Actually yes, it IS difficult unless you've practiced it. And most of us who practiced it had an instructor who recovered the plane when we fucked it up. And every pilot fucked this up in training.
Only in training? I'd say about 1 in 20 landings is still a fuckup compared to what we aim for... Once you get a few thousand hours experience, you'll probably still fuck up 1 in 50... True, the degree of fuckup is greatly reduced - but professional pilots with thousands of hours still bounce 737's etc.
I agree 100% here. It's just sad that you can't moderate comments above 5 for others to realise how many people actually agree here. I think you'd find it'd be in the thousands....
It makes the comment section - which is a large part of the slashdot experience - seem like something tacked onto the end of a news article where people post one line responses.
By the way, if anyone hasn't gone and looked at the comments section on an article, go look now and then tell me I'm wrong.
Oh god. I really thought "It couldn't be that bad" - and then looked at the page linked above.
WHAT. THE. FUCK.
I've been around here a long time, and this has got to be one of the most braindead ideas I have ever seen on this site. You may as well convert slashdot to run on phpBB instead. At least then its still about the community and not the (limited) articles...
The current government and it's immediate predecessor (of the same party) has done a brilliant job. Compare to the rest of the world. The wanna-be's keep making statements contrary to the facts, but Rupert Murdoch and Gina Rinehart want a change, and with control of most of the media consistently push outright lies. Their media has, for example, reported the current Prime Minister would be dumped by their party EVERY WEEK for the past 130 weeks. Ain't happened yet - it is a bare-faced attempt at destabilisation. Australia's Liberal (i.e conservative) Party - the finest politicians money can buy.
This. So many times this.
The crux of it is multiple fold: 1) Rupert Murdoch owns the biggest cable network in Australia (Foxtel). The current governments NBN plan will give up to 100Mbit (maybe even 1GBit) to just about every home in a town above 1000 homes - Australia wide. As the US has seen with streaming services, in this environment, cable tv would be obliterated. Its just a sad fact that the same guy owns most of the media - therefore he uses his influence to protect his media assets.
2) Gina gets a load of immigrant workers. The current government is looking to restrict imported workers to a lower amount that is currently happening. This means that Gina will have to pay fair wages to more of her staff. This is of course being protested by her interests in any way possible.
3) Tony Abbott is great at grinding axes, but very poor (being kind) at content. He has spearheaded the biggest sledging campaign in Australian political history. This is the guy that outright lies (which the media doesn't expose - see point #1) to the public to destabilise the current government as much as possible.
4) Tony Abbott (with the media in tow) has made a massive issue about asylum seekers arriving in Australia via boats. Forget that fact that he calls them illegal immigrants (which they aren't) and that they are the source of Australias problems (which they aren't) and he promises that he will stop the boats (which he can't) to increase our nations security. His plans have been scoffed at by the brass in the navy as unworkable - but these details get overlooked by the media (see point #1).
In a nutshell, its a sad day for me to call myself an Australian - and its a sad day for politics in Australia that people sink so low as to put themselves before their country - but that is exactly what is happening at this point in time.
There is no real reason why Google can't do all of these things. Their core market is information. Gathering information. Processing information. Sorting and utilising information.
Once you're good at this, it isn't hard to expand into various uses for that information.
It's part performance and part philosophical. Given that wikipedia is a strongly philosophical enterprise, this seems reasonable.
Well, the performance difference didn't seem to be huge - in fact, some stats were slower.... I don't buy for a second that it was for performance reasons.
In a nutshell, they are working on NFS over IPv6, data integrity checks for ext3, they maintain libstdc++, they worked hard on BTRFS, If anything, they have helped open source much more than most other companies.
Again, I don't see the philosophical reasons other than 'because we can'.
- Later RDP versions allow you to forward just specific applications, in addition to the entire workspace. I don't know if FreeRDP supports this feature yet, but it is built into the protocol.
It does a lot more that just that...
$ xfreerdp --help
FreeRDP - A Free Remote Desktop Protocol Client See http://www.freerdp.com/ for more information
Usage: xfreerdp [options] server:port
-0: connect to console session
-a: set color depth in bit, default is 16
-c: initial working directory
-D: hide window decorations
-T: window title
-d: domain
-f: fullscreen mode
-g: set geometry, using format WxH or X% or 'workarea', default is 1024x768
-h: print this help
-k: set keyboard layout ID
-K: do not interfere with window manager bindings
-m: don't send mouse motion events
-n: hostname
-o: console audio
-p: password
-s: set startup-shell
-t: alternative port number, default is 3389
-u: username
-x: performance flags (m[odem], b[roadband] or l[an])
-X: embed into another window with a given XID.
