At Last - A Voice of Reason
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Terra firma
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airmanship
FB,
My world is not simplistic but in my experience reducing an argument to its lowest common denominators is the most effective way to dissect a complicated problem (which is something that mathematicians also do). Your counter facts were mostly irrelevant to the point I was trying to make though one does require some further discussion.
WRONG
Not only is this incorrect but it goes to the heart of the argument of those that are trying to undermine the industry and reminds me Joseph Goebbels who famously said “A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth.”
The reason it is wrong is because it comes down to airmanship, the unteachable quality which can ONLY be learned through experience and cannot be taught. Further more, a pilot going through the GA route is much more likely to be dedicated to the career and not just treating it as a job. Those who come through the short cadet scheme are much less likely to be doing it through a passion and love of flying and therefore are less likely to ever learn true airmanship. The reason this quality is important is because if anything goes wrong and a life and death situation develops and experience and judgement needs to come to the fore, then pilots with airmanship qualities are the much more likely to save the situation.
I must stress that this is only a solution for those nations that have a strong GA industry of which Australia certainly is one, so why go the route of cadetships which are used by places which have little other alternative. On reflection though, I can see that the 1500 hour rule has little chance of being introduced due to these vested special interest groups. So I have thought of another effective alternative which requires no legislative changes and would be a certain vote winner for any government which introduces it.
When I get into a taxi, I can question the driver, examine his licence, ensure he knows the route, etc and I have the option of taking another if I am unsatisfied. But when I get onto a airplane there is no such opportunity and my loved ones and I are consigned to a lottery which is increasingly becoming stacked against us. Yet when I booked the flight, I was able to choose where I sat, what entertainment I have, which meals I eat….so why not the experience of the pilot?
What if it was a requirement that when booking a flight, the airline provide the experience rating of the rostered pilots. This does not have to be exact but just a rough idea:
Does the FO have greater or less than 1500 hours.
Does the captain have greater or less than 5000 hours.
In this way, the travelling public has the right to decide and airlines will actually gain a competitive advantage by employing experienced pilots.
A simple but effective way to reverse the race to the bottom me thinks.
My world is not simplistic but in my experience reducing an argument to its lowest common denominators is the most effective way to dissect a complicated problem (which is something that mathematicians also do). Your counter facts were mostly irrelevant to the point I was trying to make though one does require some further discussion.
FACT: Pilots entering through the cadet scheme may have a better introduction into airline flying than pilots with more hours which were gained in an activity that is irrelevant to the airline environment.
WRONG
Not only is this incorrect but it goes to the heart of the argument of those that are trying to undermine the industry and reminds me Joseph Goebbels who famously said “A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth.”
The reason it is wrong is because it comes down to airmanship, the unteachable quality which can ONLY be learned through experience and cannot be taught. Further more, a pilot going through the GA route is much more likely to be dedicated to the career and not just treating it as a job. Those who come through the short cadet scheme are much less likely to be doing it through a passion and love of flying and therefore are less likely to ever learn true airmanship. The reason this quality is important is because if anything goes wrong and a life and death situation develops and experience and judgement needs to come to the fore, then pilots with airmanship qualities are the much more likely to save the situation.
I must stress that this is only a solution for those nations that have a strong GA industry of which Australia certainly is one, so why go the route of cadetships which are used by places which have little other alternative. On reflection though, I can see that the 1500 hour rule has little chance of being introduced due to these vested special interest groups. So I have thought of another effective alternative which requires no legislative changes and would be a certain vote winner for any government which introduces it.
When I get into a taxi, I can question the driver, examine his licence, ensure he knows the route, etc and I have the option of taking another if I am unsatisfied. But when I get onto a airplane there is no such opportunity and my loved ones and I are consigned to a lottery which is increasingly becoming stacked against us. Yet when I booked the flight, I was able to choose where I sat, what entertainment I have, which meals I eat….so why not the experience of the pilot?
What if it was a requirement that when booking a flight, the airline provide the experience rating of the rostered pilots. This does not have to be exact but just a rough idea:
Does the FO have greater or less than 1500 hours.
Does the captain have greater or less than 5000 hours.
In this way, the travelling public has the right to decide and airlines will actually gain a competitive advantage by employing experienced pilots.
A simple but effective way to reverse the race to the bottom me thinks.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 62
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if it was a requirement that when booking a flight, the airline provide the experience rating of the rostered pilots. This does not have to be exact but just a rough idea:
I would also be interested in the experience of the crew if I am a pax.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
FACT: Pilots entering through the cadet scheme may have a better introduction into airline flying than pilots with more hours which were gained in an activity that is irrelevant to the airline environment.
