View Full Version : CX finally joins the 21st Century!
Baron Captain ?
8th Dec 2008, 08:41
So I hear that as of 1st December they are finally able to do takeoffs with Packs On in the Airbus fleet!....
Old fart management in the past making flying aircraft more difficult than it should be!...WHY??
Because we used to in the Tristar ole chap!...
:ugh:
Old Fella
9th Dec 2008, 08:39
What is so difficult about introducing aircon packs after take-off? Surely you guys can handle that little extra action if required.
HotDog
9th Dec 2008, 09:36
No F/Es, too busy up front!:E
spleener
9th Dec 2008, 10:02
Let nothing be said against the queen of the skys - the mighty tristar!!!!
However, if I haven't consumed too many red vinos, in the early days we in fact did packs on take-offs in the A330. I vaguely recall that the packs off take-off procedure was done to increase egt margins and/or to align with the A340-200/300 procedures. Airbus MFF was somewhat in its infancy.
Regarding the difficulty of the task, was it "packs 1'" or "flaps 1"?
Perhaps someone else can recall better how things were done last century? Cheers!
dean4689
9th Dec 2008, 22:46
Spleener,
"Flap one" if you please. ::)
I just happened to be sitting in the office when "flaps" came about.
Manager 1: Is it flap or flaps
Manager 2: (Who walks over to a cockpit picture of the Airbus on the wall)
It says FLAPS on the picture so it's flaps.
So by that rational it should be FLAP on the Boeings :D
geh065
10th Dec 2008, 05:43
So by that rational it should be FLAP on the Boeings
Can't vouch for the other Boeing, but on the one I know, it says one thing on the lever and the other on the EICAS, so I guess either is good!
And Then
11th Dec 2008, 00:11
Well KA is about to join the 20th century being forced fed CX SOPs with FCOM being pushed away.
I have never seen such antiquated, irrelevant SOPS in my entire career. They will not work on high workload, short haul operations into China. Where your support pilot is often a cadet-second officer who won't yet have the experience to prioritize irrelevant, nuisance SOPs.
Many pilots at KA have thousands of incident free hours on Airbus! It should be a big bloody red flag that an outsider at KA is having so many incidents yet hardly flies at all- and multiple flap over speeds are ASR events BTW!!!!!!!
Rant over. Fly safe KA.
boocs
11th Dec 2008, 01:25
Could any ex-AN Airbus pilots comment on why they went down the strictly Airbus/FCOM road in the latter years of Airbus operations in Ansett.
My understanding is that if an accident/incident occurred, b/c they were not following strict Airbus procedures then they did not have a Legal leg to stand on if trying to go back to Airbus over any legal claim.
If this is the case, where does this place KA (and also CX) operations as they are moving away from FCOM procedures to next year adopting CX's own company SOP's. Will it place KA in the same boat as AN were b4?
Thks.
b.
WaldoPepper
11th Dec 2008, 10:07
Maybe in the next century they might let the navaids autotune! but as said earlier, "thats how we did it 50 years ago".
I've even come across some guys who have a problem with there being no ADF in the aircraft.
WP
mcdude
11th Dec 2008, 11:06
Thats why CX pulled out of Xiamen earlier this year. Couldn't get those darn SOPs to work... ;)
Baron Captain ?
11th Dec 2008, 13:47
So how is KA going to get the SOP's to work in China if CX couldn't???:mad:
AnQrKa
11th Dec 2008, 23:18
I just love the calls every 5000'. Pricelessly stupid and outdated. But hey, it stood the test of time didnt it.
Boocs, the AN move to FCOM occured because Aus, like most of the western world, has a robust legal system that punishes non compliance and attempts to force companies to maintain a modicum of duty of care.
KA lives and breaths in HKG where, yes, there is a legal system. But its main driving force is to grease the wheels of business more than provide operational oversight.
boocs
12th Dec 2008, 04:07
ANQRKA,
Thanks 4 yr response. So in your "legal opinion" how does this leave KA if they do not follow strict FCOM procedures and an accident/incident occurs. Would it be unfair of Airbus to say "Hey you're not following what we tell you to do, so Go away!!"
