Bucking Bronco
Would you say that standards are exactly the same across the whole of the EU/JAA? I would say that they vary from examiner to examiner in this country, we had 2 CAA IR examiners at the airfield I trained at, one was like Capt Christmas the other was like Capt Scrooge.
Without wishing to be pointlessly pedantic, the standard
is exactly the same, although the
application of the standard my vary- this is something that the system should (eventually) sort out, but of course I take your point.
In my company in our past we had another airline integrated into ours, a friend of mine is a trainer and was responsible for converting some of the new arrivals onto one of our types. Although there were many capable pilots brought into the company he found the general standards of flying and airmanship to be well below par and began failing people. He was called into the office to explain himself and when he stated he wasn't prepared to sign some of these guys off, he was withdrawn from training and checking the new guys. This illustrates how company management can apply pressure to trainers to "get the lads through."
It's difficult to comment on specific incidents like this. It could be that your friend had higher standards than the minimum laid down by the JAA- this often happens and conflict is then inevitable. The question is, could your friend point to a clear failure to meet the minimum standard laid down by law? If so, he was right. If, on the other hand, he felt that the new hires didn't meet his somewhat higher standards (or those of the company), that is a different matter.
I have seen many a young, relatively inexperienced trainer raise the bar in an attempt to improve standards, and end up in conflict with management. It all comes down to your company training philosophy- do you accept the legal minimum, or do you insist on a higher standard?
My idea of CAA examiners/instructors conducting checks on pilots within a company would ensure that the standards are being applied to anyone within the company - not just a selected few.
I doubt that would ever fly unless the CAA suspected wholesale deceit on the part of the trainers in a particular company. Part of being a TRTO is the element of trust that goes with it. Besides, it would cost the CAA a lot of money to implement, they would pass that on to to the airlines who would object.
I once worked for a small regional UK carrier where abuse was common, for example two IRE/TREs signing each other off in the pub without actually flying. The CAA spotted it quickly and very nearly shut the company down (perhaps they should have).
That is the CAA are answerable to the Government, the Government are answerable to the people, people want cheap flights, low cost operators will provide cheap flights by cutting corners - one of these being pilots.
That doesn't follow- it implies that the government would direct the CAA to lower standards for political reasons. Not likely, methinks.
My point about the heart surgeon was supposed to ask the question, "If someone hasn't got the skills and attributes to get hired by a number of companies and has to pay to fly for an operator - should he get the job?" You set a dangerous precedent whereby people with money (or those willing to get into further debt) are the ones taken on by airlines, rather than the guys with the right stuff.
That doesn't follow either. Irrespective of the amount of money one has, you still have to pass the exams/flight tests etc. Airlines are more than happy to reduce their costs by not spending money on type ratings, but it doesn't follow that they deliberately compromise safety by hiring wealthy incompetents.
I don't know about handling a 146 but last count I've flown 11 different types of aircraft from little Chipmunks to 400 tonne 747-400 and all of them reward accurate hand flying.
Perhaps I put that badly. I have flown 8 air transport types, plus a WWII bomber and some high performance single engine types. They were great fun, in the main, but some were simply more fun than others. I have flown an A321 (on a ferry flight, not in this country), and found it sterile and unresponsive, and not particularly well harmonised. YMMV of course.
I'd prefer it wasn't there but at the end of the day safety is the priority, not me having fun.
Which is what I meant by "Enjoy you flying for as long as you can." I still believe that the commander of an aircraft should be allowed to get on with it, use his judgement skill as he sees fit, as long as it is all safe and SOP. All Big Brother does is erode the exercise of good judgement as it removes the need to exercise it as often. If all that is necessary is a set of clearly defined standard manouevers, you are well on the way to completely automated flight using systems managers instead of pilots. Great until it all goes wrong.
If that is where we are headed, I think I need a new career. However, I don't think it is- I don't believe for a minute we will see pilotless airliners. I, for one, wouldn't get on one. You simply cannot replace (completely) a wise, skilled and innovative human to help the computers out when they need to think "outside the box". The recent pock-marked Easy aircraft found elsewhere on these pages being a shining example.
Neo
Not suprisingly you fly it just like any other aircraft.
You patently do
NOT fly it just like any other aircraft, that's the whole point. From the sidestick to the software, it's very different, as many have found out for themselves. I seem to recall somebody saying that almost all of the "whats it doing now" incidents are a result of pilots not understanding the systems they are using.
Final point on airline selection. We have recently lost quite few folk to a certain low-cost operator. Some of those they took were real problem children- glad to see the back of a few of them- some had real problems with their flying. They were employed anyway by the Low Cost operator, and some have subsequently failed their conversions of line training. Tells you a lot about the efficacy of their selection methods!!!