I did a couple of thousand hours flying the J31 TP before moving onto the B757 in 1994 .. to me it was very useful experience and formed part of a recognised career progression, then.

I think it is a great loss to the industry that this stepping stone seems to be lost, as it all comes under the heading of airborne experience .. which cannot be taught in the classroom. Flying TP's sometimes places different demands on the pilot, but any differences are easily overcome in a mature training environment .. and a good TP Captain/FO would make a good Jet Captain/FO in the fullness of time.

Having worked for many companies over the last 32 years, it is the variety of experience that makes up a balanced airline. No one background should be exclusive, and no other ignored ... Ex Military, cadet and TP all have their place, as they all bring something different to the table .. and that diverse background of experience should be treated as an asset. Having flown with all of the above extensively I would have no preference for any group ... more their professional attitude and relaxed demeanour individually.

If I were to start again, my Military experience would be less in demand as would my TP time .. I would also need much deeper pockets. From the smallest to largest aircraft, I have enjoyed and respected the bonding system, never having paid for a type rating ... this sadly does not seem part of the general model anymore, and I think that a shame. I know I have been lucky with timings and opportunities ...

In precis, there are good and bad from all backgrounds .. it is the variety that is needed ..

Iron Duke,

Best post I have read on pprune, ever!

Iron Duke

With that post, you are no longer the Duke, you are the King :p

Spot on Iron Duke.

Just to clarify
 

Easy do not have a 'cadet' scheme, they can call it what they want but having candidates pay 100k out of their own parents pockets and mortgaging the house does not make one a 'cadet', also they receive no pay during integrated training.

BA have a cadet scheme, and Lufthansa etc
The other difference is the highly competitive nature of those schemes generally mean the final candidates are the most capable, while easy or ryan's candidates are generally the ones with the deepest pockets.

And while Easy apparently seem troubled at the transition training of these 'difficult' ex TP guys the training departments of BA, Monarch, Jet2, FlyDubai, Emirates and Qatar are currently hiring ex Flybe Dash guys at a rate of 20 a month by current reports.

Just because a Trainer tells you something, does not make it true ;)

[QUOTE]And while Easy apparently seem troubled at the transition training of these 'difficult' ex TP guys the training departments of BA, Monarch, Jet2, FlyDubai, Emirates and Qatar are currently hiring ex Flybe Dash guys at a rate of 20 a month by current reports.

Just because a Trainer tells you something, does not make it true /QUOTE]

Absolutely!

Certain people seems brainwashed by the Orange mist! JS is probably trying to butt wash his way into a certain third party training organisation.

There will always be certain hires that are more of a training challenge.

Bar 2 British companies on that list (and not suggesting BA unless you live in south east) the sad thing is if they go to the other companies Flybe will probably be the best time of their professional lives in retrospect when they're old and grey and realising chasing dreams only bought a bit more money but no extra smiles.

Cliff Secord, you`re absolutely right!

Like I said before, it`s the misconception that pilots feel they need to fly something heavier in order to "progress" their career. I`ve fallen into the trap myself in the past and continue to warn new guys of the pros/cons, (especially when they`re looking further afield such as ME or Asia). To be perfectly honest, I think moving from a regional operator such as Flybe or Aer Lingus Regional (Stobart) to an LCC can actually be a backstep in their career, never mind an LCC further afield.

I`ve seen many ex regional guys returning after only a short time within the LCC`s and I know many others want to come back but can`t get back into the regional industry (TP).

Seriously?

Interested to know also if orange have a seniority order for command? IE if higher hours DEP join and meet the achieve company min requirement, does it come down to seniority number?

Having moved from a UK TP job to LCC I would make the following observations:

Pros:
I now have more money, more days off, more variety of work, more challenging/stimulating/interesting route network, improved job security, better prospects, better staff travel, better company systems, better flexible benefits, a great share scheme.

Cons:
Earlier starts/later finishes.

No regrets here nor amongst any colleagues who have made a similar move.

With regards to the pros and cons of regional TP compared to LCC`s it does depend a lot on the operator, base & type. (Of course we are talking about the comparison of heavy glass cockpit TP operators).

