Maybe we'll have to make a distinction between the initial learning curve and workload at specific moments.

 

Flying a complex SID can be real challenging on a King Air given the amount of things the pilot must pay attention to at the same time. On the 737 there's the Glass to help you out, but first you need to understand the glass and have it internalized, that's the difficulty of the 737.

 

Initial learning curve of a jet airliner is very steep. The learning curve of a basic turboprop (no glass) is not as steep, but on some occasions the workload may rocket to the sky.

 

Perfectly stated...!!!

Well, you've convinced me Kyle.

 

I've flown gliders and single engine GA aircraft in VFR, but nothing like a King Air in IFR. 

 

I'll probably confirm all you're saying once I train for an IFR and ME rating,

 

If flying a King Air in IFR is difficult, would you agree that flying a steam gauge jet (no glass) like a 737-200 is more difficult? I'd say yes.

 

 

Another thing we should clarify is to what we are referencing the "difficulty" levels we're talking about. Taking for granted a pilot who has a PPL+IFR and C172 experience, is it more difficult for him to jump right into a King Air or to jump into a 737?

 

Or, if the same pilot first learns and flies the King Air for a while, and after that learns and flies a 737, was the transition from King Air to 737 more difficult than the transition from C172 to King Air? 

 

 

If flying a King Air in IFR is difficult, would you agree that flying a steam gauge jet (no glass) like a 737-200 is more difficult? I'd say yes.

 

It would be a lot more comparable, yes (assuming you're not talking about the -200ADV).  I'm guessing engine management tasking is still comparably lower, but it has an autopilot that's pretty rudimentary.

 

 

 

Taking for granted a pilot who has a PPL+IFR and C172 experience, is it more difficult for him to jump right into a King Air or to jump into a 737?

 

For what it's worth, the school I was with put students into the King Airs before moving them into the simulators (737NG).  Part of the reasoning was that the King Air was a good middle ground for performance, but was slightly more complex than where they were headed to make the transition easier.

Any 737 is going to be easier to fly than a twin turboprop. I've always found it ironic that the lowest time pilots have to deal with the hardest flying conditions. Large jets are relatively easy to fly, mainly because of their inertia and stability. I've acted as copilot on simulator experience days where complete novices get to fly a large Boeing sim. Some took to it remarkably quickly and needed almost no help with the controls.

 

The 737 in all its forms has very docile handling and doesn't bite the unwary. Systems are very simple compared to modern aircraft. The NGX is a very complete simulation so people do regard it as complex, but compared to more modern aircraft designs it remains relatively simple. Very easy compared to a DC-9 with its more chaotic layout.

 

All this must be taken with the caveat that I'm talking about flying in good conditions. I'm not trying to say that airline pilots on big jets have it easy all the time.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My personal opinion is, that mainline jets, even older ones (732Adv+) are much easier to learn and fly than corporate and commuter turboprops.

 

To be completely honest, I can find hardly anything that is less complex in flying a corporate or commuter turboprop compared to a jet. Jets have loads more automation, until recently they had better cockpit ergonomics re. instruments, the systems are a bit different but less complex to operate in a modern jet (a la 777, the 737 is a notable exception due to grandfathering design, but still much less manual than a king air or some smaller airline turboprops), they share the same airspace, and they lack the advantage of going over the weather without needing to worry about it, I could go on.

 

That is one of the reasons I always found the American pilot career system suboptimal. Throw in the least experienced guys into most difficult equipment on the line, pay them pennies, have them exhausted... I don't consider that the better avenue, I truly believe the better place for a fresh pilot is a right seat of a mainline jet, a la direct entry schemes in Europe.

That is one of the reasons I always found the American pilot career system suboptimal. Throw in the least experienced guys into most difficult equipment on the line, pay them pennies, have them exhausted... I don't consider that the better avenue, I truly believe the better place for a fresh pilot is a right seat of a mainline jet, a la direct entry schemes in Europe.

I agree. I mentioned the irony of this in my post. However it worked better in the days before pay was cut and pressure on such pilots increased. The junior pilots get a lot more landings with a lot of hand flying and so gain experience rapidly.

