Do you really want to be a pilot!

[Bla Bla Bla]

I can't help feeling that allot and of the younger guys and girls in training just don't have a passion for the actual flying anymore and don't seem to know anything about aviation before they start. All they want is a right hand seat and some gold bars and most of them don't even know what an airline pilot actually does or have even looked in the cockpit.

I have seen them looking with confusion at a DC3 and asking what that a/c is and why is it's undercarriage broken!

I flew a guy ages ago in a C206 who was just starting his training and asked me how many engines we had!

I know this is not all of you but times are tough and I think if you really want it its times like this that your passion and knowledge shines through. Some one who really really wants to fly will be happy in any aeroplane at the start, its not what you fly its how you fly it.

[2 Whites 2 Reds]

:ok:The thing is being a Pilot isn't as uncommon as it once was. The route to being a pilot has arguably become easier ever since the death of traditional sponsorship.

I love aviation and pretty am pretty fascinated with everything about it....but compared to some of the guys I trained with who always had this months edition of Fly Past in their bags, you could say I'm not that interested either. A said above, I love aviation, flying and what I do but I think its actually healthy for the industry to have people with other interests. Honestly would you want to spend all day behind that locked flight deck door with someone that has no real interests other than aviation??? I wouldn't.

Conversely, neither would I want to be sat on the flight deck with someone who has absolutely no interest in aviation generally because they're probably there for the wrong reasons. As with everything, theres a balance to be struck.

2W2R

[CAT3C AUTOLAND]

Bla, I know exactly what you mean!

[AQVILA]

Im glad to see theres people that agree with me! I think in an ideal world you shouldn't even be allowed to be a commercial pilot if you're just doing it for the money or glory. I hate those people. You should only get into flying because you love flying!! Not that theres anything wrong with having other interests aswell! We want people who shout clear prop before they start their cars then call for taxi before leaving the driveway! ;)

[powerstall]

I know the feeling! Some would like to fly just because of the pay, others for the glamour. .... and for some... heck, just for the love of flying! :ok:

[RingwaySam]

Like 2 Whites 2 Reds, im also fascinated with aviation, love everything about it. My dream is to become a pilot but I have to be realistic about things. I'm not the brightest person around, I don't live in a nice area and one of my parents thinks im being unrealistic and that's hard to take. Does that mean im not going to try my hardest to get where I want to be? Course not. It's going to take alot of hard work but im willing to do it.

Ideally I'd like to be flying around Africa Bush flying in a few years time. I know most people think it's ridiculous but 9-5 office jobs just aren't for me.

[Bla Bla Bla]

I don't even want to get into the lack of hand flying skills and decision making argument, for these type of chaps. But I just think ignoring those other points, they will be sat up the front of the big tube one day thinking do you know I never flew a Piper cub or flew through a mountain pass or had to get from A to B in marginal weather or took heavy loads out of a bush strip etc etc. Some might say that's a good thing but I don't, a real aviator has a rounded knowledge and you can't buy or rush that.

[B200Drvr]

Thats why I support the initiative to change the ruling regarding airline pilots. IMHO all pilots should have 1500 hrs and an unfrozen ATPL before being allowed to sit as a 1st officer, in an airline. It will encourage pilots to be pilots and see some real flying before the hum drum life of airlines. Furthermore, it will prevent operators from butchering young pilots into £ 30 000 type ratings and making them work for low pay. But most of all, it will prevent people who don't have an interest in the job from getting there. Please don't misunderstand me, you don't have to be an aviation nut to be able to fly an aeroplane, but a healthy interest in what you do will make you better at it. I was fortunate to have worked for the UN, ICRC and various other NGO's on my way to my ATPL, it gave me the chance to fly some great machines and get some very valuable "stick time."
These opportunities are out there, you just have to look past the shiny Boeing or Airbus

[Katamarino]

I joined for glory and the girls, but all I got is ropey old clubhouses and elderly men :confused:

[Ian the Aviator]

B200Drvr

I think you've identified one of the major problems with our industry today... and I couldn't agree more.

There are far too many people (note: people, not pilots) sat in the RHS of 737 / 320 / whatever that just have no experience of aviation.

Lets face it, if you have a fat cheque book it's not difficult to get a froz ATPL and a type rating (plus 300 hrs) and still have no idea how to fly.

I'm with B200Drvr - ALL pilots wanting that RHS should spend an apprenticeship doing the real learning - that means a lot of the 1500 hrs requirement doing work as FIs, para-dropping, taxi work, etc.

The now shrinking status of drivers of the shiney jets can only be recovered when they are 'real pilots', not just trained monkeys with big loans or wealthy parents.

Right - rant over - back to work !!

[speedrestriction]

Money, glory, glamour? What year is this? :hmm:

I couldn't care less how much the person in the other seat loves flying. Are they safe, are they competent and can we have a laugh during the day? Don't need anything more than that.

sr

[M14_P]

Yep it is only in the last 4 years or so, that I have met and become friends with other aviators that share the PASSION that I have always had. Easy to get to know the older guys who have done it all their lives and great to meet them and hear all their stories, but it is sometimes even more fun to get to know others your age.
There is a loose networked group of us in this region (ranging from 21-28yrs) all with experience on Tigers/Nanchangs/Yak 52/Pitts etc etc, all with clear goals, and ambitions to become display pilots at one stage down the track or another. It's differcult, possibly highly unlikely, but hugely great fun and exactly what I dreamt of being involved with when I was 10.

I have always tried to encourage younger people coming through to TAKE THEIR TIME but no one listens to that, as others have said, its a pure obsession to have the RHS in an airliner. Things have changed so much....
Feel sorry for them.....

[dbriglee]

Hey guys.
New to this forum, but heard about it for years!
I agree totally with all the points you all make but being a young guy myself, thought i'd give my opinion.

Did my PPL with the help from funds from a family member, which was great fun and went to do an integrated course.
Just before you judge, the 60 grand loan is all on my head and in my name.

Now working on the dash in the right hand seat. I love the job! Don't get me wrong.
But, i have very little experience of planes other than the commercial world. I mean, yes you are interested in planes when you are growing up etc etc. I went to air shows etc etc.
But I know nothing about military planes and I have only flown the warrior/piper/seneca in the training.

Like 'speed restriction' says, the world has totally changed now in my opinion. Much more to the MPL focus (which i think is ridiculous-- and if you guys are judgemental about people with little experience, the MPL is going to make your blood boil isnt it??!
I meet people in the job and sim checks who have flown every amazing plane going! Vulcan/Red arrow pilots/Aerobatic Instructors/CAA certified pilots for signing off new builds etcetc.

