EdFred
Taxi to Parking
So does flying the same hour 1000 times provide better qualification than teaching the same hour 1000 times?
I don't think either one provides actual qualifications.
So does flying the same hour 1000 times provide better qualification than teaching the same hour 1000 times?
I disagree with that statement.
The skills necessary to land in a 10kt crosswind are the same skills used in a 45kt crosswind. The difference is the capabilities of the airplane you're flying and the necessity to deploy those skills correctly with a much smaller margin for error.
Yet you’re saying that one is vastly inferior to the other, simply based on how you’re allowed to log it.I don't think either one provides actual qualifications.
I never said 1000 in the pattern was better. someone else put those words in my mouthYet you’re saying that one is vastly inferior to the other, simply based on how you’re allowed to log it.
So, again, what point are you trying to make?I never said 1000 in the pattern was better. someone else put those words in my mouth
46kt xwind in a non turbine single vs a 10kt xwind in the same SEL is as much the same as hitting a major league fastball is the same as a beer league slow pitch softball.
So, again, what point are you trying to make?
And I’ll add to the question this time, too…what point are you trying to make that’s relevant to this discussion?
I’ve always thought it had more to do with wing loading and wind exposed surface area compared to what type of power plant and number of engines
Heavy winds would be easier in a loaded lanceair over a light twin otter for example
No problem agreeing with that. You can even go broader and say that for all logged time.Acting PIC time is not automatically better than sole manipulator time like was claimed on page 1.
We do have a 26 year old captain at deltaI already look in the cockpit Before I get on an airliner to make sure one of a few pilots I know behind whom I’ll never fly are in the cockpit. If I see a couple of kids popping zits against the windshield…
Where was that claimed on page 1?Acting PIC time is not automatically better than sole manipulator time like was claimed on page 1.
Where was that claimed on page 1?
That being said. If his/her goal is the airlines, most of them do not want "sole manipulator PIC" listed on their applications. They specifically use the definition of who signed for the aircraft.
That doesn’t say it’s better. It says that’s what most major airlines use as one of the gateways in their hiring process.
Kinda like he period of time when Northwest only hired blue-eyed pilots.
If you’re going to argue about something that doesn’t exist, that would probably be a good idea.Oh so sorry it wasn't stated "better" verbatim. Forgot I had to be super double extra specific around here.
If you’re going to argue about something that doesn’t exist, that would probably be a good idea.
Whichever one results in a more manageable stack of resumes.Which is better for the airlines according to what I quoted? Acting PIC time or flying PIC time?
Exactly. If it's not. Take it up with the person that said it is.
Not sure how many times you're going to quote my post, but I am not claiming one thing is better or worse. I am simply providing a data point that makes a difference should an individual choose to apply for certain major airlines who have it on their applications to not count sole manipulator PIC. You are arguing for the sake of arguing for some reason.Which is better for the airlines according to what I quoted? Acting PIC time or flying PIC time?
Exactly. If it's not. Take it up with the person that said it is.
Scenario:Not sure how many times you're going to quote my post, but I am not claiming one thing is better or worse. I am simply providing a data point that makes a difference should an individual choose to apply for certain major airlines who have it on their applications to not count sole manipulator PIC. You are arguing for the sake of arguing for some reason.
No, that’s not what he, or anyone, is telling you. If this kid’s resume made it to the Chief Pilot’s desk, the Chief Pilot would probably see it for what it was and throw it in the circular file. If this kid actually made it to an interview, he’d get downed pretty quickly.Scenario:
Kid gets his CFI/MEI and wants to build time, puts up flyer at airport, will provide "instruction" for free if he can ride along on any flight no matter what plane or where they are going so he can log PIC time for the airlines. So he does, and never actually provides real instruction, never touches the controls just sits in the right seat like a bump on a log racking up "signed for the airplane" PIC. You're telling me this is who the airlines are looking for vs the people that actually did the flight planning, the actual decision making, the actual flying of the plane. If I'm the guy that was left seating it, according to your statement, I'm a worse candidate and the kid that did nothing is the better candidate because his time is "better."
That's what's ridiculous.
Are those mil-spec physicals, i.e., different from what the FAA requires for class 1 or class 2?It is just like the USAF requiring a Fly Class 1 physical to get accepted. Once you get accepted, you only need a Flying Class 2 to keep flying. The big difference? The Class 2 allows glasses. A large percentage of my UPT class ended up with glasses after the Flying Class 2 physical upon arrival.
We do have a 26 year old captain at delta
No that guy’s a new hire. Still a cool story!This guy? https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/10/07/delta-airlines-pilot-justin-mutawassim/
Kind of a cool story - Rampie to captain in 8 years - But it never would have been possible for most of the history of the industry. Things are crazy right now. There are airlines hiring people without even interviewing them...