Are We Safe?

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Message
Author
User avatar
HansDietrich
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 383
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:33 am

Re: Are We Safe?

#26 Post by HansDietrich » Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:26 pm

I'm going to go ahead and say that flying for a regional is a lot easier than flying in for the 703 company I worked for. Mind you, I was a captain there, I'm an FO now, but even as an F/O, it was way harder. Crappier schedule, way more exhausted, shit, short runways, zero support, pressure from management. Are you kidding me? Flying out of YYZ is a retirement job, by comparison; except YYZ ground. That shit is intense until you get used to it... then it's really easy...
---------- ADS -----------
  
Das ist mir wurst...

User avatar
HansDietrich
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 383
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:33 am

Re: Are We Safe?

#27 Post by HansDietrich » Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:27 pm

HansDietrich wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:26 pm
I'm going to go ahead and say that flying for a regional is a lot easier than flying in for the 703 company I worked for. Mind you, I was a captain there, I'm an FO now, but even as an F/O, it was way harder. Crappier schedule, way more exhausted, shit, short runways, zero support, pressure from management. Are you kidding me? Flying out of YYZ is a retirement job, by comparison; except YYZ ground. That is intense until you get used to it... then it's really easy...
---------- ADS -----------
  
Das ist mir wurst...

TG
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1643
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:32 am
Location: Around

Re: Are We Safe?

#28 Post by TG » Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:35 pm

In meanwhile in Germany...
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... gh-444337/
Hard A321 landing led Germania to limit manual flights

20 DECEMBER, 2017 SOURCE: FLIGHT DASHBOARD BY: DAVID KAMINSKI-MORROW LONDON
Investigators have disclosed that Germania banned pilots' flying manual visual approaches under supervision, after an unstable descent by a relatively inexperienced first officer led an Airbus A321 to land hard at Fuerteventura.

The first officer had logged 96h on type before conducting the ILS approach to runway 01 using manual control of the thrust and attitude.

---------

Germania subsequently prohibited flying manually, with manual thrust, during supervised visual approaches on 22 July last year, six days after the Fuerteventura event. CIAIAC adds that the carrier has also been redefining conditions and restrictions for manual flight.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
mantogasrsrwy
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 285
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 9:07 pm
Location: The good side of the tracks

Re: Are We Safe?

#29 Post by mantogasrsrwy » Mon Dec 25, 2017 4:37 am

I know of a now defunct Canadian airline that did the same after a million dollar no autothrust tail strike.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
HansDietrich
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 383
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:33 am

Re: Are We Safe?

#30 Post by HansDietrich » Mon Dec 25, 2017 10:28 am

TG wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:35 pm
In meanwhile in Germany...
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... gh-444337/
Hard A321 landing led Germania to limit manual flights

20 DECEMBER, 2017 SOURCE: FLIGHT DASHBOARD BY: DAVID KAMINSKI-MORROW LONDON
Investigators have disclosed that Germania banned pilots' flying manual visual approaches under supervision, after an unstable descent by a relatively inexperienced first officer led an Airbus A321 to land hard at Fuerteventura.

The first officer had logged 96h on type before conducting the ILS approach to runway 01 using manual control of the thrust and attitude.

---------

Germania subsequently prohibited flying manually, with manual thrust, during supervised visual approaches on 22 July last year, six days after the Fuerteventura event. CIAIAC adds that the carrier has also been redefining conditions and restrictions for manual flight.

Yup. Putting "200 hr" wonders in the right seat of an A320 is nothing short of terrifying. You're not getting an argument from me there.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Das ist mir wurst...

av8ts
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:31 am

Re: Are We Safe?

#31 Post by av8ts » Mon Dec 25, 2017 10:29 am

I may get jumped on for this. With less than 10 years til retirement I’m probably one of those Sky gods. I find the 1000 wonders know the SOPs and can program the FMS like there is no tomorrow. You definitely have to keep a close eye on them during strong crosswinds and on a turbulent approach down to minimums. What I can’t handle is how many of them are whiney princesses. Constantly complaining about schedule, pay, duty day, and how it should be illegal to MEL an APU. I prefer to work with experienced fo’s so we can actually have a normal day without the bitching and complaining
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
HansDietrich
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 383
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:33 am

Re: Are We Safe?

#32 Post by HansDietrich » Mon Dec 25, 2017 10:33 am

av8ts wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 10:29 am
I may get jumped on for this. With less than 10 years til retirement I’m probably one of those Sky gods. I find the 1000 wonders know the SOPs and can program the FMS like there is no tomorrow. You definitely have to keep a close eye on them during strong crosswinds and on a turbulent approach down to minimums. What I can’t handle is how many of them are whiney princesses. Constantly complaining about schedule, pay, duty day, and how it should be illegal to MEL an APU. I prefer to work with experienced fo’s so we can actually have a normal day without the bitching and complaining
Yup. I agree. Nothing wrong with using common sense from time to time! You can't write a rule for every scenario. This stuff is not learned at Seneca by reading it in a book.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Das ist mir wurst...

