Terror in the skies channel 4

[Safety Concerns]

what, nobody has any comments about the programme last night?

some nice graphics and basic explanations

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I was too scared to watch it.

[Ms Spurtle]

Thought there'd be a huge thread about it already.

"these planes are very new and massively complex so they're gonna fail big style"

"Look a chisel dropped from a height will pierce carbon fibre. WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[Safety Concerns]

I thought parts were excellent like praising the BA 777 crew. Happens rarely these days. But some of it, ok it is television.

[foxmoth]

Most of this was WAAAAY over hyped, I think the worst was the woman on the A320 with a gear problem, they kept coming back to her because she said so much how she was near to dying! As an experienced person in aviation he should have been pointing out how, landing at an airfield with almost any gear problem there might be aircraft damage, but the only likely injuries would be on an evacuation (actually a bit that people do not think of as dangerous, but in many incidents where most, mainly minor, injuries occur). same with the fan failure, as an engineer he MUST know that the casing is designed to largely contain this, so all the "this would go straight through the fuselage" was again over the top!
The only one with any sensible level of reporting was the BA failure, but even this put as much emphasis as he could on the likelihood of people being killed!:mad:

[10 DME ARC]

Yes as a supposedly airspace engineer he left a lot of facts out for sensationalism!!!

[Pub User]

Biggest load of over-dramatised crap I've seen for some considerable time.

[DavidWoodward]

My favourite quote was about the QF A380 that had the uncontained engine failure. "It's been repaired and is now back in active service. So, if you fly Qantas and go on an A380 the chances are you could be on it."

Well no :mad:!

[BugSpeed]

Fellow Pruners,

Is anyone else watching this complete and utter sensationalist tripe C4 have pushed out?

It makes me want to punch the TV!

The level of technical inaccuracy and "creative scripting" are astounding even for Channel 4 (ie failing to explain the airbus actually had 2 WS go-arounds at BHX).

Would someone who know's the Channel 4 management please get them to pull this load of old cobblers?

[monkeytennis]

It's like watching the Daily Mail on TV! :}

[BugSpeed]

More like the Daily Express - a little bit more opinion than the Mail lol

[d71146]

The trouble is a lot of Joe Public watching will take it all in as fact.

[tgon]

No I wont :ok:

[Guy of Gisborne]

Even though I agree with the fact that it has been dramatised for public viewing it does bring to public attention the facts about FDP and poor T&Cs for those starting out. This can only be a good thing. The public's perception of pilots being paid bucket loads of cash and living a playboy lifestyle is still held (all of my friends/relatives are shocked to hear of flexicrew and that the majority of FR pilots are contractors). Plus, and I'm being biased, it did bring out the point that military pilots are better trained to deal with those emergencies when computers and autopilots fail. About time military aviators became a valuable commodity again in the industry and not just another number

[Contacttower]

I thought there were some good bits and bad. Some interesting explanations of incidents like Qantas and the BA 777 which went into a reasonable amount of detail.

For an engineer though I thought he sounded very sensationalist; I would have expected a more nuanced view from someone with such qualifications. The JetBlue incident for example simply did not warrant the amount of time and hyperbole that was expended on it!

Other issues raised like automation dependency, fatigue and poor pay were all worth raising and discussing but his presentation of them often seemed disorganised and confused. It would have been nice to see some more interesting and knowledgable experts talk about those points as well because again the few that did speak gave rather basic and alarmist views - I was particularly irritated by the suggestion that hand flying skills can only be gained in the military. :rolleyes:

[PURPLE PITOT]

What you want up front is 2 experienced pilots, regardless of how they were trained. Not P2f rich kid and a 2000 hr captain who started as a 250 hr wonder kid, and has had a whole career constrained by restrictive sop's, so they can't actually fly.

That costs money though!

[Standard Noise]

S'alright folks, panic over! Next week it's the fault of us ATCOs! WOOHOO!:ugh:

[vctenderness]

I just can't get passed the presenters 'dodgy' facial hair!

Close cropped mutton chop whiskers is not a good look.

[Guy of Gisborne]

If a passenger could choose, they'd want 2 highly trained military pilots up front. Pilots who have had 3 years of vigorous training with repeatedly tested handling, UPs, stalls, spins, inverted spins, aerobatics etc etc. Pilots who have already gone through a rigorous selection process. Pilots who have spent most of their flying career pushing themselves and their aircraft to the limits. Pilots who are used to manoeuvring aircraft at the edge of the envelope, whether that's rotary, fast jet or big transport aircraft (ever seen a tactical descent by a C17?)
What they definitely don't want is an IT nerd with the minimum of training who, when the computers fail (and they will), doesn't know which way is up!