 

It's analogous to the way junior doctors start their careers in the UK. Recently qualified doctors do all the hard work, working long hours on hospital wards. It seems the wrong way round. But they gain experience rapidly in a way that more structured training can't provide.

 

The direct entry schemes you talk about in Europe are usually for airlines that only operate jets. They have no smaller aircraft to start on. Airlines that operate commuter aircraft as well as jets start pilots off just like US airlines do.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Throw in the least experienced guys into most difficult equipment on the line, pay them pennies, have them exhausted... I don't consider that the better avenue, I truly believe the better place for a fresh pilot is a right seat of a mainline jet, a la direct entry schemes in Europe.

 

...don't mention the fact that we're racking them up with even more debt before getting there.  Can't even get into an airline without an ATP now.  Not only are we prolonging forcing pilots to remain in CFI roles (or banner towing, or other rather unrelated roles) in completely different aircraft, we're delaying the time they can get paid as a full time pilot to get that experience.  Moreover, we're separating the experienced piots, who could be teaching the lower-time right seaters, from the people who need it most.

 

Oh the things that make me wish I had the guts to walk the half mile down the National Mall to smack each one of them individually...

Yep, the dumbest move the FAA ever made was requiring the ATP for entry into the right seat of an airline...hours do not equate to being qualified for an airline job, training does...if they were worried about the qualifications, they should have mandated more specific training requirements, not an ATP.

 

Competition to be qualified for an airline job will take care of the experience part of it as the pilot finds a way to build his or her time. Thus, in my opinion, training AND experience are critical to being 'qualified' for hire into the right seat.

 

I had a crew in the MD-90 sim one day from China Northern. I only mention the country because they take a zero hour pilot and send him through a school to make him 'an airline pilot'...I suppose there is basically nothing wrong with that but I'm more impressed of someone who has worked as a CFI/CFII to gain experience and hours from that perspective.

 

There are always exceptions however. I know a young Captain flying the MD-90 for EVA out of Twian who was one of the sharpest pilot I ever trained. He was one of those 0 to ATP guys. He was well under 30 and flying left seat already on the MD-90 and in a couple of years he was going to MD-11 school for EVA (They fly the MD-11 freighter).

 

Anyway, back to this China Northern crew. On one of the sim training sessions I briefed this crew that they would be getting an engine fire after lift off...the F/O was making the TO...their procedure (many airlines shut down an engine fire in different ways but I won't go into why here) for an engine fire is to first pull out the engine fire handle (I hope most of you know what that does on a jetliner, they are all the same)...so there they were at 100' AGL with a fire warning on the #2 engine and the flying F/O reaches forward and pulls out the fire handle on #1...immediately realizing his mistake, he pushes it back in and then pulls out #2...(for those who may not know it, you CANNOT UNDO pulling out a fire handle to restore the engine, among other things the generator is disconnected from the accessory drive gear box). So he effectively shut down BOTH engines in a critical phase of flight.

 

The MD-90 slowly sank back down to the runway...on its belly since the gear was on its way up just before I gave them the engine fire.

 

The point of this story is that this F/O's flying experience was all academic...he had no real world flying experience...it was always class rooms, books and simulators. He wasn't really all that sharp.

 

 

Yep, the dumbest move the FAA ever made was requiring the ATP for entry into the right seat of an airline...hours do not equate to being qualified for an airline job, training does...if they were worried about the qualifications, they should have mandated more specific training requirements, not an ATP.

 

Funny thing is, the FAA didn't make it.  Congress subverted the very organization they created to deal with matters of aviation, as they (the previous members who were instrumental in setting up the CAA -> CAA/CAB -> FAA) knew they weren't knowledgeable enough on the matter to handle it on their own.  The new crop, of course, in their infinite wisdom, decided to take matters into their own hands, assuming they knew what was best, and had all the knowledge they needed.

 

That being the case, they decided to require more training, because that's clearly what we needed...despite the ATP-rated captain in the incident that precipitated the action being listed several times in the statement of probable cause by the NTSB.

