Retirement at 68
Primed, you remember that line from Topgun, "maybe to good". Worries me what an intellectual gaint such as yourself will get up to so that we're all left in no doubt we've been blessed by your presence. Good luck with it.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Where You Aren't
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
raven, I know firsthand that MY "command course" was not training, it was checking, and only checking.
I am not diminishing the profession by making this statement. How you could think that is beyond me.
The HKCAD considers a P1 rating a "Pilot-in-Command" rating. Look it up. Many airlines do not P1 rate their copilots and therefore train and check them to lower standards than the pilots at that airline who have a P1 rating. Cathay does not. Although some at Cathay TREAT copilots as lower-class citizens, the checking system expects the same level of performance from all pilots with a P1 rating. Whether one is pilot-in-command or not purely depends on getting through the PCA, T sims, CALC, board assessment and "command course" gauntlet, none of which appeared to me as anything but checking.
I bet if you get the information (which you can't) you'd find that many of Cathay's copilots have more flight time and more experience in more types of aircraft flying in more varied locations than many of Cathay's captains.
You ask,
Well, I would say that would be anyone the CAD has licensed with a P1 rating! It's Cathay who determines who among those with a P1 rating are captains and who are copilots, not the CAD.
Where do you get the inspiration to add the part to your post about telling passengers that what we do is "monkey business?" I never implied that.
raven, your use of the term "proper upgrade" just set me off! But, since you think,
my arguing otherwise would be like talking to a brick wall.
I am not diminishing the profession by making this statement. How you could think that is beyond me.
The HKCAD considers a P1 rating a "Pilot-in-Command" rating. Look it up. Many airlines do not P1 rate their copilots and therefore train and check them to lower standards than the pilots at that airline who have a P1 rating. Cathay does not. Although some at Cathay TREAT copilots as lower-class citizens, the checking system expects the same level of performance from all pilots with a P1 rating. Whether one is pilot-in-command or not purely depends on getting through the PCA, T sims, CALC, board assessment and "command course" gauntlet, none of which appeared to me as anything but checking.
I bet if you get the information (which you can't) you'd find that many of Cathay's copilots have more flight time and more experience in more types of aircraft flying in more varied locations than many of Cathay's captains.
You ask,
Just who is licensed, by virtue of their experience and qualifications, and held responsible, by the CAD to make the final call?
Where do you get the inspiration to add the part to your post about telling passengers that what we do is "monkey business?" I never implied that.
raven, your use of the term "proper upgrade" just set me off! But, since you think,
Cathay's training system is not perfect, but it is one of the best I've ever been involved with....and I would put it up against any other system out there.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oval.....my goodness, where do I begin??
You say: "Although some at Cathay TREAT copilots as lower-class citizens, the checking system expects the same level of performance from all pilots with a P1 rating."
You're dreaming...I am reluctant to spell out the facts for fear that it would it would only dignify your ridiculous notion, but the system does not expect the same level of performance. As a member of that system I can tell you that you are wrong. To suggest that the system would expect that someone like Primed, after 300 to 500 hundred hours of in-seat experience, to perform at the same level as a line Captain during his PC is not only plain wrong it is patently absurd (hence the 10 knot and 15 knot limit placed on F/O's; hence the PCA, T sims, CALC, board assessment and "command course" gauntlet before upgrade to captain is authorized).
If what you suggest is true, that all P1 rated pilots are tested to the same standard, then there would not be an upgrade process in place...we would just make everyone a Captain upon upgrading to F/O. Is that what you suggest is happening now?
And then you double down by saying: "I bet if you get the information (which you can't) you'd find that many of Cathay's copilots have more flight time and more experience in more types of aircraft flying in more varied locations than many of Cathay's captains."
Are you serious? Do you even fly for Cathay? I don't even know where to begin on that tid bit. Unless your claim of F/O's with more experience than our Captains include the number of F/O's who have failed to pass the Captain course; or the number of F/O's who are categorized as Cat D after two failed Command Course attempts,... F/O's who will never be given another chance at an upgrade?Are you suggesting that Cathay hired low timers in the past but today we are hiring high timers? That claim is just laughable...
Then you say: "Well, I would say that would be anyone the CAD has licensed with a P1 rating! It's Cathay who determines who among those with a P1 rating are captains and who are copilots, not the CAD."