Some of the issues with LCC`s:

It`s necessary to look at the rate of pay which can be about the same or even less than regional or long haul pay, you just have to work harder to earn that higher pay check.

The days can be extremely long resulting in the need for slightly more days off however you`ve still spent more hours at work. After a week of earlies, you really do need 3-4 days off to recover.

The issue of job security can be argued. LCC`s tend to have a huge fleet of either Boeing or Airbus aircraft. The issue is when the LCC suffers from an external shock (recession, fuel price,volcanic ash, accident etc) resulting in large cutbacks or even terminate completely. This obviously results in huge numbers of pilots fighting for a job on the same type. There`s a higher chance of getting a job if the type is in demand AND there are more "operators per type". Regional operators tend to operate smaller fleets however there are considerably more operators per type, especially for something like the ATR which is high in demand. Regional operators also tend to have more stability than other sectors throughout the ups and downs of economic fluctuations.

Benefits such as staff travel, pension etc depends heavily on the operator, e.g some regional operators have much better staff travel agreements e.g Aer Lingus Regional. Again, it really does depend which operators one compares.

There are many variables and everybody has a preference however it`s just something to think about.

Well, being "stuck" on a Dash 8 / ATR72 flying for a large operator from your home town is much different than flying a "light" TP in likes of Metroliner, Saab 340, Do-328, L410, etc. in a small company.

It's much more difficult to progress from a sub 20-ton non-EFIS TP to jet, especially to a normal airline (not charter airline with 2-3 aircraft), which offers stability. Especially if you want don't want to go to the right seat again for couple of years. Just look at the requirements of various jet companies in Europe and rethink...

I have been a Captain at the same company as JS for the last 8 years. I used to be relaxed about whether the individual came from the cadets or was an experience TP operator. However over the last few years I have noticed a distinct change in the quality of Cadet.

Once again you can not and I am not tarring all with the same brush. The reality on the front line is there are quite few F/O who are operating because of the size of there wallet not there ability to operate the Airbus. Many of them would not be up to the challenge of a Dash 8 on a dark stormy evening. Having flown many types for different Airlines no one will convince me that a modern day jet is more difficult to fly than a TP.

I can't agree with what you have said - I believe almost universally you will find that at an hourly rate of actually being in work ie. duty hours, LCCs pay more.

With regard to surviving economic shocks - just look around at which companies are expanding, which are contracting and which have disappeared over the last 20 years. The only way to survive economic shocks is to be cash rich and adaptive to market forces. Regional operators tend to be geographically constrained in the reach of their networks which severely limits their ability to redeploy assets into higher yielding markets.

I totally agree. An Airbus A320 is much easier to operate than a Dash 8, and I have many hours on both.

If I owned a jet airline, I would only recruit turboprop pilots, because they have experience of flying in all the weather below FL250, and of flying simpler aircraft with less automatics, so their basic flying skills have to be of a high standard. This is cruicial when it all goes wrong in a big jet - you need experience of that more basic flying and first principles.

Students find the ATR type rating to be much more difficult as it is more complicated than other medium sized turbofan aircraft for example. Despite avionics / automation is pretty much the same, turbofan pilots who are looking to progress on to heavy glass cockpit turboprop aircraft can find it a struggle. Hence why turbofan pilots can also be perceived as a training risk so it works both ways really.

With regards to the rate of pay I agree if you include the likes of the US then the regional pay is very poor in comparison. However Europe and other parts of the world the story can be quite different. I know from my own personal experience that my rate was a lot more than that of the typical LCC`s, it just depends on which airlines we`re comparing. I agree that an airline stands a fighting chance to survive any minor economic shocks if it is cash rich although any major shocks will certainly see major cutbacks with a lot of assets to redeploy. There is a very high dependence on seasonal demand with leisure routes being severely affected. Anyway, starting to diverge from topic here.

funny things...flown jet and T/P trying to be back in T/P and absolutely no chance...