And i'm there just in awe of them, thinking how on earth do i compare to these guys with my experience??! What do i say to them to make conversation about flying/

But, even though I dont have this experience, and not a lot of young guys ever will, it doesnt mean i have lost the drive to fly more varied a/c.
I'm looking into doing and aerobatics course just for fun, and to redo my lapsed single engine

The way of the world has changed, you guys must be able to see that. To a more commercial focus. I would love to do it in modular for a few years actually FLYING, as opposed to being in chage at the front of the plane. But we do hand flying all the time, and still have fun in the job.

I dont want to start a debate about flying instructors vs intergrated course, but i think young guys (including me), were scared of going down the flight instruction route due to the availability of jobs and the money required to get to that position.

Now ive got a brilliant job (yes not much experience), and i love going to work. I know the dash inside out, and feel confident i can handle any emergency under pressure to save the day.

My comparison is....
You dont have to be a racing driver to like cars
You dont have to be an experienced pilot to like flying for a career

Peace out

[speedrestriction]

I know the dash inside out Not a good attitude, some day she'll bite:ouch:

[Bla Bla Bla]

" You don't have to be an experienced pilot to like a flying career"

No you don't but I bet your passengers would like you to be an experienced pilot whilst enjoying your flying career.

Fair one you got offered a great job early on and I'm sure we would have all taken it if we had that opportunity. But I think you would agree that if push came to shove and you had to fly by the seat of your pants and and really get hold of the aircraft it maybe your first time of doing so.

I agree totally that things have changed and the MPL will probably be the way the airlines go in the future. I hope when the captain and the fo both ex mpl have a situation like the Hudson that some one has taught them and given them the reactions and experience that captain had built up over years and years of flying.

Thread creep sorry, anyway what ever route you take it does not change the fact that allot of the new guys/girls don't no a DC3 from a F16 for example. And no I don't think it makes you a safer pilot but it does show an interest in the industry and actually allow you to get more from your job in terms of interest.

[Vanpilot]

How many people " the paying public" would still fly on the low cost airlines if they knew that should the captain be not up to speed, they can have full faith in the 300hrs guy/girl that had the largest check book at the time.

I'm sure most of them are very capable pilots but Like F1's Mr Lewis Hamilton even when sponsored by a big named team had to work his way up.......not just yes he can drive well lets putting him in the fastest thing we can find straight away.

The hardest thing I find is that some of them think they belong there and its their right to just fly for an airline in a 737/320. Maybe its just the way it was sold to them by the great schools of the UK. Who are probably still saying its a great time to get your CPL/IR so you can be ready for the next Boom:=

There are still some coming up the hard way in our ops room learning the trade and teaching in there days off....so there will still be the odd pilot knocking about that has flown something other than a seneca and a 737.

Like to think I would not have gone right seat straight away in a 737. If I'd had the chance when I started flying but ...who knows.....the dark side is strong:E

[M14_P]

I'd agree that the concept seems to have been sold to those that didn't know any better when getting involved.
I was bagged by instructors when I was at school working towards my PPL when I said that I didn't think that doing the fulltime air academy type course was the answer for me. looking back, I am so glad I made that decision and knew that doing the fulltime loan course wasn't for me.

Working for a living, and now running a business that I am quite happy with and personally get alot of satisfaction out of, while instructing in various types part time and flying other cool vintage machines is just my cup of tea and I couldn't personally ask for more!

Just listen to all that is said by these highly experienced posters on here and I think new people considering these courses may have a better understanding and better preparation to make a decision.

[AQVILA]

same here mate. bush flying is where its at! have you looked into mission aviation fellowship or something similar?

[dbriglee]

I see where you are coming from, but correct me if i'm wrong (well i'm sure I will be)

But.....
In the days before this, the only real major way to become an airline pilot was to do it the modular way, PPL and become an instructor to get the hours up to a few thousand. ONLY THEN would you still only even be LOOKED at by an airline??! It was a struggle wasn't it??! There was no way of going to the airlines after a few hundred hours in a warrior/seneca and say, 'YES please give me a job'


Well, now, yes it has changed!!
I didnt start life of wanting to have aspirations to be a pilot to becoming an instructor and taking my time.
I wanted to aim for the top (ie a pilot of a big plane with responsibility), not working a life of an instructor.
When i had the opportunity of getting a career i took it. With both hands!.
I didnt turn it down thinking 'hmmm i need some more experience, i think i should instruct for a while'

If there were no airline jobs available when i were to finish training, i was considering an instructor course and doing that for a few years, no problem! Income to pay off the loan, and flying experience -invaluable1
I think anyone finishing courses, integrated or modular, are thinking this!


And quoting VANPILOT:
How many people " the paying public" would still fly on the low cost airlines if they knew that should the captain be not up to speed, they can have full faith in the 300hrs guy/girl that had the largest check book at the time.


well, in my experience, the more experienced captains i fly with, (a selected few i am saying) are so caught up in previous aircraft that they are unwilling to learn another type in completeness. They know the basics of course! New F/Os on fleets are more involved in knowing how to do things correctly, the up to date SOPs, the procedures at certain airfields, because they take time to learn them. More to do with reading things i suppose....

Captains are more experienced in the aviation world, with expected holding conditions, predicting certain situations before they happen, taking more fuel etc etc.

And we go together well. I will learn all those things whilst i am in the job!
(just like a new driver on the roads)

And talking about emergencies, with engine failure after take off, for example.
Would you prefer to have a guy who did his IR last year, and knows the THEORY behind what he is doing, and has a feel for the aircraft preventing overcontrol, and correct inputs for a balanced flight.

or maybe a captain who hasn't had a REAL engine failure drill (apart from the sim twice a year), since his IR about 20 years ago??!
I'm not slagging off captains AT ALL! Just giving an example of what 'experience' means to you.

Ironically!!! There is no desire for a selected few experienced guys to learn all you can about the aircraft, like i thrive for.
They have 'done it all before' . Which is the wrong attitude to have.

Yes, captains (NOT ALL THOUGH), would have better flying 'skills' than me i suppose, more 'feel' for certain situations.. HUDSON i suppose


BUT.... experience doesnt necessarily make you 'better' or 'safer'

[dbriglee]

RAF?? coluld be an option

[Bla Bla Bla]

"Yes, captains (NOT ALL THOUGH), would have better flying 'skills' than me i suppose, more 'feel' for certain situations.. HUDSON i suppose"


"BUT.... experience doesn't necessarily make you 'better' or 'safer'"

I would hope the Captain would have better flying skills than a 300hr F/O, what is you pic time now and how much Pic time do you have since training. Its not just hand flying skills its the general lack of decision making experience that you only gain with flying hours that concerns me.