Wrong again....Upgrade to Captain is determined via a CAD approved process, carried out by CAD approved examiners, and the whole process is audited by the CAD. Only an authorized and CAD approved Captain can sign out an aircraft, not just anyone with a P1 rating. In other words, only someone who has completed a "proper upgrade".
You claim to be a line Captain.......that I find hard to believe. As I said to you in an earlier post, you are diminishing what we do by making the same arguements senior airline managers do in order to justify cutting salaries. Shame on you.
You say: "Although some at Cathay TREAT copilots as lower-class citizens, the checking system expects the same level of performance from all pilots with a P1 rating."
You're dreaming...I am reluctant to spell out the facts for fear that it would it would only dignify your ridiculous notion, but the system does not expect the same level of performance. As a member of that system I can tell you that you are wrong. To suggest that the system would expect that someone like Primed, after 300 to 500 hundred hours of in-seat experience, to perform at the same level as a line Captain during his PC is not only plain wrong it is patently absurd (hence the 10 knot and 15 knot limit placed on F/O's; hence the PCA, T sims, CALC, board assessment and "command course" gauntlet before upgrade to captain is authorized).
If what you suggest is true, that all P1 rated pilots are tested to the same standard, then there would not be an upgrade process in place...we would just make everyone a Captain upon upgrading to F/O. Is that what you suggest is happening now?
And then you double down by saying: "I bet if you get the information (which you can't) you'd find that many of Cathay's copilots have more flight time and more experience in more types of aircraft flying in more varied locations than many of Cathay's captains."
Are you serious? Do you even fly for Cathay? I don't even know where to begin on that tid bit. Unless your claim of F/O's with more experience than our Captains include the number of F/O's who have failed to pass the Captain course; or the number of F/O's who are categorized as Cat D after two failed Command Course attempts,... F/O's who will never be given another chance at an upgrade?Are you suggesting that Cathay hired low timers in the past but today we are hiring high timers? That claim is just laughable...
Then you say: "Well, I would say that would be anyone the CAD has licensed with a P1 rating! It's Cathay who determines who among those with a P1 rating are captains and who are copilots, not the CAD."
Wrong again....Upgrade to Captain is determined via a CAD approved process, carried out by CAD approved examiners, and the whole process is audited by the CAD. Only an authorized and CAD approved Captain can sign out an aircraft, not just anyone with a P1 rating. In other words, only someone who has completed a "proper upgrade".
You claim to be a line Captain.......that I find hard to believe. As I said to you in an earlier post, you are diminishing what we do by making the same arguements senior airline managers do in order to justify cutting salaries. Shame on you.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oval,
Sorry to say it, but it is time for you to take out your fork and start eating some of that humble pie. I'm with Raven on this thread 100%.
That said, we do have a few jack@ss trainers left at Cathay, but most of them are pretty good. Ironically, some of the worst now are the younger, newer C&Ters. It seems CX will take just about anybody these days. Some of the most recent announcements are shocking, if not outright horrifying.
WRT the command course, I would hope the trainers treat it like training up until the three bar. How are FOs supposed to know how to be a perfect captain without having done so for 10+ years? Watching only gets you so far. As always, it is a lot harder than it looks when you're the one in the seat, especially if you haven't been there in a while.
Primed,
Do yourself a huge favor and STFU. If you are joining CX, you might want to consider taking this advice for the next 5 or so years.
Sorry to say it, but it is time for you to take out your fork and start eating some of that humble pie. I'm with Raven on this thread 100%.
That said, we do have a few jack@ss trainers left at Cathay, but most of them are pretty good. Ironically, some of the worst now are the younger, newer C&Ters. It seems CX will take just about anybody these days. Some of the most recent announcements are shocking, if not outright horrifying.
WRT the command course, I would hope the trainers treat it like training up until the three bar. How are FOs supposed to know how to be a perfect captain without having done so for 10+ years? Watching only gets you so far. As always, it is a lot harder than it looks when you're the one in the seat, especially if you haven't been there in a while.
Primed,
Do yourself a huge favor and STFU. If you are joining CX, you might want to consider taking this advice for the next 5 or so years.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: HKG
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No matter what you all think of the Cx training / checking system the one thing that MUST change is the fact that you have NO WAY of defending yourself against a bad writeup.
