Handling the Big Jets

[sally]

Just bought (at not small cost) this book as it is well known to be THE book to read, as recommended for the CX interview prep.
Whilst there is undoubtedly plenty of relevent and interesting info contained in it, I was staggering to see that it was written in 1969 and last edited in 1971!!!
I haven't got far thru it but there are already references to the coming age of supersonic flight and many outdated comments, observations, system descriptions etc. Surely there is a similiar book written more recently than 35 years ago! Even the English used and the terms and definitions are dated. With all the technological changes, new electronic aids and design improvements isn't there a book more relevant to todays pilot on the market?
Yes, I know the fundamentals haven't changed but i'm sure 21st century books could also cover those, just as well if not better.
Wouldn't CX interviewers perfer candidates to be a little more up to date?! :eek:

[404 Titan]

sally

We do but we also like to see your research is broad based and not reliant on just one text etc. There is plenty in HBJ that is just as relevant today as it was in 1971. Use it for what it is worth, just as you would for any other source of information.

[extreme P]

This one is as close as I could find to a modern HTBJ. Excellent book.

Flight Theory and Aerodynamics - Dole/Lewis

These two are well worth the cost as well.

Aircraft Performance Theory - Swatton
Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators

[Sike]

After recently attending the first interview, I would suggest focusing on the middle portion of the book. Most specifically the sections on high-speed aerodynamics, dutch roll, stability, super stall, takeoff performance (ASDA TODA, etc.), and aquaplaning. The direct comparisons between jet/prop and the section on the 747 are not as relevant... at least for the first interview.

Sike

[R2000/1830]

I recently passed the first interview and read HTBJ many times. It was what got me through the interview. All modern aircraft apply the same basic principles. So I say read it and know it.

[HeavyWrenchFlyer]

This book is put out there by the British CAA. It's like any other government publication, largley out of date but the official version/final word and the most accurate on it's subject, the starting point all other private venture books start from. Pilots, engineers and technicians having passed largely out of date government required tests and requirements are all so far out of touch with current technology when they get their first job with an employer which employs current technology equipement, it's not even funny... but they know the basics which is a good starting point, without it they're truely lost. And I'd say CX is only trying to see if the applicant has the basic knowledge to build on.

I'd say we should be glad they limit their questioning on this subject to such a small book, if they really asked about current technology and from many sources wether it's aerodynamics or systems life would become so much harder for applicants, and in most cases knowledge or access to the info on CX equipment would be impossible for the average applicant unless you're already flying (or doing mx) on the same for another carrier.

[Jaguar7777]

HTBJ is a good book for sure if you have the time to read it and prepare thoroughly. I certainly got through it a couple of times.

If you dont have the time - pick out the topics from the book and either focus on just the important areas as discussed above, or at least use it to find what you need to target from your other resources, notes etc.

But all in all, I find for these complex topics like dutch roll etc, to be able to explain them as well as you understand them, read up from 3-4 sources so that you get the whole picture.

At the end of the day its how well you Convey your understanding that counts, not just how well you know it.

Good luck to all. :ok:

[404 Titan]

HeavyWrenchFlyer

I'd say we should be glad they limit their questioning on this subject to such a small book, if they really asked about current technology and from many sources wether it's aerodynamics or systems life would become so much harder for applicants, and in most cases knowledge or access to the info on CX equipment would be impossible for the average applicant unless you're already flying (or doing mx) on the same for another carrier.

Not correct. Expect to be quizzed on a much broader array of topics than what can be found inn HBJ. HBJ is only but one of the many texts and notes an applicant should research from.

[Kane Toed]

sally

Basic aerodynamics is... ummm... basic aerodynamics. I'll guess that it has changed as much since 1971 as gravity has!

HTBJ also has a 'comfortable' feel if you are ex-Military (especially a QFI). Coincidentally, there are quite a lot of ex-RAAF / RAF / USAF* / RCAF et al guys out there doing the interviewing.

My advice would be to have a good idea of HTBJ, but as Titan says (and he does know practically everything!), don't rely on it totally.

Oh - good luck. It's worth the work.

*in this context "USAF" includes all other arms of the US military that fly!

[Fantomen]

Don't forget your local library for texts about tropical weather and aerodynamics. Wikipedia is maybe the best thing to study from. My approach was to study lots of books and websites but to skip memorizing details like weights and such.

[burgerbun]

Don't forget your local library for texts about tropical weather and aerodynamics. Wikipedia is maybe the best thing to study from. My approach was to study lots of books and websites but to skip memorizing details like weights and such.

So, did it work for you?

[Fantomen]

Yes it did work. I did not get one question that had not been discussed here at pprune. I missed 2 questions regarding what aircraft has what engines. I just told them I did not know. After missing those questions I got several more regarding Cathay's fleet. The level of difficulty was about the same as in the first interview. My suggestion is not spend too much time studying details, except for maybe Cathay's website.