Jetstar Cadet Scheme Failing To Produce Safe Pilots?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This action might work on some aircraft, but applied to an A330 it would yield some spectacular results.
Industry training focusses on recovery from an upset, but it's not good at follow-up when conflicting information is still present. This is where power + attitude = performance is useful. It's drummed into every military pilot until their ears burn – for good reason
Industry training focusses on recovery from an upset, but it's not good at follow-up when conflicting information is still present. This is where power + attitude = performance is useful. It's drummed into every military pilot until their ears burn – for good reason
The first generation of upset training I did with Airbus/Boeing came about due poor civilian and inappropriate military experience in dealing with airliners in an upset. That is, many civilian pilots have never been upside down in an aircraft and Boeing was concerned with the possible recovery techniques of an ex-fighter pilot in a jet airliner- rudder use from memory. And the RAAF has had a sadly spectacular history in this area.
Back to your first line, I recall in Ansett training when unreliable airspeed was not an Airbus recall, their philosophy of building a pilot up from raw data and power and attitude knowledge, to introductions of the evolving levels of automation. By accident, it was probably an excellent way to train on the new and evolving glass cockpit concepts. High altitude handling came from experience with the 727. I recall doing high altitude upsets in the SIM and never needing to drop the nose into the brown.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 26th Dec 2011 at 04:03.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
psycho joe: I'm interested in the spectacular results that 2º ND and idle thrust would yield in an A330. The aim is – in the face of conflicting/confusing information – to get the aircraft stable after recovering from a UA. Idle is a known power, and 2º ND is a reasonable attitude (to not stall and not overspeed) while you trouble-shoot the problem.
My theory (re AF447) is that Bonin went from sitting in the dark, probably tired, probably bored, to suddenly getting an overspeed warning. This would at least explain why his initial reaction (though incorrect) might have been to pull back on the stick, in order to avoid an overspeed. As already suggested, an overspeed warning might have also drowned out the STALL STALL warning, which is based on AOA and not airspeed.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a management point of view 40,000 tonne of coal, 200 freight cars plus 3 or 4 locos, several kilometres of track with associated bridges, culverts, signalling equipment, etc probably equals one aircraft hull loss, 300 lives and associated peripheral damage. All actuarially accounted and insured.
when terrestrial automated transport experiences a fault, it fails gracefully and stops on the road
Krusty, I get it alright and have done for many a year; you succinctly lay it out here:
`The main issue is the pure evil of the Jetstar Cadet Scam. It is in existence for one reason and one reason only. To drive down wages and conditions. Anything else is just a diversion. The creation of cheaper pilots will lead to one inexorable conclusion, disaffected and distracted pilots.'
It goes far deeper than this; we all know how this came about; whether we will all admit it or not is another question; pilots have no one to blame but themselves.
It is just not the Jetstar cadets but the total pilot wage and T&Cs throughout the world and I would not rely upon the supposed `The FAA has recognized this and have mandated a system to put value back into the profession’ as a partial or full fix for this’.
Ask my fellow pilot friends in the US who, after retirement saw their pension funds obliterated or destroyed by their former employer; American Airlines being the current airline using Chapter 11 to screw their employees.
Putting one’s faith or trust in a politician in this country at present will yield little though possibly a little more than reliance upon the disgraceful apology of the organisation loosely know as our Industry Regulator.
My point was industry will use technology to reduce the crew resource cost which should be recognised resolving the problem.