CX policy is that once its written down they don't change it - even if it turns out to be incorrect or unfair.
Too many people have/are being done in by this -
Previous companies I have worked with required you - as the trainee - to also sign off the training / checking report - i.e. indicate that the writeup accurately reflects what happened - and if you did not want to sign it off then it went into a meeting between you and the trainer/checker and a manager giving you a chance at self defense. More civilized methinks.
CX policy is that once its written down they don't change it - even if it turns out to be incorrect or unfair.
Too many people have/are being done in by this -
Previous companies I have worked with required you - as the trainee - to also sign off the training / checking report - i.e. indicate that the writeup accurately reflects what happened - and if you did not want to sign it off then it went into a meeting between you and the trainer/checker and a manager giving you a chance at self defense. More civilized methinks.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Pole
Age: 93
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree with you Yoke. The last two companies I was with had the same system. It is fair, provides an avenue for redress for those who have been done in by an unfair training report and alternatively removes excuses for those who have already signed their reports. Coming into the CX training system is like jumping into a time machine and going back to the 1980s.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Where You Aren't
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
raven11, do YOU fly for Cathay? If so, read Vol 7, Part 1. You'll see that the checking standards are the same for captains and copilots. Don't think I'm too stupid to understand that captains need to have gone through the procedure in the CAD-approved company manuals to act as PIC and sign for the aircraft. I know that. I do not disagree with your statement that not anyone with a P1 rating can sign out an aircraft. My point is purely that all Cathay captains and copilots are checked to the same standards (despite having different LIMITS for their operation on the line.) The "command course," as I'll say once again, having DONE IT, was nothing more than checking. I didn't learn anything, and that was not because I'm thick-headed. It's because no one tried to TEACH me anything. I was only criticized for every little thing the checker perceived I did wrong (and often in his own opinion only.)
I don't see how you think I'm trying to diminish our profession. I'm trying to diminish your perception that Cathay's "command course" is a course of teaching and that it's somehow "proper." I think you believe that in order to somehow justify that you've achieved something and are somehow better than those who have not had a "proper command course."
Get off your high horse.
Regarding high-timers and low-timers, Cathay certainly has many of all types. Many, if not most, of the SOs hired these past years are low-timers. But, some are very experienced. I'm only saying that just because someone is a Cathay captain doesn't mean he or she is the most experienced person in the cockpit.
As far as copilots who are not captains because they didn't make it through the minefield which is the "proper command course," no one knows but them and the 3rd floor why they were not annointed "captain." And, many times even THEY do not know why they are "Cat D'd" (another incredible Cathay system.) Now that Cat D is not forever, imagine what will happen when Cathay has an incident and the captain was formerly a Cat D'd copilot. Imagine what the press and the insurance industry and the CAD will do with THAT one!
Yes, I am suggesting that there does not need to be an upgrade process in place. After 12 years of flying the line and being checked AT LEAST three times per year, I think any copilot, when he or she has the appropriate seniority, can be told, "Congratulations! You've passed all your checks to P1 standards, you have a P1 rating and you have enough seniority to be captain. All we need to do is to watch you operate from the left seat for a few sectors and then we'll give you your four bars." Give me an argument as to why this is so inconceivable. Many first-world airlines do it in a similar way.
raven11, you said,
Look at Vol 7, Part 1. THERE are the facts. Captains and copilots are assessed to the SAME STANDARD. The crosswind limits for copilots are for LINE OPERATIONS NOT CHECKING!
Read your books, man.
I don't see how you think I'm trying to diminish our profession. I'm trying to diminish your perception that Cathay's "command course" is a course of teaching and that it's somehow "proper." I think you believe that in order to somehow justify that you've achieved something and are somehow better than those who have not had a "proper command course."
Get off your high horse.
Regarding high-timers and low-timers, Cathay certainly has many of all types. Many, if not most, of the SOs hired these past years are low-timers. But, some are very experienced. I'm only saying that just because someone is a Cathay captain doesn't mean he or she is the most experienced person in the cockpit.
As far as copilots who are not captains because they didn't make it through the minefield which is the "proper command course," no one knows but them and the 3rd floor why they were not annointed "captain." And, many times even THEY do not know why they are "Cat D'd" (another incredible Cathay system.) Now that Cat D is not forever, imagine what will happen when Cathay has an incident and the captain was formerly a Cat D'd copilot. Imagine what the press and the insurance industry and the CAD will do with THAT one!
