Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Reputation of Aussie pilots overseas

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Reputation of Aussie pilots overseas

Old 7th Feb 2018, 01:04
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 550
These days there is much more emphasis on CRM and recruiting someone who can fit in to a team. Modern training programs instill the correct flight deck culture from the beginning into new trainees and interviewers reject unsuitable experienced applicants who won’t adapt.

The days of the ex WW2 Squadron Leader bomber pilot flying a B707 for BOAC before SOPs were developed are thankfully long gone.
krismiler is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2018, 06:47
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: adelaide, Australia
Posts: 425
Well we can't have pilots thinking for themselves now can we?
Further I would suggest in Asia especially this same "culture" is why some crews will watch on while the captain flies straight into the end of the runway wall.
mostlytossas is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2018, 06:56
  #83 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,178
Wink

Originally Posted by mrdeux View Post
I find that they use 'arsehole' a fair bit.....I've learnt to answer to it.
Stop telling fibs. No one has ever called you an ar*ehole. D!ckhead maybe? (only kidding mate. Never heard anyone refer to you with anything but respect).
Keg is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2018, 22:45
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 28
Arsehole

With over 400hrs in the simulator over many years.....I have never heard a checkie, instructor or supervisary use any language.....that could be considered offensive....in polite society.
Setright is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2018, 02:54
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: U.S.A
Age: 51
Posts: 410
"For a start QF and VA are not FAA 121 operators, they have to comply with CASA requirements"

Very true. However, full to the gunwales is full to the gunwales regardless of who is providing oversight? No?
oicur12.again is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2018, 03:10
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
"For a start QF and VA are not FAA 121 operators, they have to comply with CASA requirements"

Very true. However, full to the gunwales is full to the gunwales regardless of who is providing oversight? No?
Exactly, when it is basic Part 25 Performance Limits.
Can't speak for B777, the the B747-400 is very sensitive to tyre speed limits with any tailwind component at max brakes release weight.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2018, 03:24
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 89
I found (in my experience) the regionals in Australia possessed more of the "Austronaughts"

Once I started at major airline I was stunned by how much more relaxed it was.

Definately a much more pleasant working environment. And if i've learned one thing take everything you hear with a large pinch of salt. 99% of what you hear about people is bullshit anyway.

With the exception of a few knobs, if you show up to work with a good attitude, and do your job properly you will likely have a good day with anyone you fly with.
MajorLemond is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2018, 03:37
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 1
OICUR....operations ex LAX in the 777 are typically done at MTOW, and a tailwind drops the performance limit by about 2 tonnes per kt of tailwind.

3-4 kts of tailwind very easily becomes 7-8 kts of tailwind in LA and seeing as they typically only update the atis once an hour it is hardly a stretch to imagine that crews are fairly conservative when it comes to takeoff performance.

depending on the temp 2-3 kts tailwind is the limit with no derate, no assumed temp and bleeds off.

Throw in runway closures that run for months and wanting to take off into wind is hardly a world ending event.

Every crew I know of will try their damndest to not need a runway 7L/R departure because of the hassle that comes with it, but the risk is that you get to the end of the runway and they advise that the tailwind is now 3-4 kts not 2-3 kts and you are stuffed.

Being professional shouldn't be the reason for ridicule. Similarly knowing what the tailwind limit is, ensuring you aren't exceeding it and then taking off on the prevailing runway direction is also a mark of professionalism, and should not be used to suggest that they "twiddled" the numbers and took off disregarding the tailwind limit being exceeded - which is what you were suggesting.

Edit...great circle distance LAX-HKG 7260 nm, great circle distance LAX-SYD 7488nm.

The thing that adds a lot of weight ex LA is freight. Not sure what AA carry freight wise.

Last edited by Snakecharma; 8th Feb 2018 at 04:48.
Snakecharma is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2018, 04:00
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: adelaide, Australia
Posts: 425
I agree with that Major. The regionals are far worse than the Major airlines. One only has to listen in on any ctaf that has RPT services to hear the w**kers. Readily available to berate some poor ppl for some minor radio procedure. In fact more often than not they themselves are wrong. I recall recently a Rex crew telling off a vfr driver for not making a departure call.That went out years ago. By the time they get to the big boy toys it is out of their system perhaps?
mostlytossas is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2018, 04:29
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Extreme
Posts: 293
Thumbs up

Gee Capn Bloggs, that was a masterful way to extinguish the toroidal vortex of [email protected]#t.
Shot Nancy is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2018, 05:10
  #91 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,930
Originally Posted by LeadSled View Post
Exactly, when it is basic Part 25 Performance Limits.
Can't speak for B777, the the B747-400 is very sensitive to tyre speed limits with any tailwind component at max brakes release weight.
Tootle pip!!
Itís Civil Aviation Order 20.7.1B for the regulator that invented regulatory reform that increases complexity. FAR 25 would be too simple, that is just one line !!