The argument is pilot wages, T&Cs and `everything else is smoke and mirrors’; until pilots again stand up to this, divided they will continue to fail.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 300 hr cadet belongs in the jump seat, given flying time, and serve their apprenticeship as we all did. They do NOT belong in the RH seat, unless supervised by a competent F/O and Skipper, and I for one say if there is a hull loss due to this maniacal decision, I hope the company go up on manslaughter charges, but of course they won't. They will go to extreme lengths to blame the flight crew, and /or the engineers, they will look into their personal lives, they will leave no stone unturned, before they take any responsibility. Seriously, you blokes have to get together and insist on a competent F/O, it IS your ship, your life, your job, your right, your profession, and if you keep on accepting some kid with bum fluff on his face, in the RH seat rather than in the jump seat, because it is now becoming company policy, then you have to look at yourselves as well. Sorry, in our day we would have said (and did) not going anywhere until you give me a competent F/O, happy to have the kid in the jump seat, but that is it. If you don't move on it, they will keep going ahead with it. Time to get some union action, before there is a disaster none of us want to even think about.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said TG, except that
Those old enough, that can remember those days are too busy looking after their out of seniority management palm greasing jobs for mates jobs to do so and also actively discourage....
The rest who are too green to know any better.
Those old enough, that can remember those days are too busy looking after their out of seniority management palm greasing jobs for mates jobs to do so and also actively discourage....
The rest who are too green to know any better.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: goulburn
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you TG for the usual wisdom.
There is also an issue with Senators X's activities in the Senate hearings in that each and every politician has been put on notice about what is happening. While they may succumb to the Rat charm at the moment, there is not one of them that can state they were not warned in the event of the smoking hole which none of us want or even contemplate occurring.
Therefore while the Execs may duck and weave around the legal system, each and every pollie who did nothing will be fair game for the media if it happens.
Senator Albanese should have a fun time while he explains his dismissal of the findings, although based on current polls he and many of his friends may have bought enough time to avoid being held accountable when they get booted out or into opposition.
There is also an issue with Senators X's activities in the Senate hearings in that each and every politician has been put on notice about what is happening. While they may succumb to the Rat charm at the moment, there is not one of them that can state they were not warned in the event of the smoking hole which none of us want or even contemplate occurring.
Therefore while the Execs may duck and weave around the legal system, each and every pollie who did nothing will be fair game for the media if it happens.
Senator Albanese should have a fun time while he explains his dismissal of the findings, although based on current polls he and many of his friends may have bought enough time to avoid being held accountable when they get booted out or into opposition.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough psycho joe: I haven't flown that particular Airbus, which sounds more nose-high, but the principle is to get it into a known safe part of the envelope using power and attitude. If 0º is the normal descent attitude, that's something an A330 pilot will know. The point is, have an easy to recall power and attitude that will keep you safe for a few minutes while you sort out the mess.
Gnadenburg: One part of the original Boeing/Airbus jet upset training was to de-train military pilots operating large transport aircraft. You are spot-on: the rudder was the issue; the rudder was used a lot in a small military jet, but in an airliner, it's for engine failures and crosswinds – but mostly a footrest.
Standards of training needs to be seen in context. RAAF pilots' course aims to turn out the next bunch of fighter pilots; not the next FO for an A330. However, the general airmanship, discipline and the dedication to high-levels of professional knowledge (in context), needed to pass the course, will hold a pilot in good stead in any role.
I have been trained in: GA; airlines; RAAF and OEMs (4 times) – the RAAF won hands-down for quality of training; Ansett was also very good; OEM training was appalling; GA was poor compared to the others, but that was in the 70s.
The RAAF multi-engine world included a VMCA demonstration in the multi-engine syllabus. Everyone considered it practicing bleeding but it went unchallenged until the loss of the B707. I think it came out in a 4 corners report, but there were a few other near-losses. The military, in general, have a philosophy of training pilots in the extremes of the flight envelope, but applying that mentality to transport category aircraft went too far.
Gnadenburg: One part of the original Boeing/Airbus jet upset training was to de-train military pilots operating large transport aircraft. You are spot-on: the rudder was the issue; the rudder was used a lot in a small military jet, but in an airliner, it's for engine failures and crosswinds – but mostly a footrest.
Standards of training needs to be seen in context. RAAF pilots' course aims to turn out the next bunch of fighter pilots; not the next FO for an A330. However, the general airmanship, discipline and the dedication to high-levels of professional knowledge (in context), needed to pass the course, will hold a pilot in good stead in any role.
I have been trained in: GA; airlines; RAAF and OEMs (4 times) – the RAAF won hands-down for quality of training; Ansett was also very good; OEM training was appalling; GA was poor compared to the others, but that was in the 70s.
And the RAAF has had a sadly spectacular history in this area.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Not Brisbane
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't seen a detailed analysis but my guess would be that there are just as many appalling accidents involving high-time pilots with excellent pedigrees in the front seats as there are low time "culprits". American, Air France, Fedex Qantas, Southwest etc etc-all have had accidents involving handling skills, situation awareness, CRM or systems knowledge. Qantas and BA both managed to nearly end up with big jets involved in fuel starvation despite having fuel in the tanks!
The key point is the training and checking environment, and the wider airline culture that operates in. If the world aviation industry is to grow at much better than 1-2% per year then some carriers (and all the jobs that go with them) will be growing at a rate that means they will want to rely on cadets to fuel their expansion.
It may be outside of the experience base of some who comment, but properly managed with excellent training, mentoring and follow-up, cadet schemes can and do work well. Clearly you don't want bare minimum capability in the LHS with cadets flying their first jet-and no serious airline would contemplate that.
Motivation for the introduction of cadet schemes is another thing. Greed by management is not the worst thing, if, and only if, the Chief Pilot and the head of the 217 regime do their job and fearlessly so. Quality SOPS, independent check pilots, good union involvement in safety committees and pilot welfare, good safety and QA programmes, a genuine "just culture" backed with a strong seniority system that guarantees independence for decision makers, quality and un-rushed LOFT, recurrent and PC sessions that really add value in cockpit management and handling skills, remedial training programmes and finally-nothing in training, rostering, fatigue management, endorsement etc that could be described as "minimal".
And those who have been around a while in many environments can put their hand on their hearts as one and attest that in the longer term, doing it properly saves money, not costs money.
If that's not the case then we can all see where the rot has started.
But please, no more of the emotive "who do you want flying on that dark and stormy night".... stuff, it just might be two high time drivers who both agree they're doing a great job right up to the end.
The key point is the training and checking environment, and the wider airline culture that operates in. If the world aviation industry is to grow at much better than 1-2% per year then some carriers (and all the jobs that go with them) will be growing at a rate that means they will want to rely on cadets to fuel their expansion.
It may be outside of the experience base of some who comment, but properly managed with excellent training, mentoring and follow-up, cadet schemes can and do work well. Clearly you don't want bare minimum capability in the LHS with cadets flying their first jet-and no serious airline would contemplate that.
Motivation for the introduction of cadet schemes is another thing. Greed by management is not the worst thing, if, and only if, the Chief Pilot and the head of the 217 regime do their job and fearlessly so. Quality SOPS, independent check pilots, good union involvement in safety committees and pilot welfare, good safety and QA programmes, a genuine "just culture" backed with a strong seniority system that guarantees independence for decision makers, quality and un-rushed LOFT, recurrent and PC sessions that really add value in cockpit management and handling skills, remedial training programmes and finally-nothing in training, rostering, fatigue management, endorsement etc that could be described as "minimal".
And those who have been around a while in many environments can put their hand on their hearts as one and attest that in the longer term, doing it properly saves money, not costs money.
If that's not the case then we can all see where the rot has started.
But please, no more of the emotive "who do you want flying on that dark and stormy night".... stuff, it just might be two high time drivers who both agree they're doing a great job right up to the end.
Last edited by Algie; 27th Dec 2011 at 03:46.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From someone who doesn't know much about cadets, the history of such past schemes etc, it's pretty clear that this one isn't working. Add to it that this one is all about conditions of employment and saving the airline money rather than putting the appropriate experience up front, you would think that the regulator would be very concerned?
How does Jetstar continue to get away with these incidents when Tiger and Ansett were shut down over their incidents?
There's something very smelly about all of this. You used to be able to get on a jet airliner in this country with FULL confidence that you had the best available in the two front seats.
Now you have to make an active choice about what risks you take when choosing an airline to fly in this country. I've got enough info to make that choice, the flying public do not.
How does Jetstar continue to get away with these incidents when Tiger and Ansett were shut down over their incidents?
There's something very smelly about all of this. You used to be able to get on a jet airliner in this country with FULL confidence that you had the best available in the two front seats.
Now you have to make an active choice about what risks you take when choosing an airline to fly in this country. I've got enough info to make that choice, the flying public do not.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeeze it must be hard work for some of you guys being such skygods who are so firm in their belief that they would have saved the day on the Air France flight if they were there as 'australians' are the best pilots in the world (now that quote did make me laugh). Surely all that any of us can hope for is that if such an unfortunate mix of circumstances should ever occur to us on a dark stormy night somewhere that through a mix of good airmanship, good flying skills and a huge dose of GOOD LUCK that we may survive. To expect that you can do better is asking for trouble.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not at Jetstar...
This is what a quality cadet program looks like:
Unfortunately it is nowhere to be seen at Jetstar.
The holes in the swiss cheese slices continue to move towards alignment.
PG
PS. CASA - You are shamefully disrespecting the public safety you are entrusted with
Quality SOPS, independent check pilots, good union involvement in safety committees and pilot welfare, good safety and QA programmes, a genuine "just culture" backed with a strong seniority system that guarantees independence for decision makers, quality and un-rushed LOFT, recurrent and PC sessions that really add value in cockpit management and handling skills, remedial training programmes and finally-nothing in training, rostering, fatigue management, endorsement etc that could be described as "minimal".
The holes in the swiss cheese slices continue to move towards alignment.
PG
PS. CASA - You are shamefully disrespecting the public safety you are entrusted with
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely all that any of us can hope for is that if such an unfortunate mix of circumstances should ever occur to us on a dark stormy night somewhere that through a mix of good airmanship, good flying skills and a huge dose of GOOD LUCK that we may survive. To expect that you can do better is asking for trouble.
And I hope the blokes and girls up the front of any aircraft that I fly in aren't relying on a huge dose of GOOD LUCK to make it through any abnormal situation they may 'find' themselves in.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But this is what I am saying, we all have to acknowledge that sometimes good luck does play a big part in surviving these things. The A320 into the Hudson without doubt showed great airmanship and flying skills, it also though had a hell of a lot of luck involved, the river was calm, there were ferries near by, the birds struck at a height that allowed them to clear the Brooklyn bridge by not more than 100ft. The LHR 777, good airmanship and good flying skills + a huge amount of good luck that they happened to be on the ONLY runway at LHR that had a significant undershoot area. The list could continue, no matter what you may think luck does play a part in these things, or call it fate, good fortune, what ever. I just find it a bit strange when people sit back and are so quick to criticize our fellow airman who 'undoubtedly' mishandled a situation, but what would YOU do, how do we know until we experience these things, read Chuck Yeagers autobiography, he is without doubt one of the best test pilots to every fly and he states several times during the book that he is only still here through a good dose of good fortune and airman who he considered to be his equal or superior are no longer here because there luck ran out.
Surely all the Air France episode shows is that even 'experienced' pilots can mishandle an aircraft straight to an accident, the American Airlines Airbus that lost it's tail was mishandled by a very experienced crew, as was the BMI 737 into East Midlands, a very experienced crew shut the wrong engine down, as was the Air NZ / German A320 where a highly experienced crew stalled the thing into the sea.
What I find more dangerous than these potential cadets is the arrogance of some pilots who feel that because they have had the good fortune to have had a mainly incident free career they consider themselves to be highly experienced and therefore impervious to 'screwing up'
Surely all the Air France episode shows is that even 'experienced' pilots can mishandle an aircraft straight to an accident, the American Airlines Airbus that lost it's tail was mishandled by a very experienced crew, as was the BMI 737 into East Midlands, a very experienced crew shut the wrong engine down, as was the Air NZ / German A320 where a highly experienced crew stalled the thing into the sea.
