Would you like an experienced crew for $6? Untick
They're already doing this when they buy their ticket in many instances.
Senator Xenophon knows this.
Not too many inexperienced (if any) Captains and FO's over at QF are there..?
As they say: "You get what you pay for".
We're talking about crew, then there is the rest of the operation and the buffers that go or
don't go with it.
"I'm of ta tha goldie on a $49 cheapie ha ha ha..laughn". They think.
Interesting thread from Rumous and News :
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...ds-raised.html
One post from A37575:
Comprehensive well written article in Business and Commercial Aviation Sept 2010 entitled "Statistics Point the way to Safety."
Extracts (edited for brevity) pertinent to the proposed FAA rule to lift airline copilot standards:
1. Pilots with less than 4000 hours total time and 300 hours on type are involved with two-thirds of all turbojet/turbofan accidents and incidents.
2. Tyre failures, particularly during takeoff roll were another leading cause of mishaps suffered by business jets.
3. Another main reason for pilot error accidents is that more inexperienced pilots are entering aviation and should get twice per year training to get up to speed.
4. Today's pilots have become too dependent upon cockpit automation, relying too much on the flight guidance systems to control the aircraft during virtually all phases of flight. Technology has produced "Children of the Magenta Line" - pilots who cannot fly without an operable GPS or FMS, along with a full color moving map.
5. Autopilots and flight directors have taken away from airmanship. Over-reliance on ops manuals have taken away decision making.
6. Pilots need to spend more time hand-flying the aircraft, especially in gusting wind conditions and/or when landing on contaminated runways.
7. Hands-on flying and risk assessment is much more important than total time in a log book.
.................................................. .................................................
Speakers at last week's Asia Pacific Aviation Training Symposium at Kuala Lumpur thought otherwise. In fact they accented more emphasis on automation as a means of reducing the loss of control accidents and advocated less training on engine failures and more accent on LOFT, CRM, TEM and en-route diversion planning in the simulator.
It was considered by one speaker that low hour pilots were no problem providing they were expert at automation. This view was certainly at odds with the FAA view on low hour inexperienced pilots in jet transports. The basic premise at the APAT meeting seemed to be that the incredible reliability of modern aircraft systems meant pilot manual flight intervention of a perceived automatic problem has caused eventual loss of control.
Its been around for a while but worth a read. See what that costs you.