 

 

 

Sorry, I know I get really fired up about this topic.  Part of it is because it's really screwing myself and a lot of my friends over, and the other part is that I know this is going to cause even more problems for us in the future, unless airlines start paying pilots doctor and lawyer salaries a lot earlier.  Really: anyone with a pulse could look at the investment required to amass 1500 hours and all of those ratings, compare it with the starting (and initial several years of) salary, and see that it's a terrible investment in your future.

so there they were at 100' AGL with a fire warning on the #2 engine and the flying F/O reaches forward and pulls out the fire handle on #1...immediately realizing his mistake, he pushes it back in and then pulls out #2...(for those who may not know it, you CANNOT UNDO pulling out a fire handle to restore the engine, among other things the generator is disconnected from the accessory drive gear box). So he effectively shut down BOTH engines in a critical phase of flight.

 

What I've heard countless times is that the PF must fly the airplane, nothing else. The PNF should notify tower, but he must not shut the engine down on his own without confirmation from the other pilot. Climb to a safe acceleration altitude, level off, retract flaps and accelerate to CMS, engage A/P and THEN assess the emergency. And shutting down an engine requires confirmation from both pilots.

 

Also, an engine on fire is still providing thrust. Shutting it down during the initial climb might not be a good idea.

@Alpha

 

Yes, you are generally correct in those statements. The surprising thing about working as a pilot instructor for different manufacturers and getting to train their customers from all over the world and training many, many of the US airline crews, is that every airline does things differently.

 

When I first started out in this business, I was absolutely amazed that no airlines shut down an engine fire in the exact same way as the factory QRH states. Only about 20% of the customers who bought the plane followed the factory abnormal and emergency procedures. 80% of them did it differently ("their own way").

 

The reason was mainly for commonality of procedures with their other jetliners in their fleet. For example, Delta bought the TriStar when they were already flying the 747 and the DC-10. In fact, Delta was the first airline to fly all three wide bodies at that time. The engine fire procedure was changed on the 1011 to follow the other two wide bodies so they could move pilots between those jets (and they did) and keep the procedures the same.

 

So, if someone says the first memory item on an engine fire procedure is to pull out the fire handle...they could be right...if they say the first thing to do is bring the offending engine throttle back to idle...they could be right...if they say the first memory item is to do nothing below 400' AGL...they could be right. It all depends on the airline.

Kyle

>Sorry, I know I get really fired up about this topic

 

And so you should be. If I were 21 again (and I had 20/20 uncorrected vision in both eyes) I'd feel the same way!!

 

Regarding the low pay: yes, the unions always try to increase it and the companies always fight it. That battle will never end. The issue is supply and demand. A major airline (I recently read some where) has over 10,000 pilot (and flight attendant) applications at any given time. So the companies feel no need to pay high wages to new hire pilots (or flight attendants). Their position is, if you don't like the starting pay, please step aside so I can talk to the person in line behind you.

 

For those of you who are headed to the airlines, when you are hired, you will get a seniority number. That number will control your entire flying career until you retire at age 60 or 65. Pilots are paid according to how heavy their plane is (the gross weight). So at United for example, the pay difference between a 737 Captain and a 747 Captain is quite large because those two planes have the biggest weight differences.

 

But the work load is reversed: The 737 pilot will take off and land maybe 5 to 6 times per day on their 3 day trips. That's very hard work. The 747 pilot leaves Los Angeles for London and makes one leg in 12 hours, then lays over for 24 hours and brings it back home in another 12 hours. Total flying time is roughly 25 hours. Because of the international cap, they can only do this 3 times per month. Maybe 4 depending on the carrier. Thus, they fly a trip and are gone from home 3 days at a time, 3 times per month. They get their full pay and get 3 weeks (21 days) off each month. But they have to fly through time zones and that will absolutely tear up your body.

 

IF you have enough seniority, you may be able to hold a jumbo jet seat and make more money. But at what base? You may have to move. Seattle is a high seniority base. Honolulu is a low seniority base. New Jersey is also a low seniority base. Los Angeles is some where in the middle. So you're on F/O on the 757 in Los Angeles. Your seniority number would allow you to hold an F/O seat on a 777 in Honolulu and make more money but you'd have to move your family to Hawaii where the cost of living is higher. Or, you could hold a low seniority Captain bid on a 737 in New Jersey but the pay wouldn't be that much more and you'd get all the crap trips because you have low Captain seniority (means you'd do a lot of night flying) and the winters are cold and you'd have to move your family, etc.

