VA Captain stands crew down after bungled approach
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't see the problem here. An honourable captain feels his handling was not up to scratch and he grounds himself. That's fine, that's his call. But from the little information we have I'd suggest that it would have been handled differently where I work. Following such an event this guy would have been assured that we all foul up from time to time. So long as nothing else was untoward he wounded have been asked to have put in an ASR and if HE wished he could have had a chat with someone. Job done. As it was, the ATSB though this worthy of a mini investigation and came up a conclusion most pilots would have predicted beforehand. So be it.
But quite where a lack of proper training standards or having low hour pilots flying simple to fly public transport aircraft fits in gets me. This was a simple cock-up that went unrecognised by two parties that was recovered in a proper manner. The reality is that this sort of thing happens to everybody every now and again and even in Australia. I'll bet both learnt a great deal from this, as will we all, and neither of them will do this again. Best of luck to the them.
PM
PM
But quite where a lack of proper training standards or having low hour pilots flying simple to fly public transport aircraft fits in gets me. This was a simple cock-up that went unrecognised by two parties that was recovered in a proper manner. The reality is that this sort of thing happens to everybody every now and again and even in Australia. I'll bet both learnt a great deal from this, as will we all, and neither of them will do this again. Best of luck to the them.
PM
PM
The real reason they say it is jealousy, some are just jealous that cadets don't have to do the so called "hard yards", that they get into an airline at a younger age generally than they do. This might trigger a lot of people here but that's the truth. Don't think these cadet programs have just popped up in the last couple of years, there have been cadets flying as captains of Australian airliners for over 50 years safely.
Last edited by dr dre; 8th Sep 2017 at 00:46.
You're not dealing with 1500 hour direct entry FOs with Cessna time.
You're dealing with 3000+ hour regional captains. These guys did the 1500 hours on Cessnas, 500 on twins, plus a couple of thousand on turboprops....
You're dealing with 3000+ hour regional captains. These guys did the 1500 hours on Cessnas, 500 on twins, plus a couple of thousand on turboprops....
Nunc est bibendum
Dr dre. There are a few important caveats in your post.
I'd argue that it's not. Once upon a time airline cadetships included aerobatics, multi crew ops in an aeroplane as well as hours that exceeded the minimum by a fair margin. The QF cadetships of the early '90s exceeded the 150 hour CPL by at least 50%. I think the syllabus was closer to 235 hours and included at least 10 hours multi crew in a Citation and 15 hours aerobatics. It's been a while since I've reviewed the syllabus but I suspect cadetships these days are done more to a min standard than aiming to exceed that standard by 50%.
After two years in the back seat of a 744 I undertook F/O training on the 767. Sure, the standard expected was the same. Sure, the training pathway was the same- though a few of us (me included) needed some extra training at various stages of the training pathway.
Sure, when I checked to line I was expected to perform and meet the same minimum standard as everyone else. So when I checked I was raw and on a very steep learning curve. I knew it. The Captains I flew with knew it. I still come across many of them these days and I make sure I thank them for their patience with a young Keg.
That's a very different thing though to suggesting I was as capable as the ex regional F/O or Captain. To be frank, the assertion that within those first couple of years as a new F/O I was as capable as those guys is simply fanciful. Maybe I could fly an ILS better than some of them. Maybe I could manage some aspects of the flight better. In general though I understood that I was approaching the job at a deficit of experience compared to others. That's OK. I wasn't in competition with them. No one is in competition with anyone else in this gig.
Interestingly though I disagree that the RHS of an airliner is the right place for a freshly minted cadet to learn the job. They should be in the back seat for a couple of years learning the culture of the job and watching a couple of more experienced crew go about their business. They should be building up their exposure to multiple airline scenarios before taking on the added responsibility of being in the front seat.
You may be right about eh jealousy aspect. It is as prevalent now as it was back when I came through the system in the early '90s. However someone being jealous doesn't change the reality that being in the front seat of a jet when you've bugger all experience behind you (and a training course that is not as robust as those in the past) increases the risk considerably.