Yes, I am suggesting that there does not need to be an upgrade process in place. After 12 years of flying the line and being checked AT LEAST three times per year, I think any copilot, when he or she has the appropriate seniority, can be told, "Congratulations! You've passed all your checks to P1 standards, you have a P1 rating and you have enough seniority to be captain. All we need to do is to watch you operate from the left seat for a few sectors and then we'll give you your four bars." Give me an argument as to why this is so inconceivable. Many first-world airlines do it in a similar way.
raven11, you said,
You're dreaming...I am reluctant to spell out the facts for fear that it would it would only dignify your ridiculous notion, but the system does not expect the same level of performance. As a member of that system I can tell you that you are wrong. To suggest that the system would expect that someone like Primed, after 300 to 500 hundred hours of in-seat experience, to perform at the same level as a line Captain during his PC is not only plain wrong it is patently absurd (hence the 10 knot and 15 knot limit placed on F/O's; hence the PCA, T sims, CALC, board assessment and "command course" gauntlet before upgrade to captain is authorized).
Look at Vol 7, Part 1. THERE are the facts. Captains and copilots are assessed to the SAME STANDARD. The crosswind limits for copilots are for LINE OPERATIONS NOT CHECKING!
Read your books, man.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baywatcher, a few pages back some posters began asserting that there was no difference between a Captain and an F/O. Their argument being that airlines need not place a premium on trying to retain their experienced pilots beyond normal retirement age because any first officer with a P1 rating could do the same job (making the same argument made by the management at every low cost carrier today).
Oval....You seem to be hung up on some status issues, telling me to get off my high horse for example; and that I think that I am somehow better....
Well..... Am I proud to be a Captain? You bet I am? Why shouldn't I be? I was damn proud to be hired by Cathay as a junior F/O (even with 6000 hours of command time on smaller jets), and I was damn proud when I was allowed to take off my two bars and put on my shiny new three bars, and then even more so with my four bars. I was proud every step of the way throughout my career. You weren't?
But more to your points......Every airline has its own standard for the completion of a command or Captain course. It's just that some airlines have looser standards than others. Some airlines, like Cathay, are right to spend money in training that other airlines refuse to do....some CEO's and senior managers justify spending less on training by using some of the arguments that you make. That is a shame, because the accident statistics speak for themselves. It remains up to us as pilots to point out the risk of lowering the bar. Perhaps you should consider it a good thing that our training standards here at Cathay are second to none.
You seem intent on focusing on the fine points of a P1 rating while ignoring the broader context. The fact that a captain and an FO both have P1 on their license does not mean that they are assessed to the same standard….and therefore, we cannot just say “congratulations…you are now a Captain…” as you would like.
No STC that I know would expect the same performance from an FO than he would expect from a captain. Would you care to point out the particular passage in Vol 7 that specifically lays that out? You can’t because the Vol7 must be read in conjunction with the CAD170, the Ops A manual and the ANO's, which read together form the basis of our training structure and speak to our testing standards.
The testing guidelines in CAD170 are objective standards. In addition to the objective standards mandated by CAD, STC's are taught and expected to apply subjective standards as well (was it safe and was it effective). It’s only after evaluating both these concepts that a pass/fail decision is made. What can be considered safe and effective for an FO is obviously different to what is expected of a Captain. To do otherwise would be unfair. An FO could do things on a check and pass that a captain could not.
To qualify to even begin a command course an FO's past performance is reviewed to consider his/her potential to achieve what is expected of a Captain by the end of the allotted time structured in the command course. That's in the Vol 7, did you skip that part? And 90% of our guys succeed on their first go…..I'd argue that speaks well about our training system.
And then regarding Cat D FO’s you say : “imagine what will happen when Cathay has an incident and the captain was formerly a Cat D'd copilot. Imagine what the press and the insurance industry and the CAD will do with THAT one!”
Are you suggesting that Cathay do what other carriers do when an FO in their company fails to upgrade?
I'm sorry that you have a negative impression of your command training. But to claim as you do to have learned nothing during your command course is arrogant. It is not what the vast majority of command course graduates tell the third floor. You must be an exception.....