 

A lot to think about and all controlled by your seniority number.

 

I know pilots who only bid based on the city they want to live in. So, they bid for that base and don't care what plane they fly. It's all about the base.

 

Then there are those who chase the money. They don't care what base they can hold, they will bid any seat (Captain or F/O) on the biggest plane they can hold. They want to most monthly pay.

 

And finally there are those who want to stay on the plane they are currently flying and do not want to go to school. The airlines have an unwritten rule called the up or out policy. When you are hired, you are hired to be a Captain some day. When ever you go to school to learn a new plane, you MUST pass the course. If you're an F/O and upgrading to Captain, you must make it to keep your job.

 

Once you commit to a class, if you can't make it, they don't let you go back to being an F/O. It's called up or out. You either upgrade to the new plane or you're out on the street. I only knew of two pilots in my training career who could not upgrade to Captain and they were cut from the company. It's rare but it happens and as you can imagine, it puts massive pressure on everyone who is in school getting training.

 

Like everything else, I suppose different airlines have different policies on this but the airline I worked for, a very major one, had it.

 

And finally I will say the pay has now reversed for the majors and cargo carriers. "In the old days", most pilots wanted to get hired by a major passenger carrying airline and not a cargo carrier. The pay got cut more and more at the majors and increased more and more at the cargo carriers. Today, the cargo carriers in the US are the highest paid pilots in the world now. Making a lot more than any passenger carrying operator.

 

 

I only mention the country because they take a zero hour pilot and send him through a school to make him 'an airline pilot'...I suppose there is basically nothing wrong with that but I'm more impressed of someone who has worked as a CFI/CFII to gain experience and hours from that perspective.

 

I got so tied up in your first comment and my ensuing rant that I completely missed the rest of your story.  I'm definitely familiar with this concept.  We had a few programs going on at the flight school I worked at, doing exactly this, for exactly that region.

 

To further the earlier point about hours not equating to skill, safety, or knowledge, I dispatched a few PPL students (as in, in PPL training) at 250 hours.  I'm talking full time - you're doing nothing other than flying, sleeping, and eating - training here.  Meanwhile, I took four years (between high school and college) and showed up to my PPL checkride (and passed thereafter) at 40.1.  Hours != skill.

 

 

 

Also, took this on my lunch break to illustrate my earlier point that I'm close enough that it's difficult to not want to walk down the road and make running passes with my backhand, up and down the rows of the halls of this building for that move:

 

I only knew of two pilots in my training career who could not upgrade to Captain and they were cut from the company. It's rare but it happens and as you can imagine, it puts massive pressure on everyone who is in school getting training.

 

How can someone fail an upgrade to Captain? Were those pilots having problems non-work related (family issues etc.)? Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying it's easy, I just think it's a natural transition and anyone who went through flight school and got his ATPL and TR and so on, should be capable of becoming a Captain if he does his homework.

 

Also, took this on my lunch break to illustrate my earlier point that I'm close enough that it's difficult to not want to walk down the road and make running passes with my backhand, up and down the rows of the halls of this building for that move:

 

Kyle, you should go play Fallout 3 and watch The Mall all blown up, that may relieve your stress a bit

 

 

Kyle, you should go play Fallout 3 and watch The Mall all destroyed down, that may relieve your stress a bit

 

haha - yeah.  I have it, but it makes me cringe sometimes.  Farragut West is a Metro station I use a lot for my travels downtown.  In the game, it's located up where the RW Georgetown is (which has no Metro station), so I end up cringing a bit that I'm walking up out of a station that's a mile or so west of where I should be.  Overall, it's pretty neat to have a bunch of local stuff at least referenced (like "Fairfax Ruins" - Fairfax is where I grew up; Andale is actually Annandale, which was just east of where Fairfax should be; and Evergreen Mills is actually a road that I used to go flying down to get to my flight lessons back in high school...my house is right off of the western edge of the map, too).  Cool references, but sometimes I get bogged down with the "so close, but so far" problem.

 

...I would.  I know.  I'm almost sorry.  Almost.  haha.