Glass time.......
 

I have an open question to any professional pilot who would like to offer their view on this...

If you were applying for a job a few years ago (in my recent memory even), it used to be that if you flew a skinny (narrow-body) jet, and wanted to get onto a fat (wide-body) jet, the boys flying the fat jets would always tell you you couldn't..."because you have no wide-body time".... and they were fully convinced that this was an issue.

Now, if you are applying for a NG job (glass), but you only have time on "classics" (analogue)... all of a sudden, the story has changed. You might be on a skinny classic, or a fat classic, but no one will look at you unless you have glass time? :\

What is it with this industry?

Surely "glass" cockpits were developed to make life easier... not harder?

In my mind, the industry is negating overall aviation experience in favour of expensive game-boy past-times? And before you go off at a tangent, yes, I have flown "classics" with FMS and the like, and it didn't faze me in the least. New system - learn it - fly the plane.

I'd be interested to see what you guys think (professionals only please - spotty anoraks and FS-demons please refrain from commenting). :=

Cheers :ok:

This is certainly one of the "screening" items among hiring airlines that is totally INconsistent through the industry. Some airlines don't particularly care; others use it as a screening factor.

Personally, I think flying "glass" is MUCH easier for a "good" pilot becasue there is more information available. However, that pilot stays "good" by using the information intelligently.

Finally, the analog-to-glass transition is MUCH easier than the other way around. Once you develop your good airmanship on the steam gauges, you shouldn't lose it because a magenta line appears in front of you.

Thanks for your input Intruder... 1-0 :ok:

Thread moved to "Terms and Endearments"..... sorry Mr Mod.... I couldn't decide where to go with this one.

My apologies :}

A minute query though... this thread is for "news on pay, rostering, allowances, extras and negotiations where you work. Let others in the industry make educated choices on where the grass is less brown! Scheduled, charter or contract".... flying glass vs analogue doesn't really fall into any of these subjects, does it? (sorry - I'm not trying to pick a fight, just trying to understand better for the next time?).

It's nonesence. It's another way of saying that type rated pilots will be considered first. Glass is easy, it was supposed to be. There are a lot less problems with people converted from analogue to glass than converting back again. And widebody time is nonesensical (one authority I know of even has a wideboby rating!). My company has A320s and A330s. The 320 job is harder because of the more diverse structure and the more difficult destinations they fly to.

Thank you Dan... 2-0 :ok:

Glass
 

The only problem with glass is a training department that does not know how to teach it.:ugh:

Nothing changes - in the past it was the prop to jet transition that was put forward as being far too difficult for mere 'non-jet' mortals.

It was nonsense then just as it is now. A bit of decent training and in a very short time you look back and wonder just what all the fuss was about.

Its a paperwork personnel filter nothing more.

A good pilot will rely upon his instruments, be they glass or analogue, to present him with the information which he requires to exercise his airmanship in an appropriate manner.

Those key, core skills are maintained what ever machine you happen to be flying irrespective of the mechanics of the aircraft. If you don't possess these skills then the ability to interpret correctly any type of instrumentation won't help you.

This nonsense is a recruiters tool, nothing more.

I have to echo these sentiments. Whilst I don't often post or even regularly visit pprune, I also find myself increasingly frustrated with this particular trend.

I had always considered myself lucky to have gained a good grounding on older jet aircraft (BAC 1-11 then B737-200). Both complex analogue aircraft, often pushed to their limits in terms of performance/flight envelope. I firmly believe that as a result, my airmanship is every bit as good as anyone with pure EFIS/glass cockpit experience. I will stick my head out and suggest that due to the lack of autothrottle, auto a/p and flight director altitude capture, non graphical GPS display our CRM/monitoring skills were required to be honed even more!

Ironically to illustrate, it seems Airbus themselves are in agreement to some degree:

AA09: Pilot handling skills under threat, says Airbus

I understand times are tough. So, I don't claim it my right to have a job in the present market. However, I would get my own EFIS/NG type rating if I thought it would be valued (Before I get flamed for considering that option, I've now been unemployed for 10 mths-effectively I've lost £50,000, its simple maths if it means I get back to work) My experience to date should at least enable me to be considered seriously for jobs that only require 300hrs total EFIS time when I have 4300 hrs jet, 3600+ hrs (inc PIC) on 737-200.

Remember, when the demand was there, you used to be able to do a simple differences course to convert to EFIS.

