RA and S/O did nothing?

[iflylow]

I have heard from multiple people that recently in the cruise while the Captain or RQ was in the bathroom there was a RA and the S/O completely froze and did nothing.

Has this actually happened, and if so, if this is not a wake up call then what is?

[CPA777]

wake up call on what?

[VR-HFX]

Frozen ATPL's:hmm:

[Scoreboard]

True....but with a caveat.....what if the low time no experience and under trained s/o reefed on the stick at altitude? Another hull loss.....the outcome wasnt good that he did nothing but it probably was the best outcome considering how low the training is racing to the bottom across the whole industry and not just this particular airline.....

[NoAndThen]

True....but with a caveat.....what if the low time no experience and under trained s/o reefed on the stick at altitude? Another hull loss.....the outcome wasnt good that he did nothing but it probably was the best outcome considering how low the training is racing to the bottom across the whole industry and not just this particular airline.....

That doing nothing probably resulted in the best outcome in this situation... That we've come to this is so f*cked up I don't even know where to begin...

[crwkunt roll]

The guy didn't know what to do and claimed "he wasn't taught it in the sim". That's what I heard anyway.

[744drv]

...... and this this be the reason that aircraft manufacturers are trying to go down the AutoRA route!

[viking avenger]

I have yet to see a light sport aircraft of Daimond Katana with TCAS.
250 hours of experience begets 250 hours worth of results

[flyhardmo]

That doing nothing probably resulted in the best outcome in this situation... That we've come to this is so f*cked up I don't even know where to begin...

Absolutely agree. What ever happened to basic survival instinct. Surely disconnecting an autopilot is nowhere near as scary as smashing into another aircraft. I'm going to have to buy a pissbag and never leave the S/O's alone.

[AQIS Boigu]

The guy didn't know what to do and claimed "he wasn't taught it in the sim". That's what I heard anyway.

Not defending the kid but is the TCAS maneuver actually part of the new "cut to the bone" 6 sim session syllabus?

Date/flight number?

[monster330]

Hmmm.....

As long as his/her Facebook status is updated perfunctorily then what's the issue??

[CokeZero]

So this was on the Airbus fleet?

[bm330]

Part if the upgrade syllabus??

It's part of the S/O syllabus! Forgetting the Autothrottle or Flt Directors is one thing, but not responding to the manoeuver command is way past excusable. If you can't handle a TCAS R/A in cruise, you shouldn't hold a licence - an S/O, F/O or CN.

[elgringo]

I wonder if the S/O in question even knew what the TCAS R/A meant...

[elgringo]

The loose cannon in question is called...the accounting department.

[Cpt. Underpants]

How many of you have been shown what happens when a heavy, swept wing aircraft enters the stall (not incipient - full stall) at a high weight and altitude?

How many of you can accurately describe the characteristics of this stall, the AOA it occurs at, and approximately how many thousands of feet the recovery takes?

Answer? ALL the S/O's on the 777 doing an "M3" or "M6" do exactly what you've described. Repeated, if necessary, to the satisfaction of the STC.

Do you even work for CX? I suspect if you did, you would know the sequence of the M3/6 and what is tested - and taught - to every candidate.

Alarmist proselytizing serves no one but the (news)papers.

[Grinch]

Airplane! (2/10) Movie CLIP - Automatic Pilot (1980) HD - YouTube

[ColonelAngus]

I've asked every S/O with whom I've flown if he or she has seen "Airplane!"

The answer?

NO!

Surprise?

NO!

[Tankengine]

The big question is : what did the S/O in the other plane do?:E

[Progress Wanchai]

That CX didn't terminate the individual involved is tacit admittance of a systemic failure.

It's starting to verge on negligence what's going on with recruitment/training. Is this why CX has completely stopped recruiting locals? (apart from those already on a cadet course). According to the third floor drunks, all new hires in 2015 are to be xpats.

I wonder what CAD made of that MOR ASR?
Or does the negligence extend beyond the training department?

[Lowkoon]

Tankengine, good point! So we are happy to be the lowest common denominator in the hope that the other aircraft in the near miss wasn't a CX or KA aircraft with the same crew deficiencies? Lovely thought.