It’s obvious I am not convincing you and that you are not convincing me…..and I'm sure we're beginning to bore the h*ll out of everyone here. You are entitled to your opinion, so let’s agree to disagree.
Oval....You seem to be hung up on some status issues, telling me to get off my high horse for example; and that I think that I am somehow better....
Well..... Am I proud to be a Captain? You bet I am? Why shouldn't I be? I was damn proud to be hired by Cathay as a junior F/O (even with 6000 hours of command time on smaller jets), and I was damn proud when I was allowed to take off my two bars and put on my shiny new three bars, and then even more so with my four bars. I was proud every step of the way throughout my career. You weren't?
But more to your points......Every airline has its own standard for the completion of a command or Captain course. It's just that some airlines have looser standards than others. Some airlines, like Cathay, are right to spend money in training that other airlines refuse to do....some CEO's and senior managers justify spending less on training by using some of the arguments that you make. That is a shame, because the accident statistics speak for themselves. It remains up to us as pilots to point out the risk of lowering the bar. Perhaps you should consider it a good thing that our training standards here at Cathay are second to none.
You seem intent on focusing on the fine points of a P1 rating while ignoring the broader context. The fact that a captain and an FO both have P1 on their license does not mean that they are assessed to the same standard….and therefore, we cannot just say “congratulations…you are now a Captain…” as you would like.
No STC that I know would expect the same performance from an FO than he would expect from a captain. Would you care to point out the particular passage in Vol 7 that specifically lays that out? You can’t because the Vol7 must be read in conjunction with the CAD170, the Ops A manual and the ANO's, which read together form the basis of our training structure and speak to our testing standards.
The testing guidelines in CAD170 are objective standards. In addition to the objective standards mandated by CAD, STC's are taught and expected to apply subjective standards as well (was it safe and was it effective). It’s only after evaluating both these concepts that a pass/fail decision is made. What can be considered safe and effective for an FO is obviously different to what is expected of a Captain. To do otherwise would be unfair. An FO could do things on a check and pass that a captain could not.
To qualify to even begin a command course an FO's past performance is reviewed to consider his/her potential to achieve what is expected of a Captain by the end of the allotted time structured in the command course. That's in the Vol 7, did you skip that part? And 90% of our guys succeed on their first go…..I'd argue that speaks well about our training system.
And then regarding Cat D FO’s you say : “imagine what will happen when Cathay has an incident and the captain was formerly a Cat D'd copilot. Imagine what the press and the insurance industry and the CAD will do with THAT one!”
Are you suggesting that Cathay do what other carriers do when an FO in their company fails to upgrade?
I'm sorry that you have a negative impression of your command training. But to claim as you do to have learned nothing during your command course is arrogant. It is not what the vast majority of command course graduates tell the third floor. You must be an exception.....
It’s obvious I am not convincing you and that you are not convincing me…..and I'm sure we're beginning to bore the h*ll out of everyone here. You are entitled to your opinion, so let’s agree to disagree.
"I have flown in just about everything, with all kinds of pilots in all parts of the world — British, French, Pakistani, Iranian, Japanese, Chinese — and there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between any of them except for one unchanging, certain fact: the best, most skillful pilot has the most experience"
— Chuck Yeager
— Chuck Yeager
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Where You Aren't
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's Wrap It Up
raven11, where do I begin? Hmm... here:
I will not get into a debate on pride. That's like debating religion or politics. I am proud when I achieve something I believe to be very special, something which would set me apart from most others. Being promoted at Cathay Pacific is far from a special achievement. Almost every pilot is promoted. How special is that? So, to answer your question, I was not proud every step of the way throughout my career. I was happy that I was making more money, had more time off and was able to make decisions and implement them rather than having to be directed by the decisions of someone else.
A pretty lofty statement. I have found, during my 36 years of flying, that skills and judgment are acquired and perfected through experience on the line, not through "training." Training is necessary at the beginning, as well as during one's career, to develop and hone skills which are rarely used, but needed. I honestly cannot say that this kind of training at Cathay is any better or worse than that of any other airline for which I've flown (three.) My point, originally, in case you've forgotten, is that Cathay places way too much emphasis on checking rather than training.
I do not ignore the "broader context" of a P1 rating. Yes, there are some objective standards for testing as well as some very obvious subjective standards. My point is that Vol. 7 does NOT delineate any differences for these standards between captain and first officer. THAT'S why I didn't point out a particular passage from Vol. 7. The lack of one supports my position: there IS no difference.