WRONG
Not only is this incorrect but it goes to the heart of the argument of those that are trying to undermine the industry and reminds me Joseph Goebbels who famously said “A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth.”
FACT: Pilots entering through the cadet scheme may have a better introduction into airline flying than pilots with more hours which were gained in an activity that is irrelevant to the airline environment.
WRONG
Not only is this incorrect but it goes to the heart of the argument of those that are trying to undermine the industry and reminds me Joseph Goebbels who famously said “A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth.”
Further more, a pilot going through the GA route is much more likely to be dedicated to the career and not just treating it as a job. Those who come through the short cadet scheme are much less likely to be doing it through a passion and love of flying and therefore are less likely to ever learn true airmanship.
The reason it is wrong is because it comes down to airmanship, the unteachable quality which can ONLY be learned through experience and cannot be taught. Further more, a pilot going through the GA route is much more likely to be dedicated to the career and not just treating it as a job. Those who come through the short cadet scheme are much less likely to be doing it through a passion and love of flying and therefore are less likely to ever learn true airmanship. The reason this quality is important is because if anything goes wrong and a life and death situation develops and experience and judgement needs to come to the fore, then pilots with airmanship qualities are the much more likely to save the situation.
Some very big assumptions here my friend with opinions being stated as fact.
Fly safe
PJ
Some very big assumptions here my friend with opinions being stated as fact.
Fly safe
PJ
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Terra firma
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not my assumptions, please see the original article which started this thread:
Fasten your seatbelts
Whose concluding paragraph was:
I am merely restating and offering a solution.
Fasten your seatbelts
Whose concluding paragraph was:
Captain Barry Jackson, president of the Australian and International Pilots Associations, summed it up as follows: ''The fear is that the trends we now see will place an over-loaded captain and an inexperienced first officer in trouble one dark and stormy night, and same as the Buffalo crew, not see the options available to avert a tragedy. It doesn't have to happen. Airlines need to decide whether experienced pilots are a cost or an asset. The Australian public had a safe aviation system in place; it is now being dismantled purely for reasons of cost. They deserve better.''
Last edited by Jabiman; 28th Nov 2010 at 13:13. Reason: Added quote
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the motivation of the pilots forcing the point that cadet pilots are unsafe?
Are they genuinely concerned for the safety of the traveling public? Or are they more concerned about their terms and conditions being erroded?
Altruism or Greed??
Are they genuinely concerned for the safety of the traveling public? Or are they more concerned about their terms and conditions being erroded?
Altruism or Greed??
What is the motivation of the pilots forcing the point that cadet pilots are unsafe?
Are they genuinely concerned for the safety of the traveling public? Or are they more concerned about their terms and conditions being erroded?
Altruism or Greed??
Are they genuinely concerned for the safety of the traveling public? Or are they more concerned about their terms and conditions being erroded?
Altruism or Greed??
If you really are looking for answers (as opposed to pushing your own wheelbarrow), this might be a good place to start your research:
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...-cockpits.html
Flexible response,
Please tell me you are not attempting to link the Jetstar cadet scheme to a problematic airline training culture in India.
Does India’s high road toll also prove that Australians should fear the automobile on Australian roads?
Most airlines the world over, with few exception’s such as North America and Australia, have made cadet pilots the staple cockpit crew member for decades without problems.
It is disingenuous to suggest that airlines have safety problems as a result by using selective examples such as AIExpress.
I suspect that CASA will provide training oversight to cadets employed by Jetstar, not the DGCA. Can you see the difference?
This is a financial argument thinly disguised as concern for the travelling public.
Please tell me you are not attempting to link the Jetstar cadet scheme to a problematic airline training culture in India.
Does India’s high road toll also prove that Australians should fear the automobile on Australian roads?
Most airlines the world over, with few exception’s such as North America and Australia, have made cadet pilots the staple cockpit crew member for decades without problems.
It is disingenuous to suggest that airlines have safety problems as a result by using selective examples such as AIExpress.
I suspect that CASA will provide training oversight to cadets employed by Jetstar, not the DGCA. Can you see the difference?
This is a financial argument thinly disguised as concern for the travelling public.
Jabiman,
I really do enjoy a rational debate. Unfortunately, some people believe emotion is 'FACT' and it is difficult to have a satisfying discussion. Unfortunately, you fall into this category.