So to summarise:
1. Cadets are assessed to the same minimum standard as everyone else. That is good.
2. This does not mean cadets are as good as everyone else assessed to the minimum standard.
3. A cadet who doesn't understand the difference between those two points is dangerous.
4. Someone being jealous is irrelevant to how good an individual pilot is.
As long as the initial selection and training of the 200hr pilot is done to a high leveL....
After two years in the back seat of a 744 I undertook F/O training on the 767. Sure, the standard expected was the same. Sure, the training pathway was the same- though a few of us (me included) needed some extra training at various stages of the training pathway.
Sure, when I checked to line I was expected to perform and meet the same minimum standard as everyone else. So when I checked I was raw and on a very steep learning curve. I knew it. The Captains I flew with knew it. I still come across many of them these days and I make sure I thank them for their patience with a young Keg.
That's a very different thing though to suggesting I was as capable as the ex regional F/O or Captain. To be frank, the assertion that within those first couple of years as a new F/O I was as capable as those guys is simply fanciful. Maybe I could fly an ILS better than some of them. Maybe I could manage some aspects of the flight better. In general though I understood that I was approaching the job at a deficit of experience compared to others. That's OK. I wasn't in competition with them. No one is in competition with anyone else in this gig.
Interestingly though I disagree that the RHS of an airliner is the right place for a freshly minted cadet to learn the job. They should be in the back seat for a couple of years learning the culture of the job and watching a couple of more experienced crew go about their business. They should be building up their exposure to multiple airline scenarios before taking on the added responsibility of being in the front seat.
You may be right about eh jealousy aspect. It is as prevalent now as it was back when I came through the system in the early '90s. However someone being jealous doesn't change the reality that being in the front seat of a jet when you've bugger all experience behind you (and a training course that is not as robust as those in the past) increases the risk considerably.
So to summarise:
1. Cadets are assessed to the same minimum standard as everyone else. That is good.
2. This does not mean cadets are as good as everyone else assessed to the minimum standard.
3. A cadet who doesn't understand the difference between those two points is dangerous.
4. Someone being jealous is irrelevant to how good an individual pilot is.
Some will argue that 1500hrs of light aircraft flying gives you "command experience and decision making abilities", which is invalid because flying a light aircraft isn't like flying an airliner, you're going to be waiting as an FO for a considerable amount of time and picking up your command judgement that way anyway, and there's been hundreds if not thousands of airline captains in Australia who didn't have that "required command experience" when they joined an airline and they're doing just fine.
1500hrs on Cessna or Pipers or whatever wont get you a job there. Im not exactly sure where you would get a Airbus job with those hours either as a direct entry. Try Vietnam mabye.
Some will argue that 1500hrs of light aircraft flying gives you "command experience and decision making abilities", which is invalid because flying a light aircraft isn't like flying an airliner, you're going to be waiting as an FO for a considerable amount of time and picking up your command judgement that way anyway, and there's been hundreds if not thousands of airline captains in Australia who didn't have that "required command experience" when they joined an airline and they're doing just fine.
Disagree. If you are flying charter/RPT that will give some exposure to exactly the same decision making that you will make as an airline pilot. Yes you are right that it is not the same however it is similar and the decisions are the same just less complicated.
Also if you are an FO your arse is not on the line. THAT fact alone changes everything. No one is there to save you when you are PIC regardless of the size of your machine. The theory I assume for the cadets is they hire well above average ability and give them allot of time to get up to speed. This doesn't help the PIC if the cadet is in the RHS and something serious happens early on.
Funnily enough the original QF cadetships 50+ years ago sent their protégés off to GA to start with.
Don't quite understand cancelling the next two sectors and inconveniencing a lot of pax plus the knock-on effect. They weren't going to make the same mistake again.
Was there more to it than is mentioned here?
Was there more to it than is mentioned here?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg - Your post is spot on! Basil - I don't understand that either. Maybe it's a reflection on the safety culture at VA. Slightly more interesting is the article refererred to by the OP. It is clearly written by a complete knob who appears not to have understoof the report by the ATSB. His article makes it clear that he can not understand how mistakes are made. Failure to understand this means he can never, ever be part of any solution. Safety is the result of not only people getting things right, but also people reacting correctly after things have gone wrong.