So what will the CAD do about it do you think? Obviously managers directly remunerated for saving costs will not increase training, nor will they want to be responsible for increasing the package to attract experienced new hires who wont be too afraid to 'disconnect' an autopilot. Why not? It directly effects what they as individuals get paid. While this dangerous 'performance aligned' (read cost cutting in place of performance) remuneration exists, we need an independent body to make these decisions for the company. Someone with back bone, someone with power and strength and the conviction to say enough is enough, time to follw the FAA lead and realise we have finally found the bottom of the barrel when we signed of on new hires with 80 hours total experience, someone like our CAD!!! :8

[Arfur Dent]

Fat chance!
Can't think of a single example of the CAD showing any backbone against a CX deficiency. All done on the quiet, behind closed doors, as it always has been.

[LapSap]

Someone with back bone, someone with power and strength and the conviction to say enough is enough, time to follw the FAA lead and realise we have finally found the bottom of the barrel when we signed of on new hires with 80 hours total experience, someone like our CAD!!!

Pigs might fly.

CAD is going down exactly the same path with ATCOs.
Bureau refuses to allow the required number to be recruited. Prefers employment by stealth by getting AAHK to recruit via the back door but under CADs terms. Push them through fast to get a bum in the Tower seats.

General race to the bottom as on your side.
No wonder so many of the more experienced ones have applied to Airservices ads and have had interviews.

Anyway, Expect more RAs and more SOs ignoring them.:ugh:


Sounds like it was fortunate the other aircraft responded.
Any hints roughly where??

[goathead]

It would be very interesting to bring back Charles Haddon Cave , and do A ' Part 2' and see what ' has ' changed ' :ugh: , perhaps benchmarking to the previous effort ......no chance , heads are firmly planted up the proverbial up there in MGMT world.

[Cpt. Underpants]

In the mod 3/6, the recovery is initiated at the onset of either the stick shaker or buffet. The aircraft pitches nose down, the controls are mushy and rapid altitude loss will ensue. In my book, that's a stall. In the 777, that is.

Although I did spend a fairly decent amount of time on the 'bus (as a CN) the procedures, flight characteristics and experience are memories that have faded or I'd rather forget. I'm not looking for an A vs B fight, I just believe that the essos ARE trained for a stall recovery. Peace, out.

Oh, one more thing - mod 3/6 are the P2X rating sims. Inability to satisfactorily perform the recovery means the licence isn't signed.

[bridgeport]

Apparently, there is a young local S/O getting around, who takes a teddy bear to the bunk.

I should be surprised, but I'm not.

[Shep69]

Not having the complete picture and the wha happened I think a lot of folks might be shooting in the dark.

I WILL say there is a big difference in being trained and being proficient. Cramming as many events as you can into an RT/HS might get you exposure but not necessarily proficiency. Training should be tailored with this in mind. Some scenarios are great; the overly 'busy' ones lack the time to get good and practice.

Even experienced Long haul pilots with most of the flight on Otto will always struggle to remain proficient. A rostered mix of regional and long haul flying can help those at the controls, but this option obviously isn't available to S/Os. This would be exacerbated greatly when someone in the seat didn't have the experience base to begin with.

[Lowkoon]

Shep, agreed, proficiency is a longhaul nightmare, but when you dust off the cobwebs, there are basic skills in there somewhere, and as rusty as they are, they would allow even the least proficient pilot in the company to follow a simple RA. To become rusty assumes you had some level of handling skills in the first place. That is where this all falls over, hiring people with no handling skills at all, (not their fault, it is purely dollar driven, this is clearly not the safest way to crew the aircraft). Proficiency can be maintained even within our very restrictive SOPS with regards to hand flying and switching things off, but imagine using these restrictive SOPs to try and obtain handling skills in the first place? Imagine the load on the captain to manage the aircraft while your offsider practices one of his/her very first raw data approaches in a 200 ton aircraft. I am fairly sure that is not what our customers think they are paying for.

Now amplify this, give the pilot a total of 80 hours total time, and put them in the RHS of a 320/321/330 like KA do, and wonder why they can't fly a visual approach, or in this case gather the confidence to disconnect and avoid an oncoming aircraft that posses a significant risk of collision. Nero fiddles while Rome burns. The tragedy is we will be all standing around a smoking hole, peering in, management will be asking "How the hell did this happen?" while the line pilots will all be saying "We told you so."