How about you? Can YOU point out a passage from ANY of our documents which delineates the difference in performance expected from a captain versus a first officer?
So, you're implying that while the captain is asleep in the bunk that the aircraft is less safe and that if an emergency were to occur that the actions taken by the relief commander would be less effective than those which would have been taken by the captain?
No, I didn't skip that part. Think about our operation. Every day we fly, for years and years and years, the captain and the first officer(s) manage the flights. All information is shared, all decisions are discussed (in varying detail) and the reasoning for the decisions which are made and the actions which are taken are well understood by all involved. Although the captain has the final say, each crewmember participates. That's training! So, when it comes time for the first officer to become the captain, you tell ME what kind of additional training he NEEDS! The only thing he will be doing differently is he'll be flying from the left seat. He's seen all the rest and has been doing it, in conjunction with the captain, for the past 10 or 12 years. I really don't think any new training is necessary (except for the left seat thing) and my opinion is backed up with my experience: in previous airlines, when one becomes a captain he must first get a P1 rating (type rating) and then he's put in the left seat and OBSERVED. The observation period is to determine that he follows SOPs. No training is provided, because no training is necessary. This assumes that he was already flying the type of aircraft as a first officer and that he did not already have a P1 rating in that aircraft.
Until I got to Cathay, I had never heard of someone not becoming captain when his seniority number allowed.
As I said above, I do not know of any other carriers which have first officers which have failed to upgrade. I am not saying there ARE none, I'm saying that I have not experienced that. Let's assume that there ARE some United Airlines first officers that did not pass their checkrides. First of all, they would be provided training (not just additional checking, like Cathay) until it was determined that they could not be trained to pass the checkride. They would then remain first officers until they were given another chance. They would NEVER be LABELED CAT D! The company would never make a judgment and document the statement "unsuitable for command training." There would be just a record of a failed checkride (no grades, just S or U.)
As I said above, I learned everything I needed to know during the time I spent as a first officer and relief commander. I don't think that's arrogant at all. I would expect nothing less from each and every first officer! As to what "command course graduates" (now THAT'S a lofty title!) tell the third floor... do you think they tell the third floor anything other than what the third floor wants to hear? I certainly didn't tell the third floor that I learned nothing during my "command course."
I agree. I'm sure everyone is very bored. Yes, each is entitled to his or her opinion. I agree to disagree.
Well..... Am I proud to be a Captain? You bet I am? Why shouldn't I be? I was damn proud to be hired by Cathay as a junior F/O (even with 6000 hours of command time on smaller jets), and I was damn proud when I was allowed to take off my two bars and put on my shiny new three bars, and then even more so with my four bars. I was proud every step of the way throughout my career. You weren't?
Perhaps you should consider it a good thing that our training standards here at Cathay are second to none.
I do not ignore the "broader context" of a P1 rating. Yes, there are some objective standards for testing as well as some very obvious subjective standards. My point is that Vol. 7 does NOT delineate any differences for these standards between captain and first officer. THAT'S why I didn't point out a particular passage from Vol. 7. The lack of one supports my position: there IS no difference.
How about you? Can YOU point out a passage from ANY of our documents which delineates the difference in performance expected from a captain versus a first officer?
What can be considered safe and effective for an FO is obviously different to what is expected of a Captain. To do otherwise would be unfair. An FO could do things on a check and pass that a captain could not.
To qualify to even begin a command course an FO's past performance is reviewed to consider his/her potential to achieve what is expected of a Captain by the end of the allotted time structured in the command course. That's in the Vol 7, did you skip that part?
And 90% of our guys succeed on their first go…..I'd argue that speaks well about our training system.
And then regarding Cat D FO’s you say : “imagine what will happen when Cathay has an incident and the captain was formerly a Cat D'd copilot. Imagine what the press and the insurance industry and the CAD will do with THAT one!”
Are you suggesting that Cathay do what other carriers do when an FO in their company fails to upgrade?
Are you suggesting that Cathay do what other carriers do when an FO in their company fails to upgrade?
But to claim as you do to have learned nothing during your command course is arrogant. It is not what the vast majority of command course graduates tell the third floor. You must be an exception.....
