HotDog,
The training captain was PM so he should have picked up on the speed excursions, the fact the hydraulic gauge showed zero and its respective switch was OFF, or even the lack of green lights.
I thought that is what CX's supremely trained training captains are supposed to do. After all they set the standards.
It's not like they were out of options or time. All they had was an engine failure on a 4 engine jet.
They landed without having a clue that the nose gear was retracted.
I am sorry, but mine is an accurate account of what happened without the sugar coating.
parabellum,
If you worked for SIA for 10 years then you know exactly what I am talking about. Interesting how you side stepped the maintenance issue. For me sitting at the pointed end that is more important than the balance sheet.
So why did you leave after 10 years? Was it the fact expats are treated like sh1t or that a 777 skipper makes less than a turboprop driver in the UK.
Paying most of your staff peanuts and spending practically nothing on maintenance sure helps the bottom line.
Their success has absolutely nothing to do with efficiency.
This thread is gone off on a tangent (not unusual on pprune), but this time I feel responsible and I apologize.
I am just sick and tired of people like FloppyResponse and the likes where their aviation knowledge extends between flight international and the CX "safety mag" preaching CX's high standards.
They are no different to anyone else, accept it and move on.
Last edited by inciter; 1st Jul 2007 at 04:09.