Calling Elroy re: training
AAIGUY,
"Nothing wrong with hitting Siera at 19, calling level change /speed brakes out, dialling the IAS to 320 and flying min track miles to a 13 mile final where you level off at 2500, thrust off, speed bleeding off, flap comming out , then hitting the GS calling the gear and having a perfectly stable last 9 miles. I imagine that would be put down as being "too sporty" on a CX ERAS.."
No, nothing wrong with it if you were forced by cicumstances to be at SIERA at F190. However, if you planned it like that its pretty inefficient and wastes fuel.
"Nothing wrong with hitting Siera at 19, calling level change /speed brakes out, dialling the IAS to 320 and flying min track miles to a 13 mile final where you level off at 2500, thrust off, speed bleeding off, flap comming out , then hitting the GS calling the gear and having a perfectly stable last 9 miles. I imagine that would be put down as being "too sporty" on a CX ERAS.."
No, nothing wrong with it if you were forced by cicumstances to be at SIERA at F190. However, if you planned it like that its pretty inefficient and wastes fuel.
Last edited by BusyB; 4th Apr 2007 at 06:29.
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not call myself a regular contributor to Pprune forums but on this occasion I am forced to speak up
After 30 years in the industry I am still bewildered at what I hear...
Elroy - I am amazed that you believe what you are saying - I can only hope you look in the mirror one day....
For some unknown reason - Aviation breeds so many twats like yourself
After 30 years in the industry I am still bewildered at what I hear...
Elroy - I am amazed that you believe what you are saying - I can only hope you look in the mirror one day....
For some unknown reason - Aviation breeds so many twats like yourself
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BusyB,
You're not making any sense, I agree crossing Siera at the minimum FL puts you closer to the profile, but for a given track miles to touchdown, irrespective of the crossing FL at Siera, your fuel burn is the same. Whether you use some speed brake, or lots of speed brake to burn excess energy, your thrust is still at IDLE, and the time spent in the air from Siera to touchdown is roughly the same..so please explain to me again where you're wasting the fuel? It doesn't make for a comfortable ride I agree, but one could argue that you save fuel by delaying the TOD point.
You're not making any sense, I agree crossing Siera at the minimum FL puts you closer to the profile, but for a given track miles to touchdown, irrespective of the crossing FL at Siera, your fuel burn is the same. Whether you use some speed brake, or lots of speed brake to burn excess energy, your thrust is still at IDLE, and the time spent in the air from Siera to touchdown is roughly the same..so please explain to me again where you're wasting the fuel? It doesn't make for a comfortable ride I agree, but one could argue that you save fuel by delaying the TOD point.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BusyB you are not getting the point...the excess energy is the form of the excess potential energy that you are carrying as you cross Siera...this is really not worth arguing over....just go and experiment for yourself.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Out of the pollution.
Posts: 673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Energy is created by endevouring to get the maximum rate of decent High Speed/High Drag/Idle thrust.
If I had a choice to cross Siera at 13, it would be a non issue, however our Chinese ATC friends don't seem to like VNAV profile decents.
The original point of my illustration was only that I have a mate at CX who - IN COMPLYING with the ATC clearance to do the short track mile approach was told it was "too sporty" and he should have requested more track miles.
Others I fly with ALWAYS push to see how quickly it can be done..(all sorts of strategies..slowing to 220 just before SIERA so you have a 100 knots of potential energy and increased descent rates..it's a game)
Everyone is going to fly the plane differently. That's cool, so long at at 1500 on the GS you are within 10kts of Ref and stable..what does it matter.
If our Garuda friends (or Air France in Toronto) did a G/A at 1000 because they were unstable then perhaps those things wouldn't have happened. If at 1000' a CX Checky takes control because you are too fast / too high ect.. then that's one thing. But not letting the guy get the experience to learn is just silly.
White Flag..I am done. Last post on the subject
If I had a choice to cross Siera at 13, it would be a non issue, however our Chinese ATC friends don't seem to like VNAV profile decents.
The original point of my illustration was only that I have a mate at CX who - IN COMPLYING with the ATC clearance to do the short track mile approach was told it was "too sporty" and he should have requested more track miles.
Others I fly with ALWAYS push to see how quickly it can be done..(all sorts of strategies..slowing to 220 just before SIERA so you have a 100 knots of potential energy and increased descent rates..it's a game)
Everyone is going to fly the plane differently. That's cool, so long at at 1500 on the GS you are within 10kts of Ref and stable..what does it matter.
If our Garuda friends (or Air France in Toronto) did a G/A at 1000 because they were unstable then perhaps those things wouldn't have happened. If at 1000' a CX Checky takes control because you are too fast / too high ect.. then that's one thing. But not letting the guy get the experience to learn is just silly.
White Flag..I am done. Last post on the subject
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Long Beach, CA USA
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are correct in that a given number of track miles flown boards in/boards out the fuel usage is the same. However the fuel savings is in the early portion of the descent.
To get that excess potential energy at SIERA you have to burn more kinetic energy to get to SIERA at that height.
If you cross SIERA at 190 as opposed to 130 you have 6000 extra feet to descent. If you would have started your descent so as to cross SIERA at 130 you would have had to start down 18nm earlier(give or take depending on the airplane). 18nm at a GS of approx. 450kt is about 2 and a half minutes. That means that you are spendind an additional 2:30 at CRUISE fuel flow vs. an additional 2:30 at IDLE. That is a huge difference in fuel flow and thus fuel consumed.
To get that excess potential energy at SIERA you have to burn more kinetic energy to get to SIERA at that height.
If you cross SIERA at 190 as opposed to 130 you have 6000 extra feet to descent. If you would have started your descent so as to cross SIERA at 130 you would have had to start down 18nm earlier(give or take depending on the airplane). 18nm at a GS of approx. 450kt is about 2 and a half minutes. That means that you are spendind an additional 2:30 at CRUISE fuel flow vs. an additional 2:30 at IDLE. That is a huge difference in fuel flow and thus fuel consumed.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: .
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“There is a tendancy <sic> to blame one area, and say fix it.”
Let's step back one pace and divide it into “Us” and “Them”, which fundamentally means “Candidate” or “System”, then apply tags to the examples you gave;
Is training to blame? - System
Is checking to blame? - System
Is the review process to blame? - System
Is seniority to blame? - System
Are type differences to blame? - System
Is lack of funds and resources to blame? - System
Should the candidate carry some of the blame? - Candidate
Is management to blame? - System
Are outdated techniques to blame? - System
Is 10 years too long, making the candidates stale by that time? - System
Is 10 years too short? - System
Should 12 months on type as an FO be a min requirement for command? - System
Are home pressures caused by COS issues to blame? – Whole different thread
Are company expectations too high? Too low? – System
Now using the examples you gave, (and tell me if you disagree with any of my assessments) where do you think the solution lies?
Clearly the majority of the issues are systemic, but generally the training system bears the brunt.
“I used to hate the retread style question too.The 2 reasons you offer are both off the mark. They dont give a stuff if you know the answer, they want to see how you answer the question. They want to know if your ego can allow you to be taught, and you know guys who suffer from this. They want to know if you can handle being wrong, they want to want to know if you are open to learn new things without getting deffensive, or so wound up in a fit of rage that it effects the rest of the trip? It honestly happens. It reflects on how they will listen to other members of their crew in a non normal situation. They are looking for those key indicators that they want to see in a commander. The specifics of this one is obvious. If a crew member that they dont particularly like has the answer to solve a problem, will this person listen to them, or will they alienate them from the crew? If you come off cold and defensive towards a check captain when asked something so simple, and people do, then you will probably treat your FO or SO the same or worse. Do you see it? So how do you handle it? Whats wrong with, "Really? I havent been shown that before." Honestly, they dont give a "Flick" about retreads either.”
Great technique if used correctly, I see your point, and perhaps you may do it that way. To counter your point would this mean that if one particular checker asked the same candidate more than one of these inane questions during a check that he may be over-assessing the trainees ability in this aspect of communication ability? (It is overall a somewhat subjective manner to poorly assess a communication trait)
I have been witness to one checker in a space of about 10 minutes asking four of these, what I consider, time wasters. End result, candidate unnerved, negative learning, somewhat chilled environment. Mission accomplished? I think not.
And finally, a couple of questions that you left unanswered from my previous post…
“Go and look at the PPrune forums for other regions/airlines. By comparison how frequently does CX training rate a mention? Why does it feature so much more in the Fragrant Harbour?
Why is it that a significant number from all steps of life/experience levels/regions take issue with the training in CX? Irrespective of whether the person is a doogie howser who joined as an S/O and now has 6,7,8 years in CX, a Nth American freighter F/O with previous wide body time, or a European F/O who came from the military, most will give a wry smile when speaking of CX “Training” Why is that?
'Why does CX have a comparatively high failure rate when compared to other airlines?”
Let's step back one pace and divide it into “Us” and “Them”, which fundamentally means “Candidate” or “System”, then apply tags to the examples you gave;
Is training to blame? - System
Is checking to blame? - System
Is the review process to blame? - System
Is seniority to blame? - System
Are type differences to blame? - System
Is lack of funds and resources to blame? - System
Should the candidate carry some of the blame? - Candidate
Is management to blame? - System
Are outdated techniques to blame? - System
Is 10 years too long, making the candidates stale by that time? - System
Is 10 years too short? - System
Should 12 months on type as an FO be a min requirement for command? - System
Are home pressures caused by COS issues to blame? – Whole different thread
Are company expectations too high? Too low? – System
Now using the examples you gave, (and tell me if you disagree with any of my assessments) where do you think the solution lies?
Clearly the majority of the issues are systemic, but generally the training system bears the brunt.
“I used to hate the retread style question too.The 2 reasons you offer are both off the mark. They dont give a stuff if you know the answer, they want to see how you answer the question. They want to know if your ego can allow you to be taught, and you know guys who suffer from this. They want to know if you can handle being wrong, they want to want to know if you are open to learn new things without getting deffensive, or so wound up in a fit of rage that it effects the rest of the trip? It honestly happens. It reflects on how they will listen to other members of their crew in a non normal situation. They are looking for those key indicators that they want to see in a commander. The specifics of this one is obvious. If a crew member that they dont particularly like has the answer to solve a problem, will this person listen to them, or will they alienate them from the crew? If you come off cold and defensive towards a check captain when asked something so simple, and people do, then you will probably treat your FO or SO the same or worse. Do you see it? So how do you handle it? Whats wrong with, "Really? I havent been shown that before." Honestly, they dont give a "Flick" about retreads either.”
Great technique if used correctly, I see your point, and perhaps you may do it that way. To counter your point would this mean that if one particular checker asked the same candidate more than one of these inane questions during a check that he may be over-assessing the trainees ability in this aspect of communication ability? (It is overall a somewhat subjective manner to poorly assess a communication trait)
I have been witness to one checker in a space of about 10 minutes asking four of these, what I consider, time wasters. End result, candidate unnerved, negative learning, somewhat chilled environment. Mission accomplished? I think not.
And finally, a couple of questions that you left unanswered from my previous post…
“Go and look at the PPrune forums for other regions/airlines. By comparison how frequently does CX training rate a mention? Why does it feature so much more in the Fragrant Harbour?
Why is it that a significant number from all steps of life/experience levels/regions take issue with the training in CX? Irrespective of whether the person is a doogie howser who joined as an S/O and now has 6,7,8 years in CX, a Nth American freighter F/O with previous wide body time, or a European F/O who came from the military, most will give a wry smile when speaking of CX “Training” Why is that?
'Why does CX have a comparatively high failure rate when compared to other airlines?”
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: flagrant arbour
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of supporting elroy jetson…here goes: Having been a senior checker/trnr in the military, I do have to agree with his stance and the overall CX/KA appch to making a Capt. If done correctly, the methods of questioning, constructive criticism and thoughtful fair report writing is essential to any professional flying organization. However, as with any argument (particularly on PPRUNE), the truth lies somewhere in the middle ground.
While the intent from the trng dept is good, the execution is often poor. Standardisation between trnrs is a problem in any flying outfit and as professional, mature individuals we should accept this as a reality of human nature. Conversely, trnrs should be made aware of this through their own standardisation checks - ie no one is above the law or free from being checked themselves. To enforce very hi standards, the trng dept must be squeaky clean. Any perceived inconsistency or hypocrisy, and all credibility is lost.
Re the annoying small stuff (the PDC readback eg. mentioned earlier is a good one), when a trner chips me on something like this, I take great joy in respectfully informing them that the issue seems open to interpretation by other trnrs and that’s not how its commonly done on the line. The usual response is, “yes I know, but this is what the trng dept wants” – this does the organization no favours and rather than being an example of high standards, is completely the opposite. Whenever, I had to criticise a pilot for a minor or major indiscretion, I would firstly listen to their opinion and if necessary, completely explain why it was so important to do it another way. If I detected a negative creep, misinterpretation or perhaps a better way of doing it had been invented on the line, I would ensure this was addressed with the trng dept and the SOPs either changed/improved or misunderstandings corrected in the next standardisation notice. Frustratingly, this seems to rarely be done effectively in the airlines. It seems the small stuff is sweated adnauseam, while some major operational considerations/issues are disregarded, esp in sim checks. How about spending the time instructing pilots on how to handle sticky situations effectively?
The making of a good trng Capt (similar to the making of a good line Capt), cannot be achieved in a quick and dirty 1mth course, nor should it be offered to individuals who have simply been there for a long time. Those who can – do, but some of those who can, should never teach. More effort in raising Trng Capt standards will yield very positive results in the attitudes of the pilot body. After all, which pilot didn’t respect and want to learn from the great instructor or expert trng capt from their previous lives?
To the contributors who wish to dumb-down this profession and lower the standards to the level of bus driving, I put it to you that it is this exact attitude that is destroying the flying business and resulting in the low wages and poor working conditions we are seeing industry wide. If it was a little more challenging to become a professional pilot and high standards were seen as a noble and important thing, as it was not so many years ago, I don’t think we would all be whinging so much now.
While the intent from the trng dept is good, the execution is often poor. Standardisation between trnrs is a problem in any flying outfit and as professional, mature individuals we should accept this as a reality of human nature. Conversely, trnrs should be made aware of this through their own standardisation checks - ie no one is above the law or free from being checked themselves. To enforce very hi standards, the trng dept must be squeaky clean. Any perceived inconsistency or hypocrisy, and all credibility is lost.
Re the annoying small stuff (the PDC readback eg. mentioned earlier is a good one), when a trner chips me on something like this, I take great joy in respectfully informing them that the issue seems open to interpretation by other trnrs and that’s not how its commonly done on the line. The usual response is, “yes I know, but this is what the trng dept wants” – this does the organization no favours and rather than being an example of high standards, is completely the opposite. Whenever, I had to criticise a pilot for a minor or major indiscretion, I would firstly listen to their opinion and if necessary, completely explain why it was so important to do it another way. If I detected a negative creep, misinterpretation or perhaps a better way of doing it had been invented on the line, I would ensure this was addressed with the trng dept and the SOPs either changed/improved or misunderstandings corrected in the next standardisation notice. Frustratingly, this seems to rarely be done effectively in the airlines. It seems the small stuff is sweated adnauseam, while some major operational considerations/issues are disregarded, esp in sim checks. How about spending the time instructing pilots on how to handle sticky situations effectively?
The making of a good trng Capt (similar to the making of a good line Capt), cannot be achieved in a quick and dirty 1mth course, nor should it be offered to individuals who have simply been there for a long time. Those who can – do, but some of those who can, should never teach. More effort in raising Trng Capt standards will yield very positive results in the attitudes of the pilot body. After all, which pilot didn’t respect and want to learn from the great instructor or expert trng capt from their previous lives?
To the contributors who wish to dumb-down this profession and lower the standards to the level of bus driving, I put it to you that it is this exact attitude that is destroying the flying business and resulting in the low wages and poor working conditions we are seeing industry wide. If it was a little more challenging to become a professional pilot and high standards were seen as a noble and important thing, as it was not so many years ago, I don’t think we would all be whinging so much now.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: .
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If done correctly..
"What they want"
Another great one. Fantastic, the training department gets together and discusses improvements to the system.
"Right, from now on we want VNAV/Managed approaches used as much as possible, no more of this FLCH/OPEN DESCENT stuff that requires those complex 3 x tables"
"Excellent idea fearless leader, so shall I draft the NTC/amendment to SOP, or perhaps we can publish a synopsis of the important issues discussed at the C+T meeting?"
"Don't be absurd Smithers, we shall go about telling them one at a time, and generally annotating it on such thing as ERAS reports and other career threatening documents. We shall use the expression, "What THEY want is..." as much as possible"
Now some may say that this sounds cynical, however the problem is...
Checker writes up a few non-descriptive comments regarding "what they want" events, and a blemish is created. Yes maybe he bought it up with the finest of intentions, however once it is on the ERAS, it can come back to bite. And yes Elroy, I am more than happy to give you a career interrupting example of this type of thing should you not believe it happens.
Last edited by jtr; 5th Apr 2007 at 02:54.
D69
Let me put you out of your misery...BB was inferring that you will burn more fuel to be at Sierra at FL19. Minimal I grant you and pedantic perhaps but technically correct.
Boards also useful to clear the bogs and get the pax seated in a hurry....
Let me put you out of your misery...BB was inferring that you will burn more fuel to be at Sierra at FL19. Minimal I grant you and pedantic perhaps but technically correct.
Boards also useful to clear the bogs and get the pax seated in a hurry....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elroy, Pollution et al....
Elroy: I only mentioned the Ferarri thing because you tried to use it to relate to pilots and airplanes. The fact is there is no connection. The pilots in this company have been under continuos training to fly our jets and so it should not be that much of a step to the lefet seat.
Not sure where you did you human phsycology degree but maybe see if you can get your money back. Asking an FO a series of inane questions in no way tells you how they will act in the left seat. Putting them in the left seat will.
It is not that the questions are inane but rather the write ups after said questions.
Differences in trainers IS understandable. Differences in your chances of passing are neither understandable nor proffesional. Your career track here depends on whether you were lucky with checkers or not. Simple write up differences should be washed out of the mix but are not entirely. Command course failures are also still more likely with certain checkers than others. WRONG
As for questions regarding VMCG etc. Why not have a command course curriculum printed up with all areas open for discussion (checking) spelled out ? Something along the lines of the orange binder given for JFO upgrade etc . Then any info you find lacking in candidates can be highlighted for the candidate to research and learn up on. Save all some grief.
I think that you should read some of the posts twice before you pass judgement. Learning in the airplane does not mean running it off the end. Rather it means pushing one's comfort level a little to learn where your hard limit might be. This can, and should be done within the limits of the SOPS in particular stabalised app etc.
Pollution: You are quite right. Trainers must accept their role in the training record of this company. They see themselves as standards keepers first. While very commendable that does not help the candidate at all. Would it not be better to improve said candidate in the early years by posotive training and less harsh write ups ? Then as you approach command with a more posostive outlook I am sure pilots would start to preform to the high standards.
I think the majority of posts "dumming down" are only trying to suggest that high standards can be attained and maintained without the level of intimidation and negativity that is used here. I do however agree with you that this is not an easy proffesion, that we as a pilot group should still be given some measure of respect. That respect should also reach down to the lowly FO. There are more than a few Captains who still treat their FOs as their spoiled teenager. The whole training process in fact, lacks respect. All you have to do is read some of the latest material from the mill owners to see this lack of respect.
FG
Not sure where you did you human phsycology degree but maybe see if you can get your money back. Asking an FO a series of inane questions in no way tells you how they will act in the left seat. Putting them in the left seat will.
It is not that the questions are inane but rather the write ups after said questions.
Differences in trainers IS understandable. Differences in your chances of passing are neither understandable nor proffesional. Your career track here depends on whether you were lucky with checkers or not. Simple write up differences should be washed out of the mix but are not entirely. Command course failures are also still more likely with certain checkers than others. WRONG
As for questions regarding VMCG etc. Why not have a command course curriculum printed up with all areas open for discussion (checking) spelled out ? Something along the lines of the orange binder given for JFO upgrade etc . Then any info you find lacking in candidates can be highlighted for the candidate to research and learn up on. Save all some grief.
I think that you should read some of the posts twice before you pass judgement. Learning in the airplane does not mean running it off the end. Rather it means pushing one's comfort level a little to learn where your hard limit might be. This can, and should be done within the limits of the SOPS in particular stabalised app etc.
Pollution: You are quite right. Trainers must accept their role in the training record of this company. They see themselves as standards keepers first. While very commendable that does not help the candidate at all. Would it not be better to improve said candidate in the early years by posotive training and less harsh write ups ? Then as you approach command with a more posostive outlook I am sure pilots would start to preform to the high standards.
I think the majority of posts "dumming down" are only trying to suggest that high standards can be attained and maintained without the level of intimidation and negativity that is used here. I do however agree with you that this is not an easy proffesion, that we as a pilot group should still be given some measure of respect. That respect should also reach down to the lowly FO. There are more than a few Captains who still treat their FOs as their spoiled teenager. The whole training process in fact, lacks respect. All you have to do is read some of the latest material from the mill owners to see this lack of respect.
FG
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“I used to hate the retread style question too. . . . . ”
The answer to the retread question should go something like this: “I don’t know sir. I think it’s an absurd question the result of which will serve no purpose and if you will excuse me I have more important things to do with my time during preflight. I will find an engineer to help you out.”
If said check airman is using such a response to gauge how the candidate would handle a relevant question such as “captain, would you like me to conduct a tactile inspection of the upper surface of the wing for ice or are you happy if I simply glance out the cabin window like everyone else does” then said check airman should stop playing amateur psychologist games that he is not trained to play.
Elroy,
You will make a great politician some day my friend.
“ . . . it appears that an overwhelming majority of respondants dont give a flying frick about takeoff performance figures. . .”
Actually, I would suggest that EVERYONE on this forum cares a great deal about performance figures. I check them twice and ensure the other pilot also checks them, standard company procedure. Having the wrong v speeds can be very nasty and like ensuring the correct stab setting, I pay close attention.
“ . . . . and how they are derived. . . ”
Now this is a very different story. I don’t know, or care, how the Vol 9 boffins have calculated the v speeds on the chart. This is my 13th year flying the FBW Airbus of various models for effectively my 4th airline and I have NEVER cared how the speeds are derived. As I said, I religiously ensure the correct speeds for the gross weight, corrected for QNH, wet, angle of the sun and off we go. Never had a problem.
Singapore Airlines did not bend the 744 because the crew lacked an understanding of v speeds or how they are calculated. They used the correct speeds for the weight THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE TAKING OFF AT.
“One has a question that requires clarification, the other candidate has just flagged his/her lack of preparation. Big difference.”
One has a question that indicates he should have spent more time reading more relevant topics such as CRM/TEM (in HKG, nah, who needs it, right) while the other has shown his lack of preparation for the unimportant.
Just out of interest, is the training/checking system designed to assess a candidate’s level of interest or is the aim more towards . . . training and checking? Is it not the trainer’s job to teach the candidate the relevant v speed theory instead of passing judgment about his level of preparation?
The answer to the retread question should go something like this: “I don’t know sir. I think it’s an absurd question the result of which will serve no purpose and if you will excuse me I have more important things to do with my time during preflight. I will find an engineer to help you out.”
If said check airman is using such a response to gauge how the candidate would handle a relevant question such as “captain, would you like me to conduct a tactile inspection of the upper surface of the wing for ice or are you happy if I simply glance out the cabin window like everyone else does” then said check airman should stop playing amateur psychologist games that he is not trained to play.
Elroy,
You will make a great politician some day my friend.
“ . . . it appears that an overwhelming majority of respondants dont give a flying frick about takeoff performance figures. . .”
Actually, I would suggest that EVERYONE on this forum cares a great deal about performance figures. I check them twice and ensure the other pilot also checks them, standard company procedure. Having the wrong v speeds can be very nasty and like ensuring the correct stab setting, I pay close attention.
“ . . . . and how they are derived. . . ”
Now this is a very different story. I don’t know, or care, how the Vol 9 boffins have calculated the v speeds on the chart. This is my 13th year flying the FBW Airbus of various models for effectively my 4th airline and I have NEVER cared how the speeds are derived. As I said, I religiously ensure the correct speeds for the gross weight, corrected for QNH, wet, angle of the sun and off we go. Never had a problem.
Singapore Airlines did not bend the 744 because the crew lacked an understanding of v speeds or how they are calculated. They used the correct speeds for the weight THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE TAKING OFF AT.
“One has a question that requires clarification, the other candidate has just flagged his/her lack of preparation. Big difference.”
One has a question that indicates he should have spent more time reading more relevant topics such as CRM/TEM (in HKG, nah, who needs it, right) while the other has shown his lack of preparation for the unimportant.
Just out of interest, is the training/checking system designed to assess a candidate’s level of interest or is the aim more towards . . . training and checking? Is it not the trainer’s job to teach the candidate the relevant v speed theory instead of passing judgment about his level of preparation?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
130 or 190
VR et al :
On the rather silly subject of crossing Siera, it all depends on what happens to you after Siera. If you are not given the slam dunk then being higher at Siera saves fuel. If you get the slam dunk and have to use speed brake then you did give away energy.
Bit of thread creep though, can we get back to the check and failing system discussion ?
My 2 cents.
Cheers
On the rather silly subject of crossing Siera, it all depends on what happens to you after Siera. If you are not given the slam dunk then being higher at Siera saves fuel. If you get the slam dunk and have to use speed brake then you did give away energy.
Bit of thread creep though, can we get back to the check and failing system discussion ?
My 2 cents.
Cheers
Last edited by Five Green; 6th Apr 2007 at 15:20.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pollution,
I agree and disagree with your post. I am all for preserving conditions of service and agree if you chip away at that, it is inevitable that standards will be degraded. A classic example of this is the level of service provided to the passengers by our cabin crew now compared to 20 years ago. However, having high standards at a workplace doesn’t equate to the level of difficulty in performing the actual job. Airline flying is mundane and not very difficult, this is a fact! I am not suggesting that we are all dumb and incapable of doing anything else, but the reality is that the majority can do it and can do it well! Accept the job for what is, and if you can’t, then I am afraid your ego is set too high. This is not a career where you are constantly challenged mentally. There is no need to be creative and no need to use your imagination. If it were not for SOPs it would be extremely easy to be complacent, just an indication of how routine and simple airline flying really is.
This thread was pointing out the absurdity of Cathay’s culture and the deficiencies in the training department. When you have a high number of experienced, intelligent, and capable pilots failing a command course, then there is something fundamentally wrong. The perverse line captain, checker, and manager who defends Cathay’s training system, secretly prefers the high failure rate only because it elevates their position by falsely believing that only the elite can become an airline captain. These are the same losers with egos that surpass their abilities. The fact is the majority are failing because of subjective criticism, and not on performance or ability. Nothing wrong with having pride in what you do, being professional, and having high standards, but even a captain for a low cost carrier can have these traits, don’t put yourself on a pedestal just because you earn more than them.
I agree and disagree with your post. I am all for preserving conditions of service and agree if you chip away at that, it is inevitable that standards will be degraded. A classic example of this is the level of service provided to the passengers by our cabin crew now compared to 20 years ago. However, having high standards at a workplace doesn’t equate to the level of difficulty in performing the actual job. Airline flying is mundane and not very difficult, this is a fact! I am not suggesting that we are all dumb and incapable of doing anything else, but the reality is that the majority can do it and can do it well! Accept the job for what is, and if you can’t, then I am afraid your ego is set too high. This is not a career where you are constantly challenged mentally. There is no need to be creative and no need to use your imagination. If it were not for SOPs it would be extremely easy to be complacent, just an indication of how routine and simple airline flying really is.
This thread was pointing out the absurdity of Cathay’s culture and the deficiencies in the training department. When you have a high number of experienced, intelligent, and capable pilots failing a command course, then there is something fundamentally wrong. The perverse line captain, checker, and manager who defends Cathay’s training system, secretly prefers the high failure rate only because it elevates their position by falsely believing that only the elite can become an airline captain. These are the same losers with egos that surpass their abilities. The fact is the majority are failing because of subjective criticism, and not on performance or ability. Nothing wrong with having pride in what you do, being professional, and having high standards, but even a captain for a low cost carrier can have these traits, don’t put yourself on a pedestal just because you earn more than them.
