The SHOW: Airlines still a "good gig"??

[Treetop Flyer]

I’m not butthurt. It’s just not a helicopter, so whatever reason it’s not getting the same credit needs to be looked at for other reasons.
I don’t think the main cause for any alleged training issues is short final and below, so let’s not lump it in the helicopter transition bin.

It’s also not an airplane. What’s the typical approach speed?

I think it’s strange that you are taking this approach. Are osprey guys getting hired? From what I hear it’s mostly guys with significant FW time. If hearing it straight from the horse’s mouth doesn’t work, then that’s your answer.

 

[phrogdriver]

It’s also not an airplane. What’s the typical approach speed?

I think it’s strange that you are taking this approach. Are osprey guys getting hired? From what I hear it’s mostly guys with significant FW time. If hearing it straight from the horse’s mouth doesn’t work, then that’s your answer.

170 knots until FAF, then typically convert and fly final at 120.

I don’t really care what happens personally. I’ve never wanted airlines. But, I do have a thing for consistency and logic. If tiltrotor pilots are somehow unadaptable to civil aviation I’d like to know why, because they don’t fly like helicopters.

If there’s science, beyond this one guy at SWA, fine. Tell me what specific phase of flight they had problems with. If it’s juat that they’re perceived as glorified helo drivers, then that indeed is complete BS, and the individuals, as well as the airlines, are worse off for it.

 

[sevenhelmet]

170 knots until FAF, then typically convert and fly final at 120.

I don’t really care what happens personally. I’ve never wanted airlines. But, I do have a thing for consistency and logic. If tiltrotor pilots are somehow unadaptable to civil aviation I’d like to know why, because they don’t fly like helicopters.

If there’s science, beyond this one guy at SWA, fine. Tell me what specific phase of flight they had problems with. If it’s juat that they’re perceived as glorified helo drivers, then that indeed is complete BS, and the individuals, as well as the airlines, are worse off for it.

I believe that "one guy at SWA" answered this already, based on his company's experience training at least one tiltrotor pilot. He seems to be stressing that they need folks who they know can complete their training program in the time and money allotted for new hires, and their experience is a tiltrotor pilot may not be able to do that. Assuming there are plenty of fixed-wing applicants to choose from, why would they take a chance?

It's not a ding on tiltrotor guys, it's a simple economic decision by the airline. At least, that's how it appears, based on the letter posted. Not sure what else you're looking for.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

170 knots until FAF, then typically convert and fly final at 120.

I don’t really care what happens personally. I’ve never wanted airlines. But, I do have a thing for consistency and logic. If tiltrotor pilots are somehow unadaptable to civil aviation I’d like to know why, because they don’t fly like helicopters.

If there’s science, beyond this one guy at SWA, fine. Tell me what specific phase of flight they had problems with. If it’s juat that they’re perceived as glorified helo drivers, then that indeed is complete BS, and the individuals, as well as the airlines, are worse off for it.

Weird, every time I’ve been stuck behind an osprey on approach it was going a hell of a lot slower than 120.

Yes I know you don’t care. You’re making that clear. Us lowly “meat servos” can worry about it. If you prefer consistency and logic, what makes more sense:

The people running airline hiring departments monitor their applicants and results closely and make hiring decisions driven by cost and risk.

Or:

That one guy is full of shit. Actually osprey pilots are the second most qualified group to choose from. They just have no clue that the osprey is just like a plane but better.

 

[phrogdriver]

I believe that "one guy at SWA" answered this already, based on his company's experience training at least one tiltrotor pilot. He seems to be stressing that they need folks who they know can complete their training program in the time and money allotted for new hires, and their experience is a tiltrotor pilot may not be able to do that. Assuming there are plenty of fixed-wing applicants to choose from, why would they take a chance?

It's not a ding on tiltrotor guys, it's a simple economic decision by the airline. At least, that's how it appears, based on the letter posted. Not sure what else you're looking for.

Okay. So no one knows the actual deficiency.

There once was a guy who sucked and so they are making decisions for dozens of applicants based on that.

They’re private companies. They can do what they like. I would tend to want both FAA regs and industry practice be evidence-based, but hey, no skin off my back.

I’ll stop asking. Sorry to interrupt your Black Panther Party.

 

[FrankTheTank]

I’m not butthurt. It’s just not a helicopter, so whatever reason it’s not getting the same credit needs to be looked at for other reasons.
I don’t think the main cause for any alleged training issues is short final and below, so let’s not lump it in the helicopter transition bin.

Sure sounds butthurt... How much time do you have flying transport category aircraft? I have no idea how to fly a Helo, Osprey or Space Shuttle for that matter so I can’t make a judgement about such. I suspect you shouldn’t make a judgement about a major and how they want to interpret V-22 time.

 

[Deleted member 24525]

Southwest used to require a type rating because it was cheaper for them to train...PIC time was an insurance issue (per Rocky). They realized they couldn’t compete with the hiring of AA, DAL, and UA if they required all that...AND Swa training was based on the foundation that you already had a type rating. They’re already having to adjust their training to compensate for guys not having a type rating-they’re not also going to throw in being a helemflopter transition course.
Translation: they don’t want to waste the money on the extra rides that are statistically needed.
An Osprey is not the same, Sorry-they decide that it isn’t enough. Go get fixed wing time. Everyone knows the game, and the “game” is based on stats...not feelings

 

[sevenhelmet]

Okay. So no one knows the actual deficiency.

There once was a guy who sucked and so they are making decisions for dozens of applicants based on that.

They’re private companies. They can do what they like. I would tend to want both FAA regs and industry practice be evidence-based, but hey, no skin off my back.