-z: enable compression
--app: RemoteApp connection. This implies -g workarea
--ext: load an extension
--no-auth: disable authentication
--no-fastpath: disable fast-path
--gdi: graphics rendering (hw, sw)
--no-osb: disable offscreen bitmaps
--no-bmp-cache: disable bitmap cache
--plugin: load a virtual channel plugin
--rfx: enable RemoteFX
--rfx-mode: RemoteFX operational flags (v[ideo], i[mage]), default is video
--nsc: enable NSCodec (experimental)
--disable-wallpaper: disables wallpaper
--composition: enable desktop composition
--disable-full-window-drag: disables full window drag
--disable-menu-animations: disables menu animations
--disable-theming: disables theming
--no-rdp: disable Standard RDP encryption
--no-tls: disable TLS encryption
--no-nla: disable network level authentication
--ntlm: force NTLM authentication protocol version (1 or 2)
--ignore-certificate: ignore verification of logon certificate
--sec: force protocol security (rdp, tls or nla)
--secure-checksum: use salted checksums with Standard RDP encryption
--version: print version information
These sims are not, generally, capable of replicating either the variety of stressors that occur in actual training missions (not to mention combat), nor the physiological strains that actual flight places on the pilot.
I don't believe you need to be in combat, nor on any kind of military mission to have stress levels increase - sometimes to breaking point.
I've seen stories of relatively inexperienced first officers on 747s go crazy on an approach to an airport among thunderstorms and bad weather. My favourite one was an asian first officer who freaked out, started singing some song in korean and forced the captain to do the workload of two pilots to land. Most of the training leading up to this was in simulators.
I've seen stories of training captains throw real world scenarios to students learning to fly airliners that screw up, crash what should be a very easy recovery, go "oh well" and hit the reset button to the sim. They then continued to do other exercises while never really learning the lesson to the situation being simulated.
You can then add to the list of problems the reliance on computers in aircraft which if training is not up to scratch can really cause problems. The excellent presentation "Children of the Magenta" highlights a lot of these - and while watching the video you might think that a lot of what the presenter points out is common sense - it is at odds with most training done in airlines these days.
The procedural training in a lot of airlines is (basically): Take off -> Climb to 500ft AGL -> confirm aircraft is in a stable climb -> Engage VNAV -> confirm no sudden unexpected movements -> Engage LNAV -> Monitor instrumentation until on final to land.
Its a matter of time until all these issues cascade into an unfortunate event. Its up to the pilot individually how they choose to avoid these events and how they keep their skills in tact to work effectively.
For the record, I'm a military aviator, and I've got plenty of experience in both sims and the actual aircraft.
For the record, I'm a commercial pilot.
Simulators have their place - but it is certainly nowhere near the experience as a real aircraft. Speaking from a commercial background, simulators are great at two things: 1) Procedure 2) Techniques
Simulators are great in showing pilots how things work. Want to know what to expect in a fogged in approach to an airport and are learning how to use the ILS etc? A simulator is *great* in this role. You can do things in this combo that are GREAT for education. Does it come anywhere close to the real thing? Hell no.
The other thing that simulators excel at is teaching things such as instrument scans - basically train you to keep an eye on all your instruments at the same time by developing an effective scan of them. No pilot flying on instruments will use a single instrument - flying is very complex and cannot be done like this. An effective instrument scan (A/H -> Airspeed -> A/H -> Altitude -> A/H -> VSI -> A/H -> DG etc) is very hard to grasp when first starting - and it is the bread and butter that keeps pilots alive when the weather is starting to deteriorate or you start to fly faster and bigger aircraft.
Your standard 737 pilot will probably spend about 15 minutes out of every flight looking out the windows. The rest is monitoring instrumentation. I cannot understate how important this skill is - and simulators are perfect at developing those skills.
So are simulators replacement for a real aircraft though? Nowhere near. Simulators should be treated as an addition to inflight training - not as a replacement for it.
Honestly, Jonathan Coulton's version makes it painfully clear he's one of the white people at the beginning of the Sir Mix-a-lot video...