Dry Guy
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:44 pm

Re: Are We Safe?

#33 Post by Dry Guy » Tue Dec 26, 2017 7:12 pm

sunk wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:16 pm
Airport operators in Manitoba have some pretty scary stories with the DC-3 in the last six months as well.
What happened?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Zaibatsu
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 380
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:37 am

Re: Are We Safe?

#34 Post by Zaibatsu » Tue Dec 26, 2017 9:32 pm

av8ts wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 10:29 am
I may get jumped on for this. With less than 10 years til retirement I’m probably one of those Sky gods. I find the 1000 wonders know the SOPs and can program the FMS like there is no tomorrow. You definitely have to keep a close eye on them during strong crosswinds and on a turbulent approach down to minimums. What I can’t handle is how many of them are whiney princesses. Constantly complaining about schedule, pay, duty day, and how it should be illegal to MEL an APU. I prefer to work with experienced fo’s so we can actually have a normal day without the bitching and complaining
Yeah... I can really see a 1900 pilot who hand flies more legs a day than a widebody capt sleeps through a month with a cockpit that’s a sea of orange with MEL stickers having problems with those.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Meatservo
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2334
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Negative sequencial vortex

Re: Are We Safe?

#35 Post by Meatservo » Wed Dec 27, 2017 1:32 am

What's a "manual visual approach under supervision"? I can figure out the "manual visual" part, but what's the "under supervision" bit? Does it just mean the copilot is doing it? Surely they aren't forbidding captains to fly manually when the weather's OK?
---------- ADS -----------
  
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself

trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4414
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: Are We Safe?

#36 Post by trey kule » Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:20 am

FWIW, many of the WPs are on their first job, or second. The concept of actually having to work for a living is a bit lost of them..

The accidents will come. Be patient,,
---------- ADS -----------
  
Everyone is a genius in hindsight

FL007
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 1:35 pm

Re: Are We Safe?

#37 Post by FL007 » Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:12 pm

Illya Kuryakin wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:18 am

Question is a simple one. Are you SAFE in the back seat of that Navajo? The experience level of a short time ago is gone. Personally, I don’t think you are. Again, I’m using the poor Navajo as an example. I think our industry at this level is in dire trouble. Hope I’m wrong.

Illya
I would even go further to say that 705 machines are going to start to be staffed by inexperienced pilots. Look at the Jazz bids this year, captain bids approved at 5-6 months on type and 1700TT (ish).With 500hr FO's being hired, personally, I really don't think around 2000TT in a Dash flight deck is safe.

One good thing about somewhere like Jazz is there are strict guidelines to limitations, CRFI limits, etc. But I mean there are going to be captains flying around that have only flown 1 winter, in a plane that, for the most part they're unfamiliar with, beside a brand new FO who really doesn't know all too much.

This is me being devil's advocate here, I know not everyone is a low time captain upgrade, it's just always in the back of my mind when I think about Canadian aviation. 10 years ago Jazz was as hard to get to as AC mainline was, now i've seen 703 FOs leave for Jazz after a summer. What will happen when the duty day regs come into effect and 30% more pilots need to be hired? I sure hope the industry reacts with pay raises to attract experience, instead of lowering the bar to 250hrs across the board..
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
HiFlyChick
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:27 am

Re: Are We Safe?

#38 Post by HiFlyChick » Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:30 pm

av8ts wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 10:29 am
I may get jumped on for this. With less than 10 years til retirement I’m probably one of those Sky gods. I find the 1000 wonders know the SOPs and can program the FMS like there is no tomorrow. You definitely have to keep a close eye on them during strong crosswinds and on a turbulent approach down to minimums. What I can’t handle is how many of them are whiney princesses. Constantly complaining about schedule, pay, duty day, and how it should be illegal to MEL an APU. I prefer to work with experienced fo’s so we can actually have a normal day without the bitching and complaining
That's actually a good lesson for everyone at any stage (including life in general, not just in the cockpit). I had an F/O once that was pretty good given his experience level, but we did a 3 day trip and he complained about everything the whole time, even though I actually went out of my way to drive him to some motorcycle shops he wanted to visit. We were a very small 703 operator and at the time I was the senior captain, and by the time I got back I was ready to scream. He really shot himself in the foot because I told our scheduling guy when we got back that I didn't care whose turn it was to fly (yes, our people actually wanted to fly :) ), I was never going to do an overnight with him again.