I don't expect sympathy. I don't wish to whinge per se, but I DO want to return to flying duties as soon as practically possible. I'll point out that age shouldn't be an issue as I'm still 30+ years away from retirement. I've demonstrated that I am willing to negate any cost based argument in order for myself to be considered on a like for like basis if that is the real issue. What else can I do? I'm a skilled pilot, I want to demonstrate that to my new employer.

Good luck to all those facing job pressures, it will come around again... sooner rather than later with any luck! :ok:

PS. please PM me should anyone wish to employ me!

Nice to see we're all thinking alike! :D

Once upon a time when you could "choose" between offers some newly minted fATPL's held offers of a Modern Glass Turboprop or narrow-body Clockwork Jet (usually the 732).

In the vast majority of cases they would choose the clockwork jet. I've often wondered what I would have done (given the options) - this was a good ten years ago mind you since read.

Many thanks to the 7 who responded.

What a pity everyone else couldn't give a rats....

Now I know why we'll never succeed... pilots just look after themselves. Not that I expected this to be revolutionary or anything, but a bit more support would have been nice to see?

I guess we'll just continue to undercut each other and not feel anything for the guys who have been there, and done that? Let the gobbies stroll in and take over? I pray I never fly a commercial flight again... the level of experience out there scares me!

:ugh:

Far, far, easier to go from ergonomic nightmares with round dials "splattered" all over the instrument panel to glass.

Just standby for the next hurdle though......

"I see you have X-thousand hours using EFIS and the most up to date FMS, but you have no HUD time......"


Aaaaargh:ugh:

I'm worried that CV will be rejected because I have actual glass time but not LCD :(

Seriously for a moment, I must admit I am bemused too. I would have thought that anybody who has the capacity to safely rack up a few thousand hours on conventional instruments will find life somewhat easier. Unless they are asking for time on type, I cannot see how it makes any sense whatsoever, other than to remove proven competency from the interview list.

The reality...
 

Glass jets, wide or narrow body are very easy to fly. Turbo props, are the next easiest, glass ones being the easiest. The most difficult and complicated things to operate are clockwork piston twins with questionable radios, engines, de-icing, handling and performance.

Logic should dictate that you start on the nice shiny jets and graduate up to the piston twin, but it doesn't appear to work that way in real life.

PM

You have answered that yourself:
...and a bit of discrimination here and there doesn't matter when it doesn't hurt me, after all flying aeroplanes is a privilege, not a right. Until some new MGT rule that superficially looks like an utter idiocy but actually has very calculated outcome, comes and bites me on the posterior and then I'll cry "Heeeelp ALPA, I've been mugged!". Guess who'll be able to help me. Yep - no one.

Looking after you & yourself only is indication of poor long term planning ability and lack of imagination. It's valid strategy if you have good reasons to believe that your career will be ending shortly but otherwise it can bite back spectacularly.

Companies that ask for specific experience prior joining are actually advertising :"We don't have the time, money or other resources to initially train you to the standards we aspire to, but since you didn't kill yourself during all those hours, we think you'll be fine."

Bartholomew,

I don't think it is fully fair to blame the pilots, as I have stated before on the 'Pay to Fly' threads the blame lies with scurrilous airline managers cost cutting ruthlessly and relying on automation/aircraft reliability within the cockpit to keep the jets flying.

The demise of core skill capability is of major concern to any of us who have taken a more circatious route to ATPL's. Sadly when there are enough pilots willing to part with substantial amounts of money to achieve their 'dream' the system won't change and the managers and HR people will pick and choose as they will.

But don't blame the pilots. Those commiting to 75-80,000 pounds of training, often with families and mortgages in tow have little or no choice but to bite the bullet and continue to cough up with the scarce hope of a decent job at the end of it. Sadly, by the very act of pay to fly they are killing off the possible future returns they hope for as the terms of the industry plummet.

This has already occured in the rotary world and is now happening in the fixed wing world. It will only end if positive action is taken or a horrific accident.

I know which I hope for.

Dials to glass is a straightforward transition from a scan to a stare.

For an inexperienced pilot the biggest hurdle to overcome is sifting through the plethora of information available and making absolutely certain that the selections you have made, which the automatics are following, are the ones you actually want.

The FMA is your friend!

Had a conversation over a decade ago with a then BA 757/767 captain who echoed similar sentiments over a cold beer. Start out on the big "easy" to operate jet with all the aids and redundancy and another crew member or two to assist you, and when you've got 5 or 10 or even 20000hrs under your belt, "progress" up to the piston twin operating single pilot, IFR and in the crud. Having done it the other way around I think he had a point