[speedrestriction]

A few contributors to this thread seem to have quite a few half baked notions:

dbriglee
And talking about emergencies, with engine failure after take off, for example.
Would you prefer to have a guy who did his IR last year, and knows the THEORY behind what he is doing, and has a feel for the aircraft preventing overcontrol, and correct inputs for a balanced flight....or maybe a captain who hasn't had a REAL engine failure drill..... Are those our only two rather polar and unrepresentative options? While FFS have their limitations the certainly are no worse at representing engine failures than your instructor and his half mil chart and furthermore can simulate a failure at lower altitude than was possible in the seneca.

feel confident i can handle any emergency under pressure to save the day. That sounds more like the Hollywood version of your job rather than the correct description which can be found in your company manual. I believe it describes a team effort being lead by the captain, certainly no mention of "saving the day."

Barké
I think Jeremy Clarkson hit the nail on the head last Sunday on TopGear....If people have no interest in driving, then they cannot be good at Driving That is not true. I have no interest in cutting grass, yet when I have to do it I make a good job of it. Being mindful and conscienciously performing the task in hand (whether driving a car, cutting grass, sweeping the floor, flying an aircraft, cleaning windows) is far more important to a successful outcome than interest in the task itself.

sr

[Vanpilot]

Re:- dbriglee

Your the type of guy we all don't want in the cockpit with us, your attitude stinks. Fly** must be very proud of what they have produced.

If you think that your IR test is more valuable then years of experience and probably having actually had engine failures in those aircraft that don't take any responsibility to fly then you are so very wrong IMHO. All the guys you sit next to that have taught you how to fly those nice big shinny planes have flown the crappy oil soaked just about legal aircraft in conditions that I'm sure you wouldn't go up in on your own. Skills and experience you can't learn flying two crew airline stuff from the second you get out of flight school. There is no right way of getting your flying experience but you need to appreciate you have been exposed to a very small amount of it.

You are allowed to learn in the right seat because the Captain is sitting with you and at any given point his " experience and judgement" will make the final calls on the safety of your flight, not you.

You learn more every year that you fly and you get a little better every year, provided you don't already think you are Gods gift!!

[Zippy Monster]

If I can just chuck in my two penn'orth... This thread went off at its predictable tangent, and I couldn't help but respond to the 'real pilot' brigade who think that you're not worthy of an airline job unless you've served your time instructing in knackered 152s and working your way up through the ranks. To me, some of the tones from some contributors smack a little bit of jealousy. A few points I'd respond to:

Some might say that's a good thing but I don't, a real aviator has a rounded knowledge and you can't buy or rush that.Define "a real aviator". Basically someone who isn't one of those fATPLs in the right hand seat you covet?

It will encourage pilots to be pilots and see some real flying before the hum drum life of airlines.This kind of thing annoys me. Define 'real flying'. I'd love to compare it to what exactly it is that I do when I go to work every day.

Maybe when you get into the airlines and start to fly big jets, you'll see that the Chuck Yeager 'real pilot' brigade are the ones who have the most problems because they can't get out of their 'real pilot' habits and try to fly in a way a big jet isn't designed to be flown. For example, if Airbus and my company tell me explicitly that the FDs, AP and A/THR should be on all the time, then that's what I'll do - I'll save the manual raw data heroism for the sim. I won't be switching it all off and having a 'play' because, by some twisted logic, it makes me more of a pilot.

ALL pilots wanting that RHS should spend an apprenticeship doing the real learning - that means a lot of the 1500 hrs requirement doing work as FIs, para-dropping, taxi work, etc. Nice rant, and you also managed to get the 'shiny jet' and 'real pilot' comments in. No substance to back it up though...

How many people " the paying public" would still fly on the low cost airlines if they knew that should the captain be not up to speed, they can have full faith in the 300hrs guy/girl that had the largest check book at the time.Since when were low-houred fATPLs exclusive to the LCCs? Do some research and you'll find that some of the biggest European legacy carriers take/have taken 250hr guys. Including BA.

All the guys you sit next to that have taught you how to fly those nice big shinny planes have flown the crappy oil soaked just about legal aircraft in conditions that I'm sure you wouldn't go up in on your own.Quite some misconception... Three or four of the captains at my (small) base have come through integrated-style fATPL training courses and they are experienced and throroughly competent in what they do.

The way I see it is this. My airline wouldn't let me be in that seat unless they were thoroughly satisfied that I was safe to be there. There is still much about the Airbus I don't know - I learn something new about it pretty much every time I go to work. As do some of the captains I fly with. In the politest possible way, I don't have to justify my position in the right hand seat of the aircraft to people with thousands of hours worth of bush flying in the third world, who are a bit jealous they haven't got their big break. If I wasn't up to the job, my airline wouldn't let me do it.

I enjoy the job. I enjoy operating the Airbus (and 'flying' it, if you like, when I need/want to.) I enjoy the airline environment. Would I have enjoyed spending years instructing? No. Would I have considered it worthwhile to invest my time in dropping parachutes and aerial photography (taking one of the obviously thousands of available jobs in that area), to get a feel for "flying by the seat of my pants"? No. Would spending years of doing single-pilot VFR ops in crap weather made me capable of flying the Airbus better? No it wouldn't. Would I have wanted to go the the back end of the middle of nowhere flying a Caravan or a B200 to prove I'm a 'real pilot'? Not on your life.

Happy flying.

[artlite]

Slightly different perspective - during my flight training I met a pilot from Africa working for a very respectable company. He came to convert his papers to FAA because their company bought a November plane. Ex F-16 pilot. 300h TT on Glass. He was my safety pilot in C150 during my hour-building and couldn't get to fly the plane no matter how hard he tried. He eventually gave up after almost crashing it. That same day I was asked if I could take my instrument written with him so he could cheat and get my answers because according to himself - ALL HE EVER DID IN LIFE WAS TOWER VECTORS TO THE ILS. And did I say he thought mixture was the throttle? Please - let's not generalize.

[Bla Bla Bla]

:ugh:Zippy monster

No need to get so irate, I learnt to remain calm at all times when I flew in Africa, people who get wound up easy don't hack it that well. They are best in the RHS with a Captain taking all the stress from them and making any decisions.

You seem to shout that we are all jealous because you are in the RHS, well done. I suspect that this maybe the other way around, its always nice to have something to talk about with other pilots, do you tell them stories from your integrated course.

I'm guessing you are exactly the sort of pilot I was referring to in my very first thread.

[Ian the Aviator]

After all the twaddle that some have posted here (including zippy') I'm just glad I work for a company with quite a small aviation department - just 4 biz-jets.

That means I get some say in who gets selected to sit in my RHS (I have the LHS so in no way covet the RHS in a 'no manual flying' tube full of SLF').