Why would be a TP more difficult than a Jet? I've done some old fashion TP aircraft simulator and there was nothing difficult about it concerning the procedures, just the handflying was more sensetive to inputs. But then again it was sim so I don't know about the real in-flight handling. But it looks quite like any Boeing or Airbus cockpit of today with all required automated and fligth guidance systems.

It's all question of training and getting used to it, it's normal for pilots that fly a jet like an Airbus for thousands of hours and will give it a try again on a TP will struggle in the beginning. I never met any person who would love to go back from jet to TP... only vice versa. So if the TP is that great to fly for, why does it's pilots always look for a jet opportunity?


There is no such thing the one is easier then the other. I guess it's an way of expression by frustrated TP pilots towards jet pilots who realise that they made the biggest mistake ever of taking a job on TP with the goal to advance in their carreer onto jet...
Times changed, but it's not only now, I remember even like 10 years ago a lot of people who flew TP struggled a lot to get a job on a jet or even never got it till today...


It's funny to see that ATR for example are copying the airbus cockpit layout with their ATR72-600! Don't forget also that TP's are flying at lower approach speeds and so you have more time to anticipate, prepare and correct while in a jet everyhting goes fast!

I went from a chieftan to a jet and got signed off on line training in the min 20 sectors. Sometimes it's the company calls and procedures that take a little more time. Speed of a jet, well it's basic maths to plan time against speed and altitude. But even now I fly with those who rely on vnav tod or just descend at a higher rate to always be below the optimum. I just think some people are lazy and that is where a cadet is strong. They are financed to the hilt and can't afford to f up.

I partly agree with you.

I regularly see old guys in the left seat with thousands of hours jet time who seem to have zero clue about energy management and descend planning, but at the same time the reason why they never learn is because they got/get rusty because of the fear culture in some airlines regarding the stable approach criteria. Descend planning at FL390 is the same as descend planning at 6000' with 20 track miles to run, and yet I see more and more guys pulling the speed brake to get an extra 1500-2000' below profile in order 'to be on the safe side.' :ugh:

This is complete nonsense, as IMHO being "low and slow" is just as bad as being "hot and high." Both cases show a huge lack of situational awareness and not having a rough idea about aircraft performance.

The new 'magenta line' and VNAV generation is in this circumstance just as lousy as the old 'magenta line' VNAV generation.

The only way to learn descent planning is to have lot's of experience, doing multiple sectors per day, having a willingness to learn, but also having a capable person in the LHS who really knows his/her aircraft and knows how far to let somebody screw it up in order for it to have a learning effect.

During my multiple sector low cost days, I can say that I learned the most from the Belgian colleagues! These people really knew their aircraft and I hold their airmanship and common sense in very very high regard! :ok:

Well I see your points, but if these methods are available, why not using them? Personally I don't find anyhting lazy about it. Beside even calculating it by yourself doesn't require any complexe math formulars... Unless your in the French aviation of course which are known for their particular method of calculating things in a more complex way than their anglo-saxon neighboors!


It's not the fault of the cadets, but of training department. The cadets just execute what they have been taught. They copy from all what the professional experienced pilots do which they fly with ,so this nonsenses should stop.


At least Easy is creating place for cadets... If not where should they go then? Oh I guess they should leave the places available for the people who have chosen first a different carreer path in aviation like instructing or TP? Well times changed.

Well, it could save your @ss one day if you need to get down in a hurry (fire), and besides that, the VNAV deviation is only 'valid' if you stay on the FMS centerline.

It's during radar vectors is where you see most people screw up their descent planning, because suddenly they have to use their brain and guesstimate the amount of track miles and number in sequence, how much you need for configuring at that particular LW, and also factor in tail/headwinds on final.

p.s. my experience is that most Brits were much much more of the 'just-do-as-your-told-and-follow-the-magenta-VNAV-line' persuasion, than for example the Spanish, Germans, French, Belgians or Dutch. Dumbing down aviation seems to be the name of the game these days. :=