[AndoniP]

If a passenger could choose, they'd want 2 highly trained military pilots up front. Pilots who have had 3 years of vigorous training with repeatedly tested handling, UPs, stalls, spins, inverted spins, aerobatics etc etc. Pilots who have already gone through a rigorous selection process. Pilots who have spent most of their flying career pushing themselves and their aircraft to the limits. Pilots who are used to manoeuvring aircraft at the edge of the envelope, whether that's rotary, fast jet or big transport aircraft (ever seen a tactical descent by a C17?)
What they definitely don't want is an IT nerd with the minimum of training who, when the computers fail (and they will), doesn't know which way is up!

Yep, that's exactly what they want.... *sigh* :hmm:

[PURPLE PITOT]

Only 3 years eh? In my day, if it wasn't operational, it was training and checking. All of it.

[Guy of Gisborne]

Sorry PurplePitot, you're right but, I was referring to the initial training. I don't think any pilot can argue who are the better trained and which have a higher capacity and better flying skills.
AdoniP, RAF reject by any chance?

[Contacttower]

To be honest that distinction between highly trained military pilots and modern day 'button pushers' is a rather poor generalisation that in Europe at least is simply irrelevant even if there is some truth in it.

As the programme mentioned it used to the case in the US that the vast majority of pilots came from the military. It simply worked out like that because the military supplied enough pilots and retiring to the airlines was a logical progression for many.

In Europe though there have never been enough military pilots and today that is the case more than ever as air forces get smaller and airlines bigger. Non-airline jobs that the old 'self improvers' under the pre-JAR system might have conducted prior to airline jobs have also largely disappeared with the exception of instruction which while a good option cannot be a pre-airline job for all because there simply is not enough demand for instructors.

In the face of this the European airlines and the airlines of other states which have limited GA activity to recruit from have turned to integrated training providers like CTC and OAA and with the launch of the MPL a few years ago the trend is only increasing.

The challenge of getting a safe pilot out of system which now has very little hand flying in real aircraft prior to airline employment is certainly a different one from those challenges of the past but my sense is that the industry is actually getting a lot better at dealing with this than it was even just 10 years ago. The standard of pilots coming out these integrated courses onto major European airlines is actually very good in general and the selection processes for them are quite rigorous.

I mean would I want some ex-Navy pilot who put down F-4s on carriers for years in control when landing a 747 in a 40kts crosswind on a dark night with two engines out and low fuel? Of course. But the industry has to work with the reality of the pilot supply and try and tailor its training to that. Judging by the safety records of the major European airlines I think they are doing very well on the whole. Airlines now go for decades without hull losses which is a big improvement if you think what the record was at the dawn of the jet age.

There is of course still much to be done. It would be nice to see more union strength on issues like fatigue and training that goes above and beyond the regulatory standards. The war to better understand the relationship between man and technology is slowly being won but there is still a lot of space for improvement. There are also issues like pay to fly on public transport which I think should simply be banned...I'm not holding my breath though on that one.

Although interesting, programmes like the one being discussed irritate me a bit because they take a sort of 'we are all going to die' mentality without really explaining the evolution of all these safety issues and what is being done about them. I bit more of a historical perspective on issues with newly certified aircraft would not have gone amiss. I know it wasn't the intention of the presenter but without any historical perspective on safety issues it did feel like a bit of an insult to all those who have worked for decades and even sometimes died in pursuit of making civil aviation safer.

[Guy of Gisborne]

As you say, there will be fewer and fewer military pilots available as the years go by but, those military pilots leaving the services now are being overlooked for CTC cadets! Which is wrong, that invaluable experience should be grabbed with both hands. (1000 different hours over 1000 x the same hour!)
If some scare mongering has been used to make the public aware of what is happening in the industry today then that is a good thing. More passengers should know, or want to know, that their pilot for their flight is well trained and well prepared. When I was in the military we would go looking for crosswinds to practice our techniques (as well as a plethora of other practices unheard of by the average civvy trained pilot) After spending a little time with civvy ab initios, they wouldn't even consider getting airborne with a 10 knot crosswind!!
P2F, flexicrew etc is unknown to the majority of paying customers. How would it change their perception if they knew 1 in 3 FOs at EJ for example are on flexicrew contracts?!

[Contacttower]

P2F, flexicrew etc is unknown to the majority of paying customers. How would it change their perception if they knew 1 in 3 FOs at EJ for example are on flexicrew contracts?!