Let us just examine one point that flight hours and safety are inextricably linked. I refer you to the NTSB Report on the Colgan Air accident at Buffalo on Feb 12, 2009. This is the link:
[URL="http://ntsb.gov/Publictn/2010/AAR1001.pdf"]
The Captain had 3,379 hours and the copilot 2,244 hours. Given that accidents are not caused by any single factor (although the actual accident may have occurred as a result of the last defence having been breached), I wonder if the accident would have not occurred if the Captain had 5,000+ hours given that this is your attainment point for a safe pilot.
I found it interesting that you attached the attainment point of 5,000 hours with what could be a marketable asset for pilots. I would also like to include ATPL test scores, recency, night landings, emergencies already handled efficiently, skin colour, sperm count (if applicable), bra size (if applicable), etc to ensure that I am getting value for money. After that we will tell the customers the experience and annual performance of the bag tossers.
I believe it inappropriate that I use the word simplistic twice in 24 hours but then again .... if the shoe fits.
Ducky, you are making Franky so cranky.
I really do enjoy a rational debate. Unfortunately, some people believe emotion is 'FACT' and it is difficult to have a satisfying discussion. Unfortunately, you fall into this category.
Let us just examine one point that flight hours and safety are inextricably linked. I refer you to the NTSB Report on the Colgan Air accident at Buffalo on Feb 12, 2009. This is the link:
[URL="http://ntsb.gov/Publictn/2010/AAR1001.pdf"]
The Captain had 3,379 hours and the copilot 2,244 hours. Given that accidents are not caused by any single factor (although the actual accident may have occurred as a result of the last defence having been breached), I wonder if the accident would have not occurred if the Captain had 5,000+ hours given that this is your attainment point for a safe pilot.
I found it interesting that you attached the attainment point of 5,000 hours with what could be a marketable asset for pilots. I would also like to include ATPL test scores, recency, night landings, emergencies already handled efficiently, skin colour, sperm count (if applicable), bra size (if applicable), etc to ensure that I am getting value for money. After that we will tell the customers the experience and annual performance of the bag tossers.
I believe it inappropriate that I use the word simplistic twice in 24 hours but then again .... if the shoe fits.
Ducky, you are making Franky so cranky.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Terra firma
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB,
Not sure which of my arguments are emotive as such would be easily disproved.
I do not intend to debate the merits of pilot training here as this is a subject for another thread and may be easily researched here:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committ...ubmissions.htm
In regards to these submissions I do find it interesting though that the airlines and training organisations are unanimous in their agreement that the cheapest ‘user pays’ method of training is equal to the more traditional method of recruiting experienced aviators.
Since I am being accused of being emotive, then how about this:
Is this another report about Air India? No, this is from an ATSB report about a Jetstar crew.
For more info regarding this incident:Jetstar, Joyce and the Senate inquiry – Plane Talking
Not sure which of my arguments are emotive as such would be easily disproved.
I do not intend to debate the merits of pilot training here as this is a subject for another thread and may be easily researched here:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committ...ubmissions.htm
In regards to these submissions I do find it interesting though that the airlines and training organisations are unanimous in their agreement that the cheapest ‘user pays’ method of training is equal to the more traditional method of recruiting experienced aviators.
Since I am being accused of being emotive, then how about this:
Neither the PIC’s nor the copilot’s training or experience, when coupled with the unexpected distractions and workload during the event, enabled them to quickly diagnose the situation during the early part of the first missed approach. For a period of approximately 48 seconds, they were uncertain as to what the automated flight control system of the aircraft was doing, or why.
Is this another report about Air India? No, this is from an ATSB report about a Jetstar crew.
For more info regarding this incident:Jetstar, Joyce and the Senate inquiry – Plane Talking
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this another report about Air India? No, this is from an ATSB report about a Jetstar crew.
If you read that ATSB report and Ben Sandilands blog you will note that the main criticism is that Jetstar changed the go-around procedures without being able to show any safety benefits and that the endorsement training was deficient.
The main point I have been arguing is that airline training is being downgraded for a cost benefit reason. This is irrespective of whether the training candidate is from a GA background or cadetship. It is the quality of training that must be addressed if Australia is to maintain its airline standards at a time when pilots will not get the generous background in GA that occurred in the past when pilots could expect to spend many years honing skills before getting a call from the airlines.
Dear Jabiman,
In your post #81 you quoted my words:
You then said 'WRONG' but now you are saying you don't want to discuss pilot training pathways! Fascinating!
I am not sure what you mean by making reference to the VH-VQT A320 incident at Melbourne Airport on Jul 2, 2007. There is certainly some interesting points to consider in the ATSB Report. Well worth a darn good read. However, the PIC had 6,500 hours of which 1,580 were on type and the CP had 5,000 hours of which 500 were on type.