How long ago was the jammed flap/slat incident?
b.
And Then
12th Dec 2008, 05:05
Anyone know why we have to put our charts away now ? Is this a Cathay SOP ?
It was an appreciated professional courtesy to have the charts left out. It would buy you 30 useful seconds on slick turnaround times on busy multiple sector short haul days. As well as saving wear and tear- our charts are now a mess.
I am starting to think the CX culture sux more than their antiquated SOPs.
We have been told Cathay is a thinking pilots airline with SOPs to match. Yet, in monthly newsletters from our exchange pilot ( yes I am one of the few who read them ) he bangs on about what amounts to idiosyncrasies on how to run the flight deck. Concentrate on your own flying sunshine!
Dynasty Trash Hauler
12th Dec 2008, 09:24
"We have been told Cathay is a thinking pilots airline with SOPs to match."
Oh dear. You are way off the mark.
As an ex CX driver from many years ago, I can tell you it is the least progressive of the 5 airlines I have flown for, including my namesakes outfit.
Granted, I left CX years ago - maybe things have improved - but I doubt it.
Old fashioned crap pushed by twits who have never left the green pond to take a look at the outside world.
And Then
12th Dec 2008, 09:54
It gets more absurd the more I think about it. Thinking pilot ? WTF is a thinking pilot?
VR-HFX
12th Dec 2008, 10:15
..not what the company wants..is the the simple answer
and BTW...on the Tristar...it wasn't packs on...it was sponge packs in..to stop all the black grunge from dripping on the punters.
Grivation
13th Dec 2008, 03:46
CX is no thinking pilot's airline.
It's an airline driven by a training system led by out-of-date ex RAF/RAAF types who have (mostly) never worked for any other airline except CX. It's not their fault - it's just that all they know is CX.
It's a C&T system completely focused on the inane at the expense of the BIG picture. One stuck in the 50's whilst pretending to be at the forefront of modern airline operations. Sure, over the last few decades CX may have been at the front, but there are now plenty of airlines doing it easier, faster and safer without any need for pedantics.
I'd be willing to put money on the fact that people who have recently joined CX from other airlines would rank CX's C&T system, particularly the culture, near the bottom of their experience pile. It'd be interesting to see an AoA poll on the topic ;)
AsiaMiles
13th Dec 2008, 08:53
Why let a few untruths get in the way of facts. If you remember the reason we did Packs Off takeoffs was a Rolls Royce Trent 700 design fault that required the Bird Mouth to to be redesigned and replaced.
Airbus offered two options until CX and KA fleets were modified - do Packs Off or a high powered engine on a regular basis prior to takeoff. I am sure the passengers would have enjoyed sitting at the end of the runway doing high powered engine runs.
Lets make this a sensible and balanced forum for real discussion and not the ranting and ravings of a few people.
oicur12
13th Dec 2008, 11:12
......which is kind of part of the discussion here really.
How long ago was the mod completed?
What was the reason for packs off? Whats wrong with APU bleed on?
oicur12
14th Dec 2008, 23:28
What part of my point confuses you?
oicur12
15th Dec 2008, 06:56
The OEB regarding APU use has been in force for about one tenth of the time of the CX policy regarding the use of packs off for takeoff.
Again, why has CX employed a packs off takeoff all this time.
Anybody?
HeavyWrenchFlyer
15th Dec 2008, 08:07
CX is no thinking pilot's airline.
It's an airline driven by a training system led by out-of-date ex RAF/RAAF types who have (mostly) never worked for any other airline except CX. It's not their fault - it's just that all they know is CX.
It's a C&T system completely focused on the inane at the expense of the BIG picture. One stuck in the 50's whilst pretending to be at the forefront of modern airline operations. Sure, over the last few decades CX may have been at the front, but there are now plenty of airlines doing it easier, faster and safer without any need for pedantics.
I'd be willing to put money on the fact that people who have recently joined CX from other airlines would rank CX's C&T system, particularly the culture, near the bottom of their experience pile. It'd be interesting to see an AoA poll on the topic.