I think a lot would be surprised but not enough to do anything about it or change their behaviour. I mean just the other day I was trying to book a last minute flight to Berlin, easy was about a third of the price of BA. Am I going to stop using easy in solidarity with those poor flexi pilots? As much as I would like to say yes obviously the answer is no as it would be for the vast majority of passengers. If their planes were falling out of the sky then that would be a different matter but you are not going to scare the public when talking about an airline that has never had a major accident...

At the end of the day the airline industry is there to make money and provide passengers with a service that they will travel on. It is not their to provide pilots with a job or apportion fairness in terms of which pilots get to fly for them.

In view of that it is really up to the unions and regulators to keep certain aspects of the modern day industry in check. Some reduction in T&Cs was always going to happen post deregulation but for the most part I lay the blame at the door of the more senior members of the profession for not stopping the spread of contracting and flexi crew when it started out. Similarly unions could have been a lot more active in dealing with issues like P2F. On specific issues like that there clearly is a role for more education of the public...but again it is not going to have a significant impact while for the most part European aviation remains so safe. The pilot body as a whole needs to deal with that sort of thing. I make these observations merely as an experienced PPL who knows a bit about the airline industry and knows a fair few military and airline pilots...

As you say, there will be fewer and fewer military pilots available as the years go by but, those military pilots leaving the services now are being overlooked for CTC cadets! Which is wrong, that invaluable experience should be grabbed with both hands. (1000 different hours over 1000 x the same hour!)

I agree it is perplexing that this is happening because military pilots do have a lot to bring to the table but for whatever reason easy have decided to go down the route of essentially just recruiting mostly from CTC with occasional openings like the recent one for experienced non-type rated pilots.

However provided it is proven to be safe airlines should be free to choose their recruitment policies in the same way they make other business decisions. I don't really like the way the system has evolved either but more and more airlines, I imagine for a combination of standardisation and cost reasons, are going down the route of contracting out ab initio training to a selected number of integrated schools. As I posted before...one has to concede that for the most part it seems to be working...

What I will say though is that although fixed wing military pilots are getting rarer the civilian world can learn a lot from military training standards and practices. Of course cost puts a limit on that to an extent but it is good to see that civilian flight schools have been slowly coming around to the idea of including aerobatics, more upset recovery training and a lot more scenario based instruction. Ultimately the improvement in training that will hopefully improve safety has to happen in this flight school environment and later in the airlines themselves because that is where the vast majority of the pilots today come from.

[AndoniP]

no, not an raf reject thanks, it's just that your assertion that raf pilots make better airline pilots is utter rubbish.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Note you have a PPL!. Oh yes, it's "RAF" please.

[Guy of Gisborne]

Did I say they make better airline pilots?

[AndoniP]

no that's right, 'If a passenger could choose, they'd want 2 highly trained military pilots up front' doesn't imply that at all. it's what you would prefer to see in the cockpit for whatever reason.

HD what I have is quite irrelevant to this discussion, using it somehow as a putdown is pointless. And whether I capitalise RAF or not, Christ alive :hmm:

[Bagso]

At least the facial hair stayed in situ....

Last week it appeared ,then disappeared, then reappeared with annoying regularity.

[Guy of Gisborne]

I don't have huge experience of flying with thousands of different FOs but, 99% of the better pilots were ex military. Not to say the civvy trained guy couldn't been just as capable with the same training. The civvy guys do the day to day job satisfactorily but it's in the sim and during emergencies that the differences show up. Their capacity is reached far quicker than their military counterparts. It's when capacity is reached that basic handling can go out of the window

[Capetonian]

Another bit of crap careless reporting from the DM :


A Boeing 737 that skidded off the runway and ran onto the grass as it landed was travelling at twice the speed it should have been, an investigation has revealed.


The 137 passengers on board were thrown from their seats (no seat belts?) and the plane's tyres and wheels were damaged in the landing at Birmingham airport.

The plane was moving at 23mph when it landed last September.

[ilesmark]

Is anyone else as surprised as I am that this series doesn't seem (yet at least) to have mentioned AF447?

[Dak Man]

The explanation for the BA083 B777 incident was complete twaddle, it had nothing to do with fuel filters and everything to do with tube & plate style fuel cooled oil coolers.

Sensationalist crap, IMO.

[leswerve]

saw it for the first time this morning (about to go to bed) talking about maintenance issues.
what are leading edge devices for?
some real engineer should check his script

[Leftofcentre2009]

program is a load of sh1te!

The "heavy" turbulence video they broadcast (Off youtube i might add), was nothing but slight-chop and a shaky photographers hand.

Note the lack of other pax heads moving with the camera, drinks on the tray tables perfectly still . . .

Program is made to purposely scare naive passengers!

Rant over :=