In short, there is no way I would allow many of the arrogent, inexperienced guys that post here anywhere near my aircraft.... my current FO had almost 3000 hrs in GA before he joined us, including glider tugging, instructing and quite a lot of taxi work on an old piston twin - HE KNOWS HIS STUFF AND I CAN TRUST HIS EXPERIENCE, I dont think I could say the same of a 300 hr 'school only' fATPL !

The only reason the low hours, zero experience pilots get the RHS is they are cheap, in some cases even paying for the chance to be there...

OK - end of my rant (again !)

[Zippy Monster]

No need to get so irate

Irate?! I was feeling quite the opposite, thanks - was just enjoying a quiet relaxing beer after a late 4 sectors. The post wasn't intended to sound irate.

You seem to shout that we are all jealous because you are in the RHS, well done

Nope, I didn't say "you are all jealous". What I said, if you re-read my post, is that when you get a bunch of people complaining that low-hour fATPLs are undeserving of a jet job and that bunch of people happen to be self-titled 'real pilots', it smacks a little bit of jealousy. There's a subtle difference.

After all the twaddle that some have posted here (including zippy')

Why was it twaddle? Just because it expressed an opinion different from your own? You're entitled to it just as I am to mine, but at least bother to justify it rather than dismissing it as 'twaddle'.

I have the LHS so in no way covet the RHS in a 'no manual flying' tube full of SLF'

In which case, apologies for the generalisation.

I note nobody has yet sought to define the terms 'real pilot' and 'real flying' though...! And I repeat my suggestion that knowing your stuff about flying a light twin piston VFR in marginal conditions really doesn't have a massive bearing on one's ability to operate a heavy jet. It's like comparing driving a bus and an F1 car - it's two completely different types of flying. Try flying a medium jet like a Seneca and you'll be summoned for a meeting in the office before you can say "flight data monitoring..."!

[Rapha_BA]

I totally agree with Zippy Monster, Dbriglee politely shared his opinion on the subject and because won’t match “the real pilots” opinions, he automatically becomes the “type of guy you wouldn’t want in the flight deck with you, his attitude stinks”.....
Yes, sounds like jealousy to me, and hypocrisy, typical of pprune "real pilots"

[betpump5]

I'm with Rapha and Zippy on this one. Whilst I know jealousy is a basic human act and for pilots it will be even greater during the downturn, I think the jealousy has spiralled into insults.

As what has been said, some of the biggest carriers use 250 hour cadets on the biggest aircraft in the fleet. We have Cadet pilots come straight in as SO on the 744s. Fair enough they don't "fly" the thing for the best part of two years but they still have the Type Rating. And unlike us who moan and sweat about the 6 month sim check, these guys do it once a month - without any hands on flying!

I have more confidence in these guys' abilities than the management Captains I sometimes fly with who take a drive once every 45 days to keep current!

How about choosing an example closer to home when BA recruited 250 hr pilots?

Some of you have said you feel sorry for the pilots who haven't experienced "real flying". Why? They are of no concern to you. I'm glad some of you have had experiences of landing in dirt strips when all of a sudden a mongoose happens on the runway and you need to take evasive action.

My point is that whoever is in that R.H.S has been determined (probably by a 50 year old Chief Pilot who is part of the old-timers club ) that he/she is the best person for the job and has successfully met all criteria during the recruitment stages AND Type Rating. 250hour or 2500 hours I have always had confidence in the cadet and the Chief Pilot's decision to put them there.

I would like to add that the first posts were about having no passion and that one is not a "real" aviator if they haven't done this or that. I won't disagree or agree with that statement. What I will ask though is Who cares? And does it matter?

The cadet pilots that arrive in the cockpit probably don't have a passion for flying from what I can tell. There is no GA in Hong Kong so the love of flying (if there is any) stems from HK'ers watching jets scream over high rise buildings onto RWY 13 when they were little kids. For me that initial love of flying is as good as another cadet who loved flying ever since he took a trial flight in a Cessna out of Southend.

I would agree though that the status and glory of being a Pilot here for the National Airline is a very big incentive for the cadets that apply and for those who succeed. This means that SOs that fly with us are exceptional individuals, very professional and very quick to learn. Flight Grading in Adelaide sorts the wheat from the chaff. The fact that these guys and gals couldn't care less about piston engines doesn't affect their abilities at all.

In the next couple of years, we will be welcoming international cadets to the FD, now the programme has been extended to the world. I look forward to seeing the difference, if any. The only difference I'd expect is internationals won't be be too shocked when they hear the humour coming from Aussie Captains :ok:

[Bla Bla Bla]

What I will ask though is Who cares? And does it matter?

No it does not matter in the slightest, its just a point of interest just like the majority of subjects on pprune.

Mongoose on the runway land anyway, Elephant go around.

[Juno78]

Avoiding the rest of the discussion about low hours etc., the initial point about people who aren't that interested in the job isn't limited to this industry. I'm a lawyer and the most FRUSTRATING people to work with are the junior ones who seem to be doing law because it's there, or because they think they'll make loads of money out of it, and don't actually have any interest in the job or law in general. They're frustrating not only because they're not interested and so are reluctant to enter into discussions about the work, but also because they don't make any effort to broaden their knowledge and make themselves better lawyers.

Funnily enough, relevant to the low hours discussion, most of those junior lawyers who aren't interested in the job are the ones who came straight through from university and haven't had any experience in the wider world. In law that extra experience generally makes you a better lawyer - I would have thought it would be reasonable to think the same about pilots.

[Bla Bla Bla]

Juno78,

Fantastic post, so true, as I mentioned earlier but has been lost on the fatpl B/S, having an interest in your industry actually makes it better for yourself and co workers.

My wife is an experienced Civil Engineer and exactly the same applies in her industry. I think it is a product of the I-pod generation ie, to get anything you press a button and it arrives. I don't think this is wrong or that my way is better but I think my route is certainly more satisfying.

[betpump5]

Juno,

D'you know (Sorry he-he) that is an interesting last point. However, you can't even fart without it being in the SOP. I guess the reason why the whole personality/life experience skill is so important is because you spend an awful lot of time with just one person - especially on short haul.

You need to be able to engage in conversations/ discussions/ differences of opinion professionally so that after a stop over, there isn't any weird tension. Also actually having a personality is important when you are either in the cockpit or outside on a stop over.

I find it even more important when you are a 4-man (oops person) crew where the banter can be quite hearty in the cockpit and on the stop-over. You definitely don't want one person to be isolated throughout a 2-3 day trip.

[Vanpilot]

Re; Zippy

This kind of thing annoys me. Define 'real flying'. I'd love to compare it to what exactly it is that I do when I go to work every day.

