Yeah I can see parallels between a load of coal and 300+ human beings
From a management point of view 40,000 tonne of coal, 200 freight cars plus 3 or 4 locos, several kilometres of track with associated bridges, culverts, signalling equipment, etc probably equals one aircraft hull loss, 300 lives and associated peripheral damage. All actuarially accounted and insured.
If he can't demonstrate the required skills in a simulator he doesn't get a career
He had previously demonstrated sufficient skills to get a job as a F/O with a carrier (one you or I would not fly with!) to get his 200 hours A320 time and with a lot of instructor work progressed to a stage of demonstrating sufficient skill to progress to the next stage. The next stage was back to A320 (and I am not knocking Airbus) where within 6 months I suggest any manipulative skills which were refreshed will have disappeared continuing to do so as time passes. Exposure and experience may help but the future is reliance upon more and more automatics with SOPs developed around this concept.
whats unsafe about developing/practicing/maintaining manual skills in a simulator?
Not a thing however, does it replace actual experience? Supplement real time experience yes but it only forms a very small part of the overall operation and I suggest if anything the AF A330 demonstrates where it can all go pear shaped rapidly.
Stall Recovery? Wings Level, Nose Down, Max Power; Recover Airspeed, Attitude & Altitude
there will never be less than 2 pilots on the flight deck of a high capacity jet. It’s the cheapest thing in the cockpit
Management do not see pilots as being the cheapest thing on the flight deck regardless of what we may like to think and the cost of creating a pilot via a cadetship if the airline is paying for it is a considerable outlay; of course where management have created a situation where the pilot is dumb enough to pay for this then management’s cost is significantly reduced. Compared to automatics I would argue long term and with continued development and reliability the long term cost advantages of automatics is considerable.
Reference the 2 pilots in the cockpit I refer to the daily use of UAVs (and regardless of the unsubstantiated statement; `And UAVs of all types crash at around 30 times the rate of manned aircraft’) the evidence suggest to the contrary.
The increasing use and reliability of automatics/technology
CRA unmanned trucks & trains increasing
Passengers daily step off an aircraft onto an unmanned bus or train to transport them to the next destination without knowledge or a thought about who or what is driving the thing.
The high SPEED trains throughout the world (350 passengers plus) have only ONE driver being largely automated, computer monitored.
People, we, accept technology reasonably readily; when we check in we have little qualms about seat assignment via the internet, check in at the automated kiosk & use the baggage drop all eliminating the `counter jumpers’. At the supermarket, Coles & Woolworths, and Bunnings we increasingly use the automated self checkout eliminating the `checkout chicks’.
That is, people do and will accept change.
I do not necessarily agree or like the way it is going but this however, it is the way of the world and it has been ever thus since the beginning and certainly throughout my career DC3s to A380/B747 800, UAVs, etc.
Perhaps, instead of clinging to outmoded philosophies of minimum 1500 hours, etc we need to review our thinking to adjust to the future technologies.