@ Mercenary Pilot
Thanks for posting the full AAIB report, the recent added posts made me first see and read it. Although the report clearly identifies several major errors in the operator's training and operations departments, you solely blaim the motivated, eager-to-learn F/O. Perhaps next time you can refrain from the insulting words in the title of your post. What attitude is that? Again, thanks for the report.
@Juniour Jetset
Are you the same person posting the latest two post under your name? As spot on as your last post is, as misplaced is your previous outing on UK versus France. There exists no system in either country, nor any other country for that matter. All nations have all sides of the quality spectrum represented. The governing element in distinguishing good from bad lies in the principal attitude towards safety
.
@FlyingOfficerKite
I quite agree with your post, you seem to be very aware of the issue, yet acknowledge that you prefer to demonstrate your own lack of assertiveness when unclarities exist. May I remind you that that in fact undermines a proper cockpit hierarchy? Speaking up by all means is the more safe and constructive approach. Examine your attitude next time you decide to keep quiet.
To the emergency bit: hardly
ANY operator trains F/Os in initial training, emergency handling skills other than the manufacturer prescribed manouevres or added company SOPs in OM B chapter 3. Reasoned and structured approaches to complex scenarios mostly are not covered until shortly before command training. That is the operator's fault, not the F/O's.
To the matter:
There is a big difference between ab initio training from zero time until jet rated and free market basic training with a bridge course. Ab initio, guides the trainee from scratch to finish under a given set of standards, laid out in a syllabus with CAA approval. Free market does not
necessarily do that. It may vary per flight school and country.
The report clearly demonstrates the wide range of critique on the F/O's landing performance. My own experience with four commercial operators and five training organisations of which several highly respectable, confirm the AAIB report. That is; not all trainers possess the skills to adequatly debrief a trainee, let alone formulate a critique in written sentences. Trainer selection often leaves a lot to be desired and more often than not is based on seniority rather than competence.
The operations department and the training department of the operator in question, taught and condoned the application of a manoeuvre (TOGA 10), while not prescribed by the manufacturer under the given circumstances. It would be highly interesting to learn about the attitude and motivation that has put in place this misguidance.
If Kos is a special airport to a certain extent and the F/O's reputation preceeds his skills, the valid question is why did the captain not fly this leg? What motivation and attitude did he possess at the time?
The F/O on the other hand demonstrated skilled discipline in aircraft handling down to 50 feet. While undoubtedly busy, he may not have recognised the need for a go-around. His PNF, the captain, lacked the required assertiveness in this phase of the approach to correctly order the go-around. What attitude and motivation drove him?
I find it shallow and cheap to poke at a junior individual that lacks technical skill in a small, yet important, area of flight operations which was partially generated by poor training design standards and monitoring, while in fact he appears to be the only person that despite his set-backs kept on working to his goal in a motivated open-minded way. One-sided stabbing in his direction needlessly feeds the arrogance of the old-and-bold as well does it undermine the motivation of new candidates where it simultaneously sends out a signal of amateurism to people reading this thread.
Many times have I witnessed below standard performance on flight checks, both by senior captains and trainers, while listening to the 'good job' debriefings. The worst possible combination being that of a junior F/O linechecked with a senior captain by a senior trainer. Evidence to be found in numerous incidents and accidents in days gone by! Lessons learned: nil.
To all of you on your high horses: perhaps instead of condemning the newbies, you could consider passing on your technical expertise on a peer-to-peer basis if you are not a trainer. With the newbies knowledge level added to that you might even make up a good team. Spare me the 'they don't pay me to be a trainer' crap, if you consider writing that.
Arrogance has no place in multi pilot operations. Switched-on, eager-to-learn and motivated people do.
