Didn't know it was VNAV's that put airplanes short of the runway.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
Are We Safe?
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
- rookiepilot
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4403
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Re: Are We Safe?
Re: Are We Safe?
Read it again Rookie. VNAV does NOT put you short.rookiepilot wrote: ↑Wed Dec 27, 2017 6:48 pmDidn't know it was VNAV's that put airplanes short of the runway.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
AC didn't have VNAV, or even GPS. They "landed" short.
Re: Are We Safe?
And hard.AC didn't have VNAV, or even GPS. They "landed" short.
- confusedalot
- Rank 8
- Posts: 959
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
- Location: location, location, is what matters
Re: Are We Safe?
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.
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.
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.
veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.
veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.
- confusedalot
- Rank 8
- Posts: 959
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
- Location: location, location, is what matters
Re: Are We Safe?
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.
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.
veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.
veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.
Re: Are We Safe?
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.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.
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.
Re: Are We Safe?
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.
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.
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1311
- Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:14 pm
- Location: The Gulag Archipelago
Re: Are We Safe?
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
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
Wish I didn't know now, what I didn't know then.
Re: Are We Safe?
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.
Black air has no lift - extra fuel has no weight
http://www.blackair.ca
http://www.blackair.ca
Re: Are We Safe?
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
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
- HiFlyChick
- Rank 5
- Posts: 386
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:27 am
Re: Are We Safe?
I get what you're saying, but truthfully, from a small 703 operator standpoint, when I was in a position of flying both single pilot and two crew, it was actually preferable to fly SPIFR than with a brand new low time F/O. In general, I found it much more work two crew in that case. I'm not saying that it's necessarily higher risk, but I suppose it depends on how bad the wx is and the experience of the PIC. In general, the amount of effort/experience req'd for the PIC in solid IFR is: (1) with an experienced F/O, (2) single pilot, (3) with a very inexperienced F/OKitzbuhel wrote: ↑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
Everyone thinks that SPIFR is the hardest, but if the F/O is fresh out of school with no actual, they are also unlikely to have seen much turbulence (and obviously no icing since no actual), so on a really tough day, the PIC should have a higher experience level than just going SPIFR since it's almost like teaching
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am
Re: Are We Safe?
Military has much higher training standards, better support and is obviously a well very structured operation. Nobody is arguing the capabilities of military pilots.
What happens when the "relatively experienced pilot" isn't all that experienced either? There are 800 hr Navajo captains with 200 hr FOs flying night IMC in icing.Kitzbuhel wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:06 pm 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.