Maybe when you get into the airlines and start to fly big jets, you'll see that the Chuck Yeager 'real pilot' brigade are the ones who have the most problems because they can't get out of their 'real pilot' habits and try to fly in a way a big jet isn't designed to be flown. For example, if Airbus and my company tell me explicitly that the FDs, AP and A/THR should be on all the time, then that's what I'll do - I'll save the manual raw data heroism for the sim. I won't be switching it all off and having a 'play' because, by some twisted logic, it makes me more of a pilot.

Sorry......your inexperience kicks in again....you assume that myself or others don't "fly jets" and that for some reason our experience means we can't fly a plane the way it says it must be flown in the SOP's.

Don't forget that the Pilots that you sit next to probably wrote those SOP's I'm not trying to have a go here but you should understand that with the greatest respect you know very little about flying in your early years. I include myself in that statement.

Flying is not rocket science and most people with half a brain can do it well, but experience does and always will count. How did you learn which cells to avoid and when to avoid them. Its not by reading the book, it's sitting next to a guy that has been in one and thought he wouldn't do that again in a rush. He then shows you what the CB looks like with some story. " I once went through a cell like that and etc etc etc. So then you now know if it looks like that I'll avoid it. These experiences are gained through all types of flying but are learnt harder and faster working your way up the ladder. When you get to the point that your command is coming up it will be because you have experienced most if not all the things involved with your type of flying.....but do you really think you'll get in that left seat and not screw up ...even once. Because you will and that's what we are all on about. We have had the chance of screwing up in our flying before we got in the big shinny jets, that stops us making those mistakes (maybe) in those expensive buses. Where you guys may have to make your mistakes in them.

[superdash]

Flying is not rocket science and most people with half a brain can do it well

Well how come soo many 'pilots' struggle with things like IR test's???

[Vanpilot]

"Most" :ok:

But it gets easier to do that IR stuff with a bit of experience don't you agree

[152hero]

I think it also important to note however that experience is a doube edged sword , espcially if the said flying is done in a relaxed or at least more relaxed enviroment. It is easy to become acustomed to those things which a pilot can be more lenient on in say glider towing (postion accuarcy , full checks e.t.c ) and then transfer these habbits, although accidently on to a higher scale of flying that demands these standards.

Althouhgh i can appreciate arguements that expericance gives the pilots skills in say people reading , team managment or maybe even a 'flying sense' but much of the mentioned flying is solo work , which would induce the opposite.

In response to the question of a 'real pilot' I think many people are stuck on ideal now lost in the commercialthe world. Adding real to a job simply implies a more direct form of the job , a 'real' banker for instance would trade in a town market with phyiscal coins , whereas a 'normal' banker would deal in computerised figures. However i struggle to see how a 'real' of anything can be more valid than its 'normal' brethren.

Reagrds

Tim

[Zippy Monster]

Sorry......your inexperience kicks in again....you assume that myself or others don't "fly jets" and that for some reason our experience means we can't fly a plane the way it says it must be flown in the SOP's.

I didn't assume anything... I was just trying to counter the assumption that all 250hr fATPLs are rubbish and unworthy. I already apologised if my response contained too much of a generalisation of the group to whom I was replying. Of course it would be ridiculous to suggest that those with thousands of hours experience in different types of aviation are unable to fly jets to SOPs, and I actually wasn't suggesting that at all.

Absolutely I agree I know far less than those I fly with - I wouldn't deny that for a second. I learn every time I go to work and I wouldn't expect this to change. I've lost count of the number of times I've been to work and thought 'crap, I should probably know that' about various things to do with flying. Does that mean my opinions are invalid though?

but do you really think you'll get in that left seat and not screw up ...even once

Of course not. You seem to be inferring from my posts that I'm on some sort of personal mission to promote one way of learning against another. This is absolutely not the case. Of course I expect that one day, when I eventually make it to the left seat (which I hope I will do), I will get many things wrong. Part of life is learning from your mistakes.

I don't want to drag the thread too far off track. The points I made were only ever intended to defend the general corner of the low-hour F/Os who were coming in for what I considered to be a bit of unfair flack. I would suggest however that in response to:

We have had the chance of screwing up in our flying before we got in the big shinny jets, that stops us making those mistakes (maybe) in those expensive buses. Where you guys may have to make your mistakes in them.

People make mistakes in them all the time - I screw up myself and I see others screwing up. We will and do learn from it. If the company thought the risk was too high, or generally unacceptable, they wouldn't let us sit there. It doesn't matter what type of flying you do, the time you stop learning is the time to call it a day. I just have a different opinion to those of the self-titled 'real pilot', 'real flying' etc. disposition. If we agree to disagree on that, so be it.

[philc1983]

IMHO all pilots should have 1500 hrs and an unfrozen ATPL before being allowed to sit as a 1st officer, in an airline.

Well come on lets be serious here. Where are you honestly going to get 500hrs Multi pilot time before gaining employment with an airline? I can imagine some have done it but they will be in the minority.

All experience is good, and all flying is real. Do your own thing and don't hate!

Peace.

[superdash]

"Most" http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

But it gets easier to do that IR stuff with a bit of experience don't you agree


I agree. But I think your doing yourself a disservice saying that anyone with half brain can do it, you need at least two thirds!

:)

[Bla Bla Bla]

Philic,

'Well come on lets be serious here. Where are you honestly going to get 500hrs Multi pilot time before gaining employment with an airline? I can imagine some have done it but they will be in the minority'.:ugh:

All over the world there are hundreds if not thousands of twin operators, you actually might have to leave the UK and really search for a job!

I did and thousands before and after me will, I don't think because it requires some effort and it is hard work that it should no longer be a requirement. In fact in my eyes someone who had the balls to go look and find a position in some way out place normally returns with good decision making and hand flying skills.

[Clandestino]

This thread suffers from a lot of posters having a) very narrow field of view b) assumption that everything outside their FOV is exactly the same as that within it.

Bla Bla Bla, what Philc1983 was referring to is the fact that some CAAs do require at least 500 hrs in RHS of multi-pilot aeroplane for full ATPL and with them 10 000 hrs in seminole/aztec/seneca/DA42 won't thaw your fATPL. Guys with 500 hrs in RHS of SP Citations need not apply also.

Great post Juno78, something like that was written by BP Davies in "Handling the big jets". Personal enthusiasm for the job is beyond value because it is built-in productive force, and those to have it do not have to be pushed into practice and search for knowledge. Preface to second edition has very good and not much flattering explanation why we need SOPs that still rings true today, decades after it was written.

There are part of the world were general aviation is non-existent but airlines still have to fill in the cockpit seats so while "you-have-to-have-so-many-hours-before-flying-that-jet" rule can be enforced in USA/CAN/AUS, the rest of the world has occasionally to do with less than 200hrs pilots. Seemingly they're doing all right.

if Airbus and my company tell me explicitly that the FDs, AP and A/THR should be on all the time, then that's what I'll do - I'll save the manual raw data heroism for the sim.

