AirAsia

[plainpilot11]

Don't request from ATC in a situation like that. Demand.

Then if you don't get what you need to fly safely, DO IT ANYWAYS, calculated, safely, and with good situational awareness. ATC is not in the airplane, they're comfortable in their chair.

It's time for this mentality of ATC always knows best to disappear from aviation.

Saddened heart goes out to victims and family.

[raven11]

When I enterred aviation, 40 years ago, ATC was there to help you.... today, it's the other around. ATC act as if pilots are there to make life easier for them.

I agree with you plain pilot: tell ATC what you need...and then act on it if they cannot "grant" your request.

[GAPSTER]

Well thought through broad brush comments guys...not in any way the ATC service I have provided and watched for over 30 years.

[Steve the Pirate]

@plainpilot11

You've mis-titled your thread. It should be "Arbitrary ATC bashing". In my experience, ATC provide variable service, sometimes exceptional, other times questionable. Your thread is clearly based upon your assessment of the possible ATC factors in the loss of QZ8501 but to say that pilots should demand clearances from ATC rather than request is elitist. Rather, we should plan ahead using all resources available to us and, should we not receive the clearance or assistance we require, if necessary transmit an urgency or distress call. Then, if no clearance is forthcoming, at least other aircraft on the frequency should be aware that an aircraft might be deviating in such a way that might infringe their own airspace.

Controllers might sit in comfortable chairs but I would hazard a guess that their job is more stressful than ours from time to time, particularly in the terminal area in poor weather.

I agree with your final comment.

STP

[ACMS]

1/ request
2/ require
3/ PAN PAN PAN
4/ do what you need to do.....

[Captain Dart]

I thought initially that this thread would be germane to EXPERIENCE levels, which are rapidly decreasing in Cathay Pacific, rather than ATC bashing. I noted on news clips archive shots of the Indonesian captain in a military flight suit; sources quote some six or seven thousand hours total; not a huge amount for a civilian jet transport captain. Was much of his background blasting around in VMC in fighters? And what about the French F/O? Was he 'paying to fly'?

Did the crew have the EXPERIENCE to assess and avoid the weather by however how much it would take (I personally have been over one hundred miles off track on several occasions)? Or the EXPERIENCE to deal with iced-up probes giving conflicting information? And one can imagine the pressure to 'SAVE FUEL', especially in a low-cost airline, especially destined for busy Singapore. Sound familiar?

[Lowkoon]

I think we have to dig a bit deeper than a single ATC communication. The worlds best low cost airline claim the worlds best training, which is why they have such young captains. Should we investigate those claims? Do any of us really have any faith that this accident will be investigated to anything more than a crew error in diverting around a big red cell? I certainly hope so.

The worlds best low cost airline in reality has profited handsomely from such claims that its training is superior to other airlines, the investigation will be a good time to show how superior it's training is wont it? The reality will be obvious when they are given a chance to back up their lofty claims. Who's responsible for it? I would imagine those that have profited the most are removed enough through franchising and separate companies not to get their personal earnings effected which for them is a relief. When the board at AirAsia were presented the numbers on risk assessment and a hull loss, I wonder if those numbers still look the same once the reality of what risk assessment and hull loss really means. The old saying, "If you think training and safety are expensive, try having an accident." Try explaining the rationality of an organisation's obsession with cost cutting to those attending 166 funerals.

The reality is, low cost is not safer. They have gouged profits from unsuspecting customers, by simply reducing safety margins, and manufacturers and regulators are equally to blame. All complicit in gouging at the trough, but they are simply eating bigger holes in the swiss cheese. Manufacturers want to sell planes, so they convince airlines that these machines can be flown with 5 expensive days of training, preceded by a 2 day classroom on systems. Do you really think that airbus give Airasia such a massive discount over the prices they offer CX KA BA EK QF etc etc? No. So they arent saving money on airframes. Do they have the same cost for spare parts? Do you think tyres and fan blades are cheaper for low cost carriers? I doubt it. Where else do you think they could save money when it comes to maintenance do you think? Its up to them to prove they do the same maintenance. Do you think they get a massive discount on fuel? No? So they aren't saving money there either.

Regulators sign off on these minimum requirements because they are too understaffed or what ever excuse you want to use this week to cover up the fact that they rubber stamp these 'fast track' courses. So who is ultimately responsible for this? Certainly not the unfortunate souls on board the downed 320. Time to look a bit higher up the tree, where the riper more juicy fruit is hanging. Just because an airline meets minimum regulatory requirements doesn't automatically make it safe.

Ok, so if you want a can of coke, you pay for it. How much does that make? a few dollars per pax maybe. So where are the massive savings coming from? Staff salaries? Yes, training costs? maybe, up to them to prove it.

Indonesian SAR has been rightfully commended for being open honest and transparent during the search. They have hopefully set the tone for the crash investigators, the investigation into the regulation of this airline "franchise" and the internal company investigation, and hopefully an external audit. We can only hope. Then, once we see the reality of "low cost" maybe the families can have some real closure as to why their loved ones lost their lives.

[Gnadenburg]

Considering the issues we are having in our own backyard with training and the MPL scheme, I'd suggest low cost carriers and their cost pressures struggle to produce a product that isn't totally reliant on aircraft technology buffering against vast levels of inexperience.

The system needs to be turned on it's head, from Airbus right down to the line captain who doesn't have the confidence or faith in the system, to encourage his young 150 hour protege to practice some hand flying, raw data, NPA or visual approach.

Oh, and where's the jet upset training these days? Despite issues of sim fidelity Airbus could put a package together. They have before with Boeing and the driver was inexperience in jet airliner handling ( specifically targeting inexperience from the civilian background and overly aggressive from a military background ).

[Sqwak7700]

and manufacturers and regulators are equally to blame. All complicit in gouging at the trough, but they are simply eating bigger holes in the swiss cheese.

Well said, but I think the regulators' blame is greater. That is their job, to prevent commercial pressure from making safety take the back seat. You can't rely on the people tasked with making an airline profitable to self police and regulate themselves when it comes to safety. This is a flawed system, yet very much prevalent in SE asia. From Indonesia, to Philippines, to even Hong Kong.

This approach to safety has a hangover, and this is it. Absentee regulatory agencies with profit driven (at all costs) air carriers is a recipe for disaster. Just here in HKG, notice how concerns about safety brought up to the regulator are met with a suggestion to bring it up with the operator. Really? You want the person committing the crime to judge himself? So much for checks and balances.

:ugh:

[Pucka]

Very succinct piece Lowkoon..send it to the SCMP!! its about time the media locked on to the sense that sometimes comes from this site….Air Asia, being what it is, makes you wonder how our HK LCC has managed to keep all their hulls. The corporate 'elasticity" in Air Asia and their assessment of risk to cost and loss will absorb this more than adequately. There will be the usual theatre from the CEO and after the dust has settled, together with the rhetoric of the regulators, it will be business as usual in the Asia region!!! RIP to 162 souls.

[Sue Ridgepipe]

Air Asia, being what it is, makes you wonder how our HK LCC has managed to keep all their hulls
Yeah, I can't work that one out either. I mean, they're not Cathay pilots so they obviously have no idea what they're doing or how to fly a plane. :rolleyes:

[Bangaluru]

Passengers will continue to endorse and support AirAsia's low cost model because they will continue to buy tickets. They are the only ones who can ultimately 'regulate' the LCCs by paying proper fares to proper airlines, but they won't. It costs more than USD30 per seat to fly an A320 from SUB - SIN. So if you get a ticket for that you should understand that you get what you pay for and accept the consequences.

[ZFT]

Lowkoon,
The reality is, low cost is not safer. They have gouged profits from unsuspecting customers, by simply reducing safety margins, and manufacturers and regulators are equally to blame. All complicit in gouging at the trough, but they are simply eating bigger holes in the swiss cheese. Manufacturers want to sell planes, so they convince airlines that these machines can be flown with 5 expensive days of training, preceded by a 2 day classroom on systems. Do you really think that airbus give Airasia such a massive discount over the prices they offer CX KA BA EK QF etc etc? No. So they arent saving money on airframes. Do they have the same cost for spare parts? Do you think tyres and fan blades are cheaper for low cost carriers? I doubt it. Where else do you think they could save money when it comes to maintenance do you think? Its up to them to prove they do the same maintenance. Do you think they get a massive discount on fuel? No? So they aren't saving money there either.


Regulators sign off on these minimum requirements because they are too understaffed or what ever excuse you want to use this week to cover up the fact that they rubber stamp these 'fast track' courses. So who is ultimately responsible for this? Certainly not the unfortunate souls on board the downed 320. Time to look a bit higher up the tree, where the riper more juicy fruit is hanging. Just because an airline meets minimum regulatory requirements doesn't automatically make it safe.

Ok, so if you want a can of coke, you pay for it. How much does that make? a few dollars per pax maybe. So where are the massive savings coming from? Staff salaries? Yes, training costs? maybe, up to them to prove it. Your post implies that only LCCs take the ‘cheap’ training option. I would suggest that the Airframe manufacturers do not differentiate.

Whether it be Boeing with the B777/B787 or Airbus with their A333/A350 CTR, the overall training package is being changed (lowered?) and with regulatory approval and this type of training is what all operators now tend to receive.

However, does an initial one off traditional TR of say US40K per crew make that much difference to the operating costs – again I would suggest not.

Minimum regulatory requirements and standards ARE meant to ensure safe operations else there is no point in having them. Whether these minimum regulatory requirements and standards are at the correct level is another question.

[Lowkoon]

ZFT thanks for the thoughtful reply, i would argue LCC's do take the low cost training option, with training 'bundled' into purchase costs, everything from 'self sponsored' training, bonds, pay to fly, and outsource to the lowest cost sim centre they can find. All of these options are fundamentally flawed, as it is not in the service providers interest to do anything but pass the candidates with the minimum input required in the minimum time to meet costs and deadlines imposed by the LCC. otherwise they stand to lose the customer. This in no way is the safest option, it is purely the cheapest option, period.

Yes, legacy carriers suffer from reductions in training budgets, but still when the training is inhouse, they are more likely to retrain or fail a candidate. That is reality.

Minimum regulatory requirements if properly policed, allow you to meet the minimum safety standard, it is hard to say you practice worlds best practice if you barely meet minimum regulatory requirements. Regulators are typically behind the drag curve, they tend to be reactive, not proactive when it comes to regulating airlines. For this reason meeting their minimums simply makes you compliant, it doesn't make you safe. A good example of this is that the CAD have no regulation on a controlled rest policy. If you have no controlled rest policy, you are compliant with HK regulation, yet there isnt a safety organisation in the world that doesn't recommend a controlled rest policy properly implemented and practiced on back of the clock flying to make the operation safer. Just one example of being 100% compliant but being less safe by being compliant with a reactionary regulator.

Another good example would be our SIM profiles. Countless V1 cuts, and hand flown ILS's. I cant remember the last airframe lost to a V1 engine failure, can you? Why aren't we practicing the things that are killing people? Our training departments would love to be teaching how to handle uncommanded pole overs in an airbus, or unreliable airspeed, or practicing visual approaches, the things that are killing people in this day and age. But are we doing that? No, but hey, we are meeting regulatory requirements aren't we?

[ZFT]

Lowkoon,

Even (properly accredited) simulator providers have to comply with quite rigid regulations and whether training is in house or outsourced, at the end of the training a TRE is signing that pilot off as competent to operate the aircraft.
He is the only person that determines pass/fail or remedial training, if required. That is the final check and balance.

If he can be ‘bought off’ or influenced by his employer (the training provider) then the system is really broken.

I cannot disagree with any of your other comments.

[Freehills]

In Indonesia, the DGAC report to the Ministry of Transport.

By encouraging massive expansion of LCC, they have saved tens of thousands of lives. Lion Air, Air Asia et al have taken people off ferries and overnight busses that have a much much worse safety record.

In an ideal world, yes, the busses and ferries should be better regulated. But at least the Indonesian LCC have to at least try and meet ICAO standards - a bus crash in Sumatra would never get investigated.

[Lowkoon]

ZFT, I wish I had your confidence in out sourced training. I would suggest that if a TRE ripped up a few licenses on a single day, he would at best not be used on the next contract. I am in no way questioning their personal ethics, but there is some protection in an inhouse training department that doesnt have to answer to an accountant. Outsourced trainers don't have that luxury. KA were asked to train HKA TRE's. After failing the first few candidates put forward, KA quickly lost the contract and they simply just went somewhere else and the failures stopped. Coincidence?

[ZFT]

Lowkoon

My TREs do fail trainees and admittedly we have had a few 'interesting' visits from CPs and HR but with very few exceptions, we retain the contracts.

The TREs are and must be independent of commercial pressures and if Customers want 'rubber stamp' checks, then there are (as you indicate) unfortunately still plenty of ducks who will oblige.

Eventually the regulatory authorities will get to grips with this as they must if safety is to remain the priority and one day those ducks will be rightfully shot.

[marcopolosnr]

"One Air Asia crash body was found wearing a life jacket"
So it seems they knew they would have to ditch ? no engine power ?
is this the same cause that almost put CX in the drink earlier in 2014 ?

Pilots reveal death-defying ordeal as engines failed on approach to Chek Lap Kok | South China Morning Post (http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/article/1491534/pilots-reveal-death-defying-ordeal-engines-failed-approach?page=all)

Is this a Surabaya repeat ? polluted fuel loaded from Surabaya?
CX “Ladies and gentlemen, this is the captain speaking. As you no doubt may be aware, we have a small problem with our engines …” Minutes earlier, the pilot who spoke those calm but ominous words, Malcolm Waters, then 35 years old, had been struggling alongside First Officer David Hayhoe to prevent the crippled Cathay Pacific aircraft from plunging into the South China Sea. Filled with contaminated fuel before take-off in Surabaya, the Airbus A330-342, with 322 passengers and crew aboard, had been gliding ever closer to the sea with no power in either engine”

[Shep69]

Lowkoon,

Excellent posts. How many radar courses taught by real experts have WE been to ? Other than online training slides, access to manuals somewhere, newsletters, and on-the-job training how much initial and recurring radar interpretation training do we or maybe this carrier get ? How detailed is it ? Other than windshear scenarios, How many sim scenarios of large lines and multiple areas of weather--along with airspace and ATC considerations (with the inherent limitations and problems of the Honeywell radar realistically presented) are trained to ? Do these include regional nuances to places some rarely go ? Do these include turbulence, icing, possible upsets, operating near maximum altitude etc. as part of it ? How qualified would one consider a newly checked out SO to be to operate our radars in a challenging weather situation by himself in cruise ?

How often are we given extra fuel as part of the CFP (especially with the emphasis on taking CFP fuel) to work around large areas of enroute (not terminal) weather ?

We deal with weather every day while one could likely go one's entire career without seeing an engine fail at V1.

Radar interpretation is still kind of an art--and requires both training and experience. While no one would fly through a storm because of borders or ATC direction, airspace, traffic, and fuel are always considerations when trying to formulate a plan to work around areas of weather and exactly where to go. Assistance in seeing weather which might not be yet seen or properly interpreted ranges from nonexistent in asia to very helpful in the US.

Marco, while nothing can be ruled out and everything is speculation I can't see how a power loss at cruise would preclude some form of emergency communication during what would be a controlled descent. Battery and standby power would be available, and even if the APU wouldn't start for whatever reason a ram air turbine would also deploy to provide some form of backup power for communications as well as battery charging. Also total power loss at altitude would result in a lengthy and controlled descent of over 100 miles and more than 20 minutes or so--with multiple radar hits and comm opportunities along the way.

[Gnadenburg]

Another good example would be our SIM profiles. Countless V1 cuts, and hand flown ILS's. I cant remember the last airframe lost to a V1 engine failure, can you? Why aren't we practicing the things that are killing people? Our training departments would love to be teaching how to handle uncommanded pole overs in an airbus, or unreliable airspeed, or practicing visual approaches, the things that are killing people in this day and age. But are we doing that? No, but hey, we are meeting regulatory requirements aren't we?


Lowkoon I think you are falling into a trap here along the lines of evidence based training which has missed the target with the MPL and delivered enthusiastic youngsters with gaping holes in their knowledge and skill bases ( please somebody important ask for feedback from line pilots ) .

"Loss of airplane control in FLIGHT is a leading cause of fatalities in the commercial aviation industry" so cites Boeing !

Assymmetric handling is our bread and butter and granted, the chances of a V1 cut in real life are remote. But it is a skill base required ( basic aircraft handling ) as if you can manage a V1 cut you should be able to manage an engine failure throughout the envelope. What I'd like to see is more expanded single engine exercises with competencies in VMC immediate returns, uncontained fires and more failure profiles throughout the various climb segments- without prior knowledge and without unrealistic expectations from an STC who has seen the same exercise many times.

Our training departments have every opportunity to train for what you've stated. We just need more training time. Please, ask your cadet pilot what is a jet upset and what training have they received- actually ask any exclusively Hong Kong trained airline pilot what upset training they've received?

Visual approaches? Don't start me! Visual approaches are available on most of the non-China networks for regional HKG carriers. These happen to be training sectors yet First Officers can come up to their command training having never done a visual approach. In a short time, there has been a generational loss of visual flying skills ( which aren't terribly perishable ) and the responsibility lies directly with whoever is signing young pilots off as having done a visual approach.

HKG carriers have an arrogance to believe that they produce command quality Sullenbergers. Sorry, the above paragraph suggests we are facing the same issues as the Koreans. Ok, sure, let's ban circling approaches and then create a culture terrified of flying the aircraft visually which may be called upon in a number of abnormal scenarios. We now have training pilots who don't appear confident enough to demonstrate these skills- that's the generational loss.

The regulatory minimums are too shallow. We need more training and we need to build better jet handling skills in the simulator with a requirement that cadet and direct entry pilots have the confidence to fly the aircraft on the line without automation.

We have had an unrelaible airspeed exercise and I was shocked to see the F/O fall into the same trap as AF447. Asked about AF he had never heard of it! After taking control from the F/O and recovering from the jet upset it was time to move onto the next exercise.....

So I ask again, who has received jet upset training here in HKG?

[SOPS]

How can a professional pilot never heard of Air France 447?

[Gnadenburg]

I think cadet programs have not cottoned onto the importance of aviation general knowledge and interest with the leadership failing being an over emphasis on FCOM manuals that are in need of fleshing out.

Where is the upset training in FCOM for example? But someone with interest could at the very least hunt online for some sort of guidance. And I'm not suggesting this is anywhere near satisfactory.

[Pucka]

High altitude stalls/mis handled Go Arounds/icing/component and system failures/ power plant loss or degradation/ wave upset and u recovered rolls...all contributors to recent and less recent accidents and incidents...yet here we are, still flying the V1 cuts and eng inop go arounds..same old crap with LVO's and the yep..predetermined vol 8 questioning that we all theatrically entertain. No system instruction, knowledge base questioning with construction..all down to the dumbing down by both the manufacturer and the company as part of the plan to marginalise the crews...trouble is..it's NOT working..the trickle down from the legacies to the LCC's has inevitably caused a tragic sting in the tail...time for change??!!

[Sqwak7700]

How can a professional pilot never heard of Air France 447?

Not all pilots in our cockpits today are what you and I would call "professionals".

This is a feature of our current work environment which was unforeseen by our great leadership when they embarked on this race to the bottom.

Imagine that, a declining employment package equals lower motivation and dedication. Who would have thunk it?

:rolleyes:

[joblow]

This is from an unconfirmed report but if true raises troubling questions



For these efforts as well as the 13 years of running the air carrier from a losing state-owned company to a profitable budget carrier - at times even helping carry baggage at airport counters - Fernandes has earned the respect of the aviation industry.

Analysts believe he and AirAsia could survive the tragedy that befell QZ8501, but there are also reports that could potentially damage both the CEO and the brand.

One such report which came out in Malaysian Insider states that Fernandes sold 944,800 shares of Tune Insurance Holdings on Dec 22 and 23 for RM1.60 per share.

Tune provides insurance to passengers of Air Asia, but its shareprice has been declining since August. The timing of the sale of the bulk of the shares, which left Fernandes with a 0.01 percent direct shareholding and 3073 percent indirect stake in Tune, provides a perfect angle to speculations of knowledge of an alleged conspiracy because of the timing of the sales with the air accident.

[Gnadenburg]

High altitude stalls/mis handled Go Arounds/icing/component and system failures/ power plant loss or degradation/ wave upset and u recovered rolls...all contributors to recent and less recent accidents and incidents...yet here we are, still flying the V1 cuts and eng inop go arounds..same old crap with LVO's and the yep..predetermined vol 8 questioning that we all theatrically entertain. No system instruction, knowledge base questioning with construction..all down to the dumbing down by both the manufacturer and the company as part of the plan to marginalise the crews...trouble is..it's NOT working..the trickle down from the legacies to the LCC's has inevitably caused a tragic sting in the tail...time for change??!!


I agree Pucka except with asymmetric handling.

I was alarmed when I heard a second hand report from a discussion with a manager, that evidence based training has identified asymmetric handling ( notably the V1 cut ) as being a problem area for a percentage of the pilot group ( I'd guess MPL's/ Cadets though a couple of big personalities too by F/O accounts ) . The story went that, OK, since it's such a problem, let's remove so we can concentrate on more pressing handling issues.

How does that work? I thought EBT identified key areas wanting and addressed them? Not like the story goes in making pilots cheaper in both the training and what you have to pay them by making them easy to train and replace.

Don't let the system rob Peter to pay Paul. It's broken and needs mending!

[Lowkoon]

Gnadenberg, dont get me started on MPL's surely the only people who still believe in that little experiment are the accountants, it was a way of reducing the lofty 170 HRS TT down to 80. Was anyone really surprised when the result was well, close to half? Remember the memo the poor guy who had to pitch it to us as "not a cost saving exercise", but rather a better way? He must have been choking on his own vomit as he typed.

EBT... In the right hands, it could be a valuable tool. Note I chose my words carefully there. Train the skills we need on a dark and stormy. The skills you suggest we practice are fine, lets just move on from the V1 cuts that used to be useful in a Bristol Blenheim. Flying around asymmetrically is an essential skill, no question, but lets move it beyond the regulatory box ticking exercise we face time after time.

You mentioned cadets and general knowledge. You shouldn't get a cadetship without it, no exception, if you cant demonstrate an interest in aviation, don't expect to pitch up and have a million dollars spent on you.

[cxhk]

You mentioned cadets and general knowledge. You shouldn't get a cadetship without it, no exception, if you cant demonstrate an interest in aviation, don't expect to pitch up and have a million dollars spent on you. To be 100% fair, I reckon most of the cadets that I have flown with (SO and FO) had better system and OpsA knowledge then most other pilots. Sometimes maybe they have a bit too much knowledge that they don't think outside the box enough.

As for other flying knowledge, does it really matter what background of the pilot is coming? Do we honestly think that a direct entry SO from years past (those with 2-3000 hours experience flying around in Europe or North America), do we honestly think, when they first join the company as SO, that they will have the knowledge of flying in tropical areas with towering thunderstorm up to 50,000ft? This types of experience and knowledge, regardless of background comes from learning on the line and on the job, based upon the environment that you operated into. The company can help improve upon this by providing more training that is actually relevant to our operations. For example, our annual tech quiz and route briefing? or even our annual CRM and Annual Emergency? They are all mostly pointless exercise and we repeat it for regulatory sake. The class room time spend on the CRM course will probably be better spend if the company actually create a course that introduce some learning and training that specifically target our area of operations, and these course should be tailor to various rank. As for the Tech quiz, maybe the training department should consider creating an actual learning package that provide a refresher on various systems with common tips and tricks (something that pilot can read and can actually learn something from it), at the end of that reading, you can have a short quiz based upon that refresher, that will be much more useful. Because as we all know, our current tech quiz is really a word searching exercise with the iPad search function, it is so pointless that most of us learn nothing from it (although it has been improve over the years). To accomplish all that will require a training department that actually have the resources to create courses that are tailored to our operational needs, but unfortunately our current training department only really have resources to meet the regulatory needs.

[Stone_cold]

There are parts of the US that have just as developed and severe thunderstorm activity along with weather systems more extensive than that in SE Asia .

[777300ER]

There are parts of the US that have just as developed and severe thunderstorm activity along with weather systems more extensive than that in SE Asia .

Just as developed? Actually the frontal convective activity often encountered mid continent in North America is far more serious than anything I've ever seen in this part of the world.

[jacobus]

They are; the difference being that they have an ATC SERVICE that is cooperative, professional, harmonised throughout the entire US and indeed are ever ready to offer advice, pireps, a change of route of necessary and level. In fact they bend over backwards to accomodate requests and that is the way it should be.

[Stone_cold]

777 , thanks ..I am well aware ... I was intentionally being very conservative so as not to offend, as there are some very thin skinned persons present here , but my message could be had "in between the lines " . It was just a response to the slight about 2-3000 hours flying around North America by someone who seemingly has never been exposed .

[iceman50]

Some interesting ideas CXHK.

However, it does seem a little bit of let someone else do the hard work of reading the manuals so that I don't have to do it. I then just read their notes (read vol 8) and I can pass the "test". If we were "really" professional we would be reading the books more often without having to be forced to do it as a "regulatory" item. Being able to regurgitate chapter, verse and line of the FCOM / OPS A is not necessarily "knowledge" if it cannot be applied.

Your comment about the 2-3000 hours flying around Europe / North America being not good training for the operating environment here, is also a little off the mark. As it is 2-3000 of "operating" an aircraft and honing basic flying skills in all sorts of conditions.

[mikedreamer787]

polluted fuel loaded from Surabaya?

Wouldn't be the first time.

MNL's another where I've had water loaded into the tanks iso kero.

[Lowkoon]

Give me the 2000-3000 hr direct entry from Europe sitting beside me while deicing in Beijing over a 200 hr guy who has never seen ice other than in his sprite he gets with his Happy meal from Maccas any day of the week, or the Canadian who flew 2000 hours in a turbo prop who flys in ice regularly, or the American who flys through tornado alley daily, how on earth is that not valuable seat of the pants experience worthy of offering a package to attract to join us?

Absolutely back ground matters a whole damn lot on the proverbial dark and stormy night when things start going wrong. While the cadets are deciding whether to go 10 or 20 miles left or right of track around the rather ominous looking ground return at 80 miles... "Oh and there is a bit of purple in it, should we sit the girls down do you think?"

[CodyBlade]

He says he ignorant about AF447 so he can be excused from the Sim cock-up?