A319s for Qlink?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: herethereandeverywhere
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Training? Practice? Opportunity? This isn't Top Gun champ, you had to do a pre solo check just like the rest of us.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: uk
Age: 47
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airdualbleedfault,
Are you saying those tprop pilots from Impulse Airlines struggle with the inertia of jets? Wouldn't the ex Impulse guys/girls be the most senior pilots, checkers and trainers in Jetstar by now? I would be a nervous passenger to think that the captain of my A330 joining the localiser at Phuket was struggling with the
that you claim.
Are you saying those tprop pilots from Impulse Airlines struggle with the inertia of jets? Wouldn't the ex Impulse guys/girls be the most senior pilots, checkers and trainers in Jetstar by now? I would be a nervous passenger to think that the captain of my A330 joining the localiser at Phuket was struggling with the
inertia and GS that the T/Prop guys have trouble with
Last edited by traindriver33; 29th Nov 2012 at 21:09.
Bottums Up
Pre solo checks were usually conducted at up to a 100 kts, when one knew naff all, and had no long term learned habits or skill set.
After perhaps years and maybe 1000s of hours doing things at 180-240 kts, one develops a well honed skill set and mind set. Bump the speed up to 450+ kts, triple the weight and thus inertia, and replace rotating speed brakes (props) with small, fairly ineffective boards (spoilers), and it takes some time to modify the skill set and mind set.
It's not a criticism it's an observation. It can often take more time and when a company has a lot of folk that take a bit more time, then budgets & time lines can blow out.
train driver, are you saying that none struggled in the beginning? I've not seen anything in this thread suggesting that they continue to struggle. I certainly know my first jet endorsement was more challenging because of the speed etc, than had it been another turbo-prop.
After perhaps years and maybe 1000s of hours doing things at 180-240 kts, one develops a well honed skill set and mind set. Bump the speed up to 450+ kts, triple the weight and thus inertia, and replace rotating speed brakes (props) with small, fairly ineffective boards (spoilers), and it takes some time to modify the skill set and mind set.
It's not a criticism it's an observation. It can often take more time and when a company has a lot of folk that take a bit more time, then budgets & time lines can blow out.
train driver, are you saying that none struggled in the beginning? I've not seen anything in this thread suggesting that they continue to struggle. I certainly know my first jet endorsement was more challenging because of the speed etc, than had it been another turbo-prop.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capn claret,
I agree with inertia argument. However speed has nothing to do with it. When all the thinking is done the speed is exactly the same as a turboprop. Actually sometimes you'll hear a qlink delta to slow down as they are catching the heavy ahead. Oh and the q400 doesn't like to slow down very well. The props don't offer much help at all.
Now this high speed problem you elude to. Well seriously when you're doing 450 knots vs our 350 in the cruise, it's on autopilot and the only thinking is really flight management. Considering your sector is generally longer it offers more time to think.
Maybe jump seat a Sydney Canberra one day and see if you change your mind.
We are all pilots. Blue bit is up, brown bit down. I agree that inertia would be a challenge, but not an Apollo moon mission.
All the best.
I agree with inertia argument. However speed has nothing to do with it. When all the thinking is done the speed is exactly the same as a turboprop. Actually sometimes you'll hear a qlink delta to slow down as they are catching the heavy ahead. Oh and the q400 doesn't like to slow down very well. The props don't offer much help at all.
Now this high speed problem you elude to. Well seriously when you're doing 450 knots vs our 350 in the cruise, it's on autopilot and the only thinking is really flight management. Considering your sector is generally longer it offers more time to think.
Maybe jump seat a Sydney Canberra one day and see if you change your mind.
We are all pilots. Blue bit is up, brown bit down. I agree that inertia would be a challenge, but not an Apollo moon mission.
All the best.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sunny QLD
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed. There's nothing harder about jets than turbo props.
You know you're on top of it when you can do cbr-syd in a 737, from runway 35 to 07, High speed all the way , in bad weather, while consuming a leisurely breakfast!
😀
You know you're on top of it when you can do cbr-syd in a 737, from runway 35 to 07, High speed all the way , in bad weather, while consuming a leisurely breakfast!
😀
Last edited by ejectx3; 29th Nov 2012 at 23:01.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: uk
Age: 47
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Claret,
In case you didn't pick up on it, I was having a dig at airdualbleedfault's choice to use a sweeping statement to describe his opinion of tprob guys.
He didn't specifically mention at which stage of their career this trouble might occur, which he probably should have. If he WAS referring to the initial jet training phase, I would question why someone with tprop experience would struggle any more than trainees with different experience. One might suggest that experience on a slippery Q400 which lacks the luxury of auto-throttles might put them at an advantage compared to a trainee coming off piston aircraft, and cadets with jump seat SO experience.
In case you didn't pick up on it, I was having a dig at airdualbleedfault's choice to use a sweeping statement to describe his opinion of tprob guys.
the inertia and GS that the T/Prop guys have trouble with
Last edited by traindriver33; 29th Nov 2012 at 23:42.
I came off a metro.
The speeds are identical below 10k and the approach speeds are similar. The only thing I had to get my head around was the extra inertia and the flatter profiles you fly in a jet. That was taken care of in 'line training'.
Anyone who thinks turboprop guys have a harder time is a dick. The turboprop was harder to fly. The jet gives you unparalleled SA with all the toys in the flight deck (once you figure out how to use them).
P.S where did the jet guys come from? Born with jet time and a pair of raybans?
Get a grip!
The speeds are identical below 10k and the approach speeds are similar. The only thing I had to get my head around was the extra inertia and the flatter profiles you fly in a jet. That was taken care of in 'line training'.