Sadly, I agree. I checked out the links you posted to see what all the hullabaloo was... I got about 45 seconds in and couldn't bear to listen to the 'covers' of it. Its... just painful o_O
Now she received Thunderbird's "Chat" feature in recent updates which includes Facebook chat, Google talk, IRC, Twitter and XMPP. I'm not sure why people are saying Thunderbird is not getting new features, that one came from a module for the InstantBird IM client, and Thunderbird will get all the new core features that Firefox gets in future.
Why the hell is there a chat client in a mail program to start with? I saw this new 'feature' and died a little inside. It is a classic sign on developers losing their direction.
My bug list with Thunderbird (Current as of 17.0).
1) A single new email received over a compressed IMAP connection (using Dovecot, imap-zlib plugin) shows stupidly high new message counts - ie You have 37845 new messages.
2) Randomly Thunderbird refuses to exit. This happens on linux as well as Windows. The GUI will disappear but thunderbird.exe / thunderbird-bin is still running. Only plugins are Lightning + Google Calendar connector.
Fix these two up and I'd be a much happier person...
CREW is objecting to the renewals because under U.S. law, broadcast frequencies may be used only by people of good “character,” who will serve “the public interest,” and speak with “candor.” Significant character deficiencies may warrant disqualification from holding a license.
Now this is gold. Especially if they reference the lovely 'phone hacking' scandal in the UK as ammo of how shitty this corporation is....
This is just another account of how amazingly full of shit the GNOME team (Red Hat, let's just call it with it real name) continues to be.
I agree with you 100% on this. Have a look at some of the recent interactions with the Fedora (aka RedHat) team and them shoving Gnome 3 down peoples throats:
Bullshit. They do it for the big money later in their careers. Captains in the majors make good money, get good bennies and union protection. From the WSJ link you provide:
You sir have no fucking idea. I would love to see what other industries require $100k+ investment in training to pay a $30k yearly wage - including benefits.
And how big is that big payout they hope to get someday? FltOps said on average, captains top out at minimum salaries of $165,278
That's the goal. I bet a lot wash out before they get there. That's the breaks. Don't like it get an office job.
But don't tell me about "they love flying." They love the big bucks.
Oh, and 100 passenger aircraft are getting rare in the US. We're flying ~70 passenger Embraers and Bombardiers for domestics today. The big planes left for prosperous countries in Asia.
Ummm yeah - $165k. Hell, training I was looking at in a 8 seat Learjet was $3000 per flight hour. That means a captains salary would earn him about 55 hours training for a year. And thats ignoring things like tax....
so, 1500 hours prior experience eh? I'll get right on that.....
Pilot training up to the level required for even the most basic job (instructor) is going to cost $50,000 or more. You can't pay that back on a $20,000 a year salary. Pilots do it because they love flying.
Disclaimer: I am a private pilot doing my commercial flight test in ~14 hours time.
This situation is completely correct. I've lived on sweet fuck all incoming for 5 years (think less than $25000AUD). My training here in Australia has totalled to around $110,000AUD - not including interest on loans etc. After my test, I'll have ~250 hours total flight time. If I manage to get a job straight after my test, in reality, I can probably earn $35-40k AUD. How do most pilots in my situation survive? They get a second job. Not only does this add to fatigue, it certainly doesn't make things safer.
Why do I do it? Because its friggin awesome. If you want to fly to make a buck, then you live in another world.
In a nutshell, the aviation industry is fucked. Everyone wants to cut their costs as far as possible without violating the law. This means cheap labour in maintenance, cheaper pilots, crappy pay and benefits.
I really miss the wages I was paid in network administration, they were double what I'll get here....
Slashdot Mirror
Actually yes, it IS difficult unless you've practiced it. And most of us who practiced it had an instructor who recovered the plane when we fucked it up. And every pilot fucked this up in training.
Only in training? I'd say about 1 in 20 landings is still a fuckup compared to what we aim for... Once you get a few thousand hours experience, you'll probably still fuck up 1 in 50... True, the degree of fuckup is greatly reduced - but professional pilots with thousands of hours still bounce 737's etc.
This is so visually insulting that the only criticism I can give it is "start over."
Wow - you showed more compassion than me ;)
Make one even better change. Allow comment moderation above +5 -- but only for this article...
Sadly, there is no way to impress upon the Dice morons how much people agree beyond +5 at these comments....
I agree 100% here. It's just sad that you can't moderate comments above 5 for others to realise how many people actually agree here. I think you'd find it'd be in the thousands....
It makes the comment section - which is a large part of the slashdot experience - seem like something tacked onto the end of a news article where people post one line responses.