I’ll stop asking. Sorry to interrupt your Black Panther Party.

Just because I don't know, doesn't mean nobody knows. That letter from SWA makes it sound anecdotal, but that doesn't mean they don't have a whole slew of evidence to show that tiltrotor pilots have trouble in the new hire syllabus. I personally wouldn't jump to conclusions based on one letter from one airline's hiring manager.

 

[Deleted member 24525]

Okay. So no one knows the actual deficiency.

.

From what I have observed, and have been told by instructors -it is usually the en route and in close descent planning...this results in you being high and fast, missing hard altitude stepdowns, and being high and fast lining up causing an unstable approach.
for the unwashed...stable approach criteria is everything.

 

[Gatordev]

From what I have observed, and have been told by instructors -it is usually the en route and in close descent planning...this results in you being high and fast, missing hard altitude stepdowns, and being high and fast lining up causing an unstable approach.
for the unwashed...stable approach criteria is everything.

I'm not sure why this is such a sticking point here. Various companies/industries know what they want, based off of historical, empirical data. Even in the helo world, not all time is the same. Just because you may meet industry set standards doesn't mean you'll be hired if you go up against someone with the same "kind of time" but in a different flavor (see: helo SPIFR and Actual time).

But I'm neither a Plopter pilot nor airline candidate, so...meh.

 

[Fallonflyr]

Anyone who can wing thru a military flight school could learn to program a airliner VNAV. Hilarity insues when the new hire O-6(ret) has to turn everything off and hand fly a visual. I do have to say that I find the learning curves to be high after a four day of turning all the shit off and flying the jet.

 

[zippy]

Okay. So no one knows the actual deficiency.

They can do what they like. I would tend to want both FAA regs and industry practice be evidence-based, but hey, no skin off my back.

Rocky who is the head of SWA hiring identified the area of concern they’ve got with Powered lift pilots...

“The fact of the matter is they do have a unique skill but it's not directly transferable to what we do. They will argue that 90% of the time they fly like a conventional airplane. That's true but that's not the critical part. The take off and landings are drastically different; speed is only a part of it.“

Training departments and HR track all sorts of stuff, and the poor performance of one specific person or group of people can slam the door shut on those following suit. I saw an airline change hiring requirements mid year due to a “spike” in the training pipeline failure rate... which increased to 4% of all the pilots they hired in the previous 12 months. As a result of training difficulties of 6ish people with a particular background, zero people with that background have been hired since then.

So what if someone takes an extra sim or two to get upto speed? In this example, Two extra training events per person represents an additional person that could have trained successfully... spread that amount over a larger group of people and the additional costs become unpalatable for the folks who hold the purse strings...

 

[phrogdriver]

From what I have observed, and have been told by instructors -it is usually the en route and in close descent planning...this results in you being high and fast, missing hard altitude stepdowns, and being high and fast lining up causing an unstable approach.
for the unwashed...stable approach criteria is everything.

Thank you. That’s the type of thing I wanted to drill down on.

I was an FRS IP for 5 years and a MAG Stan pilot for 2 more. Not that our goal was to prep for airlines, but if our people are rough compared to others in certain regimes, it is interesting.

I’ve found purebred V-22 guys to be way better IFR pilots than most transitions.

The V-22’s inherent flexibility can allow one to get away with a lot more, which may lead to having a more difficult transition. Being able to adjust speed and approach angle dramatically isn’t available in other aircraft, for example.

 

[wlawr005]

From what I have observed, and have been told by instructors -it is usually the en route and in close descent planning...this results in you being high and fast, missing hard altitude stepdowns, and being high and fast lining up causing an unstable approach.
for the unwashed...stable approach criteria is everything.

Shit, might as well count me out too. I've got all sorts of VSI to play with since I'm by myself. Paying customers in the back might not like my immediate nose stuff and 5000fpm descent though...better start working on that.

Personally, I wouldn't say I'm great at any of those things either. Seriously, 99% of my instrument flying is either at the boat or at home field flying the same two approaches over and over. Very rarely am I at an unfamiliar airfield trying to read an approach plate or trying to figure out holding.

I'd feel pretty intimidated if I had to get in a sim and actually fly a moderately complicated approach in an manner that paying customers would appreciate

 

[sevenhelmet]

Shit, might as well count me out too. I've got all sorts of VSI to play with since I'm by myself. Paying customers in the back might not like my immediate nose stuff and 5000fpm descent though...better start working on that.

Personally, I wouldn't say I'm great at any of those things either. Seriously, 99% of my instrument flying is either at the boat or at home field flying the same two approaches over and over. Very rarely am I at an unfamiliar airfield trying to read an approach plate or trying to figure out holding.

I'd feel pretty intimidated if I had to get in a sim and actually fly a moderately complicated approach in an manner that paying customers would appreciate

I had the same thought, particularly re-learning the holding entry "gouge" for the ATP written. Going to do my ATP practical seemed intimidating, but what I learned is most GPS/FMS systems will fly (or at least display) the holding entry for you, and the display view makes the entry really obvious. Flying "smooth", I just liken to leading a division around, and the control characteristics of most large airplanes lend themselves easily to being flown smoothly (most of the time). Then again, if they put me in an airplane with nothing an "old school" HSI, or worse, dual OBS, I might be F'd. Looks like I'm not ready to select DC-3s just yet. Tailwheel rating in the works.

The unfamiliar field piece is legit- which is why I try and take jets on the road whenever I can. That said, most of us can follow vectors pretty well and look at an approach plate prior to descent and be all right. Also, a lot of military pilots fly at familiar fields/ships >90% of the time, so I think the playing field is fairly level (probable advantage: big wing guys.)