Asiana 777 was an industry wide wakeup call on proficiency in raw handling skills, but these skills can only get rusty if you have them in the first place. An even worse scenario, the inability to handle an RA, quite possibly came about from a TOTAL reliance on automatics for fear of the unknown, the unknown in this case is a fear of handling an aircraft without the automatics. The company will say "our hands are tied, training resources are stretched as it is." Industry speak for "We aren't going to spend another cent, training costs us way too much already."

Time for the CAD to sort it out don't you think? Follow the FAA's lead and regulate in the interest of safety, not in the interest of profits. Time to step up CAD. Management will only do it when it is cheaper to do it than not to do it, that way they will be remunerated for it. Unfortunately that will only come after an accident, when the 'think tank' is formed to investigate the hull loss. Then it will be bonuses all round once they come up with the solution as to why it happened without apportioning blame to the underlying reason that we all know already, continually lowering terms and conditions, and putting kids with zero experience in the control seat to save paying attractive terms to those pesky experienced pilots.

Sorry if i am shooting in the dark as you suggest Shep, but i am fairly confident that I am not the only line pilot thinking this way.

[McNugget]

Not disagreeing with your (very good) point, Lowkoon; though I wonder why everyone keeps heralding the dawn of the 1500 he requirements for FAA pt.121.

Marvin Renslow had thousands of hours. From the last 18 months or so - the combined cockpit experience of the US A320 at PHL, the SWA 737 at LGA and the UPS A300 at BHX (all hull losses) were all in the tens of thousands of hours...

Whilst agreeing with everything else you wrote, I believe flight time bears very little resemblance to proficiency. What is needed is better training. The military being perhaps the best example of this.

It's better than nothing, but throwing in a 1500hr requirement is going about it in the wrong way. 1500 going up and down Hermosa Beach towing an insurance banner in a 152 isn't going to do you much good, come airline time.

[Lowkoon]

McNugget, I understand 1500 hours isn't in any way a magic number, how about 500 hours in an aircraft that isn't 100% reliant on automatics? 400 hours? Take two extremes. 500 hours flying circuits in a 150, or 500 hours in the Red Arrows, there is no comparison between the two, but neither of those guys would have been afraid to disconnect and follow an RA.

Over a beer, we could probably put our heads together and come up with 100 different flying jobs that don't offer excellent opportunities to hone your hand flying skills, (I probably wouldn't list banner towing as one, most banner towing pilots have at least scared themselves and learnt a few home truths, but at least they did it in a 182 alone, not in a 777). What about 1500 hours flying RPT in command of a two crew turbo prop that doesn't have an autopilot? Good experience? Are these the guys we are attracting? Of course 1500 is a token number, but it is a number that extensive industry consultation came up with, not a couple of pilots over a few beers, or a discussion on pprune.

Maintaining proficiency infers the maintenance of the skills we had when we were hired, and applying them and honing them on the type we are flying now. It is our responsibility to maintain them, and to improve them, within the guidelines stipulated in our SOPs. It certainly DOES NOT infer developing skills that we never had in the first place, or something that we saw once in a time critical sim session aimed at meeting minimum regulation requirements, not at training individuals to a proficient level.

[McNugget]

You're dead-right, Lowkoon. All except the bit where you claimed 1500 wasn't pulled out of thin air by congress. It coincided with ATP requirement, and was merely being seen to be doing something (much like FAR-117) - all in spite of the far higher experience levels of the crew.

With the variety of flying jobs around, it's very, very difficult to use hours as a mantle. I'd be much more in favour of more rigorous sim testing, and a far longer training course. One that would be proficiency based, heavy on practice, rather than ticking boxes.

Here at CX, we do have some highly capable, highly motivated instructors. It's a shame that these guys aren't given the means to do what is possible. It's the same accross the industry.

[bekolblockage]

Take this with a grain of salt, given I'm only regular CX SLF, HK ATC ,with a mediocre couple of thousand hours many moons ago.

I know who I want to hear is up the front when I do my regular CX flights.

Somebody with experience in making command decisions under adverse conditions.

You can't buy or train that.

Something you can't get in the Parafield training area, either as a cadet or 'VDO watching' as an instructor for 1500 hrs or the sim or banner towing or Parachute dropping.

I want to hear somebody who has flown multi engine Non-precision approaches, at night, into sh1tty strips, without ATC, or ground support. Who know what it's like to load and refuel the plane themselves. Who doesn't have somebody spoon feeding them every step of the way.

