Shiny jet syndrome explains a lot. I googled the Comstock guy mentioned and got loads of videos describing pilot psychology and manipulation by management. Who is/are SSQ?
If my airline announced they were hiring 100 pilots, it would receive 10,000 applications, 2,000 of them highly qualified people it would want to hire.
It's not the gold mine it used to be, but it's still the best job I can imagine, and I still feel very lucky.
When airlines can't fill the open slots with qualified people the package will be adjusted, not before.
The Hawker mentioned in the article lives on at FSI in Farnborough, it is now the Hawker 750 sim. The Hawker suffered extensive damage to the nose area, smashing the cockpit up pretty badly. One of the reasons why they couldn't get the gear down.
Ask the Pilot had similar things to say about Sullenberger's ditching:
Together with the majority of my colleagues, I have the utmost respect for Captain Sullenberger. But that’s just it: respect. It’s not adoration or a false, media-fattened misunderstanding of what he and his crew faced that day. As the public has come to understand it, captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger saved the lives of everybody on board through nerves of steel and superhuman flying skills. The reality isn’t quite so romantic.
Nowhere in the public discussion has the role of luck been adequately acknowledged. Specifically, the time and place where things went wrong. As it happened, it was daylight and the weather was reasonably good; there off Sullenberger’s left side was a 12-mile runway of smoothly flowing river, within swimming distance of the country’s largest city and its flotilla of rescue craft. Sullenberger performed admirably in the face of a serious emergency, but had the bird-strike occurred over a different part of the city or at a lower altitude (beyond gliding distance to the Hudson), or in inclement weather, the result was going to be an all-out catastrophe, and no amount of talent or skill was going to matter.
I was getting a haircut one day not long after the accident when Nick the barber asked what I did for a living. As is too often the case, any talk of piloting automatically turns toward the saga of Sully-upon-Hudson, and this was no exception. Nick grew starry-eyed. “Man, that was something.” he said. “How did the guy ever land that plane on the water like that?”
Nick wasn’t looking for a literal answer, but I gave him one anyway. “Pretty much the same way he’s landed 12,000 other times in his career.” was my response. “Actually, gliding into the river was probably a lot easier than gliding to an airport,” I added. “Sully had the benefit of a long, open river runway of water, and didn’t have to worry about crashing short or running out of room.”
There was silence after that, which I took to mean that Nick was either silently impressed by this exquisite new knowledge, or was thinking “what an asshole.”
I was exaggerating somewhat, but eager to make a point: that the nuts and bolts of gliding into water aren’t anything an average pilot couldn’t handle with relative ease. The common-sense of the maneuver is one of the reasons pilots don’t even train for them in simulators. Another reason is that a water landing is presumed to be the byproduct of something extremely serious — a fire, multiple engine failures, or some other catastrophic malfunction. That is the crux of the emergency, not the resultant landing, be it on solid or liquid surface.
And with almost unlimited space, gliding into the Hudson was a much easier task than attempting to hit a fixed point — i.e. a runway — whereby the management of speed and descent rate have to be exactly right. With heavy swells, an ocean ditching would be exceptionally dangerous, but I’ll take landing in a long, calm river any day over the challenges of making it to a distant runway. And from a pilot’s perspective there are many worse nightmares than having to splash-land a jetliner on a calm river in broad daylight.
Sullenberger, to his credit, has been duly humble, acknowledging the points I make above. People pooh-pooh this as false modesty or self-effacing charm, when really he’s just being honest. He has also highlighted the unsung role played his first officer, Jeffrey Skiles. Don’t forget were two pilots on board, and both needed to rise to the occasion.
Does this mean our flight school should remove the photos of airplanes flying into the sunset/sunrise (take your pick) from the student lounge?
No V2. As a matter of fact these are near enough to the posters that were plastered on the wall above my study desk at home as a motivator while I battled Matriculation -
The differences between then and now being -
- These were REAL aeroplanes
- They were aircraft one thoroughly enjoyed flying, and was proud to fly
- Australia's airlines were worth the long hard battle to get into, and were run by airline men who weren't out to use your love of flying or their jets to screw you, but to capitalise on it.
The Hawker mentioned in the article lives on at FSI in Farnborough, it is now the Hawker 750 sim. The Hawker suffered extensive damage to the nose area, smashing the cockpit up pretty badly. One of the reasons why they couldn't get the gear down.
I heard the captain of that Hawker private jet speak with a group from the Ninety-Nines and SHE was very impressive. I'd take a Hudson River VFR ditching over a midair any day
Best thing I've seen since Seinfeld Live but I disagree with one thing. We are professionals even if mgmt doesn't always treat us that way. Physicians aren't far behind us as Nationalised Medicine and HMOs gain more control. In fact, some docs are being unionised by the Int'l Teamsters.
Low pay at the end of the day is not a laughing matter
Haven't read every word of the article, but would suggest that the opinions expressed in this thread are (inevitably) distorted by personal experiences.
As an example:
Quote:
Perhaps what frightened Sullenberger the most was the notion that the decisions he would make in seconds would be analyzed for months.
That probably relates to analysis by the regulating authority. Do your job correctly and the quoted statement would be incorrect. Do your job incorrectly and, IMHO, you deserve to be criticised. Also applicable if you work for an intelligent, fair employer.
However, you try working for an airline privately owned by ignorant bullies who despise the pilot workforce because 'they cost more money than they're worth'. Try working for pilot managers who are selected for their bullying and @r$e-licking talents, rather than management skills or intelligence. It doesn't take long for any pilot employee to observe the treatment meted out to any pilot who makes a mistake, or is merely perceived to have made a mistake. The first priority of many such observers when an in-flight problem arises is '$h!t, how do I cover my @r$e at the Fleet Office enquiry'.
The quoted statement dosn't seem quite as unrealistic then, does it?
That principle applies to some of the article content I've read thus far. I repeat, I haven't read every word of it. Maybe worth consideration?
Great Woman!
