Harry seaside


If you talk to anybody and explain them; What do you think creates experience, a 5 hour flight staring at a screen or 5 landings and take off's in 5 hours in icing, turbulence and all the crap you can find around FL160? You can all guess what they will say.

I hope you know that 5 hours on jet isnt only about staring at screens. The longer haul you do the more managing you do. As in managing the whole flight, be it pax issues, crew issues, tech issues etc. the more pax you carry also increases the chances of medical, security etc problems. As an airline pilot, take off landing aint not the only applicable experience. Try not to see this from you own TP experience only. Till then keep learning, theres lots more above FL160 then you know now.

Ah go easy on the fella, it's like FO's thinking the captains job is the same as his plus signings the tech log. :suspect:

I'm sorry I should have formulated that differently. Whenever I talk to non flying people about the props I'm flying you always get some remarks about it being less difficult then flying jets. I just meant to say that we all have different challenges but that doesn't mean prop flying is anything less then flying a jet, it's just different. And regarding the passengers, we also get some quite difficult passengers on board, just not as many as you do.

(Sarcasm on) I'm doing all the work the guy on the left should be doing anyway right?! So how hard can it be?! (Sarcasm mode off)

I m sure you can fly a big jet no doubt about your flying skills having been in props. But to operate a big jet across distances further in a single sector than your TP whole month combined is another matter. Something you ll have to learn with good attitude mu friend.

I've never flew a turboprop before. I only flew jet. But i've heard from a turboprop captain i used to fly with, if the :mad: hits the fan and things go wrong in a turboprop, life is much harder than in a jet. So all this discrimination behaviour of turboprop people is completely misplaced i think. They are good qualified people to fly with a jet. But like always, it is all about $$$.

Nothing to do with flying........follow the money !
 

Harry, your problem is that you are not worth putting through a type rating because you don't bring enough money with you, a 19 year old cadet will have to pay for the ATPL training (£100K ) and then the Jet type rating (£30K).

With this much money at stake you can buy a lot of HR numpty recruitment speak to tell the directors and airline HR departments why turboprop guys can't fly jets.

Harry you just have to face the fact that with your experience you will go through a jet type rating for very little cost, but this cost is not enough to support the hanggers on in the industry who are all getting a small percentage of what the cadets spend to become jet pilots.

The bottom line is money not skill talks, and Harry you don't bring enough money to the party.

JumboJet1999 could you tell me which ones?

Normally they ask for turboprop in excess of 20 tonnes. thanks

Don't listen to him/her.

I fly the 744 presently.

The job is a lot easier than a typical 737/TP job from an operational standpoint. You only do something once every 10 hours...

:E

Then why does so many Tp guys have problems getting a jet job? Myself came from Fokker 50 onto jets many years ago. Many guys didnt get the jet job, mind you it was an internal company fleet progression. Guys who didnt make it were told they didnt have the attitude of airline pilot. Guys who got terminated during training were told that they just didnt have enough knowledge. As a trainer, I personally prefer guys who had TP time but purely for the stick rudder skills which make training easier. However the attitude can ge questionable most of the time

maybe because jet operators prefer cadets who accept any terms and conditions ? :rolleyes:

being skilled and smart never help any company. Because you will be seens as a potential :mad: who may negociate this and that etc.
Youngs wannabe are like modelling clay.

Green lights has nailed it.
In past years progression within airlines could have typically been from something basic like the DC3 to something very complex like the L188. There is no more of a quantum leap going from, say, a Dash 8 to any of today's jets.
Training an experienced turboprop pilot on a jet would usually take less time than it would to teach a 200 hour cadet to the same level of competence.
If a pilot can fly any jet well, they can quickly adapt to either short haul or long haul. Each has its own challenges, but neither requires supernatural powers.
It is all about how Management see malleability. The experienced turboprop pilot may sometimes display independent thought. Any potential challenge to the 'Company' way is seen as a threat.
Occasionally 'attitude' does rear its ugly head during training. That can and should be dealt with decisively by the training department. The words "Company way or the highway" should get the required result. Should that occasionally fail, then a ritual sacking sends the message to any other potential challengers. With such a clear policy, only rarely will turboprop pilots not make the grade to jets.

If flying a Chieftain or Baron paid my mortgage etc then we'd all stay! Jet operations is where the money is, unfortunately it's the truth. I've done it all...SEP-TEP-TP now Jet. The jet isn't easier to fly it's just different, turn the auto thrust off and hey it's a TP. I'd go jet anyway, TP command means nothing as you have all proven. Good luck!

Hi

I am sorry perhaps this was said before in this long thread (I did not read it entirely) but I would like to say something that addresses the reasons.

