PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Below the GS at SFO again
View Single Post
Old 29th Jul 2013, 17:23
  #121 (permalink)  
RAT 5
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Now I admit I know nothing of the required training or checking of a cruise ship/tanker skipper when being up-graded to command; but I suspect there are some very interesting practical manoeuvres to be assessed. I would expect them to be assessed docking a large boat with difficult tide & wind elements and perhaps at night. All good mark 1 eyeball stuff with a 'touch' for the task. If I was a CP/DFO etc. I would like to think my captains could be put 30nm out on finals, visual, 7000', 250kts being kind I'd allow a DME and I'd expect them to make a CDA to land. I'd also expect them to be overhead 4000' 210kts and make a visual descending circuit with no PAPI's etc.again as CDA. If you can't do the most basic of manoeuvres I don't want you in command of one of my a/c: you are not a true pilot.
Many years ago I knew of such CP/DFO's. I never rose to the lofty heights, preferring training, but I loved working for those guys. Those days are long gone. WHY? Someone quoted the analogy of the trainee track driver and reversing an 'artic' into the loading bay at night after the auto-parking system was u/s. Spot on. Some else quoted that the automatics are there to reduce workload not replace you. Spot on.
It's sad when I met some cadets, privileged, going to the national airline flight school. I sensed their motivation as not for flying, but easy bucks at an early age; a guaranteed easy-ish life with bigger bucks and a luscious pension quite early in life. They would be great SOP disciples, flashing fingers on the CDU, charmers of the cabin crew and pax, and good ambassadors for the company. Pilots when the chips were down; suspect. It made me question the selection criteria. When I read the parameters on an application form for a national legacy carrier it makes me cringe. They're are asking for the wrong people.
NASA says modern pilots are finding difficulties in adapting to being monitors of automatics. One answer might be to change the type of person sitting up front. It is not necessary to be a university wizz-kid, super people manager, to be a pilot. There are much more basic elements required. Have they lost the plot? The training/checking standards need re-assessing, but perhaps there is more to consider.
RAT 5 is offline