Like Taters said, they really are looking to see that you have a good grasp of instrument procedures. I've been browsing a lot of different 121/135 interview gouge and it is a common theme. Can you read a Jepp Enroute chart? Can you identify the key info on the approach plate? Can you fly a hold and approach? Do you come across as a royal A-hole that no Captain is going to want to be paired with on a 4 day trip?
Yup. I believe the new standard is "qualified for restricted ATP". It used to be much lower I believe before the Feds stepped in post Colgan.I did.They then provided training and ATP checkride.
Your on the right track , IFR TERPS knowledge is what seems to be most lacking these days from the "green" new hires , that along with a very lagging ability to revert from full automation to no automation. Sim time is very expensive so it's not really designed for remedial training on basic IFR stuff (have seen several CFI-Is thoroughly lambasted by a sim instructor ) .
Online , the most challenging thing I see new first officers struggling with is flying a visual approach /pattern and the IFR knowledge that can be applied to that . Many try to force automation when is not necessary or even reasonable , and get themselves into a pretty greasy spot without some coaching or even intervention.
To sum it up, things that make it go a lot smoother
1. IFR Knowledge has to be solid
2. Reasonable hand Flying skills without any help (raw data) Flight sim is a great tool
3. have some basic undertanding of high altitude aero dynamics and take off landing performance associated with Jets.
4. Get ready to think FAST ,lots of procedures, flows, checklist will always be occurring in the background while your flying the plane..get used to that idea
Good on you for having the right attitude/direction here
:wink2::wink2:
But how would you compare it to law school and passing the bar? I've always thought that flying is different than many other professions in that it doesn't require too much of an academic background. The skills and knowledge necessary are different than being a scientist, engineer or lawyer. Your education is of a much more practical than theoretical/academic nature.The challenges are:
- Complex systems you've never seen in a GA aircraft that you need to know inside and out....turbines, pressurization, flight management systems, flight manifests, weight-specific performance limitations, etc.
- A machine that cruises 3-4 times faster than the average machine you've been flying at altitudes 4-5 times higher than you're used to flying...meaning much more involved descent planning.
- Flying SIDs and STARs at those speeds and altitudes while trying not to spill anyone's drinks.
- Going into and departing from the biggest, busiest and most complex airports in the world with four ramp control frequencies, four ground control frequencies, three tower frequencies and two or more departure frequencies all dependent on where you're parked and where you're going. Plus the company frequencies for logistics things.
- Adhering to very rigid checklist and crew coordination standards while doing all of the above.
- Understanding and complying with maintenance records, MELs, etc. before each and every flight.
It's pretty overwhelming at the outset. I'm sure it'll seem routine and easy six months from now, but the first month or so you're paddling as fast as you can and still ending up several miles behind the airplane!
But that first year FO paycheck makes it all worthwhile!
I always thought it was strange that walking into a corporate Challenger was a little bit like walking into your living room unlike the airline seating of CRJs.
I always thought it was strange that walking into a corporate Challenger was a little bit like walking into your living room unlike the airline seating of CRJs.
What's the link between a Chalkenger and CRJ??
My regional ground school was the most challenging course of study I've done since law school and the bar review. The difference probably lies in the amount of rote information that needs to be committed to memory while learning complex aircraft systems vs. the assimilation of historically legal concepts along with the analytical skills that need to be developed in a legal education. And law school was three years plus two months of bar review vs. three months of intense regional training.
That said, the view from this office beats any of my previous offices!
So given that we are the same age, it would be a much more unrealistic for me to say I want to give it up and go to law school at this point (or to be a geneticist, engineer, doctor, etc.) than to go the other way as you did.
So, I take it this is a "second career" or "retirement job" for you then? Clearly you're not doing it for the money if you are a lawyer....
I'm curious if that was an issue that came up in the interview. Something like "why would you want to work for us" and "will you still be here after a year of flying reserve out of nowhereville at 4am" if you really don't _need_ the job.
Just asking because I sometimes consider getting a flying job once I have saved enough to no longer "need" to work.
So given that we are the same age, it would be a much more unrealistic for me to say I want to give it up and go to law school at this point (or to be a geneticist, engineer, doctor, etc.) than to go the other way as you did.