Do they perchance mention that reason for that is that automatics is infallible? Manual raw data flying is absolutely not a heroism but a part of the job any airline pilot has to be proficient in. If you can maintain your raw data/ manual skills by practicing in sim only, twice a year, good for you. But if you make mess of your R/D on sim check that qualifies as marginal standard and then, out of fear that you'll mess up in real life, cover your nether regions with SOP, you shouldn't be in that seat.


And I repeat my suggestion that knowing your stuff about flying a light twin piston VFR in marginal conditions really doesn't have a massive bearing on one's ability to operate a heavy jet.

Massive - not, though some skills required to fly light piston are exactly the same needed to fly (mind you: I wrote "fly" and not "operate") the big jet. Neither people who cut their teeth on light twins do not automatically make good airline pilots nor people who never flew them are certain to be the lousy ones.

My point is that whoever is in that R.H.S has been determined (probably by a 50 year old Chief Pilot who is part of the old-timers club ) that he/she is the best person for the job and has successfully met all criteria during the recruitment stages AND Type Rating. 250hour or 2500 hours I have always had confidence in the cadet and the Chief Pilot's decision to put them there.

This calls fore some additional qualifiers. Pilots chosen are not "best" but rather "best available at the time" and "consent to terms and conditions offered". Whether this "best" can occasionally actually be "not good enough" - your guess is as good as mine.


Flying is not rocket science and most people with half a brain can do it well, but experience does and always will count.

People with half a brain can do it well on a sunny day when everything is working. Failures on stormy night require above average cognitive abilities. Experience that counts the most is other pilots' experience you've learned something from.

Do you really want to be a pilot?

Well I have nurtured an ambition of becoming SLMG pilot for a quite long while. Sadly, my current career is not lucrative enough to make it come true. But, to paraphrase Paulo Coelho, if I really desire it, the market forces will conspire in helping me to achieve it.

[betpump5]

BBB,

I really don't understand this crusade you are on that budding FOs should first experience flying pistons around the world and in doing so makes them better "decision makers and better hand flying skills".

I will understand if you are expressing an opinion but from your posts, you seem to be enforcing your opinion as the be all and end all. And that in itself is a large difference and an annoying one to readers here.

Let me give you some facts from the other side.

Singapore Airlines along with us at CX put 250hr cadets straight into 744s, 773s and A340s. Chief Pilots that have worked for these airlines have selected the best possible cadets each year and the pilots I fly with have confidence in their abilities. I have already mentioned that these poor sods have to go into the sim once a month compared to us regulars who do it every 6 months. It is something I would never want to do and I have 10 years behind me. Are you saying these Chief Pilots that have graced these large international carriers over the years are wrong? How about the likes of KLM and Lufthansa?

Closer to home as I said before, you have BA where in the past they have taken on 250hr cadets. fair enough they don't go straight into a 747 or 777 but like you say, its not what you fly, its how you fly it. I must say that I find the 744 a hell of a lot more forgiving to weather and my occasional sh!te flying compared to the 737 I flew at the start of my career.

Another example I can use is the MPL. This course puts FOs straight into the right hand seat with a lot more sim time and less hands-on time than the classic CPL/MEIR cadets. I believe 170 hours is the actual hands on flying time you get before you go onto the RHS of an A320 or a Dash 8!

The people that have though up the above (MPL', cadet sponsorship schemes straight on to 747s) can't all be wrong!

Like I said, I have the utmost confidence in the SO (flight monitors) in our airline. A sim test once a month means they are far more reactive and up to speed when an emergency occurs. A sim test once a month for 2 years! I'd lose all my hair with that stress.

[Bla Bla Bla]

Like you say its just an opinion, as is every posting on pprune. If its annoying, I apologise it was certainly not meant to be.

The problem with this site is that much information is misinterpreted and allot of people take what would be a friendly conversation in a pub a little bit to heart.

At the start of this thread I spoke about the level of interest and general knowledge of the industry with some new pilots. The discussion has changed some what into the traditional route vs the Direct entry route to a rhs. I have a great deal of respect for young guys/girls going straight into the airline, it must be quite hard at times. And as I also said earlier, if I had been offered that route at the very start I would probably have taken it but I can honestly say now I'm very happy that I didn't due to the experiences, fun, knowledge and friends you can gain on the way.

Happy flying

[dbriglee]

Zippy Monster


YOU DA MAN!
I fully agree with all you say on the subject.... this place can get totally addictive and simple discussions can turn into full blown insults haha.

I feel some of you may have misinterpreted my posts.
OF COURSE CAPTAINS WILL HAVE MORE EXPERIENCE AT THE PROCESS OF DECISION MAKING.. i'm prertty sure i said that.. (however my input will also be needed!)


Me saying about 'saving the day' was meant to show that..

Well, the general point trying to be discussed is low hour F/Os don't really have any experience of 'real flying' (indeed define real flying!), and these low hour pilots have no hands on experience, straight out of flying into the RHS. They go to pieces and totally lose all concentration if a problem faced them. I suppose trying to infere,.... Just sitting there, basically looking out of the window, when a problem arises the captain deals with it all, of course, he is more experienced than me isn't he?! And i'm sat in a nice big plane with a nice career not appreciating where i am?!


And the whole comment about 'I sound like a guy who no one would ever want to fly with??' .. uhh yea OK.?!

Wasn't the first question here do low hour F/Os deserve to be there wasn't it??!

Well, can someone tell me why I don't 'DESERVE' to be there or have the responsibility, because i have flown only a hand full of aircraft, i haven't done banner towing? Or piddling about in single engines at 100 quid an hour doing 'hours building' makes my experience level increase??!

And by the way people, the commercial world is TOTALLY different to GA, so why does so much GA matter?!

[dbriglee]

I have a great deal of respect for young guys/girls going straight into the airline, it must be quite hard at times. And as I also said earlier, if I had been offered that route at the very start I would probably have taken it but I can honestly say now I'm very happy that I didn't due to the experiences, fun, knowledge and friends you can gain on the way

Right, indeed...
but now you have turned around from the other end of the field saying 'ahh, all these inexperienced pilots dont deserve to be there', when you would have been in the same boat as me, being a low hour F/O on a RHS jet??!

[B200Drvr]

The way I see it is this. My airline wouldn't let me be in that seat unless they were thoroughly satisfied that I was safe to be there. There is still much about the Airbus I don't know - I learn something new about it pretty much every time I go to work. As do some of the captains I fly with. In the politest possible way, I don't have to justify my position in the right hand seat of the aircraft to people with thousands of hours worth of bush flying in the third world, who are a bit jealous they haven't got their big break. If I wasn't up to the job, my airline wouldn't let me do it.