When we hired, personality was a big factor - you can train a monkey to fly, but when you're spending all day with a guy, you want someone who is pleasant to be around. For the guys who complain about getting a starting job loading baggage - keep in mind that your employer is possibly watching you to see not only your work ethic but also what kind of a person you are...
---------- ADS -----------
  

switchflicker
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 312
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:25 am

Re: Are We Safe?

#39 Post by switchflicker » Wed Dec 27, 2017 5:50 pm

That's actually a good lesson for everyone at any stage (including life in general, not just in the cockpit).
For the guys who complain about getting a starting job loading baggage - keep in mind that your employer is possibly watching you to see not only your work ethic but also what kind of a person you are...
So very true in all walks of life. This summer I spent a week with a team of 15 year old baseball players at an out of town tourney. Observing the boys and the way they conducted themselves in the hotel (4 players to a room) one of the dads said that the coaches and maybe scouts were watching them off the diamonds as much as on, determining if they would be acceptable material for the next year(s). One coach said if they can't behave on the street, it doesn't matter how good they are in the game.
---------- ADS -----------
  
"I'd rather have it and not need than to need it and not have it" Capt. Augustus McCrae.

bobcaygeon
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:03 am

Re: Are We Safe?

#40 Post by bobcaygeon » Wed Dec 27, 2017 5:57 pm

The biggest thing I notice with less experienced crews is more missed approaches due wx, spacing, and being unstable. (Less trying to "save it") and slower turns ie skeds are often late because of it. That's an inconvenience. There also seems to be more skidded tires, cooked engines, and breakdowns in the field. It's not a surprise and it's the cost of doing business nowadays.

I also see avionics in King Airs that outclass AC's 320 fleet. ie VNAV that doesn't put you short of the runway and provides synthetic vision. Even if there isn't an RNAV or ILS approach I can provide low time crews with vertical guidance on visual approaches to every runway so they don't put in short at night or over frozen lake. I know of experienced pilots who did that in the 90's even though they flew those approaches every day. Some smaller airlines restrict the weather conditions above CAP limits or prohibit circling approaches. Other's use nothing but Level C/D Sim training when they used to do on-wing only. It's legal to do upgrade training but I know of a carrier that does the full initial training for all of their upgrades because of experience levels. They have been since 2008.

Sorry but I was far more likely to bend metal in the 90's flying a navajo hard IFR all day single pilot with a wing lever autopilot following 703 rules. Almost no one even flies single pilot IFR anymore.

I haven't heard names like "The giver" or "The Mad Russian" floating around in quite awhile.

There is definitely more risk of bent metal but the 1990's had lots of bent metal by experienced crews too.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Are We Safe?

#41 Post by rookiepilot » Wed Dec 27, 2017 6:48 pm

bobcaygeon wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 5:57 pm

I also see avionics in King Airs that outclass AC's 320 fleet. ie VNAV that doesn't put you short of the runway
Didn't know it was VNAV's that put airplanes short of the runway.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Donald
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2058
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:34 am
Location: Canada

Re: Are We Safe?

#42 Post by Donald » Wed Dec 27, 2017 7:51 pm

rookiepilot wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 6:48 pm
bobcaygeon wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 5:57 pm

I also see avionics in King Airs that outclass AC's 320 fleet. ie VNAV that doesn't put you short of the runway
Didn't know it was VNAV's that put airplanes short of the runway.
Read it again Rookie. VNAV does NOT put you short.

AC didn't have VNAV, or even GPS. They "landed" short.
---------- ADS -----------
  

C.W.E.
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 664
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Are We Safe?

#43 Post by C.W.E. » Wed Dec 27, 2017 7:59 pm

AC didn't have VNAV, or even GPS. They "landed" short.
And hard.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 765
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: Are We Safe?

#44 Post by confusedalot » Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:18 pm

There are jurisdictions around the world that put cadets with basic 250 hour time into big jets that manage to do a safe job. Those same cadets become captains over time.

So, I put forward that inexperience is not the culprit. Attitude? Training? Combination of both? Scheduling/fatigue?

I would be considered someone who is experienced, and have witnessed people with experience I did not like to see in the same cockpit as me but hey, you deal with it, and junior persons who were a joy to work with. Those are two extremes, the vast majority are no problem at all.

Experience is nice, but it is not the end all and be all.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?

User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 765
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: Are We Safe?

#45 Post by confusedalot » Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:19 pm

confusedalot wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:18 pm
There are jurisdictions around the world that put cadets with basic 250 hour time into big jets that manage to do a safe job. Those same cadets become captains over time.

So, I put forward that inexperience is not the culprit. Attitude? Training? Combination of both? Scheduling/fatigue?

I would be considered someone who is experienced, and have witnessed people with experience I did not like to see in the same cockpit as me but hey, you deal with it, and junior persons who were a joy to work with. Those are two extremes, the vast majority are no problem at all.

Experience is nice, but it is not the end all and be all. My dimestore reflections anyways.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?

