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

[wink]

Helo to the show? Child's play. NFO to a major, that takes some explaining. I expect HALs experience was similar to mine. Seemed to me the military aircrew thing got me in the door. At two airlines I interviewed at there was a separate track for mil guys. I went down that. I think the known quantity advantage is not about flight experience of mil guys, but their character, stability, and general fitness for the job. That analysis has essentially been out sourced to the military and they have made a record of it for many years. In my view, at the very least the NFO experience was a tie breaker over a similar civ only guy. I have to feel like the mil guys taking a detour through RJs, whether non current FW or helo dudes, are the complete package. Best of both worlds. Good luck to all. I may be openning up a line on the seniority list for you sooner than expected. You are welcome John?.

 

[zippy]

I mean, surely it has nothing to do with the fact that they’re mostly heavy and jet guys. . . Just like a commodore, this is how I got here, it’s the path everyone should take. . .

Taken from another website where a military helo pilot was lamenting that they’re not considered the same as fixed wing pilots... take it for what it’s worth...

[ “I think the real issue is bias“

Anyone can believe whatever they want. Here’s AA’s story -

Prior RW guys, with “non competitive FW time on their resumes”, were 23% of the guys that had long term training difficulties at AA. They were 3% of the population. The company had no idea until they did the research.

RW guys with “competitive” FW resumes as part of their overall qualifications didn’t show up as an outlier.

Which is why AA made the decision 20 yrs ago that RW time didn’t count towards any of the minimums required.]

Airlines are in the business of making $$$. With plenty of applicants who are qualified and represent a lower financial risk training wise, they’re not going to go after folks who have a higher risk of training failures unless they have to... the regionals have to due to the pilot shortage so they’re going all in on military helicopter pilots. The #s I’m hearing for helo guys doing RTP/MTP is about a 90% success rate after Extra training events. Navy trained folks who had fixed wing turbine time in primary seem to have a smaller # of issues to overcome in training than their army counterparts whose fixed wing time is often limited to the pistons that the GI bill/ airline paid for them to build time on to qualify for R-ATP mins.

 

[wink]

I think that as a minimum that should be some percentage of mil helo time allowed as a nod to the outstanding aeronautical experience that does transfer. A mil helo guy still flies a complex turbine machine. His experience with systems training, abnormal and aircraft emergencies is highly relevant to the airlines. Engine, hydraulics, bleed air, electrical, all very similar. Mil helo Nav experience, probably more complex. Decision making in go no go and abnormal or emergencies virtually identical. Exposure to stress in the aeronautical environment is more frequent and arguably at a higher level as that experienced by a civ RJ guy.

I flew about 2 years in a commuter airline flying three types of turboprops. While my monkey skills improved, I never felt challenged in any other way. That was because of my experience as a tactical jet NFO/MC. I experienced more systems abnormals, and emergencies in my military flying, a tiny fraction of flight time compared to 29 total years airline flying, than I did in those 29 years in the airlines.. Lessons were learned. Helo guys are going to bring even more to the table. They should get some sort of credit for flight time to reflect it.

 

[Gatordev]

Taken from another website where a military helo pilot was lamenting that they’re not considered the same as fixed wing pilots... take it for what it’s worth...

[ “I think the real issue is bias“

Anyone can believe whatever they want. Here’s AA’s story -

Prior RW guys, with “non competitive FW time on their resumes”, were 23% of the guys that had long term training difficulties at AA. They were 3% of the population. The company had no idea until they did the research.

RW guys with “competitive” FW resumes as part of their overall qualifications didn’t show up as an outlier.

Which is why AA made the decision 20 yrs ago that RW time didn’t count towards any of the minimums required.]

Interesting info, and by no means am I arguing with it. Was there any specific definition of "competitve FW" time? Like VT primary vs C-12 time?

I think that as a minimum that should be some percentage of mil helo time allowed as a nod to the outstanding aeronautical experience that does transfer.

I agree, but it's been interesting to watch helo pilots, in all their different flavors, through my career. And a large percentage of that career has been as an IP. When flying with helo pilots in fixed-wing, it seems likes there's been two types. One that has adapted to the environment and learns to keep up in <x> hours. And the other is still flying around with a 90 knot brain. Both can manage, but the prior tends to push themselves to better themselves, the latter might not be aware of their 90 knot brain and pushes themselves into trouble.

I say this as someone who flew fixed-wing before the Navy, then did well in flight school, but then that skill atrophied flying helos during a first tour, so I certainly struggled to get back thinking beyond the next fix. But it always seemed like, again, there were two types, those that learned how to (and/or were able to learn how to) think past the next fix and those that didn't.

As I watch people I know that couldn't even keep both their engines running in flight during a FCF (true story) get an airline job and are now flying people, the hiring process is insane right now. I'm completely okay with a little bias against helo guys, as long as they at least acknowledge the .mil side of things with it, like wink said.

Wow, rambling. Sorry.

 

[Jim123]

@Gatordev and I have done a lot of similar flying tours, including on the instructing side of things. That's a pretty good assessment of how different kinds of people work in the cockpit when they go from one kind of aircraft to another.