What a load of rubbish, you and I both know you can buy your way into an Airbus seat.
your ignorance and inexperience shows by the above statement, If you don't think that experience counts for anything, be it bush flying in the third world, military or any other form that YOU don't have, you are sadly misguided. People that do bush flying as a way to build time, do just that, build time and then move on. People that have THOUSANDS of hours bush flying as you put it, probably want to be there, and don't want to sit in the RH seat of an Airbus.
Who do you think you are that people are should be jealous of your RH seat in an Airbus? Get a grip man, anybody with a peanut for a brain and a bit of cash can do that!!!! Its not a big break.

[B200Drvr]

Singapore Airlines along with us at CX put 250hr cadets straight into 744s, 773s and A340s. Chief Pilots that have worked for these airlines have selected the best possible cadets each year and the pilots I fly with have confidence in their abilities. I have already mentioned that these poor sods have to go into the sim once a month compared to us regulars who do it every 6 months. It is something I would never want to do and I have 10 years behind me. Are you saying these Chief Pilots that have graced these large international carriers over the years are wrong? How about the likes of KLM and Lufthansa?

Cmon, tell the truth now, cause this is only half the truth, they don't go onto those aeroplanes as First Officers, they go in as boy pilots, why, to get the required experience. Now, tell me how long it takes those cadets to become a Captain on a 777? By the time they get there, they deserve to be there. They will not be an F/O on a 777 before they have 1500hrs total time, thats just about guaranteed.
Cathay have 2nd officers with 3000+hrs, because they lack the jet, long haul, heavy etc time to move up, but they will move up WHEN THEY HAVE THE EXPERIENCE.
It is all about experience guys.

[dbriglee]

^^^
ouch,, a bit harsh i feel! He wasn't making out standing bold as brass that people should be 'jealous' of him..
It's more, because he's in the RHS that he 'feels' like people could be jealous of him...


What a load of rubbish, you and I both know you can buy your way into an Airbus seat.


:ok::ok::ok:
HAHAHAHA Isn't this WHOLE THREAD flawed then if you say that??!

All these people with loads of hours can buy their type's and fly in the RHS and there would be no need for a debate about it

SIMPLES:p

[B200Drvr]

People here assume that if you disagree with the fact that you should be able to jump straight into an Airbus or Boeing out of flight school, that you must be either jealous, flying pistons, inexperienced or all three.
In aviation, be very wary of what you assume, as there will always be someone in the room with more experience than you. Just a warning from someone with a little experience.

[speedrestriction]

dbriglee,

I can't help but feel that with some more experience under your belt, you will develop a different perspective on the matter.

Good training goes a long way but generally it is experience (as I am sure you are aware) which adds capacity, improves problem solving skills and the ability of anticipate problems. Yes, the logistics and technicalities of operating a light twin are quite different to a medium tp or jet but I do not doubt that someone with decent light twin experience brings a lot of knowledge with them to the rhs of a shiney boeingembraerdierbus that the minimum hours cadet does not.

I may be oversimplifying the matter but I think its fair to say that the CPL/IR teaches you how fly an aircraft but it is commercial flying that teaches you how to operate an aircraft.

sr

[dbriglee]

Full agree mate!!!

nice way to put it indeed.....
although it's still somewhat a variant of the answer to this question/debate....

I totally agree captains can predict things even before i have started to think them.... with indeed their much greater experience level.
I learn things every single day, off captains, but also my own back of learning for myself too. But indeed, no one can teach me experience, i will learn it myself in the job. (and not in an unsafe way either)


But the actual debate is.. the starting block 'total time' and experience you are viewed upon as being sufficently 'suitable' for a RHS position.....

And comparing people of low hours to high hours, saying only unfrozen guys should be allowed, is totally unjustified
(in my opinion of course :ugh:)

[CraigJL]

To add a perspective from a young aviator:

I love aviation. I try and learn as much as I can about it, before, during and after flight. It takes up a lot of my spare time, reading documentation, studying media, reading forums (of course!), listening, and doing a little virtual stuff as well. If I see a plane cross the sky, I am intruiged as to where it's going, who they are talking to, the purpose of the flight. It takes up a big chunk of my life, but I'm not unhappy for it. I aspire to aviation, not for any kind of salary glory, or social status. The joy I get from the limited exposure I have is enough to ensure I will try my best to ensue a career in the field. Whenever I pass an airport, I wonder what it must be like to go through the crew section, or up the tower to start a working day.

I read a thread here many months ago, but one post stuck with me. It was from a supposed ATC, who claimed that he had no aviation in interest whatsoever, yet he did it because he was "damn good at controlling." It struck me as very sad at the time. A man completely devoid of passion for his job.

I know I'm not there yet, but I'd be in work everyday if I was in aviation :ok:

[Bla Bla Bla]

dbriglee,

When you have found my statement that these low hour F/O's don't deserve there RHS position, let me know as I did not write this.

Attention to detail is everything in this industry, so I suggest you read what is written not what you think is written!

Detail detail detail, may save your arse one day.

[layover lenka]

Pilot is good job all they do is read paper and drinkz all the coffee that I can make! Much better than pushing cart and smile at rude passengers.

[Vanpilot]

And by the way people, the commercial world is TOTALLY different to GA, so why does so much GA matter?!


:ugh: :ugh:

I give up

[FL999]

I think we should respect the people who have had to go the long way through GA before getting into that RHS. Their experience is invaluable and I think that has an impact on the way they fly the bigger jets. They will be able to anticipate situations that young guns fresh out of flying school wont. Experience is vital in the cockpit of a modern airliner. However I dont think that gives them the right to fire at Low-Hour pilots who have had the chance to get into the RHS straight away. You have to keep in mind that these low-hour guys mustve been really good(and lucky of course) to be handed the RHS so early, so its not only luck and I dont think that the 'battle-hardened' pilots have the right to talk about low hour guys like that because I think that they would also have been in that RHS early themselves had they had the chance! You also have to keep in mind that going the long way isnt always possible for everyone. It implies paying for your own studies and possibly your own Type ratings. I wouldnt mind at all going that way as I love flying and whatever I fly ill be happy...be it a Caravan or a 747. However this route is way too expensive and I live in a country where studying part-time while woirking is not possible as I would have to leave the country to get my training and the banks arent as generous as they are abroad. To get the loan I required they said that the net income in the house would have to be 3 times what it currently is. Thats why my only chance is a cadet program and if i make it through its not because I am lucky and rich or whatever stupid reason ive seen previously, its because im good enough. So im finding this Experienced vs inexperienced pretty useless. You each have your merits in your own ways and some respect for each other, for your FELLOW PILOTS, would really help us all enjoy and concentrate on what we love doing the most: FLYING! And also, shooting down low-hour pilots for experienced GA pilots just because there wont be enough stories to tell in the cockpit...is...well...honestly... Come on...:confused:

And back to what the topic was initially about, I think that having that passion for flying is essential, especially nowadyas during those tough times. Becoming a pilot just for money and glory is not what its all about. So many people are doing it without any knowledge of aviation, which shows their lack of interest. Even if at the start theyre clueless, they should show their interest little by little and eventually theyll get that 'virus'. I know some guys who had no clue what was going on when they started training but eventually loved it and were really keen to learn what aviation is all about. That is the right attitude in my opinion. Those are the ones who will become best!