Sadly, I'm seeing/hearing way too much of that now.

On both sides of the radio.

Apologies for the rant.
BB

[White None]

No apologies necessary, I'd like to comment on the often quoted "Multi Engine" requirement for Good Experience though. Only having one engine doesn't always make your life less stressful - Cough Cough.... Also the assumption is often a nice Sunday flight in a Cessna, but try leading inexperienced mates on a ****ty night for a formation landing - or whatever typical Mil scenario. Transferable skills?? - ABSOLUTELY

[19weeler]

White none.

Stop letting your ego get in the way of your brain.

Yes yes yes… we know you are a fighter jock and probably look like Tom Cruise.

Cough, cough!

I'm sure BB could have said "single engine", "multi engine", "3 engine", "4 engine" or, "4 engine with APU", and most readers here would have understood his "big picture" point.

Please re-read, and in place of "multi engine", insert: "single engine, mach 2.3 MMO, mach 5 razor, ninja 900 riding, "she's lost that loving feeling" A-hole.

Does it make any sense now??

Good post BB!

Please bear in mind our C-172 jocks next time!

[jacobus]

Sail army.

[ChinaBeached]

Agree completely Lowkoon.

McNugget defends lack of hour, experience and credentials from his iCadet point of view. He agrees in theory with "standards" but is part of the problem. You accept C-Scale and therefore the standards it represents yet want to defend what you contributed to?

I'd be much more in favour of more rigorous sim testing, and a far longer training course. One that would be proficiency based, heavy on practice, rather than ticking boxes.

But if those were the standards at the RECRUITMENT stage then how many iCadets like yourself would have been employed?

Here at CX, we do have some highly capable, highly motivated instructors. It's a shame that these guys aren't given the means to do what is possible. It's the same accross the industry.

And many have stood down from training roles as they see the workload required to train so many of the iCadet generation at CX as not met by management and too great a challenge to too many iCadet SO's to bring to what used to be the standard.

It is only "the same across the industry" when more people accept lower standards in remuneration and experience to accept a job that previously was beyond their reach.

1500 hrs was the magic number due to raw ATP / ATPL requirements (but pre iCadet days CX mins were 1000 hrs TT for DESO's by the way). Due to competition for DESO positions applicants generally needed > 3000 hrs TT including > 1000 hrs twin PIC time, etc.... The recruitment team at CX HR told me face to face that single pilot (night) hours in a twin were regarded far better than the same TT built in 8/8 blue sky in a C152 circuit or training area (i.e., instructing hours). So, no: hours don't necessarily coincide with competence which is why CX used to take this into account. Not anymore when zero hours is the new requirement.

I've been slammed by C-Scalers and others when they say that A-Scale permitted B-Scale to happen and hence I'm a hypocrite to speak out against C-Scale. I disagree, and have always said so. B-Scale DID NOT sink standards down to this extreme level as C-Scale has. Fact.

Sadly and regrettably too many still ask "Who saw this coming??"

[Shep69]

Lowkoon,

Well said and agree completely. Thanks.

[bekolblockage]

So, is it only a matter of time before CX has its own AF447?
Reading the "experience" of the JFO, it is clear that even though he had what the public might consider a reasonable 2,900 hours, it seems he had hardly truly "flown" an IFR aircraft.
My earlier comment about experience meant "grass roots" type flying experience. Not going and getting an A320 endorsement with only 200 hours.

The trouble is, in a few years, these cadets are going to be Captains.
You can't gain this experience by "osmosis" ie sitting there watching somebody else making decisions.

Is that what I have to look forward to as SLF on CX?
It's a worry.

[SOPS]

And many many years ago, when I wanted to join Cathay as my airline career choice, ( this was the A scale days, so I know getting was hard)! However my 5000 hours total time and my 1800 hours jet time did not help me one little bit.

I did not pass the interviews or display the Cathay standard in the sim check.

No problems there.

What worries me now, as a about to be retired 777 captain, who in retirement would choose CX,

Who the hell is flying your planes?

[Arfur Dent]

So the time bomb is ticking. Entire responsibility for this rests with the sycophants who implement the orders from Swire House. Gutless, money grabbing cowards filling their own coffers and hoping they can retire or resign before the bomb goes off.
Short term, talentless yes men who are a disgrace to any concept of proper 'Management'.
Shame on you.:mad:

[Baywatcher]

SOPS

I don't think it would be much better with any airline!

