ATI?

No, there was a dual standard. At ABX the PFEs have never been held to the same standard - and on the line it shows. 500 hours of logbook bug-smasher with 20 years on the panel doesn't equal 3000 hours of regional/military PIC. Never has, never will. In hindsight it's a big mistake to go down the PFE/right seat route although that's where ABX misguidedly went.

 

[erichartmann]

I know that Airborne had a very tough DC-8 training program. I wonder that with the purchase of ATI, if some of the old Airborne philosophy has made it's way to ATI?

The man responsible for Airborne's less than user friendly "training" program is dead. During the "man's" heyday "training" was used as a screening tool to eliminate "marginal" pilots. Now training actually includes training instead the old seven checks and the door if you can't hack it. Also, no longer do we have the "privilege" of climbing into the sim with no trainer prior to a check ride and v1 cut on the first takeoff. The best thing about the "good old days" is they are gone.

 

[BigPappa]

Big Dog,
You must have "Napoleon complex" or you would not be that way. Just be careful with that attitude, if you intend on moving on up in the industry (not saying that you won't).
Just had a "friend" of mine in the training department of an Airline get hired as Southwest for him to get turned down soon after he had resigned his previous position. So what happeded: Somebody (who he had given a hard time) saw his name on the list of new-hires and put a big red X on it. Stay balanced, unless you wanna keep flying props for the rest of your flying "career".

My 0.02

 

[DYLIN]

ATI's minimums are 1500TT/500ME.

Would someone with 2000TT and just 800 RJ SIC even have a chance at getting an interview? I'm considering applying.

If hired then I'd worry about all this washout talk after and have some time to make the decision.

I just don't think my experience is competitive. Does anyone have any input? I've only got about an hour left on the computer if I wanted to complete and submit the application. Again, I meet the minimums but have zero jet PIC. My experience is flight instruction and then one year as an FO in an RJ.

 

[b707guy]

The answer's "no" if you don't ask. Having said that, though, if I were doing the interviewing, I'd be cautious in choosing someone with your times, even if you came across as someone I'd want to work with. I'm not sure why our minimums are what they are, but it's not up to me to set them. Maybe they are a bit more appropriate for 767 flying, I don't know. Some people say an airplane is an airplane, but by that argument, a DC-8 must not be an airplane, at least in the sense of modern design philosophy and operation. Some people with relatively low time have been able to jump in and fly it, but they're a talented, or lucky, or both, minority. Fortunately, we have some of them here. Maybe you're one, too.

 

[Big Dog]

I hear you BigPappa. I'm completely aware that today's FO can be your training captain at your next gig. I had a rough couple of canidates that took significant amounts of extra effort. Only one got through. Call it venting. And of course bitching at work in my position is not the smartest thing to do.
Although I do stand by that a positive attitude and an ability to hang your ego at the door is a huge part of success. My latest canidate was highly motivated and had a great attitude, ready to learn all he could. He has made it through in good time even though he had an extra flight or two.

 

[DYLIN]

The answer's "no" if you don't ask. Having said that, though, if I were doing the interviewing, I'd be cautious in choosing someone with your times, even if you came across as someone I'd want to work with. I'm not sure why our minimums are what they are, but it's not up to me to set them. Maybe they are a bit more appropriate for 767 flying, I don't know. Some people say an airplane is an airplane, but by that argument, a DC-8 must not be an airplane, at least in the sense of modern design philosophy and operation. Some people with relatively low time have been able to jump in and fly it, but they're a talented, or lucky, or both, minority. Fortunately, we have some of them here. Maybe you're one, too.

Thanks for the response. I think I'm going to get through my first recurrent training at my current company which is in the next week, and then I'll think this over a bit more and I'll be checking back on here. I really don't want to apply and be offered an interview unless I'm almost certain I'll take the job (if offered). I still think with my experience that even getting an interview is a long shot at best, but I heard that they could not fill the last class so to me that means the minimums really might be competitive times.

I think someone like me would not have much difficulty with any automation such as dealing with an FMS as the RJ is very high tech and filled with that stuff. Rather, the challenge would likely be dealing with the lack of automation after getting accustomed to it all. I'm thinking of things like our entire electrical system in general...we don't really do anything to it at any phase of flight for example. Or pressurization, etc. Not to mention I'm sure the DC-8 is not quite as easy to handle hand-flying due to it weighing as much as a few RJs put together.

I also realize that it's one thing to pass training, and another to be a valuable resource in the cockpit on the line. With no international experience, the rest of the crew would have to be willing to share their knowledge of it all with a newbie who has never crossed an ocean. Then again, someone I know of who is in class at ATI right now has zero overwater experience (just Canada and Mexico like me...not really 'international') and he got hired...a few hundred hours of turbine PIC but nothing larger than the RJ I'm in.