The biggest nervous flyer was some hot shot Aussie who at 10nm and 3000' HAT would start with "I think ya need the gear mayte." My funniest experience was with an ex-Big Airlines captain who, from FL390 on, started pulling the speed brake each time VNAV (or whatever it was called on the iBus) was showing ±200' high. (we kept on getting intermediate level offs because of traffic just below us) He was a super nice guy but just for fun I started counting the number of times he pulled the speed brake during the entire descent, but I think I lost count somewhere after 20. ;) The concept of being able to 'dive off the altitude' by simply selecting a slightly higher speed, or the fact that we might even get a few more track miles when being radar vectored by approach, seemed to be completely foreign to him. :)

ATR is Airbus, hence why there is a much closer commonality with avionics/FMS etc, especially the 600 series. Despite they are both "jets / turbines", it`s the engine management of heavy turboprops which creates the largest learning curve, the propeller creates a much longer list of potential problems, just take one look at the engine section of the QRH for an ATR compared to say a 737. Engine flameout scenarios can be complicated, handling & procedures during EFATO is a very different story to an Airbus or 737. Icing procedures can also be very complicated on the ATR.

Basic hand flying and normal procedures are pretty much the same, not too much difference in approach speeds actually. However on the other side of the coin, energy management during descent on the medium/large sized turbofans is a little more difficult to get used to initially.

They`re just slightly different machines, like Geotracker said, it`s just a case of getting used to it. Some pilots just adapt more easily than others. As we have seen, it`s not so much the difficulty but the perceived training risk from recruiters which often restricts movement between these two categories of aircraft. However, I`m sure more opportunities for turbofan pilots to progress their career on to similar sized turboprops will appear in the near future.

Oh, I absolutely agree. It's the same feeling when you buy a new car, or driving you own car after having been on holidays and having driven a rental car for a few weeks. Also agree with the N-1 scenario, TP's are trickier and a lot less forgiving than jets.

Well... Below FL100 speeds are pretty much the same with jets&heavy TP's. We actually often fly past jets with TP at around 10mile final during parallel approaches. Yes, they may come past again in around 4miles (especially heavies) but come on, you think that extra 15-20seconds before touchdown shared in those four miles is critically more demanding or gives you sense that you need some overnatural anticipation skills?! :)

From what I know is that pilots where always moaning when they had to make an approach as number two behind a TP aircraft, because of the TP that really is going slow on the approach while the jet guys have to reduce to minimum speed and even will catch up the TP's. Yeah maybe you have the same speeds depending traffic flow until an IAF or something but once configuring it all changes.

Well, that's the kind of comment I like to read!! :D
It must be right if you say it!

Sounds like rubbish to me. You can hold a much higher speed down final in a turbo prop than a jet because you can slow down very quickly.
many of the 73 pilots I fly with would much rather be back on their old TP but don't like the idea of the pay cut. I'd be back in a flash if the money was the same.
I have seen quite a few (10-15) pilots unable to transition from TP to 737 but have no experience with people trying to go the other way.
Following the VNAV blindly is pretty dangerous, running a three times profile to cross check the VNAV is essential if you want to remain safe for more than a few years.

sabenaboy:

It was my pleasure to teach and examine a lot of Belgian pilots. They came from every background from cadets to ex-F16 pilots to old hairy's from previously failed Belgian airlines.

Most of the cadets had been through the SABENA Academy at Scottsdale AZ and they had all been well trained. In the beginning, one or two of them pointed out to me that they were eventually destined for SABENA main line, but such is the arrogance of youth (which I have been guilty of in the past).

I do not think that I ever had a problem with a Scottsdale student, so, whatever they did out there was pretty successful.

The big thing about Belgian pilots versus British pilots was that the Belgian pilots would almost devour a new manual whereas the lazy Brits would pick up just about the minimum information needed and then use the manual as a door-stop.

Most of my Belgians are now floating around the world in large aeroplanes.

Just for a bit of humour (and I am quite happy that the two pilots involved won't mind because they ended up as best friends).

One of them was ex-F-16
One of them was 1200 hours twin piston.

F-16 wants to touch everything.

1200 hours twin piston is not at all sure what he should touch.

After 30 minutes, I froze the simulator and told the twin piston pilot that if he saw the F-16 pilot's hand move across the centre of the overhead panel then he had my permission to break his arm!