The report does not indicate if they were cadet entrants to the industry or came through the traditional pathway which you recommend. This is appropriate as it has nothing to do with the incident. In this case, two very experienced pilots dealing with an issue brought about by a wide range of factors some which related to the pilots themselves.
I fully agree that we need to continue to build pilot training and performance standards in Australia. Possibly, the first step is the experienced assisting these less experienced for the greater good. I am sure that's what most are doing as to do otherwise would be unforgiveable.
Your discussion on training has now moved to the topic about who pays for it.
I am not too sure what you mean as even an 'experienced aviator' may incur individual cost in gaining a position in some airlines. You would need to do a cost analysis (including social and opportunity costs) to see if someone working in a single pilot, single engine, VFR aircraft beyond the black stump is more economically effective than someone taking the more contemporary pathway. However, is it really a 'contemporary pathway' as many airlines including Qantas have had cadet schemes off and on for many years. Either way, your point is valid that the airlines want someone who is trained and doesn't want to pay for it. The Air Force used to be good to plunder but in most cases they earn too much these days so companies like Rex are an excellent resource pool.
Meanwhile, Jabiman enjoy the old folks home and your memories of the days of glory and importance long since past in an industry that continues to evolve to something that looks so much different to 'the good old days'.
Frank x x x
In your post #81 you quoted my words:
FACT: Pilots entering through the cadet scheme may have a better introduction into airline flying than pilots with more hours which were gained in an activity that is irrelevant to the airline environment.
I am not sure what you mean by making reference to the VH-VQT A320 incident at Melbourne Airport on Jul 2, 2007. There is certainly some interesting points to consider in the ATSB Report. Well worth a darn good read. However, the PIC had 6,500 hours of which 1,580 were on type and the CP had 5,000 hours of which 500 were on type.
The report does not indicate if they were cadet entrants to the industry or came through the traditional pathway which you recommend. This is appropriate as it has nothing to do with the incident. In this case, two very experienced pilots dealing with an issue brought about by a wide range of factors some which related to the pilots themselves.
I fully agree that we need to continue to build pilot training and performance standards in Australia. Possibly, the first step is the experienced assisting these less experienced for the greater good. I am sure that's what most are doing as to do otherwise would be unforgiveable.
Your discussion on training has now moved to the topic about who pays for it.
the airlines and training organisations are unanimous in their agreement that the cheapest ‘user pays’ method of training is equal to the more traditional method of recruiting experienced aviators.
Meanwhile, Jabiman enjoy the old folks home and your memories of the days of glory and importance long since past in an industry that continues to evolve to something that looks so much different to 'the good old days'.
Frank x x x
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Terra firma
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi FB,
Good to see you are no longer so cranky.
Your reference though to the experience of the pilots in A320 incident is disingenuous. Since the incident took place in 2007, most flights would have had experienced crews as the Jetstar cadet program had yet to even begin. And to say that the pilots were either GA or military is also disingenuous as this would have applied to most crews. But the point is that since this could happen to even an experienced crew, what would happen to an inexperienced one?
Even the recent Qantas A380 incident would have no doubt resulted in disaster if it had a less experienced crew. What we should be trying to avoid is the attempt by the airlines to crew planes with pilots who have the lowest regulated experience and on the lowest T & C’s that they can negotiate. I wont even mention off shoring of maintenance as this is a whole other debate suffice it to say that pilots MAY have to shoulder the effects of more cost cutting.
I also disagree that this Brave New World that you advocate is inevitable or even desirable. Australia is lucky to be one of the most extensive GA industries in the world, second only to the USA. We should be nurturing and making use of it rather than becoming just like everybody else.
Be under no illusion that the perception of the general public is that pilots are a highly paid profession and the airlines are using this to great effect in their campaign against them. Since CASA is effectively neutral in these matters then it would appear that the senate enquiry may not result in anything concrete and no one outside of the industry will really care.
What I advocate though is something which consumer groups and the general public would support since it is effectively empowering them. By forcing airlines to disclose the experience level of the crews on their rostered flights, it gives the travelling public a choice to pay more for an experienced pilot if they choose. It also gives the airlines an incentive to hire experienced pilots rather than just the ones merely willing to work for the lowest T&C’s.
Good to see you are no longer so cranky.
Your reference though to the experience of the pilots in A320 incident is disingenuous. Since the incident took place in 2007, most flights would have had experienced crews as the Jetstar cadet program had yet to even begin. And to say that the pilots were either GA or military is also disingenuous as this would have applied to most crews. But the point is that since this could happen to even an experienced crew, what would happen to an inexperienced one?