Respect to all you guys out there, experienced, inexperienced and wannabees like me! :ok:

[betpump5]

B200drvr,

I don't quite understand the point of your post or why you quoted me to make that point (whatever it is).

It is no secret that cadet pilots at CX remain a SO for circa 2 years and only act as flight monitors during that time. Also, no one here is arguing that you need to have experience to move up to FO and Captain? That's obvious.

You seem to quote one paragraph that seems to back up your opinion, but fail to quote anything else I wrote i.e CX is not the only airline that has this scheme and BA actually puts 250hr pilots into A320s/737s when they recruited previously. The fact that 250hr pilots are not placed into a 777/747 is neither here nor there. They are still placed into the RHS.

I really don't get some of the arguments here and I feel like I have lost track about what is being argued about. There is no problem voicing opinions but the way posters are writing, it is like they think they have the winning argument.

My opinion was that the legacy carriers around the world that have cadet pilot schemes and the Chief Pilots that place 250hr cadets into the RHS or the flight monitoring seat of a 747 can't all be wrong. Can they?

From what I can see from these 4 pages, there seems to be a clear divide on this thread between those guys who went straight into an airline (either via a cadet programme or buying a rating) and those who flew countless TPs around the world. The argument being that those with GA experience make better pilots, make better decisions and therefore this should be the ONLY 'respected' route into the airlines.

Next time I have lunch with a good friend of mine (Group Captain btw), I'll tell him that placing 20+ year olds in Tornado's after a year in a Grob is a big mistake and that they should recruit 5 year experienced TP pilots to the RAF - more experience, better hand flying skills, better decision making.

[Vanpilot]

Do RAF pilots go striaght from a Grob to a Tornado then??? I don't know, so would be interested in how they deal with the transition straight from single engine piston to fast twin engine fighter jet!!

or is there some experience of other types needed before they get into that Tornado

[betpump5]

Lets hope not! No of course they don't. :)

The point I was making was that the RAF seem to think it is ok to train an 18 year old for a route to flying fast jets. The reason they think it is ok is because they have faith in their screening process and they have faith in their training.

Therefore, why should we question the legacy carriers and any other carrier that chooses to put a 250hr pilot straight into a RHS or their jet? They obviously have faith in their screening process and their training.

ICAO now think it is ok that budding pilots only need 170 hours for an MPL - with most in the Sim I may add- before they reach the RHS. Are they wrong as well? (Part of me thinks they are for entirely different reasons. Feel free to read my post history if you are bored).

Rather than enforcing an opinion because I think I am right, I am merely pointing out examples - things that are happening right now and have done so for the last 30 odd years - as to why it is perfectly safe and plausible for 250hr cadets to go straight into the cockpit of an airliner and not be ridiculed becasue of it.

Some may say I am biased as I am indeed the guy who payed for a TR back in 2000 and got a job in a 732 at 19 and a half. I may be biased, but at least I can call upon all the examples I have listed in my past posts including this one.

[Horse.....Fly]

A couple of friends of mine are pilots in the RAF. They said that they were flying the Tornado at the age of 21/22, having gone straight through the flying training system gaining only about 300hrs flying time. So they obviously get trusted in, what is arguably, a more difficult/demanding job.

Just a thought.

[xchox]

Bla Bla Bla -> "No you don't but I bet your passengers would like you to be an experienced pilot whilst enjoying your flying career."

Hilarious!

I must say I agree. Im a flight and written exam away from my PPL. And I love everything about aviation! LOVE it! When I was a kid, I would beg to fly jumpseat and got the chance on tons of aircraft. My all time faveorite was the L-1011 TriStars.

At the flight school I notice so many people pointing at planes and asking what kind they are. Worst ever was a guy pointing at a Herc from Trenton and saying "What airline is that?" To which I replied... "What airline flys planes in camo gray?"

Even though this thread is aimed at people in my situation, I agree 100%. But you also have to understand, flying is expensive now. So that is why it is mostly rich kids who just want to say they are a pilot to their freinds. While alot of people who wish they could be pilots don't have the money. I work with several guys in this situation. They have checklists memorized for a Cessna 172, They know all the procedures and calls, but can't afford to go get a PPL. So they resort to Simulator flying.

[Clandestino]

Once upon a time, fast jet instructor employed by my local air force was asked, as we had no advanced trainers in the inventory, whether the students will be able to cope with moving straight from turboprop trainer to FJ. His reply:"Of course they will! In fact I can take fellow with zero hours and train him in the fast jet from the day one. At the end, he'll be combat ready but time and funds spent training him would be enough to see ten other guys get qualified via traditional route." So it seems that Grob-Tucano-Hawk-Tornado route is chosen because (among the viable ones, of course) it is the fastest and the cheapest (not least because it gives RAF the opportunity to weed out ones less than likely to succeed at a relatively cheap stage).


ICAO now think it is ok that budding pilots only need 170 hours for an MPL - with most in the Sim I may add- before they reach the RHS. Are they wrong as well?

Good MPL training might be far better thing than lousy integrated fATPL - this might be entirely dependent on school and supervising authority. Where they're dead wrong is when they believe that from zero to TR can be done in a year.

Therefore, why should we question the legacy carriers and any other carrier that chooses to put a 250hr pilot straight into a RHS or their jet? They obviously have faith in their screening process and their training.

As long as their faith is not unfounded, I have no objections.
you and I both know you can buy your way into an Airbus seat.
As long as TREs are doing their job, not. One can buy training but not rating.


Air and aeroplane are absolutely disinterested in pilot's total time, what did he do on his previous hundred flights or five years ago or what flightschool did he attend. They occasionally throw a puzzle at a pilot and give him finite time to solve it and they absolutely don't care how the pilot comes to the solution - from remembering the books, from remembering the tale of the wrinkled colleague who had to solve it decades ago or from his own experience. As long as the solution is correct, pilot lives to fly till the next challenge.

Ones unable to learn from anything but their own experience have to have good fortune in plentiful supply as they start their flying careers, lest they end prematurelly.