With that, you've hit the nail on the head. There is a long laundry list of SOPs which other world airlines implemented long ago because either they themselves learned a harsh lesson the hard way, or they were smart enough to learn from other airlines' mistakes. Why the f'kkk would you not want to learn from someone else's mistakes & solutions to do things better and instead rather wait until it bites you in the @$$ so you get the pleasure of learning the same lesson the hard way??? And even then why would you not want to see how others fixed that same problem so you don't have to invent a wheel from scratch when you can maybe use someone else's solution which may be better than yours???
Liaising with other airlines which have the same aircraft and operation is a well established practice in the US airline industry specifically so they can learn from others' mistakes, not just among the airlines but among their respective FAA certificate holding offices as well. Does Cathay liaise with United, Delta, American, BA, Quantas, Lufthansa, etc...??? I don't think so!
I guess if you don't run with the pack because you're too arrogant to do so, you can't realize how slow and far behind you really are!
boocs
15th Dec 2008, 15:43
come on Oic!!!
Your argument is reasonable and logical!! No room for that sort of stuff here. Bak under yr rock pls.....
b.
Didn't Waldo say earlier that his/her colleagues would be lost without an ADF and manual tuning?!?!?!?! I feel de same way :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
b.
BusyB
15th Dec 2008, 20:05
As someone who worked for one of the major international airlines mentioned in this thread (for 15 years) I have to dispute the training comments. There has been one a******e trainer in every fleet in every airline and most of the others are of good standard.
Sounds like ill informed sour grapes to me.:ok:
Grivation
15th Dec 2008, 21:07
I wasn't talking about individual trainers. As we all know there's the occasional 'odd bod' in every airline's C&T department.
What I was talking about was CX's regression from being at the forefront of C&T to now really lagging behind - principally (I believe) because they don't collaborate.
CX's SOP's are chalk & cheese from most other airlines (even the manufactures). And I'm starting to wonder why? Why are the CX SOP's and mouth music so different to elsewhere? :confused:
AnQrKa
18th Dec 2008, 23:29
Over to you jizzmonkey.
A few here kinda hopin you aint a pilut mate.
The pond is deep, the wall is high, aint it bud.
oicur12
17th Jan 2009, 10:16
Jizzmonkey. Any further thoughts on the subject or are you hiding after your dumb comments?
Hoofharted
18th Jan 2009, 00:57
The order to "make my bunk" pretty much encapsulates the entire problem.
What a load of crap-Cathay did packs off take offs on the 707!
SeldomFixit
18th Jan 2009, 01:57
Albeit for completely different reasons :rolleyes:
The prime reason was the tailored runway performance chart.
Sqwak7700
19th Jan 2009, 18:34
CX is no thinking pilot's airline.
It's an airline driven by a training system led by out-of-date ex RAF/RAAF types who have (mostly) never worked for any other airline except CX. It's not their fault - it's just that all they know is CX.
It's a C&T system completely focused on the inane at the expense of the BIG picture. One stuck in the 50's whilst pretending to be at the forefront of modern airline operations. Sure, over the last few decades CX may have been at the front, but there are now plenty of airlines doing it easier, faster and safer without any need for pedantics.
I'd be willing to put money on the fact that people who have recently joined CX from other airlines would rank CX's C&T system, particularly the culture, near the bottom of their experience pile. It'd be interesting to see an AoA poll on the topic
Right on, agree 100%. But the union would never take such a poll. Too many people in it are afraid of hearing the truth.
Cathay was very lucky recently. There's been 3 serious incidents which could have happened to any of us, which hilighted the seriousness of the situation. These incidents shared one thing in common - big picture stuff was overlooked / sacrificed for pedantic useless ****t.
What did Cathay choose to do to fix the situation? Well, first of all, punitive action. :yuk: Second of all, make the situation worse by introducing more pedantic useless ****t which just compounds the situation.
Someone hits a tug and people taxi before the ground disconnects? Fine, lets make another procedure for it. Surely they did these mistakes due to the lack of procedures, right? :yuk:
You can't solve everything by making a procedure for it. Sometimes, the way to improve safety is to actually free up your pilots a bit so that they are unloaded enough to use their brains. That is the best tool against stupid mistakes, not new checklists or 15 step processes. :ugh: