Command Failure Rates
The FO was the PM but did get the blame from the Training Captain I think? not too good
Join Date: May 2007
Location: eu
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"No. There were several contributing factors, but nobody 'blamed' anybody else"
I don't think in any of the above incidents they were coming in with an engine on fire, a couple of IRSs out and a double hydraulic failure.
how could this supreme "best of the best" highest calibre, bla bla bla command upgrade course get it so wrong?
We all cock up that is how it is!
The Manila incident though if true, most embarrassing.
I don't think in any of the above incidents they were coming in with an engine on fire, a couple of IRSs out and a double hydraulic failure.
how could this supreme "best of the best" highest calibre, bla bla bla command upgrade course get it so wrong?
We all cock up that is how it is!
The Manila incident though if true, most embarrassing.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buzzbox,
I don't know where you learned to fly, but anytime an aircraft's tail skid makes contact with the ground, it's a tail strike, no if and or buts about it.
I have been reading this thread with great interest, and it seems to me that the individuals that are defending Cathay's failure rates as maintaining of high standards have a lot to learn about flying. Cathay didn't invent flying, there are many great airlines out there that do similar type of flying, even more so, yet they do not have the failure rate Cathay has. So what gives, the only possible answer is a weak training department. Any training department that cannot keep failure rates below 5% needs to be revamped. However, just like alcohol, one has to admit there is a problem before help can be sought. As it stands, Cathay doesn't seem to think there is a problem, so end of story.
Xtwapilot
I don't know where you learned to fly, but anytime an aircraft's tail skid makes contact with the ground, it's a tail strike, no if and or buts about it.
I have been reading this thread with great interest, and it seems to me that the individuals that are defending Cathay's failure rates as maintaining of high standards have a lot to learn about flying. Cathay didn't invent flying, there are many great airlines out there that do similar type of flying, even more so, yet they do not have the failure rate Cathay has. So what gives, the only possible answer is a weak training department. Any training department that cannot keep failure rates below 5% needs to be revamped. However, just like alcohol, one has to admit there is a problem before help can be sought. As it stands, Cathay doesn't seem to think there is a problem, so end of story.
Xtwapilot
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honkers
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry BuzzBox but what a load of bollox.
A question for you...How does most of the worlds airlines manage to cope with employing low time pilots and sticking them in the right hand seat of a jet and letting them lose, then after a few years they are in the left hand seat.
I have countless friends in all types of airlines around the world with different experience levels and none of them I say again NONE of them have ever had a proplem upgrading.
You seem to be one of those poor suckers that think CX is the best airline in the world mate.....
Another question for you....Why does CX make their JFO do a QL?????
What a bloody waste of time.....
A question for you...How does most of the worlds airlines manage to cope with employing low time pilots and sticking them in the right hand seat of a jet and letting them lose, then after a few years they are in the left hand seat.
I have countless friends in all types of airlines around the world with different experience levels and none of them I say again NONE of them have ever had a proplem upgrading.
You seem to be one of those poor suckers that think CX is the best airline in the world mate.....
Another question for you....Why does CX make their JFO do a QL?????
What a bloody waste of time.....
So, Badairsucker, let me see if I understood you correctly. You're suggesting that airlines such as United, BA, Lufthansa, Qantas, etc, put a low time pilot straight into the RHS of a B777, A330 or B744 and then give him a command a few years later. Sorry, but I don't think so.
As I tried to point out, I think a lot (but not all) of the problem stems from pilots doing their command on a regional fleet with little or no experience at that type of flying, and unfortunately the training system has taken a long time to adapt to that problem. Most of the pilots that do have experience as FOs on the regional fleets generally do quite well on command course. Believe me, those on the regional fleets face more threats, problems, etc in a week than the long haul guys do in a year - that in itself is very good training for command.
As far as the QL goes, I understand there were a few problems with some of the low-time JFOs a few years back. I believe the decision was made to check all JFOs (regardless of experience) to line, but with additional limits (x-wind, visibility, etc) while they gained experience flying on the line. After six months they would then be QL'd, and if successful upgraded to FO.
As I tried to point out, I think a lot (but not all) of the problem stems from pilots doing their command on a regional fleet with little or no experience at that type of flying, and unfortunately the training system has taken a long time to adapt to that problem. Most of the pilots that do have experience as FOs on the regional fleets generally do quite well on command course. Believe me, those on the regional fleets face more threats, problems, etc in a week than the long haul guys do in a year - that in itself is very good training for command.
As far as the QL goes, I understand there were a few problems with some of the low-time JFOs a few years back. I believe the decision was made to check all JFOs (regardless of experience) to line, but with additional limits (x-wind, visibility, etc) while they gained experience flying on the line. After six months they would then be QL'd, and if successful upgraded to FO.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honkers
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BuzzBox,
Read my post again, I stated that I have friends with all types of airlines not just the majors.
I know of 3 guys who had low hours, got their first jobs straight on a 757 and were in the left hand seat within 3.5 years. These a large charter companies in the UK.
2 friends who are captains on the A320, 4 mates on the 737 as captains, all for easyjet and started with low hours. Same goes at Ryanair.
Tell me, whats the difference between a 320 and a 330, not a lot.
You seem to fall into "mines bigger than yours" way of thinking.
As far as the QL...If your going to let someone who has a type rating on the aircraft and let them lose on the line for 6 months then give them another line check, then the company MIGHT fail them, then what do they do, let them out on the line again for another 6 months. Wow, if they pass they get another 5 KTS cross wind and a little better bit of vis. Nothing more than a checking process which this company needs to get rid of. If it's to do with low hour guys, give them more training till they are up to speed.
Please don't think I am getting on your case, I am just fed up of all the hoops we have to jump through in this company, friends in Virgin and BA think I am nuts being here getting all these hoops put up in front of us.
We seem to be the only airline with it's own hoop factory, I am off to buy some more stocks in the hoop business.
Read my post again, I stated that I have friends with all types of airlines not just the majors.
I know of 3 guys who had low hours, got their first jobs straight on a 757 and were in the left hand seat within 3.5 years. These a large charter companies in the UK.
2 friends who are captains on the A320, 4 mates on the 737 as captains, all for easyjet and started with low hours. Same goes at Ryanair.
Tell me, whats the difference between a 320 and a 330, not a lot.
You seem to fall into "mines bigger than yours" way of thinking.
As far as the QL...If your going to let someone who has a type rating on the aircraft and let them lose on the line for 6 months then give them another line check, then the company MIGHT fail them, then what do they do, let them out on the line again for another 6 months. Wow, if they pass they get another 5 KTS cross wind and a little better bit of vis. Nothing more than a checking process which this company needs to get rid of. If it's to do with low hour guys, give them more training till they are up to speed.
Please don't think I am getting on your case, I am just fed up of all the hoops we have to jump through in this company, friends in Virgin and BA think I am nuts being here getting all these hoops put up in front of us.
We seem to be the only airline with it's own hoop factory, I am off to buy some more stocks in the hoop business.
Badairsucker, I did read your post again and you said:
Sorry, but Easyjet, Ryanair and UK charter companies aren't "most of the world[']s airlines". Let's compare apples with apples.
As far as "give them more training until they are up to speed", I believe that is the whole point of the JFO system. JFOs are kept in the 'system' where they can be monitored and can consolidate their initial training for 6 months before the QL. Along the way the low time guys (and anyone else who needs it) are given consolidation flights with training captains to help them achieve the required standard by the time they come up for their QL. If they don't achieve that standard then they are given more training before a further QL.
It's unfortunate that all JFOs are sent through the same process, regardless of experience. Perhaps the experienced guys could be upgraded straight away to FO once they pass the Aircraft Line Check, but where do you draw the line in the sand experience-wise: 1,000 hours, 2,000 hours? It wouldn't matter where the line was drawn, someone would feel hard done by. I guess CX has chosen to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator and start from there.
How does most of the worlds airlines manage to cope with employing low time pilots and sticking them in the right hand seat of a jet and letting them lose, then after a few years they are in the left hand seat.
As far as "give them more training until they are up to speed", I believe that is the whole point of the JFO system. JFOs are kept in the 'system' where they can be monitored and can consolidate their initial training for 6 months before the QL. Along the way the low time guys (and anyone else who needs it) are given consolidation flights with training captains to help them achieve the required standard by the time they come up for their QL. If they don't achieve that standard then they are given more training before a further QL.
It's unfortunate that all JFOs are sent through the same process, regardless of experience. Perhaps the experienced guys could be upgraded straight away to FO once they pass the Aircraft Line Check, but where do you draw the line in the sand experience-wise: 1,000 hours, 2,000 hours? It wouldn't matter where the line was drawn, someone would feel hard done by. I guess CX has chosen to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator and start from there.
Last edited by BuzzBox; 30th Jun 2007 at 09:01.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: yo momma's
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACMS said:
"If they did cover it up then it would have taken a hell of a lot of bribery in Manila, the engineering dept, the other flight crew and pax.
Couldn't be done."
Think again cupcake! If there's one thing you can do freely in MNL, that is bribery. And it doesn't take much. That's how they make a living. Corruption at its best. Trust me, I lived and worked there for 15+ years. So, any other ideas coming out of your arse?
"If they did cover it up then it would have taken a hell of a lot of bribery in Manila, the engineering dept, the other flight crew and pax.
Couldn't be done."
Think again cupcake! If there's one thing you can do freely in MNL, that is bribery. And it doesn't take much. That's how they make a living. Corruption at its best. Trust me, I lived and worked there for 15+ years. So, any other ideas coming out of your arse?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honkers
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buzz,
Let's see.
Are you comparing United, BA, Lufthansa, Qantas with CX, we are small fry compared to BA, United etc. We have just over 100 aircraft and 2000 odd pilots, not massive numbers.
Just worthy of a note that Ryanair carry more passengers that BA per year so why is it you think we can't compare with them. They seem to operate massive amount of sectors per year and don't have many problems.
Are you thinking that CX is the be all and end all. Face it, we are just a humble midsize airline with some pilots who fell we are the biggest and greatest, NEWS FLASH, were not.
Let's see.
Are you comparing United, BA, Lufthansa, Qantas with CX, we are small fry compared to BA, United etc. We have just over 100 aircraft and 2000 odd pilots, not massive numbers.
Just worthy of a note that Ryanair carry more passengers that BA per year so why is it you think we can't compare with them. They seem to operate massive amount of sectors per year and don't have many problems.
Are you thinking that CX is the be all and end all. Face it, we are just a humble midsize airline with some pilots who fell we are the biggest and greatest, NEWS FLASH, were not.
you are one t
.
The pictures would be on the net before the engines spun down.
Not to mention the Filipino cabin crew grapevine would have a field day.
You can't be serious.
Keep an incident like that quiet.........................yeah right.
prove it happened..................come on then, prove it.
.The pictures would be on the net before the engines spun down.
Not to mention the Filipino cabin crew grapevine would have a field day.
You can't be serious.
Keep an incident like that quiet.........................yeah right.
prove it happened..................come on then, prove it.
Ryanair don't have many problems??????????????????????? huh
There must be another Ryaair
Doing a 360 on final to lose speed and height and ending up at 100' AGL on base leg is one that springs to mind.
And there have been a few others.
All documented in Flight International.
That may not be "many problems" but boy that's a doosey
There must be another Ryaair
Doing a 360 on final to lose speed and height and ending up at 100' AGL on base leg is one that springs to mind.
And there have been a few others.
All documented in Flight International.
That may not be "many problems" but boy that's a doosey
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honkers
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACMS,
And CX then, 747-400 500 FT above the sea at 7 miles, then the 747-400 climbing over Lantau with nobody flying the damn thing, and a 340 scrapping it's tail.
Nobody is perfect, even us CX pilots.
And CX then, 747-400 500 FT above the sea at 7 miles, then the 747-400 climbing over Lantau with nobody flying the damn thing, and a 340 scrapping it's tail.
Nobody is perfect, even us CX pilots.
Badairsucker,
When I said let's compare apples with apples, I was referring to long haul airlines. Last time I checked, EasyJet and Ryanair don't fit that criteria.
I would argue that airlines such as EasyJet and Ryanair have a far easier time upgrading pilots to command simply because they operate so many sectors. Long haul airlines have trouble providing enough sectors for pilots to meet the recency requirements, let alone develop those pilots for command.
PS. I don't believe I have ever said that CX is the 'be all and end all'. If there's an airline out there that fits the bill, I'm sure we'd all like to hear about it.
When I said let's compare apples with apples, I was referring to long haul airlines. Last time I checked, EasyJet and Ryanair don't fit that criteria.
I would argue that airlines such as EasyJet and Ryanair have a far easier time upgrading pilots to command simply because they operate so many sectors. Long haul airlines have trouble providing enough sectors for pilots to meet the recency requirements, let alone develop those pilots for command.
PS. I don't believe I have ever said that CX is the 'be all and end all'. If there's an airline out there that fits the bill, I'm sure we'd all like to hear about it.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honkers
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I could also argue that Virgin don't operate ANY short haul sectors and they don't have problems with their upgrades. (Best mate is there).
Nor do the many charter companies in Europe who also operate long and short haul routes. I could go on to mention the likes of EK, SIA etc.
We are operating airplanes just like every other airline, not the bloody space shuttle, why do we have so many problems???
Nor do the many charter companies in Europe who also operate long and short haul routes. I could go on to mention the likes of EK, SIA etc.
We are operating airplanes just like every other airline, not the bloody space shuttle, why do we have so many problems???