Even the recent Qantas A380 incident would have no doubt resulted in disaster if it had a less experienced crew. What we should be trying to avoid is the attempt by the airlines to crew planes with pilots who have the lowest regulated experience and on the lowest T & C’s that they can negotiate. I wont even mention off shoring of maintenance as this is a whole other debate suffice it to say that pilots MAY have to shoulder the effects of more cost cutting.
I also disagree that this Brave New World that you advocate is inevitable or even desirable. Australia is lucky to be one of the most extensive GA industries in the world, second only to the USA. We should be nurturing and making use of it rather than becoming just like everybody else.
Be under no illusion that the perception of the general public is that pilots are a highly paid profession and the airlines are using this to great effect in their campaign against them. Since CASA is effectively neutral in these matters then it would appear that the senate enquiry may not result in anything concrete and no one outside of the industry will really care.
What I advocate though is something which consumer groups and the general public would support since it is effectively empowering them. By forcing airlines to disclose the experience level of the crews on their rostered flights, it gives the travelling public a choice to pay more for an experienced pilot if they choose. It also gives the airlines an incentive to hire experienced pilots rather than just the ones merely willing to work for the lowest T&C’s.
Dearest Jabiman,
It is so hard to remain cranky with someone who argues one point and then changes the argument in the next breathe.
I suspect that you masquerade as an opportune poster on PPRuNe but you have strong allegiances to another acronym that starts with A and finishes with A because they wanted to copy AOPA but had to make a small change not to infringe their copyright.
You need to realise that GA rather than being a breeding ground for future high capacity airline pilots is fast becoming a swamp of under qualified and under educated but dedicated young and energetic Australians.
I have no argument with you that professional aviators should be remunerated appropriately. The Nov 5, 2010 QF32 pilots deserve much more that the Qantas CEO will get in the next decade. However, the reality is much different as like in World War 2 only the people with the power (the pilots then but now the CEOs and CFOs) get the gongs.
With regard your views on airlines using the experience of the flight crew as a selling point, all I can say is that the supper in the old folks home of hot chocolate and SAO biscuits and cheese will be along shortly.
Rest peacefully my dear man and don't give any thought to the fact that you are yesterday's man.
But I must say once again, Frankly my dear I don't give a damn.
It is so hard to remain cranky with someone who argues one point and then changes the argument in the next breathe.
I suspect that you masquerade as an opportune poster on PPRuNe but you have strong allegiances to another acronym that starts with A and finishes with A because they wanted to copy AOPA but had to make a small change not to infringe their copyright.
You need to realise that GA rather than being a breeding ground for future high capacity airline pilots is fast becoming a swamp of under qualified and under educated but dedicated young and energetic Australians.
I have no argument with you that professional aviators should be remunerated appropriately. The Nov 5, 2010 QF32 pilots deserve much more that the Qantas CEO will get in the next decade. However, the reality is much different as like in World War 2 only the people with the power (the pilots then but now the CEOs and CFOs) get the gongs.
With regard your views on airlines using the experience of the flight crew as a selling point, all I can say is that the supper in the old folks home of hot chocolate and SAO biscuits and cheese will be along shortly.
Rest peacefully my dear man and don't give any thought to the fact that you are yesterday's man.
But I must say once again, Frankly my dear I don't give a damn.
Rang the Senate Enquiry line the other day. They are still receiving submissions and will continue to do so as long as they come in, regardless off any cutoff date.
First hearing is tomorrow!
First hearing is tomorrow!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Terra firma
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Frank,
When i read your post I laughed so hard that my false teeth almost fell out!
I have set up a thread about this in the SLF section of the forums to guage the thoughts of the travelling public.
http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf...ml#post6091905
When i read your post I laughed so hard that my false teeth almost fell out!
I have set up a thread about this in the SLF section of the forums to guage the thoughts of the travelling public.
http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf...ml#post6091905
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Terra firma
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tried to argue the point about experienced GA pilots being better than novice cadet pilots on the 'passengers and slf' section of the forums. Most of the respondants seemed to be European based but they were overwhelmingly convinced and argued that a trainee cadet pilot sitting in as FO was as good as a GA pilot with hundreds of hours in his logbook.
Despite the thread only running 3 days and me being able to counter every argument that they put forward, the thread was closed by the moderator.
I am now starting to think that we in Oz might be pushing sh*t uphill and cadet pilots in the RHS are the way of the future.
Despite the thread only running 3 days and me being able to counter every argument that they put forward, the thread was closed by the moderator.
I am now starting to think that we in Oz might be pushing sh*t uphill and cadet pilots in the RHS are the way of the future.