By the way, if anyone hasn't gone and looked at the comments section on an article, go look now and then tell me I'm wrong.
Oh god. I really thought "It couldn't be that bad" - and then looked at the page linked above.
WHAT. THE. FUCK.
I've been around here a long time, and this has got to be one of the most braindead ideas I have ever seen on this site. You may as well convert slashdot to run on phpBB instead. At least then its still about the community and not the (limited) articles...
Slashdot's biggest selling point, as it's always been, is the conversation the stories generate.
Exactly. And how does the new design reflect this?
It doesn't - but it does make me want to stab someone in the face for turning neat and functional into flashy and useless....
Maybe someone got fired from the Gnome 3 team and picked up a gig at slashdot hq.....
The current government and it's immediate predecessor (of the same party) has done a brilliant job. Compare to the rest of the world. The wanna-be's keep making statements contrary to the facts, but Rupert Murdoch and Gina Rinehart want a change, and with control of most of the media consistently push outright lies. Their media has, for example, reported the current Prime Minister would be dumped by their party EVERY WEEK for the past 130 weeks. Ain't happened yet - it is a bare-faced attempt at destabilisation.
Australia's Liberal (i.e conservative) Party - the finest politicians money can buy.
This. So many times this.
The crux of it is multiple fold:
1) Rupert Murdoch owns the biggest cable network in Australia (Foxtel). The current governments NBN plan will give up to 100Mbit (maybe even 1GBit) to just about every home in a town above 1000 homes - Australia wide. As the US has seen with streaming services, in this environment, cable tv would be obliterated. Its just a sad fact that the same guy owns most of the media - therefore he uses his influence to protect his media assets.
2) Gina gets a load of immigrant workers. The current government is looking to restrict imported workers to a lower amount that is currently happening. This means that Gina will have to pay fair wages to more of her staff. This is of course being protested by her interests in any way possible.
3) Tony Abbott is great at grinding axes, but very poor (being kind) at content. He has spearheaded the biggest sledging campaign in Australian political history. This is the guy that outright lies (which the media doesn't expose - see point #1) to the public to destabilise the current government as much as possible.
4) Tony Abbott (with the media in tow) has made a massive issue about asylum seekers arriving in Australia via boats. Forget that fact that he calls them illegal immigrants (which they aren't) and that they are the source of Australias problems (which they aren't) and he promises that he will stop the boats (which he can't) to increase our nations security. His plans have been scoffed at by the brass in the navy as unworkable - but these details get overlooked by the media (see point #1).
In a nutshell, its a sad day for me to call myself an Australian - and its a sad day for politics in Australia that people sink so low as to put themselves before their country - but that is exactly what is happening at this point in time.
There is no real reason why Google can't do all of these things. Their core market is information. Gathering information. Processing information. Sorting and utilising information.
Once you're good at this, it isn't hard to expand into various uses for that information.
It's part performance and part philosophical. Given that wikipedia is a strongly philosophical enterprise, this seems reasonable.
Well, the performance difference didn't seem to be huge - in fact, some stats were slower.... I don't buy for a second that it was for performance reasons.
Philosophy - maybe - however Oracle contribute quite a bit to OSS - more than a lot of companies - See: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/linux/technical-contributions-1689636.html
In a nutshell, they are working on NFS over IPv6, data integrity checks for ext3, they maintain libstdc++, they worked hard on BTRFS, If anything, they have helped open source much more than most other companies.
Again, I don't see the philosophical reasons other than 'because we can'.
Speak up sonny, its hard to hear you these days....
So reading the links etc, there is no real reason that stands out apart from "Oracle may screw MySQL".
Is there a reason for this other than ifs, buts and maybes?
- Later RDP versions allow you to forward just specific applications, in addition to the entire workspace. I don't know if FreeRDP supports this feature yet, but it is built into the protocol.
It does a lot more that just that...
$ xfreerdp --help
FreeRDP - A Free Remote Desktop Protocol Client
See http://www.freerdp.com/ for more information
Usage: xfreerdp [options] server:port
-0: connect to console session
-a: set color depth in bit, default is 16
-c: initial working directory
-D: hide window decorations
-T: window title
-d: domain
-f: fullscreen mode
-g: set geometry, using format WxH or X% or 'workarea', default is 1024x768
-h: print this help
-k: set keyboard layout ID
-K: do not interfere with window manager bindings
-m: don't send mouse motion events
-n: hostname
-o: console audio
-p: password
-s: set startup-shell
-t: alternative port number, default is 3389
-u: username
-x: performance flags (m[odem], b[roadband] or l[an])
-X: embed into another window with a given XID.