It is an unfortunate fact that a fresh unexperienced pilot does better in terms of training performance on a fast commercial EFIS jet. These are just cold statistics and many ex-turboprop captains fail line training as FO in our company.

I personally flew with an FO coming from a lighter jet with lots of hours as a Captain and he, as well had a lot of trouble catching up with what was going on.

I really don't want to generalise or speculate why, however it seems to be a totally different set of skills and thinking that is required.


Another reasons is psychological - many super-experienced turbo-prop captains come onto the A320 flying with young un-experienced captains and getting severely frustrated by their own under-performance and position.

We are not really pilots, we are (computer) managers and the flying is like being a robot, except of the few situations you are suddenly required to think outside of the box (that's where the experience would be helpful).

However 99% you are required to be a good-functioning and precise robot, knowing the SOPs down to the last letter and applying ready solutions to highly-typical situations.


If you are desperate to get onto a jet - lie, throw away your logbook, and play low-houred cadet ready to learn - if you are able/willing (why would you want to?) to adapt to that.

I don't see another way in.

(Also tried to help many turbo-prop captains to get even a self-sponsored type rating and failed)


I'm afraid that's what happening to any industry as it expands: nobody wants a programmer who is able to disassemble some obscure old code now-adays. Companies want the programmers who know all the modern techniques and seamlessly fit into their computer factories.

That's what's happening I am afraid.

Interesting take on it skipping, but I know many smaller jet captains that fly now on the a320 - 747 and not one met the chop and all said that the transition was easy enough. Even left seat to left. So with due respect to only thing the low hour cadet brings to the table is working for **** all wages!

But conversely the experienced captain from a smaller type or turbo prop has seen ATC trying to screw things up, poor weather when cat3 auto land is not fitted and having to hand fly past cat2 minima. On board issues like disruptive pax and med emergency. Aircraft and nav aid failures etc. I could go on.

There is more to being a pilot that an blind sop monkey and being good with computer games and an FMS

Deep and fast...

I did not say anything that contradicts your statement. Regarding the training performance is just the experience from our airline (in fact my-soon-to-be-ex-airline).

You have to be a good pilot, but only sometimes, most of the time you have to be the perfect monkey, and if you are not, the airlines dont want you.

Bottom line you have to fit into the factory, being a great pilot doesn't relieve you from knowing how to jump the hoops most of the time and being a good monkey won't save your ass in those 1% of other cases

And most of all this is not my personal opinion how things should be, merely cold-blooded observations how things are...

While I am not a trainer, I've been recently flying with new people from both backgrounds. My experience is exactly opposite to what Skipping Classes said - the ex-turboprop guys are normaly very easy to work with and tend to know their stuff well enough immediately after Line Training. they are experienced airline pilot, who just happened to change the type. Cadets on the other hand tend to be a liability rather than asset for months after release. Of course, there are oddballs (like an ex-fastjet guy who's been on the line almost a year and still has no clue, or an ex regional jet guy whom I wouldn't trust an wheelbarrow, let alone an Airbus). All in all however, give me a turboprop/light jet guy over a cadet anytime:ok:

Turboprop pilots or light jets who go to big jets are way better then wannabes, you don't learn piloting in a sim.

This should a normal step where pilots gain experience on smaller aircrafts and then get hired and get trained by the jet airlines when they have sufficient experience.

The system is completely upside down. The "lobby" of jet ppcs will say otherwise, I call it BS and this people are hypocrites, or they dig their heads in the sand.. It is time for a change.

Jet pilots should have a minimum of 1500 hours crew experience in order to be allowed in.

An SOP monkey is a requirement in any operation. You use the company, turbo prop medium jet or wideass. You operate the equipment the way the company want it operated, end off. If any pilot doesn't like that, then change the sops with you fleet manager or change your career.

What I will say again(sorry if I'm getting a little boring) is that all operating standards being equal, the experienced guy will be less spooked, have more spare available capacity and the left seat will be less single pilot ops in more difficult situations.

A low housed guy tried to convince me that we were lining up at the next right turn taxiway onto the runway in LVPs. I stopped put the park brake on and showed the taxi chart, noting that the runway was to the left and the right although the signage could have been better. Easy mistake(think BA 777) but it was a long day with poor weather and that could have been the end of us.
I'm sure there are a few very sharpe cadets as well but the more risky part is in my view 500-1000 hours on type. You think you've got nailed and then you get screwed )

The answer is, they can't. This is all about airlines making extra money using cheap cadet labour.

If it's any conciliation, the guys on 20-24 ton jets are having similar problems moving up.