Anyone who thinks turboprop guys have a harder time is a dick. The turboprop was harder to fly. The jet gives you unparalleled SA with all the toys in the flight deck (once you figure out how to use them).
P.S where did the jet guys come from? Born with jet time and a pair of raybans?
Get a grip!
Bottums Up
traindriver33, you're right, I missed that. 
I'm afraid I don't see airdualbleedfault's sweeping statement. And certainly no criticism of T/P drivers. As I see it he's just pointing out an area of difficulty, one with which I identify.
As for same speeds below 10, I don't know what the limitations on a Metro are, but a 71 can hold 320+ to 10 to 15 nm. If required
, does the Metro?
I'm afraid I don't see airdualbleedfault's sweeping statement. And certainly no criticism of T/P drivers. As I see it he's just pointing out an area of difficulty, one with which I identify.As for same speeds below 10, I don't know what the limitations on a Metro are, but a 71 can hold 320+ to 10 to 15 nm. If required
, does the Metro?
Last edited by Capt Claret; 30th Nov 2012 at 01:12.
I think some people here are a little sensitive.
The amount of training required to convert from one aircraft to another is a product of the natural ability of the pilot concerned plus the experience and skill set they bring to the course. I don't think anybody is arguing that one set of drivers has a greater natural ability than another - so lets drop that from the equation. I think the point is that turboprop regional aircraft require a different skill set than jet. So, a pilot transitioning from a one jet to a similar jet is going to require less training than a pilot transitioning from a turboprop to a jet. Even transitioning from one brand of jet to another (eg boeing to airbus) will take more training than, say airbus 320 to 330. I would like to also point out that the converse is also true. A jet pilot transitioning to a regional turboprop aircraft is going to require more training than a regional turboprop pilot transitioning to another turboprop type.
I think the OP was simply trying to identify some specific reasons why the training may take longer for turboprop to jet than jet to jet and was not making any particular observation about the ability of the people concerned.
The amount of training required to convert from one aircraft to another is a product of the natural ability of the pilot concerned plus the experience and skill set they bring to the course. I don't think anybody is arguing that one set of drivers has a greater natural ability than another - so lets drop that from the equation. I think the point is that turboprop regional aircraft require a different skill set than jet. So, a pilot transitioning from a one jet to a similar jet is going to require less training than a pilot transitioning from a turboprop to a jet. Even transitioning from one brand of jet to another (eg boeing to airbus) will take more training than, say airbus 320 to 330. I would like to also point out that the converse is also true. A jet pilot transitioning to a regional turboprop aircraft is going to require more training than a regional turboprop pilot transitioning to another turboprop type.
I think the OP was simply trying to identify some specific reasons why the training may take longer for turboprop to jet than jet to jet and was not making any particular observation about the ability of the people concerned.
Last edited by theheadmaster; 30th Nov 2012 at 01:20.
a 71 can hold 320+ to 10 to 15 nm. If required , does the Metro?
A Metro can hold 245 knots to 5 miles, and still land. Don't think there are too many jets that would try that.At another operation I was previously with, one of the blokes who did best on the prop-to-jet conversion was 59 years old, and had no previous jet experience. He watched, he listened, he studied and he learned.
It's not about age, experience or shoe size, it is all about attitude and application.
Nunc est bibendum
A Metro can hold 245 knots to 5 miles, and still land. Don't think there are too many jets that would try that.
Was was the thread about again?
Last edited by Keg; 30th Nov 2012 at 02:33.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Land of the rising sun
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Exiled in the Ukraine
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One minor point on this discussion. How on earth do you think Qantas can finance yet another fleet of aircraft to yet another group??? The well is dry, we can't get access to cheap finance anymore.
Management will be flat out financing this years Chrissy party!
Sorry to bust this rumour but apart from the Airbuses earmarked for the international Jetstar franchises there is very little chance of any new aircraft to any entity in the group. Excess orders will be cancelled, not converted.
Just remember these little words "capital light" ..... Says it all.
Management will be flat out financing this years Chrissy party!
Sorry to bust this rumour but apart from the Airbuses earmarked for the international Jetstar franchises there is very little chance of any new aircraft to any entity in the group. Excess orders will be cancelled, not converted.
Just remember these little words "capital light" ..... Says it all.
Noclue, and others, I think you miss the point. I think what has been stated, in very simple terms, is that the closer the operation of your previous type is to the type you are converting to, the less training is required. Someone made the link to training requirements and cost. The more training required, the more it will cost. Any competent pilot can make the transition, just the cost of that transition varies with previous experience. I would expect that, as a pilot of a large twin jet, I would require a ****e ton more training to convert to a dash 8 than, say, a SAAB pilot. Similarly, I would expect to take less training to go to an A320 than a SAAB pilot. This is no reflection on ability, just a recognition of being proficient in your current type and role.
Now, as to how much influence training costs will have in determining where A319s go (if in fact they actually happen), that is another question entirely. I suspect other factors will have a much greater influence.
Now, as to how much influence training costs will have in determining where A319s go (if in fact they actually happen), that is another question entirely. I suspect other factors will have a much greater influence.
79T would be a little enthusiastic when the MTOW is 77T.
A 321 goes at 93T. You don't notice much difference between them except for rotation and approach. The 321 can be a little trickier to get back on profile though if you get high or ATC dick you around with track miles. She's a much more stable ship to hand fly than the 320.
It's a pity there isn't more of them in Australia as they are a very capable aeroplane.
A 321 goes at 93T. You don't notice much difference between them except for rotation and approach. The 321 can be a little trickier to get back on profile though if you get high or ATC dick you around with track miles. She's a much more stable ship to hand fly than the 320.
It's a pity there isn't more of them in Australia as they are a very capable aeroplane.