PM
PM
Could not agree more with you Keg, that is the crux of the issue in my opinion.
Also one fact that people overlook in regards to Flying Experience prior to entering an Airline is exposure to the real world in a smaller dose. I'm from the current "Younger Generation" and I know that a lot of us approach Simulators a lot differently to our older comrades, it's more of a game to us, it's not life or death necessarily, it's something to pass which means that when push comes to shove and you're sitting in an Aircraft, whilst you have done the training, passed and even have some experience, how do you really know how you'll react when all of a sudden it hits you that this is for real now?
How will that Cadet react when the proverbial really hits the fan and they've got sensations they've never felt before, the fight or flight instinct kicks in, the sound, the way your body feels, it can all be extremely different, there's only so much a Simulator can really Simulate. It's at that point either the Cadet is suitably ready and assists the Captain in getting the bird back on the ground or perhaps, they're not... Not the best place to be finding that out I'd dare say.
Also one fact that people overlook in regards to Flying Experience prior to entering an Airline is exposure to the real world in a smaller dose. I'm from the current "Younger Generation" and I know that a lot of us approach Simulators a lot differently to our older comrades, it's more of a game to us, it's not life or death necessarily, it's something to pass which means that when push comes to shove and you're sitting in an Aircraft, whilst you have done the training, passed and even have some experience, how do you really know how you'll react when all of a sudden it hits you that this is for real now?
How will that Cadet react when the proverbial really hits the fan and they've got sensations they've never felt before, the fight or flight instinct kicks in, the sound, the way your body feels, it can all be extremely different, there's only so much a Simulator can really Simulate. It's at that point either the Cadet is suitably ready and assists the Captain in getting the bird back on the ground or perhaps, they're not... Not the best place to be finding that out I'd dare say.
Incidents and Accidents both have requirements before returning back to line.
Additionally, hasn't there been enough cadet bashing threads for you guys? I'm surprised you're not sick of complaining about them or minimum standards.
That's a very different thing though to suggesting I was as capable as the ex regional F/O or Captain.
Now as to whether a cadet is similar in standard to a high houred pilot at the jet level? I'm not completely sure, I'll point to the European cadet programs that successfully put ab initio cadets into the right hand seat of jets, albeit after having completed much more training than the standard 150hr CPL. They are obviously on the correct path. Are the standards seen here in Australia as well? I don't have any info on that one way or the other.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flap 0 vs 30? Overspeed without checking flap settings? That big white handle location isnt too difficult to misread..
Perhaps the Cpt was being polite in standing down, rather than say I am not flying with stoopid?
Don't quite understand cancelling the next two sectors and inconveniencing a lot of pax plus the knock-on effect. They weren't going to make the same mistake again.
Last edited by underfire; 8th Sep 2017 at 20:46.
Basil and Piltdown.
This a few years past but from what I recall of my time at VA, Their FDAP/FOQA program assigns a level of increasing seriousness to all events where SOP's aren't adhered to, for whatever reason....stupidity, negligence, bad luck, etc.
If something happens, at a certain level and it's decided that there's going to be an investigation by the "wonderful" VA safety department, you're automatically stood down/removed from flight duties regardless of whether you actually ended up doing the right thing or what you've been trained to do.
To be fair to VA, I think I was told it's more a CASA requirement.
Yes the crew c0cked up but they recognized the error and took correct and prompt action. Isn't that what we're all trained to do when we make an error? But like all things Australian it's far easier to make a mountain out of a molehill.
This a few years past but from what I recall of my time at VA, Their FDAP/FOQA program assigns a level of increasing seriousness to all events where SOP's aren't adhered to, for whatever reason....stupidity, negligence, bad luck, etc.
If something happens, at a certain level and it's decided that there's going to be an investigation by the "wonderful" VA safety department, you're automatically stood down/removed from flight duties regardless of whether you actually ended up doing the right thing or what you've been trained to do.
To be fair to VA, I think I was told it's more a CASA requirement.