[wheels up]

Breaking news: To be issued to all cx RQed pilots ($8.5 to be deducted from November salary)

Problem solved!

http://www.sportys.com/source/images/jQzoom/13087.jpg

[The FUB]

just perhaps. Should we not have a say in recruiting. That is pilots. At some stage a pilot should interview and assess the skills of new recruits. What is happening at the moment? Computer filtration, name, sex, nationality. Then a Human Resources person filtrating, followed by an ex sim instructor deciding not the skills but whether the candidate can perhaps be trained. You get what you aim for.

[bridgeport]

"That CX didn't terminate the individual involved is tacit admittance of a systemic failure".

CX has taken Military pilots, turbine captains or jet F/O's, and putting them though 10+ years of flying experience, training and checking.
And still they are failing their commands at rates above 50%.

This is blatant evidence of systematic failure within the training departments.

[rumncoke]

Pardon the intrusion, but take a long, hard look at Engineering to see how much further along we are, as an organisation that places no value on knowledge and experience. The parallels with FOPS are there, as is the risk.

With an increasing reliance on engineering trainees, the breadth of engineering knowledge is diminishing at an unprecedented rate. We celebrate promotions and graduations by announcing what degree someone has, yet there is not even the blink of an eye, as one after the other, we lose engineers with many years of real world experience.

Experience and knowledge that will never be replaced.

Of course new talent is essential. But rather than build and develop a cosmopolitan team, we are developing a trainee-based department built down to a cost. And for developing, read 'at breakneck speed'. Add in the cultural shift, where debate is now dissent and challenging decisions marks you out as a troublemaker and we heading into very dangerous waters. As an organisation we are breeding compliance and I'm not talking about the regulatory kind.

As a senior manager said to me rather quietly recently 'There are very few people who really know wtf is going on anymore'.

Haddon-Cave? Don't make me laugh.

To borrow from an earlier post:
"The tragedy is we will be all standing around a smoking hole, peering in, management will be asking "How the hell did this happen?" while the line pilots [read: engineers] will all be saying "We told you so."

We have a perfect storm in the making.

[wheels up]

"An engineer is a professional practitioner of engineering, concerned with applying scientific knowledge, mathematics, and ingenuity to develop solutions for technical, societal and commercial problems. Engineers design materials, structures, and systems while considering the limitations imposed by practicality, regulation, safety, and cost. The word engineer is derived from the Latin roots ingeniare ("to contrive, devise") and ingenium ("cleverness")."

[ColonelAngus]

He meant "mechanic," a person who repairs and maintains machinery (airplanes) rather than "engineer."

[iceman50]

Wheels Up

Have a bit of respect, you want it, give it to others.

ColonelAngus

You should know the difference in "our world" between Engineer and Mechanic!

[ByAirMail]

Iceman, i'll call my girlfriend, a qualified nurse, from now on "Doctor". To show some respect for her medical qualifications.

[ColonelAngus]

Iceman, how is defining "engineer" disrespectful?

Down south in ColonelAngus land, a guy or a gal who works on airplanes is an A&P mechanic and his certificate states "Mechanic: Airframe Powerplant."

Engineers are electrical, mechanical, chemical, civil, environmental, aerospace, etc.

Those who are not in the know can be confused when an airframe mechanic in Hong Kong calls himself an engineer.

[The FUB]

Well, we call SOs pilots, out of respect for their qualifications and training.

[bm330]

or maybe it's the uniform.


There used to be steps along the way. Private, Bush, Courier, Regional, Major Airline. An insider would associate an experience with a given level. Now we have "I'm a 777 pilot" and it means nothing.

[FERetd]

ColonelAngus, you are correct, of course, by the same token iceman50 has a point.

One has to tread carefully in some parts of the world.

In South America, for example, there is quite a distinction between an "Engineer" and a "Mechanic", Use the wrong term and one might cause offence.

Similarly, in some parts of South America, they do not have "Captains" and "First Officers", they have "Pilots" and "Co-pilots". Using the wrong term in this instance doesn't tend to cause offence, only confusion.

Fortunately, I never came across a "Flight Engineer" during my visits to South America. That would have been really confusing.