-z: enable compression
--app: RemoteApp connection. This implies -g workarea
--ext: load an extension
--no-auth: disable authentication
--no-fastpath: disable fast-path
--gdi: graphics rendering (hw, sw)
--no-osb: disable offscreen bitmaps
--no-bmp-cache: disable bitmap cache
--plugin: load a virtual channel plugin
--rfx: enable RemoteFX
--rfx-mode: RemoteFX operational flags (v[ideo], i[mage]), default is video
--nsc: enable NSCodec (experimental)
--disable-wallpaper: disables wallpaper
--composition: enable desktop composition
--disable-full-window-drag: disables full window drag
--disable-menu-animations: disables menu animations
--disable-theming: disables theming
--no-rdp: disable Standard RDP encryption
--no-tls: disable TLS encryption
--no-nla: disable network level authentication
--ntlm: force NTLM authentication protocol version (1 or 2)
--ignore-certificate: ignore verification of logon certificate
--sec: force protocol security (rdp, tls or nla)
--secure-checksum: use salted checksums with Standard RDP encryption
--version: print version information
These sims are not, generally, capable of replicating either the variety of stressors that occur in actual training missions (not to mention combat), nor the physiological strains that actual flight places on the pilot.
I don't believe you need to be in combat, nor on any kind of military mission to have stress levels increase - sometimes to breaking point.
I've seen stories of relatively inexperienced first officers on 747s go crazy on an approach to an airport among thunderstorms and bad weather. My favourite one was an asian first officer who freaked out, started singing some song in korean and forced the captain to do the workload of two pilots to land. Most of the training leading up to this was in simulators.
I've seen stories of training captains throw real world scenarios to students learning to fly airliners that screw up, crash what should be a very easy recovery, go "oh well" and hit the reset button to the sim. They then continued to do other exercises while never really learning the lesson to the situation being simulated.
You can then add to the list of problems the reliance on computers in aircraft which if training is not up to scratch can really cause problems. The excellent presentation "Children of the Magenta" highlights a lot of these - and while watching the video you might think that a lot of what the presenter points out is common sense - it is at odds with most training done in airlines these days.
The procedural training in a lot of airlines is (basically): Take off -> Climb to 500ft AGL -> confirm aircraft is in a stable climb -> Engage VNAV -> confirm no sudden unexpected movements -> Engage LNAV -> Monitor instrumentation until on final to land.
Its a matter of time until all these issues cascade into an unfortunate event. Its up to the pilot individually how they choose to avoid these events and how they keep their skills in tact to work effectively.
Oh, and I forgot to include this link in my response above...
Simulator training flaws tied to airline crashes:
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/2010-08-31-1Acockpits31_ST_N.htm
For the record, I'm a military aviator, and I've got plenty of experience in both sims and the actual aircraft.
For the record, I'm a commercial pilot.
Simulators have their place - but it is certainly nowhere near the experience as a real aircraft. Speaking from a commercial background, simulators are great at two things:
1) Procedure
2) Techniques
Simulators are great in showing pilots how things work. Want to know what to expect in a fogged in approach to an airport and are learning how to use the ILS etc? A simulator is *great* in this role. You can do things in this combo that are GREAT for education. Does it come anywhere close to the real thing? Hell no.
The other thing that simulators excel at is teaching things such as instrument scans - basically train you to keep an eye on all your instruments at the same time by developing an effective scan of them. No pilot flying on instruments will use a single instrument - flying is very complex and cannot be done like this. An effective instrument scan (A/H -> Airspeed -> A/H -> Altitude -> A/H -> VSI -> A/H -> DG etc) is very hard to grasp when first starting - and it is the bread and butter that keeps pilots alive when the weather is starting to deteriorate or you start to fly faster and bigger aircraft.
Your standard 737 pilot will probably spend about 15 minutes out of every flight looking out the windows. The rest is monitoring instrumentation. I cannot understate how important this skill is - and simulators are perfect at developing those skills.
So are simulators replacement for a real aircraft though? Nowhere near. Simulators should be treated as an addition to inflight training - not as a replacement for it.
Seriously - I just listened to it on Youtube and it's AWFUL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWaN_Tc5wo
The Glee version is only slightly different but equally putrid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yww4BLjReEk
vs. the original version which is absolutely brilliant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY84MRnxVzo
Honestly, Jonathan Coulton's version makes it painfully clear he's one of the white people at the beginning of the Sir Mix-a-lot video...