Same impression here, utter cr...p. A KingAir can hold 250 KIAS to 5-6 nm and land at Vref. Try that in a 737 or 320. The guy is probably a spotter or a SLF. Or a FSX skipper...

Haha this became now a pro-belgian thread! Are You kidding me?! Well the good ones where from thd Sabena period which was reputated to be one of the best worldwide regarding training. Times have changed now and believe me there are a lot of horrible Belgians too out there. Every country, airline and ect... has it's good and less better pilots. The training of today given in belgian schools is rather poor in comparison with French, British and German schools. I've spoken to many Belgium FTO trained people and it was a joke! It seems they are also outstanding in beeing very arrogant, they think they are the top of the cream...


Well Belgian airlines are famous for their raw-data ''drop the pants'' checks and handflying. But it's very rare you see some Belgian plane making a smooth touchdown and why? Because they are that programmed of beeing afraid and getting sacked when they will float just a little bit even if the runway is like 4000 meters. Some are very rough with the controls as well and horrible farmer accents on the freq.


Then you have that famous method of departing without FD's manually on a SID with the hand on the throttle until they reach like FL300 or something, which is even illegal to do in RVSM airspace. But they consider that really rich to their training while there is nothing special about following a straight magenta line and keeping the same pitch.


I'm not British but I think this nonsenses should stop, You have good and bad everywhere.

Well that's for what is concerning a king air, it's small and can produce a lot of drag. But is it the same with a Fokker or ATR??? I'don't think so!


Believe what you want from me, just go ahead with ur stereotype nonsense

"but is it the same with a fokker or ATR?"

Yes it is. All turboprops can use those props as dirty great airbrakes. Seems you missed that part of a pilots education.

Talking of speed, ever got stuck behind an Easyjet on a fuel saving 250kt descent? Used to drive me crackers going into my old home base. Or is this the standard Airbus method or just to give the cadets more time to think? :E

Yip. Did they not program the prop disc effect into your Microsoft game? We often kept the Tower happy by offering " 240 to 5 miles" . From there you can make the stable approach criteria.


That would be nothing. I see you're confusing people who actually fly by writing nonsense on the Tech forum about 737 Auto pilots as well. Uncool.

No sorry I don't play microsoft simulator it's too difficult for me and I'm a troll you see? The answer that I gave on the tech forum is of course not correct because you know it only all better I guess.

Flyerguy, you`re correct with regards to the wake vortex categories. Although the ATR 42 is light in the UK but Medium elsewhere (ICAO).

The term heavy in this context (career paths) is just to differentiate light turboprops (King Air + Jetstreams) with the heavy glass cockpit passenger service TP`s (Dash 8 Q400 + ATR 72-600), i.e greater than 20 tonnes. Funny enough some pilots can get caught out flying a heavy ATR 72-500/600 (6 bladed props) which can be difficult to slow down if not anticipated correctly leading to unstable approach and go-around. Introduce even heavier TP's such as the ATR 92 (if it eventually gets the go ahead from Airbus), increased blades, swept wings, winglets etc. These nextgen TP's will actually be closer to a geared turbofan.The point I`m making here is that the gap between the nextgen TP's and turbofans is actually reducing now that TP's are really back in business.

Tell a jet pilot to do my job of manually flying an NDB approach into a short runway with minimal weather, and 30+ knots of very gusty crosswind and most of them will probably fail miserably until they've tried a bunch of times.


Tell me to do a jet pilots job of programming the FMS and autoflight systems in all the right sequences and procedures to do a nice CATIII or RNP approach, and I will fail miserably until I've tried a bunch of times.


People who claim one thing is harder than the other have a need to feel superior I guess. It's just different challenges, and until someone gets a shot you will not find out whether they are up to it or not.


As a TP driver I also feel there should be a bit more value attached to our experience, but then again, who am I to say that I will be so much more proficient than that cadet fresh out of training? I hope I will be with a couple of thousand of sectors of manual flying in all weather situations under my belt, but maybe I'd have a hard time adjusting to the different challenges on a jet.