[bigbeerbelly]

I spoke with a close friend of the SO involved and was told it was a TA not an RA. He did exactly what he was supposed to do. :D

[wheels up]

Wheels Up

Have a bit of respect, you want it, give it to others.

huh? - you don't get it, do you. Completely off topic I realise, but I have huge respect for proficient, qualified mechanics - but they are not engineers, by definition, or by qualification.

In the same way I have huge respect for nurses, but they cannot claim to be doctors...

[betpump5]

Beer Belly - even without your input, whether it be a joke or not, I always knew this was a bit of a fairy-tale. But of course, why let facts get in the way of a great CX BS story - and an opportunity to poopoo over the cadets again.

A quick look at OPS-A would tell you when an SO can be in the seat. And given that the other pilot would not be stupid enough (hopefully) to go for a toilet break until top of climb, then when did this supposedly non-actioned RA happen? During the cruise? If it happened up at FL370 (where sodall happens 99.9 percent of the time) don't you think we would have heard about it by now? and not via PPrune!

Lets get something straight. As well as operating LH flights as a CN/FO, a lot of us also commute on flights where an SO is present. We also send our loved ones on those flights too. Those flights are sometimes crewed with Two SOs! Now IF you are this concerned, then this isn't just a case of a Payrise, Contract Compliance, or 49 Pilots being sacked. We are talking about lives here. Where are the AOA motions to say NO to zero-timers? Why aren't there pilots outside CX City refusing to fly with zero-timers? Why aren't we going straight to strike action at what are supposedly unsafe practices?

Who cares what CX's retaliation towards us would be? Sacking, docking pay etc. We are talking about lives here. Therefore who even needs an AOA motion. Just turn up at CX city with a protest board and refuse to work if rostered with an SO. Who's going to do that?

Nah....Didn't think so.

Thanks for the gym work-out once again boys. Always nice to be a part of a fist-thumping chest-beating BS exercise.

[iceman50]

Wheels UP

What a well balanced person a chip on both shoulders.

You should know in our profession that there is a big difference between the "Mechanics" who help maintain our aircraft and who complete the pushback and the "Engineer' who signs the Tech Log for the work completed. Understand the terminology used in various "professions" and "countries" ( just for ColonelAngus, down south is NOT the world).

From the Oxford English Dictionary

a. Originally: a person who designs or builds engines or other machinery. Subsequently more generally: a person who uses specialized knowledge or skills to design, build, and maintain complicated equipment, systems, processes, etc.; an expert in or student of engineering. Freq. with distinguishing word.
From the later 18th cent. onwards mainly with reference to mechanical, chemical, electrical, and similar processes; later (chiefly with distinguishing word) also with reference to biological or technological systems.

chemical, electrical, genetic, mechanical, software, systems engineer, etc.: see the first element.

In this sense (but not in sense 3) the term may be applied to a person who operates and repairs equipment as well as to one responsible for its design and management.

[ColonelAngus]

iceman, it's a stretch to compare one who operates and repairs to one who designs.

And, ask anyone who knows ColonelAngus. Down south is EVERYTHING! :p

[Lowkoon]

I am pretty sure that their license says "licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer" so that is what they have every right to be called. What does your license say?

Back on topic please.

Betpump, a sad state of affairs when a non manager suggests that if we arent prepared to sacrifice our career over it, and our chosen lively hood, then it must be fine and dandy. Thanks for the historical glimpse at the industrial dark ages. Lets pray that mentality never pervades the industry. It exists as you have proven, but fortunately there are other ways to see improvements in something that is obviously wrong, and bordering on dangerous in this industry. Lets explore those avenues before we all throw our toys out of the cot and picketing out the front of swires head office as you suggest being the appropriate way forward. If you think someone with 80 hours total time is no issue, how low will you go? 40? 20? When does it become an issue?

[Piper1987]

As a lowly rated 90 hour pilot studying for ATPL exams I think it's truly astonishing that the S/O sat there and simply ignored the RA. Comprehensive retraining is required at the least and I would suggest dismissal.

Surely it's simple enough to disengage the AP and respond to the instructions given. Most of the time they are shouted at you! Make manoeuvre, ensure threat is eliminated then get on the blower to atc to let them know what's going on. Final step is to apologise to the now very angry captain who has pissed on his trousers due to the RA and explain what you did and why.

Is that somewhere near correct?

I feel that most of this is being exasperated by MPL schemes and the bank of mum and dad paying for such courses.