 

[phrogdriver]

That just happens to be what Delta decided. They could count it all or only count the night time from aircraft with even BuNo’s if they felt like it. Before that, they were like every other major airline and counted harrier time as single engine land. The only real legal barrier facing powered lift people is getting an ATP. Actual multi engine land is required for that.

It’s absolutely ridiculous to have powered lift as a category in the first place, and especially ridiculous to lump the AV-8B and F-35B into it. Oh, they are capable of taking off and landing differently than most other fixed wing? I guess a piper cub is powered lift on a windy day. I guess seaplanes shouldn’t count as FW. Taildraggers too.

I get that something needs to be done to categorize an osprey because it’s basically a helicopter that can cruise like a turboprop. However lumping jets and tilt rotors into a bastardized category with zero civilian applications is idiotic. AV-8B and F35B should be classified the same way seaplanes and taildraggers still count as fixed wing.

The Osprey is not a helicopter that cruises like a turboprop. It’s a turboprop that can land vertically. That’s how those guys are taught and how the aircraft is employed.

And at normal fields, they should be taking off with STOs and landing with roll-ons if at all practical.

If you don’t want Ospreys to log landings, fine. Whatever. But 95% of the time you’re flying a glass cockpit multi crew twin turboprop.

So, a Harrier is a more direct transfer because it usually lands normally? Okay. Is landing the aircraft a major cause of difficulty in airline training? If it is, fine. Otherwise I’m a bit skeptical of the premise that V-22 guys are somehow reaching, while Harrier guys aren’t.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

The Osprey is not a helicopter that cruises like a turboprop. It’s a turboprop that can land vertically. That’s how those guys are taught and how the aircraft is employed.

And at normal fields, they should be taking off with STOs and landing with roll-ons if at all practical.

If you don’t want Ospreys to log landings, fine. Whatever. But 95% of the time you’re flying a glass cockpit multi crew twin turboprop.

So, a Harrier is a more direct transfer because it usually lands normally? Okay. Is landing the aircraft a major cause of difficulty in airline training? If it is, fine. Otherwise I’m a bit skeptical of the premise that V-22 guys are somehow reaching, while Harrier guys aren’t.

I’m not going to debate the difficulty or transferability of harrier experience compared to osprey experience. I certainly have my anecdotal evidence from seeing both pointy nose and plopter people learn a new aircraft. But like I said before my opinion and your opinion doesn’t matter. The airlines can count and choose how to value any time they want. I’ll let them make the decisions they think will be best for them.

The point of my post was that the powered lift category is idiotic. It shouldn’t be a category at all, and if it has to be a category it should not include the jets.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

@phrogdriver This was shared elsewhere. The head of SWA pilot hiring was asked how they value osprey time.

Hey XXXX,​

Great question and thanks for asking. The FAA has put this in the "Power Lift" category. Some of the time may be used to supplement an ATP - AMEL but if a pilot's only time is Osprey they can only qualify for a ATP Multi-Enging Powerlift. Not suitable for Southwest Airlines.​

​

The bigger question you asked is how do we look at Osprey time? I realize this is a passionate subject for those who've spent an entire career in the Osprey and are seeking to transition to an airline career. We consider it as an additional flying skill but not to replace our airplane fixed wing minimums of 2500 TT or 1500 TT if all that time is turbine. We have a separate category called Helicopter/Powerlift and that time all goes into the same category.​

​

We seek to hire candidates who can complete our demanding eight week course and 25 hours of IOE in the allotted syllabus hours. Make no mistake these are talented aviators and we could train them but not in the syllabus hours we have budgeted for. I recently was at a meeting with some other airline training folks and asked them if they'd ever put an Osprey pilot through. The response was, "once, and we can't afford to do it again." 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.​

​

Regardless of what the FAA calls the time we have the responsibility to hire pilots who are best suited and trained to perform in our environment. Similarry some pilots have several thousands of hours in small piston powered aircraft, they too would not be prepared for the pace of our training program.​

​

Happy to discuss further if you'd like.​

​

Rocky

​

 

[zippy]

There’s that pesky cost thing again...

There’s a purebred plopter guy at AA who got hired on with 1600hrs... think he’s on the 190 currently. Not sure if he’s Rocky’s example but the other plopter dudes I know at AA have a grip of King Air time under their belt also.

Interesting info, and by no means am I arguing with it. Was there any specific definition of "competitve FW" time? Like VT primary vs C-12 time?

Apparently what the head of hiring at AA is telling some of the Golden children RTP folks (the founders of RTAG) is that they’ll be eligible for consideration for mainline hiring after 1000hrs part 121 SIC time.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

By the way, he went on to say that although helo and “power lift” doesn’t count at all towards their minimums, they do count it in some way for those who are otherwise qualified. I think most/all airlines absolutely value military aviators regardless of platform.

 

[phrogdriver]

@phrogdriver This was shared elsewhere. The head of SWA pilot hiring was asked how they value osprey time.