What I find more dangerous than these potential cadets is the arrogance of some pilots who feel that because they have had the good fortune to have had a mainly incident free career they consider themselves to be highly experienced and therefore impervious to 'screwing up'
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, fair enough, but if you don't put yourself into those situations in the first place you wont have to rely on good luck. Sullenbergers situation was a little (a lot) different to the Air France jobby.
Gnadenburg: One part of the original Boeing/Airbus jet upset training was to de-train military pilots operating large transport aircraft. You are spot-on: the rudder was the issue; the rudder was used a lot in a small military jet, but in an airliner, it's for engine failures and crosswinds – but mostly a footrest.
Standards of training needs to be seen in context. RAAF pilots' course aims to turn out the next bunch of fighter pilots; not the next FO for an A330. However, the general airmanship, discipline and the dedication to high-levels of professional knowledge (in context), needed to pass the course, will hold a pilot in good stead in any role.
I have been trained in: GA; airlines; RAAF and OEMs (4 times) – the RAAF won hands-down for quality of training; Ansett was also very good; OEM training was appalling; GA was poor compared to the others, but that was in the 70s.
Quote:
And the RAAF has had a sadly spectacular history in this area.
The RAAF multi-engine world included a VMCA demonstration in the multi-engine syllabus. Everyone considered it practicing bleeding but it went unchallenged until the loss of the B707. I think it came out in a 4 corners report, but there were a few other near-losses. The military, in general, have a philosophy of training pilots in the extremes of the flight envelope, but applying that mentality to transport category aircraft went too far.
Standards of training needs to be seen in context. RAAF pilots' course aims to turn out the next bunch of fighter pilots; not the next FO for an A330. However, the general airmanship, discipline and the dedication to high-levels of professional knowledge (in context), needed to pass the course, will hold a pilot in good stead in any role.
I have been trained in: GA; airlines; RAAF and OEMs (4 times) – the RAAF won hands-down for quality of training; Ansett was also very good; OEM training was appalling; GA was poor compared to the others, but that was in the 70s.
Quote:
And the RAAF has had a sadly spectacular history in this area.
The RAAF multi-engine world included a VMCA demonstration in the multi-engine syllabus. Everyone considered it practicing bleeding but it went unchallenged until the loss of the B707. I think it came out in a 4 corners report, but there were a few other near-losses. The military, in general, have a philosophy of training pilots in the extremes of the flight envelope, but applying that mentality to transport category aircraft went too far.
Military training has become a dangerous argument in favor of cadet schemes and it is often espoused by ex-military people.
Yes, Western military training is an excellent preparation for the airlines. It is essential it is coupled with piloting attitudes devoid of red flags. The quality of training can never be replicated in the civilian world due cost and risk. There's a documentary I watched on F18 training for Canadians where their trainees cooked an engine during an in-flight re-light demo and one candidate damaged an aircraft on landing with aircraft carrier design limitations! That was in one episode!
Military experience from non-Western ideologies produces some of the worst airline pilots imaginable. It can couple cultural faults with cockiness- Korean Air Force for example.
Military training should be respected and seen for what it is. Its limitations and sometimes inappropriateness needs to be considered. Sadly, piloting standards in the civilian airline world have declined so rapidly due low cost carriers and cadet schemes, that military training is now way above the mark and the transitional issues to the civilian world are seemingly ignored.
Leaders from within our industry use military training as an argument in favor of cadet schemes. This is a foolish argument when the driver for the cadet schemes is cost.
I think it's totally wrong that people can buy their way into a job. How can the airline be putting the best people there, cadet or otherwise, if they are selling the seat. Pay to fly schemes should be banned. Jet star cadetship is not much better.