FL007
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 1:35 pm

Re: Are We Safe?

#46 Post by FL007 » Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:38 am

confusedalot wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:18 pm
There are jurisdictions around the world that put cadets with basic 250 hour time into big jets that manage to do a safe job. Those same cadets become captains over time.

So, I put forward that inexperience is not the culprit. Attitude? Training? Combination of both? Scheduling/fatigue?

I would be considered someone who is experienced, and have witnessed people with experience I did not like to see in the same cockpit as me but hey, you deal with it, and junior persons who were a joy to work with. Those are two extremes, the vast majority are no problem at all.

Experience is nice, but it is not the end all and be all.
Yes, 250hr cadets who are bred for IFR multi crew operations i'm sure are OK. However they don't become captains in a year of flying, that's for sure. 1500 hours is almost unprecedented as a captain, and most of those cadets are only earning their "Third stripe" by that point.

Sure inexperience may not be the only culprit, but pair that with Canadian duty regs which are almost the worst in the world, with low hour Capt/FO pairings, harsh winters, etc. Colgan air is a perfect example of a textbook situation that could have been avoided.

I find it difficult to wrap my head around the changes that were made to benefit aviation due to that accident, which was so close to Canada, yet we pretend it never happened, or that it can't happen in Canada.
---------- ADS -----------
  

swordfish
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 730
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 12:18 am
Location: CYZF

Re: Are We Safe?

#47 Post by swordfish » Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:43 pm

You are going to have to give credit where credit is due, and have faith in the Airline's training and monitoring programs.

The majors have VERY robust training programs, and their strict adherence to the SOP goes with very high quality CRM and CFIT training. The SOP is also very robust, leaving little to creativity, imagination, and a subsequently reduced demand on "common sense". They have mature SMSs, and other internal reporting channels designed to identify safety hazards - both technical and personal.

They operate in a very limited and controlled environment, with a very low rate of traumatic or catastrophic failures. These young pilots are closely monitored before upgrade, and the upgrade process is not simply "pass a test" and put on 4 bars. They are taught "discipline" a very short time after walking thru the door of the training room. They are chosen on the basis of many qualities that are common to all airline pilots. They have matrices to define a pilot's upgradability. They have rules up the ying-yang, CBAs, they have Policy Manuals, HR Manuals, AFMs, COMs, TPMs, Deicing Manuals, and you-name-it documents and publications to assist and guide the pilots in professional decision making.

The only areas they will be weak in are dealing with the myriad range of personalities and character traits they encounter in the cockpit (and cabin crew!), and flight operations requiring experience to make decisions...and both of these are largely eliminated by adherence to the SOP, and the environment in which they fly.

Yes, I will be nervous when some 28-year old Captain with 4500 hours steps into the cockpit of an A320...but I assure you all this is the modus operandi in Europe and has been for 2 decades. I once ran into a copilot of a 757 who was a Canadian guy, hired by BA under their cadetship program with a straight Commercial Licence, and 250 hours. He now had 2500 hours. He was senior enough to bid Command, but didn't have the time requirements yet. I was aghast.

He said to me: "This is all I know (i.e. jet flying), and it's all I need to know in this airline and this environment". And he's right.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Illya Kuryakin
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1221
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:14 pm
Location: The Gulag Archipelago

Re: Are We Safe?

#48 Post by Illya Kuryakin » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:07 pm

I'm not on about low time pilots in the airline industry. Cadets with 250 hours etc., but the small operator in the smaller centres. The "here's the book, your ride is Thursday..."types. No FSI training, no SIM, but minimal training, for pilots "just out of the puppy mill..."
Would YOU get into the third row seat on a -2 300/1 winter day? I very definitely would NOT.
Because, that's what's out there.....right now.
Illya
---------- ADS -----------
  
Wish I didn't know now, what I didn't know then.

valleyboy
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:05 am

Re: Are We Safe?

#49 Post by valleyboy » Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:26 am

The best thing that could happen is like the USA we in Canada require a minimum of an ATP to sit in 705 group aircraft. Painful for the short term but it would stabilize the industry and address most of the issues that are rearing their ugly heads right now. Simple solution but given past performance of the Canadian Government they lack the cahonies to step up and fix the problem.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Kitzbuhel
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 8:09 pm

Re: Are We Safe?

#50 Post by Kitzbuhel » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:06 pm

man if you guys knew of the 400hr(TT) hornet pilots flying around, landing in Inuvik at night in IMC you'd have an aneurism... Or the 500hr QFIs in Moose Jaw.

Would I trust myself as a 200hr Cpl pilot flying in challenging conditions? Never. But I would trust a 200hr pilot in a right seat with a relatively experienced pilot. They won't have seen it all but generally speaking have as much of a interest in saving their own pink bodies as you all do.

Reading this was painful, get off your high horse
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”