QF 32 A380 Airbus Incident Singapore

[Captain Boers]

An interview with Capt Evans courtesy of the Royal Aeronautical Society UK.

Interesting stuff. Once again the fine line between an incident safely handled and a smoking hole in the ground. Experience and training that's what makes the difference. You hire experience (someone else has paid for it) or you provide the training and that does not equate to regulatory requirements in a canned environment.

Take pride in your profession - the knockers haven't got a clue.

EXCLUSIVE - Qantas QF32 flight from the cockpit | Aerospace Insight | The Royal Aeronautical Society (http://www.aerosocietychannel.com/aerospace-insight/2010/12/exclusive-qantas-qf32-flight-from-the-cockpit/)

Well done to all concerned. :ok:

Aaagh - where's my coffee.

Happy Christmas to all.

[third floor whore]

Interesting that the S/O had 8000 hours.
Some of our flights are probably being dispatched with less than 8000 hours amongst the whole crew.

[Old Fella]

Third Floor Whore. And just what type of aircraft and category operation are we talking about? Also how many cockpit members does a "Whole Crew" constitute? Or is this just an attempt to put down your employer, if you have one?

[boxjockey]

TFW,

I highly, highly doubt there are any crews out there who have below the experience you describe, even though it is theoretically possible.

box

[Captain Boers]

I suppose it was only a matter of time - at least we got to 900 odd viewers - before the non-sensical crap floated to the surface.

Flight Hours is a meaningless gauge of experience and ability. One can have a zillion hours on longhaul with matchsticks propping one's eyelids open - what experience is that?

In my book, and I've only been in aviation some 40 years, the true measure of 'experience' is the number of sectors operated (civil / military), the type of operation and the geographical location, and, finally, the challenges one has faced along the way. Ditching in the Hudson, for example, would rate quite highly! 'Challenges' can be substituted to a great extent by realistic and meaningful training and an inquisitive and professional approach to our profession.

That's it - Happy Christmas.

Pass the coffee,

[F3sRBest]

Thanks for posting Captain Boers, fascinating read. His matter-of-fact descriptions highlight years of skill and training and bely the very human nature 'oh s**t' tendnancy!

[third floor whore]

To Old Fella.

I fly jets, with 2 or 3 crew, depending on the duty period.

And if you look at any of the contract websites, you will see plenty of jet jobs in asia where the requirement for captains is 5000 hours, the requirement for F/O's is 2000 hours.
Throw in a cadet cruise pilot with 300 hours, and its certainly possible that some medium haul flights are sent out with less than 8000 hours in the whole crew.

And I don't think its nonsense to suggest that more hours = more experience. This is why every recruiter in the world lays out hours requirements for their captains.

[Old Fella]

TFW, your posts on another thread suggest that you are a S/O and no one should belittle you for that. Fact is all Captains were at one time "junior" crew members and, as you put it, served an apprenticeship. Interesting that you say you "dont mind taking advice from Captain's and F/O's". I would think you should be anxious to seek advice from your more experienced crew members. I see that it is possible for an aircraft to be operated by a crew with less than a total 8000 hrs, but it would be the exception rather than the rule I expect and not likely in CX. Don't be too "precious" about people taking the mickey out of you from time to time, we have all experienced it and it is usually fairly harmless banter. Good luck with your "apprenticeship".

[Captain Boers]

TFW,
The industry requires a yardstick and hours is the simplest and cheapest - hence it is the common currency for aviation experience. Further, insurance companies will normally set a hours limit for command irrespective of individual airline requirements. In addition, individual airlines will set hours requirements as an auto filter for applications - this bar is movable depending on the 'market forces' in play at the time.

Aviation experience is a nebulous concept. However, I still contend that it is not hours that matter but the 'quality' of those hours and the experiences gained in them. If you have experienced 'fear' then the next time it is that much easier to overcome. If you have carried out a ditching in the Hudson, an engines out glide approach and landing in a heavy jet etc etc - these all increase one's experience exponentially.

So if I were a recruiter and I had two candidates of similar age and qualifications - one had 6000 hours / 3000 sectors on varied aircraft and the other training followed by mainly Ultra Long Haul flying who do you think I would prefer and who would you define as having more experience?

Now get on up to the 3F cos the inmates require massageee long time and need stress alleviation therapy :ooh:

Happy Christmas.

[third floor whore]

Captain Boers

I agree. A qualitative assessment of experience is going to be more useful than the straight numbers.

I have noticed a significant degredation in my flying skills since I have been warming the jumpseat in the big jets.

I know a lot more about long range ops, HF RT, ACARS etc... but this is stuff that could really be learnt from a book. Stick and rudder flying skills are not a priority at Cathay.

I would be nice if we could get some honest non-jeopardy training. Just a few hours in the sim every 6 months. Circuits, raw data flying, NDB approaches, aborted landings, engine failure on final..etc etc.

But the obsessives feel the need to quantify everything, and so we are all slaves to the ERAS.

I'm heading up to the 3rd floor now... for my annual pre-christmas grovel.