Me, I'm not paying for another thing. I'm here to take the cash!

I could only get a heavy jet job with 200hours on Cessna 152 plus I needed like 20 hours on piston twin! With 4000 you should have got the job instead of me. The logic is nuts

John smith can you explain a bit the experience of these TP And corporate pilots?

It is hard to believe for me. I am a corporatepilot myself. Got accepted by 3 airlines recently but refused due to poor contracts.

When I did my transition from turboprop to a 737 and it went perfect with SOP, training and line check. I only needed the minimums to be released on the line.

If you hire turboprop candidates between 25-35 of age, motivated and capable, there won't be any issues for sure.

Now don't tell me a cadet is safer or more capable then an experienced and well trained ex-turboprop pilot, because this is :mad: and definitly not my experience.
When :mad: hits the fan, captain is doing single pilot. That is what I heard.

Now tell me you'll disconnect the AP at 10000' and have you cadet fly the approach at minimums with a strong crosswind on his own. Yup sure me too I drink coolaid.


I have come to understand that some people have an agenda that is probably money related behind those cadets programs, there are no way you can have a reasonable argument with this people.

John S, do you have shares in Easyjet?
John S were you a cadet
John S can you put substantive proof to your statement that the problems are with ex TP or IE emb Legacy guys etc
John S can you categorically prove that cadets are a better trainee

What I do know is that your training department is geared up for lowest common denominator cadets and some experienced guys may feel like being taught how grandmother should suck eggs. The reality is as I see it it, more experienced guys would create a different training regime style suited to the demographic. End result is a competent and sop orientatated crew member, but with a greater experience to draw upon. If you think easy have reinvented the wheel, you are mistaken. Unless the wheel is how to get a legal product for less cash.

Funny! I remember circa 2007 when easy took a large number of embraer 145 pilots as direct entry captains! Many are still there to my knowledge. The only problem an experienced pilot offers the likes of easy training department, is they ask a lot of questions, and are not afraid to say no! When the need may arise ;)

Cadets are ok, they may know how to operate the aircraft, but you can't teach experience!

Truth is they are cheap! The accountants love that, and when crewing shaft them they say yes please but no Vaseline for me!

You best cling to whatever job you can these days, as plenty of rich kids willing to work for nothing, waiting to take your place!

John S, shares and dividends?

The rumour mill in aviation is one of the best ever!

Agree a training department is obligeded to get people to the line, but easy has a very different candidate profile to BA for example. Would you like to compare the percentage of cadet pilot intake at easy to BA?

When in a training role it is important to embrace the quality and experience someone has to offer. If the majority have nothing to give other than the integ course then you have to plan on the lowest denominator.


So if an investment bank took on a graduate and an accomplished trader, would you disregard the experienced guys knowledge? Well you can't delete it so go for the one with no experience. And it's cheaper to boot. As I said, it's all about the money.

As you say big airlines often send their sponsored cadets to TP subs to gain experience. For good reason!!its interesting how locos turn over FOs for newbies who are willing to pay! But every so often they realise, oh crap no one to promote, then all of a sudden experienced guys are back in favour! Divide and conquer for the lowrst pay bill!!! Shame most people are to dumb or desperate to realise!

Having sacrificed everything and worked myself
To death to get into my current job/career! I fear I wasted my time and actively looking into an alternative career before its to late! That's the sadness of this industry! I cannot see it paying my mortgage for the next 30 years!!!

Gentlemen,


I can only second the statement of john_smith in respect to our airline.

This has nothing to do with his or my opinion, neither of us says that we like this fact, but these are the facts.

I was trying to help understand what's going on in the industry and explain why our airline might not be hiring TP guys.

T&Cs are not the issue here - there are many experienced TP guys desperate to fly jet on any T&C (and of course complain endless after signing the contract) so how can this be related?

Anyway, looks like the factual information here is not appreciated, was just trying to give some inputs.

I have two friends at easy, and it seems that some trainers are sold on the cadet 100% for the reasons you said but there are others that that say that cadets are not better than an experienced DEP.

It's been said 1 million times before, cadets are part of the industry, always have and always will be. What has changed is the employers are skewing the terms and conditions of the pilot work force by flooding the industry with low hour guys by using the big training providers and a carrot of a jet job at the end.

If it wasn't about money then cadets would be straight in on full FO pay. If the big cadet taking low co companies employed experienced or a greater mix of pilots then the integ training providers and the post frozen atpl jet training providers wouldn't have the carrots in the same numbers and the gravy train comes off the rails.
Also, do the trainers at Orange have shares and receive dividends? If so, they have a vested interest in screwing over the new starts for their own profit.