​

​

Hey XXXX,​

​

Great question and thanks for asking. The FAA has put this in the "Power Lift" category. Some of the time may be used to supplement an ATP - AMEL but if a pilot's only time is Osprey they can only qualify for a ATP Multi-Enging Powerlift. Not suitable for Southwest Airlines.​

​

​

​

The bigger question you asked is how do we look at Osprey time? I realize this is a passionate subject for those who've spent an entire career in the Osprey and are seeking to transition to an airline career. We consider it as an additional flying skill but not to replace our airplane fixed wing minimums of 2500 TT or 1500 TT if all that time is turbine. We have a separate category called Helicopter/Powerlift and that time all goes into the same category.​

​

​

​

We seek to hire candidates who can complete our demanding eight week course and 25 hours of IOE in the allotted syllabus hours. Make no mistake these are talented aviators and we could train them but not in the syllabus hours we have budgeted for. I recently was at a meeting with some other airline training folks and asked them if they'd ever put an Osprey pilot through. The response was, "once, and we can't afford to do it again." 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.​

​

​

​

Regardless of what the FAA calls the time we have the responsibility to hire pilots who are best suited and trained to perform in our environment. Similarry some pilots have several thousands of hours in small piston powered aircraft, they too would not be prepared for the pace of our training program.​

​

​

​

Happy to discuss further if you'd like.​

​

​

​

Rocky​

​

​

​

I’ve seen that before. That SWA line is in reference to a particular guy who is known in the community. so it seems a bit tired to bring it out. In that case it was likely personality and not skill based. The V-22 community is a strange blend of transition pilots and purebreeds, so drawing generalized conclusions is retry dangerous. The also smaller and stands out more than others, so single examples can lead to larger conclusions that are unwarranted.

Just look at the aircraft, its missions, and the training pipeline. There’s no way it should be a second class citizen in this relative to anything but the maritime and KC-130 communities.

 

[Deleted member 24525]

I’ve seen that before. That SWA line is in reference to a particular guy who is known in the community. so it seems a bit tired to bring it out. In that case it was likely personality and not skill based. The V-22 community is a strange blend of transition pilots and purebreeds, so drawing generalized conclusions is retry dangerous. The also smaller and stands out more than others, so single examples can lead to larger conclusions that are unwarranted.

Just look at the aircraft, its missions, and the training pipeline. There’s no way it should be a second class citizen in this relative to anything but the maritime and KC-130 communities.

Don’t be so butthurt. It’s not the same as an airplane. And helo guys DO struggle statistically..doesn’t mean we don’t like helo and Osprey guys, just means they need some fixed wing experience.

Guys - it’s just the reality of the business. It is not a very logical progression from an Osprey or a helo to a 737. And the airlines don’t give a rat’s ass how cool your mission is.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Phrogdriver- if the V-22 didn’t have the automatic coupling of both props to the good engine after a failure, I might agree with you. Since they do, in the airline’s point of view it’s not a match.

If anything, it’s more like a single engine airplane. Airlines require a minimum amount of multi. After that, some count single engine and helo (I.e. mine fir one) as part of the total above the minimum requirement.

 

[zippy]

I’ve seen that before. That SWA line is in reference to a particular guy who is known in the community. so it seems a bit tired to bring it out. In that case it was likely personality and not skill based. The V-22 community is a strange blend of transition pilots and purebreeds, so drawing generalized conclusions is retry dangerous. The also smaller and stands out more than others, so single examples can lead to larger conclusions that are unwarranted.

Just look at the aircraft, its missions, and the training pipeline. There’s no way it should be a second class citizen in this relative to anything but the maritime and KC-130 communities.

The view of the head of hiring of a major Airline that V-22s fly differently in critical phases of flight and are therefore treated differently as part of their hiring selection process shouldn’t be insulting, or surprising. The idea that the alleged persons personality was somehow the cause of their extra training events doesn’t hold weight. Personality only takes folks so far in a training environment where costs are scrutinized. My second airline sim partner (former C-130 pilot ) was a good dude... that didn’t stop him from being told the comapny wasn’t going to invest in anymore sim time for him on the sim prior to his type ride because he had difficulty flying the thing during critical phases of flight.

SWA always seems to be more restrictive in its hiring requirements... for a long while they required folks to get their own 737 type rating to reduce the cost of the investment that came out of their own hide to produce a line pilot for the company.

Other Major airlines facing a large retirement wave/ hiring shortages have been quicker to be accepting of things that are different like counting V-22 time to meet minimum requirements, and creating Military transition programs for helo and low hours fixed wing pilots. Due to its relative youth as a company and cost conscious approach to employment hiring (The former head of the people department at SWA she said the lower yearly retirement percentages that the airline faces compared to its peers is by design from the way they hire FWIW), SWA hasn’t been forced to widen its net for qualified applicants who they don’t think will leave much beyond eliminating it’s type rating requirement so far.

 

[phrogdriver]

Don’t be so butthurt. It’s not the same as an airplane. And helo guys DO struggle statistically..doesn’t mean we don’t like helo and Osprey guys, just means they need some fixed wing experience.

Guys - it’s just the reality of the business. It is not a very logical progression from an Osprey or a helo to a 737. And the airlines don’t give a rat’s ass how cool your mission is.

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.