[crwkunt roll]

As a lowly rated 90 hour pilot studying for ATPL exams
What's the rush?

[Steve the Pirate]

Is that somewhere near correct?

Well, apart from the fact it didn't actually happen, theoretically I suppose you're spot on.

most of this is being exasperated by MPL schemes

I find it exasperating that people don't know the difference between "exasperate" and "exacerbate" but I suppose that's exacerbated by the low standard to which English is being taught in our educational establishments. :E

STP

[Piper1987]

I'm lucky enough to be in a situation to be able to finance myself and get out of the job that I've (unfortunately grown to loathe) worked in for a number of years.

Life is too short to plod along doing something you're not passionate about. That's how I think about it anyway.

It would also be nice to one day get paid to fly as opposed to paying to fly :)

[ron burgandy]

STP- might want to check with your source again whether this happened or not.

[Steve the Pirate]

ron

STP- might want to check with your source again whether this happened or not

I'll do that right away. bigbeerbelly, can you confirm the veracity of your statement regarding this rumour? :E

Regards to Veronica by the way.

STP

[crwkunt roll]

Why has this event and the rudder event been hush-hushed?

[mngmt mole]

What rudder event...?

[crwkunt roll]

A p p a r e n t l y ..................................... 777 on the way to NAM diverted to Tokyo after S/O booted full rudder in the cruise. That's what I heard anyway, from more than one source. Whether it's credible or not.............

[Good Business Sense]

Used to train .... you can really get caught out with very low time people flying aircraft as you protect the operation against them making "pilot" mistakes - problem is they're not pilots yet and they can catch you out with left field stuff that no "pilot" in their right mind would do !

"You don't know what you don't know" and "you don't know enough to be scared", come to mind.

You could get into the definition of pilot if you wish - for a big jet, I'd offer as a start, that it's probably over 5 hours (handling) in the flare - not 5,000 in the bunk :ok::D

[mngmt mole]

....it's only a matter of time. All the 're-branding' in the world won't save the airline from itself then....

[Hugo Peroni the IV]

"you can really get caught out with very low time people flying aircraft as you protect the operation against them making "pilot" mistakes - problem is they're not pilots yet and they can catch you out with left field stuff that no "pilot" in their right mind would do !"

Why do you let them fly? Don't you get a choice of who does the sector?

[Good Business Sense]

Why do you let them fly? Don't you get a choice of who does the sector?

RTFQ or in your case RTFP - Used to train ....

[Hugo Peroni the IV]

OIC, you're a, or were, a Training Captain. Sorry, i didn't quite get that from your original post. I sense you were rather good at your job, CFS?

[Trafalgar]

....worth pointing out that it was the FO incorrectly applying full rudder that led to the failure of the vertical stabilizer on his American Airlines airbus just out of JFK, with the loss of all on board. You eventually reap what you sow.

[Good Business Sense]

I sense you were rather good at your job, CFS?

Nah, Joe average and, unfortunately, not ex Mil. Just been around a long time and have a few old man stories.

The rudder mention just brought out an old memory of having a bank angle of about 80-90 deg, or so it seemed, at just under 100 feet - a second or two before landing.

New lad with around 200 hours had mentally calculated there was a cross wind (well 7 kts of wind with maybe 3 kts cross) - so as many of us do at the point in our careers, he hung his hat on rote learning. He and the other boys and girls had been talking about how you do a crosswind landing ... (blind leading the partially sighted - with one 200 hour telling another 200 hour what to do) so when we were going into the flare he went into CROSSWIND mode- he gave it a FULL boot of rudder - I don't know how the wing tip missed the runway (I remember catching a glimpse of the runway out of his side window below us n.b. we're at 100 feet) - I don't remember taking control and initiating the go-around - there was no thought process. It happened in an instant - I was shocked - just didn't see it coming !

...... who boots FULL rudder on a wide body jet ?? Being a bit busy at the time I can't tell you what he did with the ailerons (I like side sticks but this is where they bite)

Wide bodies should not be a new pilot kindergarten. Nothing personal - I had 200 hours once too.

[Farman Biplane]

Full rudder in flare works well in MS Flightsim!

[Toruk Macto]

I would not have the medical capacity to deal with that .

[Kasompe]

GBS...
Your last post just scared the crap out of me! Well done for extricating yourself out of that one!
I'm going to go take a little sit down....:eek: