What "Management is missing"

[Arfur Dent]

What Management is missing is that we are gradually changing the ability on the Flight Deck from pilots who know what it's like to operate an aircraft without an autopilot and who recognise, from experience, what is going on in an attitude of more than 60 degrees of bank ( heaven forbid 180) and can do something - naturally - about it.
OK - all the old farts are leaving but that has always happened. In the past the old guys were replaced by new (similar) guys i.e. people with military experience of fast jets or big 'bomber' types. V force people and Herc drivers had all flown Jet Provosts upside down and inside out!
Now, we have a generation who have never flown ANYTHING except airliners - essentially straight and level.
Why would they be capable of correcting anything 'unusual'? Sims??
2016 will kill many people in serviceable/flyable aircraft accidents.
Well done to the Accountants who have so diminished our Profession.
"Psychological rest" just about sums up the disconnect…………

[CXtreme]

Sims? Definitely not in the CX system of Recurrent Training. Use the Vol8's as guidelines, and don't come with ideas. CX have invented flying, anything else will be a low score and will be noted by one of the many review boards. CX use and understand the words " thinking pilots" about as much as " caring company" and "team"

[8driver]

AD-You were doing great for the first sentence. I agree with the sentiment expressed there, and I expected you to go on about the present generation brought up on GPS and automatics, the so called "sons of the magenta line."

Then you went on to equate the experience of old with being ex-military, be it fast jet or heavies. That isn't the case nor has it ever been. The "old farts" (and I am fast becoming one) were a mix of military and civilian in almost every airline. You don't have to be ex-military to have good manual flying skills or a good scan. I taught stalls and spins and spent some time beyond 60 degrees of bank without ever having flown in the military. I hand flew DC-8s raw data almost all the time and was comfortable doing so, down to minimums. My dad taught me to fly in the days before GPS and I can read a chart and navigate by dead reckoning. I could do unusual attitude recoveries from under the hood on a partial panel and I taught the same. When I checked out on the DC-8 we had to be able to determine a two engine ETP for oceanic flight using an E6B.

I fully agree that the experience level of the present civilian generation is not the same. In the past on the civilian side we started by instructing, flew single pilot night freight in light twins in all sorts of weather (nobody to make decisions for you), worked our way through regional turboprop airlines (sometimes six or more approaches to mins a day), then moved on to the major airlines. Its not that way anymore. Now even in the smallest airplane a computer/gps tells you where you are and where to go, and autopilots have become very common. No more "steam gauges" to build a scan, its all EFIS.

But you don't have to be ex-military to have the ability to fly an airplane without an autopilot and to have experience. There are plenty available if we offered a package to attract them.

[Gnadenburg]

There has to be caution with a military attitude to handling airliners. This was one of the reasons for the advent of upset programs in the 90's. US carriers were teaching inappropriate rudder recovery at low speed with sixties era fighter guys dominating C&T- rudders are great in a high g rolling scissors but perhaps not in airliners. The other reason was some appalling civilian training which persists today- some of what was being said about stall recovery in this town recently was terribly ignorant from some quarters.

So I'd be careful with a gung-ho approach to jet airliner handling. Needs to be measured with consideration to simulator fidelity and airline manufacturer input.

Oh and your experience means rats. Not sure if you realize you can be replaced with the 3500 hour Captain. From the same proving ground that brought you the 150 hr F/O.

[744drv]

TWICE Dan, we would never get away with this level of incompetence!

[stevieboy330]

So Dent when I brought my near 6000 hours, half of which was turboprop time, & around 4000 Command hours to Cathay I wasn't "experienced" enough coz I didn't come from the Air Force?
That's pretty arrogant, even for you Dent.
In my job before CX I flew as a Captain on a two crew RPT, turboprop. Like hundreds of guys just like me at Cathay.
I delt with flight attendants, engineers & commercial pressures every day. I routinely flew 5 sectors in a day, often flying instrument approaches in marginal wearher, often hand flow. I hand flew visual approaches into international airports at the same speeds as a 330, to a far higher standard than Cathay ever asked if me.

It pisses me off that so many ex Air Force pilots at Cathay see me as inferior to them coz I came from GA.
I worked hard for years & gave up a lot, I took massive personal & financial risks for my shot at CX. I got every right to be here with my head held high.
You might be pretty good at what you do, sure seems like you reckon you are, chances are I'm just as good. Chances are you might be looking for me to back you up when things aren't going well on the flight deck one day too!


I

[Arfur Dent]

Stevie - please don't think I am being arrogant. You and your type are not the 'target group' that I was referring to. You are not a cadet and bring a lot more to the party than they do. Presumably, when your aircraft is upset at high level, you wouldn't be the co-pilot who sat there with the side stick pulled fully back without bothering to tell anyone what you were doing/thinking. That young French guy killed himself and a whole aircraft full of passengers. That's the bottom line.
You have done your time and I admire you for it. Cadets with minimum hours have not and Cathay is encouraging that.
Don't be deliberately offended - my point was a generic one and you are not included - I think you know that.
I would love you to be covering my six because you know what I mean. There are several readers of this thread who will not have a clue what I mean by that.
Sorry to offend you - not my intention.

[BusyB]

This is a strictly ..... mathematical viewpoint... and it goes like this:

What Makes 100%?

What does it mean to give MORE than 100%?

Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%? We have all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%.

How about achieving 103%?

What makes up 100% in life?

Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions:

If:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.

Then:

H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K
8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%

And

K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%

But ,

A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E
1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100%

And,

B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T
2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103%

AND, look how far ass kissing will take you.

A-S-S-K-I-S-S-I-N-G
1+19+19+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118%

So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty, that while Hard work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will get you there.
Its the Bull**** and Ass Kissing that will put you over the top.
Now you know why some people are where they are!

[Dan Winterland]

Ha ha - that's brilliant Busy B. I'm going to nick that!



Having said that, you need to look at many factors to work out how someone is going to perform in a unusual attitude upset recovery. I'm frequently surprised how many pilots out there have not seen an attitude over 60 degrees bank. The Cadets have all done at least 5 hours UART training and have learned how to recover from extreme attitudes. Your GA pilot may have never. If/when the big upset occurs, those who have experienced it before are less likely to succumb to the 'Startle factor'. I'm not sure how many pilots will cope, but UART will be a major head start in the mitigation process.

Upset Recovery Training (UPRT) is going to become mandatory in EASA land - and not before time. It's evidence based training at the grass roots level. Some may deride the 'military' style handling - but you have to remember that the manoeuvre that snapped the vertical stabiliser off the AA A300 was learned from a video - and executed by a pilot who had never practiced it before.

We are still very much in the learning process where these situations are concerned. But my money would be on the ex-military pilot having the better outcome.

[Lowkoon]

Ex military has limits too, the Air Asia captain had how many thousand hours in a fast jet? F16 jock wasn't he? Lets focus more on getting the current batch trained. CAD to the rescue! :ugh:

[parabellum]

stevieboy330 - you were lucky! When I interviewd for CX in 1978, I had 5500hrs total of which 2750 were on commercial jets and I was 37 years old.
The late Mr Hardy informed me that my experience wasn't anything like enough for CX as I was very close to reaching the 'Male Menopause' (it's non existant, but he didn't think so) and was low on jet time! I was service trained.

[Gnadenburg]

Dan

Nobody here is deriding what you label military style handling.

Flight Safety Foundation was quite measured 20 years ago when it stated that some civilian training is grossly lacking for upset scenarios and there were also genuine concerns that the upset recovery ethos of ex-fighter pilots dominating US management and training positions were excessive with rudder usage on commercial jets.

I'd like to see the UART syllabus with consideration to who's teaching it and their own experience in jet aircraft. Have a chat with your juniors with simple nose high, nose low scenarios, complications with bank and underslung engines, unloading etc. And topically, approach to stall, stall and deep stall and I'd be surprised if you were not concerned.

Air Forces have had many crashes and close calls with jet upsets in airliner type aircraft so there may be a false confidence of some ex-mil pilots in their own exposure and understanding of the topic. Especially in light of modern FBW aircraft with their behavior and limitations in extreme upsets with flight control law reconfigurations and protections, ambiguous systems failures and presentations issues.

So yes, we could all do with the training. It has been severely lacking in HKG and limited to those few paragraphs somewhere or perhaps watching the stby AH re-twirl and eventually re-centre upon a on ground reset.

[VR-HFX]

Gnandengurg....here's one that some on this forum will remember very well. What is not mentioned in the report is the altitude at which this asymmetric "exercise" was initiated and thereby leaving absolutely no chance for recovery, even with the "best of intentions".

Airforce training was very thorough in my day and I assume this is still the case but still this can happen out of the blue . Likewise long GA experience teaches common sense and self-preservation. What we do today however, (or more precisely, what we don't do today), in my view, really pushes the envelope with the actuaries.

ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 707-368C A20-103 East Sale, VIC, Australia (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19911029-0)

[perfectenergy]

What your management is missing is a private toilet wisdom like us.

[RAT Management]

Military guys.... Pfffff!
Like four bars!
I rest my case!

[Rascasse]

spoken like a true non-mil pilot :D

[Monarch Man]

Not CX, but ex FJ and then as I got older and wiser I spent time on the C130 and VC10.
Gentlemen its horses for courses, there is good and bad in whatever path someone takes. Ive known ex red arrows who are a bloody menace, and Ive known C180 owners that could fly rings around anyone.
Its all down to the individual, as its always been.

[hkgcanuck]

I wish your common sense was more common, Monarch Man.

[Callsign Kilo]

Your management doesn't care if you flew Fantoms inverted whilst shooting flames from your arse or if you honed your skills on some clapped out turboprop when hurricane Bertha blew you around the sky. As equipment gets more reliable and the whole system gets increasingly more dumbed down, 100 hour MPLs become the norm. Sticking the autopilot in at 400 feet and taking it out again after touchdown doesn't concern the beancounter any more than your ability to fly some 4 holed smoke stack down to minimums on partial panel whilst reciting the Lord's prayer in Swahili. Yes, all thats just glorious; but so what? Airbus has all but eliminated the word 'pilot' from any of their mission statements. The people that buy the aeroplanes for the airlines of the world think this is great. It adds to their level of respect for our noble profession. They couldn't give a monkeys if being a Cathay Pacific pilot, or any sort of pilot, actually used to mean something.

Military background, GA or commercial. You'll all be replaced by someone with heavily gelled spiked hair who looks great in a pair of aviators and a chunky pilot's watch. We'll still be squabbling about being upside down in jet provosts or hand flying iron ducks across the pond using nothing more than a slide rule and a sextant.

[Just Do It]

Callsign Kilo,

Thanks for sugar coating it!

[geh065]

Not wrong though is he?

[Arfur Dent]

I think he's hit the nail on the head!!
My point exactly.:D

[Oval3Holer]

Fantoms? What are Fantoms?

[Gnadenburg]

I don't think jet upset training is done in HKG- there is far more regulatory obsession with timing holding patterns !

Anyway, jet upset training needs to move beyond the scope of a decade or so ago where airline pilots ( some but maybe not in HKG ) were trained in recovery from the conventional upsets defined as being beyond 45 degrees bank, +25 & -10 degrees of pitch. Excursions beyond these parameters met elemental principles of recovery and fell within sim fidelity.

It's a difficult subject to address though the new world of upsets is not coventional jet aircraft, it is FBW aircraft where systems reconfigurations and errors probably require a greater knowledge and exposure than before.

The contemporary upset can see crews fighting the aircraft which is correctly or incorrectly actioning a recovery. We have examples of this locally.

The military versus civilian debate is moot. Would all modern Airbus airline crews for instance, have correctly turned off flight control computers to recover an aircraft in an upset prior to proper awareness forthcoming from Airbus via engineering bulletins? The AF accident only brought more poor instruction and confusion to the fore with poorly defined stall philosophy being handed to cadet pilots in a mix up with unreliable airspeed principles.

It's just a mess considering from where our pilot demographics are spawning- and don't sell me a spin on cadet training, its missing the mark by a fair margin!

[raven11]

Gburg
Completely agree....the lack of depth (and proper training) in this area has been swept under the rug for some time now.

[megan]

and don't sell me a spin on cadet training, its missing the mark by a fair marginIn days gone by airlines such as Lufthansa and BOAC trained lads from scratch, and they took the RHS on the line with minimal experience, as do the modern cadets.

As a SLF it seemed to work back then, in as much I never read any derogatory comment back in those days. What has changed with the modern day cadet training?

[mngmt mole]

The big difference is that most of the cadets from those programs experienced hundreds of takeoffs and landings flying the regional fleets that those airlines have. Our cadets, once they make captain have about 10% of the experience in To's and Ldgs that the pilots hired in the 80's had when they made command. Ten percent....and you don't think there might be a problem?

[slowjet]

Dumbing down has a lot to do with it too. Minimum educational qualifications for consideration were 5 good "O" levels including Maths, Physics & English Language. Two further subjects were required at "A" level. Remember, these were the good old GCE certificates. Much, much harder than the GCSE of today.
Then, you had a fiercely competitive selection procedure. If you got past all that, you still had to perform at a high level throughout the course. Within the course, we really did do spinning, stalling, spiral dives, steep turns & recovery from unusual attitudes. Not quite as exciting as Arfur's jet provost but I can tell you that the Cherokee 140 was a pig to get into a spin and I remember my arse pointing at the sky too ! The Tech standard at Hamble was so high that a "Frozen " ATPL was issued. Finally, at least 4000 hours was required by most companies before a LHS selection and training was ever, even, looked at.

Now, compare that with the standards today and I agree with Arfur Dent & his argument concerning the Management issue which has lowered standards, encouraged P2fly , in the name of cost reduction and you have the scenario of today.

Don't get me started on the technology either. Airbus crashed a A320 while demonstrating how good it was ! People today really do think that they are "flying" the plane when they knock out the autopilot and "disconnect" the autothrottle. Yeah right. Throttles that don't even move !

Solution ? Easy. High level of selection and training followed by years and years and thousands of hours of monitoring and continuation training. Of course it won't happen. Bean counters with easy to get correspondence course qualifications will tell you that it costs too much. Discussion over.