Originally Posted by Snakecharma View Post
Edit...great circle distance LAX-HKG 7260 nm, great circle distance LAX-SYD 7488nm.
LAX-HKG is shorter than LAX-SYD great circle, it is normally 1-2 hrs longer flight time due headwinds. The winter jet stream around Japan can get up to 300 kts, it is depressing to see a ground speed around 300-350 kts for hours on end. Yesterdayís LAX-SYD around 14:30, LAX-HKG 15:45.
swh is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2018, 06:08
  #92 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 679
QUOTE=swh;10045627]Itís Civil Aviation Order 20.7.1B for the regulator that invented regulatory reform that increases complexity. FAR 25 would be too simple, that is just one line !!

Ah, 20.7.1B other than paragraph 12, replicates the whole part of Part 25 Subpart B. There is no additional criteria applied for Dunnunda, it is respecified, but it is consistent with both FAR25 and CS25, 25.101 through 25.125. Paragraph 12 is consistent with the obstacle analysis, splay criteria etc, that is covered in 121.177, 121.189, 135.367, 135.379, and 135.398, as well as other areas such as AC120.91.
fdr is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2018, 06:31
  #93 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,930
So what is the FAR 25 line up allowance ?
swh is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2018, 06:44
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 1
Swh, thanks very interesting
Snakecharma is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2018, 10:04
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 52
Posts: 2,767
However, full to the gunwales is full to the gunwales regardless of who is providing oversight? No?
No .
Full to the gunwahales for Airline A may be different to Airline B.
The performance engineers can do all sorts of fancy things behind the OPT scenes that most, including the line pilots, have no idea about. For example, they might shorten a runway by several hundred meters thus resulting in higher thrust settings than the regs would require, without any visibility of this to the crew. Airline A might do this and Airline B might not.
framer is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2018, 10:38
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 173
And I always thought that FAR Part 25 was the airworthiness certification standard for transport category aircraft.
I would be looking elsewhere for the various operational requirements.
zzuf is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2018, 11:12
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Oceanside, CA.
Posts: 153
Read this thread as evidence of how the average Oztranaut quickly grabs a firm hold of the non-essentials.
Bonway is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2018, 14:00
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 1,607
How so Bonway?
morno is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2018, 04:51
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 日本
Posts: 452
Ah, 20.7.1B other than paragraph 12, replicates the whole part of Part 25 Subpart B. There is no additional criteria applied for Dunnunda, it is respecified, but it is consistent with both FAR25 and CS25, 25.101 through 25.125. Paragraph 12 is consistent with the obstacle analysis, splay criteria etc, that is covered in 121.177, 121.189, 135.367, 135.379, and 135.398, as well as other areas such as AC120.91.
Whilst technically correct (probably, I really can't be arsed to find out or even attempt to look) THIS is the sort of stuff that earns us such a bad reputation. For God's sake, get a life and stop arguing about absolute f*#kin trivia.

We've got a couple where I work and they do give the rest of us a bad name. One, in particular is a loud and vocal arse who knows everything about everything and has managed to piss countless FOs (and some captains) off by criticising them when they don't do the 'little extras' he likes to see, because "that's the way we did it in Ansett". Even though there are plenty of others in the company who have flown for legacy carriers, with more than two aircraft and a dog, he still insists that AN know FAR more than the likes of UA, BA, AF etc. Even the Australians use the 'Austronaut' monicker with him and it fits perfectly.

I think one of the problems is that we've been brought up in an environment of bureaucratic nonsense and to us the pointless trivia (witness above), while being correct, is to many Australians REALLY important. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world does not agree and they certainly don't want it pushed down their throats. "Maaaaaaate, you shouldn't do that. In Oz CAO, CAR, blah, blah, blah"
Fratemate is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2018, 05:41
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 342
Australia has become the Galapagos of everything including aviation. Our industry was passed by the rest of the world sometime in the 70s and since then we have evolved to be our own 'best practice' but certainly not worlds best. It's a tiny industry in a tiny market. A bit of humility would not go astray.

Last edited by ernestkgann; 10th Feb 2018 at 05:42. Reason: Spelling
ernestkgann is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.