Yes the crew c0cked up but they recognized the error and took correct and prompt action. Isn't that what we're all trained to do when we make an error? But like all things Australian it's far easier to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: melbourne
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair to CASA, regulators anywhere would want to know what an Airline's SMS does in circumstances like this. If the answer from Airline Management the following Monday when the inquiry came from the Regulator was " Yeah he came close to losing it but he caught it in time so we let him continue" would not be received well. Stand down would be expected by the regulator with an investigation to follow. If it was a case of flouting SOPs by showing Flapless approaches to trainees in the aircraft then it would be Just Culture time I would say.
Agree with the Safety department comment though. They have not got a good rep in house.
Agree with the Safety department comment though. They have not got a good rep in house.
Originally Posted by Coaldemon
If it was a case of flouting SOPs by showing Flapless approaches to trainees in the aircraft then it would be Just Culture time I would say.
They don't. As long as the initial selection and training of the 200hr pilot is done to a high level, they can achieve airline standards. Some will argue that 1500hrs of light aircraft flying gives you "command experience and decision making abilities", which is invalid because flying a light aircraft isn't like flying an airliner, you're going to be waiting as an FO for a considerable amount of time and picking up your command judgement that way anyway, and there's been hundreds if not thousands of airline captains in Australia who didn't have that "required command experience" when they joined an airline and they're doing just fine.
The real reason they say it is jealousy, some are just jealous that cadets don't have to do the so called "hard yards", that they get into an airline at a younger age generally than they do. This might trigger a lot of people here but that's the truth. Don't think these cadet programs have just popped up in the last couple of years, there have been cadets flying as captains of Australian airliners for over 50 years safely.
The real reason they say it is jealousy, some are just jealous that cadets don't have to do the so called "hard yards", that they get into an airline at a younger age generally than they do. This might trigger a lot of people here but that's the truth. Don't think these cadet programs have just popped up in the last couple of years, there have been cadets flying as captains of Australian airliners for over 50 years safely.
The only person being 'triggered' around here is you, the second any critical comment about cadets is made.
The reality is, whilst cadets are here to stay, a fresh cadet is not to the same standard or proficiency as an experienced direct entry in the context of a first jet position for the first year or so. As I said in my earlier reply to you, JQ's training program and limitations for line FO's are very different between cadets and direct entries. Different training hours (double), different crosswind limits, different runway length limits and on.
There is a reason for this. Care to take a guess?
In time, no question cadets come up to standard, but the biggest complaint I hear on the line from captains often isn't even technical proficiency, but attitude. You've demonstrated that nicely.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now as to whether a cadet is similar in standard to a high houred pilot at the jet level? I'm not completely sure, I'll point to the European cadet programs that successfully put ab initio cadets into the right hand seat of jets, albeit after having completed much more training than the standard 150hr CPL. They are obviously on the correct path. Are the standards seen here in Australia as well? I don't have any info on that one way or the other.
There has never been a Jet Hull loss by an Australian airline. (Yes, we may have come close)
How many Jet Hull losses have there been in European airlines?
I know this is simplistic but it's a fact.
Let's be honest with the real reason people don't like cadets.
When you meet in flight planning for the first time and do the intros it inevitably comes around to what were you doing before this? The cadet has a freaking boring story!! Oh cool you flew a C172 for 150 hours! Amazing....
Who doesn't prefer a bit of a Kunnanurra, Broome or Alice Springs story involving various European backpackers! Plus the potential story of there I was and it was all going wrong!
(Also, anyone who says a cadet is equal to someone who has real world experience (on day one in a passenger jet) has rocks in their head)
When you meet in flight planning for the first time and do the intros it inevitably comes around to what were you doing before this? The cadet has a freaking boring story!! Oh cool you flew a C172 for 150 hours! Amazing....
Who doesn't prefer a bit of a Kunnanurra, Broome or Alice Springs story involving various European backpackers! Plus the potential story of there I was and it was all going wrong!
(Also, anyone who says a cadet is equal to someone who has real world experience (on day one in a passenger jet) has rocks in their head)