Sadly, I agree. I checked out the links you posted to see what all the hullabaloo was... I got about 45 seconds in and couldn't bear to listen to the 'covers' of it. Its... just painful o_O
And this is why Alan Cox is a legend. I've dealt with him a few times and EVERY time I have he has been a pure joy to talk to.
He has a great way of telling things how they are and even takes the time to help relative newbies into improving their skills and contributions.
So, three cheers to Alan and I hope we see him back in the future.
And no, last time I checked openssh could not do that
Last I checked, PasswordAuthentication is allowed inside a Match block, so
PubkeyAuthentication yes
PasswordAuthentication no
Match Address 10.0.0.0/8
PasswordAuthentication yes
With a note that it doesn't always work:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869903
Now she received Thunderbird's "Chat" feature in recent updates which includes Facebook chat, Google talk, IRC, Twitter and XMPP.
I'm not sure why people are saying Thunderbird is not getting new features, that one came from a module for the InstantBird IM client, and Thunderbird will get all the new core features that Firefox gets in future.
Why the hell is there a chat client in a mail program to start with? I saw this new 'feature' and died a little inside. It is a classic sign on developers losing their direction.
My bug list with Thunderbird (Current as of 17.0).
1) A single new email received over a compressed IMAP connection (using Dovecot, imap-zlib plugin) shows stupidly high new message counts - ie You have 37845 new messages.
2) Randomly Thunderbird refuses to exit. This happens on linux as well as Windows. The GUI will disappear but thunderbird.exe / thunderbird-bin is still running. Only plugins are Lightning + Google Calendar connector.
Fix these two up and I'd be a much happier person...
CREW is objecting to the renewals because under U.S. law, broadcast frequencies may be used only by people of good “character,” who will serve “the public interest,” and speak with “candor.” Significant character deficiencies may warrant disqualification from holding a license.
Now this is gold. Especially if they reference the lovely 'phone hacking' scandal in the UK as ammo of how shitty this corporation is....
This is just another account of how amazingly full of shit the GNOME team (Red Hat, let's just call it with it real name) continues to be.
I agree with you 100% on this. Have a look at some of the recent interactions with the Fedora (aka RedHat) team and them shoving Gnome 3 down peoples throats:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865922
continues here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875433
Translation of it: Screw the End User, you'll do it OUR WAY.
He is in Australia, something could be said about exchange rates and cost of living...
This is correct. $390AUD per hour will get you a Cessna 172RG with an instructor. Thats before the 7 theory exams and the rest of the study...
Pilots do it because they love flying.
Bullshit. They do it for the big money later in their careers. Captains in the majors make good money, get good bennies and union protection. From the WSJ link you provide:
You sir have no fucking idea. I would love to see what other industries require $100k+ investment in training to pay a $30k yearly wage - including benefits.
And how big is that big payout they hope to get someday? FltOps said on average, captains top out at minimum salaries of $165,278
That's the goal. I bet a lot wash out before they get there. That's the breaks. Don't like it get an office job.
But don't tell me about "they love flying." They love the big bucks.
Oh, and 100 passenger aircraft are getting rare in the US. We're flying ~70 passenger Embraers and Bombardiers for domestics today. The big planes left for prosperous countries in Asia.
Ummm yeah - $165k. Hell, training I was looking at in a 8 seat Learjet was $3000 per flight hour. That means a captains salary would earn him about 55 hours training for a year. And thats ignoring things like tax....
so, 1500 hours prior experience eh? I'll get right on that.....
Disclaimer: I am a private pilot doing my commercial flight test in ~14 hours time.
This situation is completely correct. I've lived on sweet fuck all incoming for 5 years (think less than $25000AUD). My training here in Australia has totalled to around $110,000AUD - not including interest on loans etc. After my test, I'll have ~250 hours total flight time. If I manage to get a job straight after my test, in reality, I can probably earn $35-40k AUD. How do most pilots in my situation survive? They get a second job. Not only does this add to fatigue, it certainly doesn't make things safer.
Why do I do it? Because its friggin awesome. If you want to fly to make a buck, then you live in another world.
In a nutshell, the aviation industry is fucked. Everyone wants to cut their costs as far as possible without violating the law. This means cheap labour in maintenance, cheaper pilots, crappy pay and benefits.
I really miss the wages I was paid in network administration, they were double what I'll get here....