If the companies were to be honest and say we are screwing you because we can, you know what, I can accept this. What I don't like is trying to wrap it up in coloured paper to make it look presentable when the bull!!!! is leaking through the seams.

Oh and easy seemed to do ok with there pilot workforce training before cadets, I'm guessing most of the more senior pilots weren't cadets. Also like in the workplace outside aviation, you have the same talk about graduate employment. Grads like to employ grads and I guess cadets will say they are the best also.

Rant over, off to the beach.

Reading these forums I still see there is a misconception about the meaning of "progression" or "advancement". What we`re really talking about here is a "sidestep".

When talking about careers & airline flying we`ve basically got 3 categories or industries, i.e

Regional / Short haul - Glass cockpit heavy Turboprops (ATR, DHC8),
Short Haul / Medium Haul - Regional / Medium sized turbofans (Emb/737/A320)
Long Haul - Heavy turbofans (747, A330)

The differences in actually flying between these categories are fairly small, it`s really only the operations that might change to some extent. They`re all pretty much fully automated these days, I still hear pilots mentioning "stick and rudder" skills on nextgen turboprops, another misconception. Those of us who have flown in multiple categories know that it`s all the same s**t.

Each category is potentially a career in itself, progression or advancement would be F/O, Capt, TRI / TRE, post holder for example. There are pros and cons to each category, I personally prefer the regional TP as the advantages really do outweigh the other categories but what the OP is talking about here is boredom which most of us suffer after a while flying any aircraft. This often means pilots want to make a sidestep to another category to try something different which can be difficult due to hiring policies. As mentioned previously long haul and medium turbofan pilots can find it just as difficult to sidestep into the TP industry so it works both ways. Every now and then doors open up between the categories due to supply and demand but often it means starting from the bottom again and joining cadets.

With the introduction of LCC`s and cadet schemes, the 737 and A320 have now become the main entry level aircraft for new pilots although some long haul operators take on cadets also. So for the OP, I would advise remaining in the TP category as you are potentially in a better position than starting at the bottom again. Changing to a better type or operator within the same category would be "advancing". I constantly see pilots making that sidestep and trying to run back after realising.

Of course there are exceptions to the above with regards to hiring policies, direct entry captains positions, airlines operating within multiple categories etc.

Of course there are a number of factors when considering a move within your category or making a sidestep but it boils down to the individual operator (RATE of pay, base, home every night etc).

I agree with John Smith post above. Our experience shows it is mostly ex-TP guys who struggling. The only category who is worse - guys with thousands of GA/bush hours - those are deemed untrainable and no longer passing initial CV screening.

ps we don't have cadets nor P2F.

Most of the training department at airlines that use "cadets" ( i hate that word. Either you are a pilot, or you are not.) top up their pensions by working for the "training providers".

A cosy little arrangement that they won't want to give up.

The argument of cadets being cheaper for airlines is not true in my opinion. Why would an airline employ a cadet for his cpl, type rating, line training and pay the cadet a salary starting from day 1 in flying school, and once checked out as FO, paid the same salary in the same scale as a DEP. If cost is a factor, why not just employ DEP from TP and start paying only from type rating onwards, ok of cos I am not talking about P2F cadets here

Well, I can only speak from my experience. I flew four-engined TPs for 16 years and my first jet was the DC-10. I found the transition very easy and the DC-10 presented little challenge compared to my last TP (the Short Belfast) which I loved. Due to an outburst of company expansion I found myself in the left seat of the DC-10 in just over a year as an F/O and I never looked back after that.

I spent many years as a TRI/TRE on jet aircraft and trained low-hour cadets, high time TPs, ex-military (including FJs) and Uncle Tom Cobbly and All. All of the pilots from the various categories were usually successful. Those who were not were very few and far between and would probably have been better advised to have taken up a career growing mushrooms rather than approaching a flying machine.

With my hand on my heart, I really could not say that any particular group presented more of a challenge than the other. It is my opinion that it is all down to the talent of the individual.

TP to Jet
 

It seems that Cargolux are happy to look at TP pilots wanting to move onto jets, depends if you are happy to fly freight rather than passengers:

https://www.career.aero/site/en/job/show/id/1012

Flight Experience Option C:

• On a multi-pilot turbo-jet aeroplane certificated to the standards of CS-25 or equivalent airworthiness code or on a multi-pilot turbo-prop aeroplane having a maximum certificated take-off mass of not less than 10 tonnes or a certificated passenger seating configuration of more than 19 passengers, at least 500 hours flight time or 100 route sectors.

They have hired a bunch of Dash 8 pilots during the previous hiring sessions.