Inquiries into a serious hard-landing accident by a ********* Airways Airbus A320 in Greece have revealed that instructors had repeatedly expressed concerns over a trainee co-pilot's landing techniques in the weeks before.
After the initial contact, the captain immediately took over but the aircraft bounced another three times before settling. Both main-gear assemblies were damaged and subsequently replaced
the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) points out that the trainee pilot - who had 381hr, with 147hr on type - had previously come under scrutiny for poor landing technique.
The pilot had started commercial jet training, under a scheme affiliated with the carrier, six months before the incident. During extensive A320 simulator work his landing abilities became "recurring theme of concern", but the AAIB adds: "Although instructors identified that more time needed to be spent training the co-pilot to land, this time was not found and the training was repeatedly deferred.
Doubts persisted through base training and then line training, and relevant landing technique notes were made a "number of times" with many earlier comments being repeated.
"The aircraft demands a relatively high level of 'assured' skill from the trainee their ability to land the aircraft correctly, consistently, should not be in doubt before base training commences and certainly not in doubt during line training where passengers are carried," says the AAIB's inquiry.
Flight-data monitoring in May and June 2007 showed that the co-pilot was involved in further firm landings, and he underwent additional training. After the Kos accident, the airline's flight safety department found that, during line training, the captain had intervened in a third of the co-pilot's 28 landings.
What ever NSF and his colleagues say, this is why P2F airlines need to be avoided. This particular candidate could have been chopped, retrained or side lined, apparently, according to the AAIB at several points in his training. He wasn't, for whatever reason. I doubt that any full timer would have been given this number of opportunities but as has already been posted here, TRE's do as they are told.
With regards to one training department here, those that have identified themselves as belonging to one particular airline have without exception said that they train these guys but they dont like it!!!! They then have the audacity to criticise me when i say "well if you dont like it ....... do something about it" They then hide behind what a wonderful organisation they are and how well respected they are.
That is probably the case. They are probably well respected and why not. Im sure they do a bloody good job. Im sure its not always strait forward and im sure they have very good and very well respected guys and gals as part of their department....... just like any other UK airline
BUT
it doesnt make them always right.
The excerpts above come from an incident involving another highly respected UK airline, with no doubt a highly respected training department but the comments made by the AAIB (and yes its only a very small part of a very long report) seem to justify the thinking that P2F is bad for the industry. Why would any self respecting airline take a guy with 275 hours to fly in the right seat when there are guys with 3000+ hours on type on the dole.
NSF and his colleagues seem to want to turn this into a personal issue. Im not interested in that. Im interested in getting rid of P2F schemes. However, my belief is that in order to do that, we need to prove that safety is an issue because this story has no legs without it. BALPA are simply not interested for whatever reason. PPRune even takes advertising money from companies that advertise these schemes.
So to NSF and his colleagues, im sure you have a world class training organisation (albeit staffed with people who only read half of whats posted here and then comment negatively) and im sorry if i offend you as that is most definately not my intention. And i totally understand why you are defensive about your product. I think you are a class outfit. I admire the company you work for and the job that gets done.
BUT
I want to see the end of this P2F debacle. You have all agreed that you dont like it either. Im sure its a very bitter sweet pill to swallow but the only way we are going to educate the world about this is through the (lack of) safety issue. No one is going to give a stuff about the erosion of Terms and Conditions. Our Union doesnt so why would anyone else?
The P2F issue has absolutely NO AFFECT what so ever on my Terms and Conditions so i could just wind my neck in as im sure some here would want, which is fine. But i happen to want to lend my experience; 12,000 PIC JET hours to the debate and help scrap P2F. I have no reason to join in being personal but i do fully appreciate the position that those that criticise me are in. If they admit that safety is an issue, its like admitting they are bad at what they do. But i KNOW that that is not the case.
To an extent their hands are tied. But if an airline is going to put 250 Hour pay to fly guys in the right seat, will they then put 1500 hour guys in the left. Will they then populate their training department with 2000 hour pilots. All of the above would save costs. It would be bloody daft but it would save money.
So to continue the theme of the thread, "P2F the cancer of Aviation" needs to be eradicated and the quickest way to do that is to promote (if its actually the case) the erosion of safety as its the only thing that will eventually get all sides on board.
Good Night. Good Luck. God Bless
GW