It’s obvious I am not convincing you and that you are not convincing me…..and I'm sure we're beginning to bore the h*ll out of everyone here. You are entitled to your opinion, so let’s agree to disagree.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Are you serious? Do you even fly for Cathay? I don't even know where to begin on that tid bit. Unless your claim of F/O's with more experience than our Captains include the number of F/O's who have failed to pass the Captain course; or the number of F/O's who are categorized as Cat D after two failed Command Course attempts,... F/O's who will never be given another chance at an upgrade?Are you suggesting that Cathay hired low timers in the past but today we are hiring high timers? That claim is just laughable...
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
crwjerk....
Point taken. You're right, we now have some Freighter Captains that were appointed out of seniority and who have less experience that some of the F/O's that they fly with.
So how do you think that happen? It was done to save money.....because someone up the food chain was allowed to make an argument that diminished us as pilots....that all pilots are the same....that all pilots have P1 on their license.....that senior F/O's are already relief qualified....that a command course is a waste of time....and so on.
Read it for yourself on this thread....we have pilots that are only too happy to help the accountants achieve their goal and we continue to be our own worse enemies.
If we as pilots minimize what we do, if we as pilots are not proud of our experience, if we as pilots naively diminish ourselves and our accomplishments.....then the accountants will only be too happy to diminish our pay and conditions.
You really have to wonder.....
Point taken. You're right, we now have some Freighter Captains that were appointed out of seniority and who have less experience that some of the F/O's that they fly with.
So how do you think that happen? It was done to save money.....because someone up the food chain was allowed to make an argument that diminished us as pilots....that all pilots are the same....that all pilots have P1 on their license.....that senior F/O's are already relief qualified....that a command course is a waste of time....and so on.
Read it for yourself on this thread....we have pilots that are only too happy to help the accountants achieve their goal and we continue to be our own worse enemies.
If we as pilots minimize what we do, if we as pilots are not proud of our experience, if we as pilots naively diminish ourselves and our accomplishments.....then the accountants will only be too happy to diminish our pay and conditions.
You really have to wonder.....
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: U.K.
Age: 75
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, you're implying that while the Captain asleep........
"So, you're implying that while the Captain is asleep in the bunk that the aircraft is less safe...."
Eerr YES.
Let's see, a serious inflight emergency with a Captain in the left seat and an experienced and fully type rated F/O in the right hand seat or same emergency with relief commander and a part type rated S/O. Doesn't take a lot of thought really, does it?
Perhaps AF447 might have been a bit different if the Captain had not been on the bunk when it all went wrong - who knows?
Eerr YES.
Let's see, a serious inflight emergency with a Captain in the left seat and an experienced and fully type rated F/O in the right hand seat or same emergency with relief commander and a part type rated S/O. Doesn't take a lot of thought really, does it?
Perhaps AF447 might have been a bit different if the Captain had not been on the bunk when it all went wrong - who knows?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Where You Aren't
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of seniority?
raven11, how can you make the following statement
when every eligible pilot senior to those now-freighter-captains was offered the position? That is NOT "out of seniority."
Just because the freighter pay was, and is, lower doesn't make a pilot who upgrades to captain on the freighter into a pilot who is upgrading "out of seniority."
Almost all airlines in the US have different pay rates for different airplanes. Someone relatively low on the seniority list being able to become a captain on a plane with a lower pay rate (and maybe at a base that is less desirable, such as Newark, New Jersey) because no one senior to him wanted to do that job for that pay is never labeled as someone who took the upgrade "out of seniority." This mentality at Cathay makes me
we now have some Freighter Captains that were appointed out of seniority
Just because the freighter pay was, and is, lower doesn't make a pilot who upgrades to captain on the freighter into a pilot who is upgrading "out of seniority."
Almost all airlines in the US have different pay rates for different airplanes. Someone relatively low on the seniority list being able to become a captain on a plane with a lower pay rate (and maybe at a base that is less desirable, such as Newark, New Jersey) because no one senior to him wanted to do that job for that pay is never labeled as someone who took the upgrade "out of seniority." This mentality at Cathay makes me
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Where You Aren't
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about passenger captains?
raven11,
You say
What about passenger captains who have less experience than some of the F/O's with whom they fly? MANY passenger captains, especially now that most based pilots have chosen NOT to go to HKG to upgrade, joined as second officers. MANY first officers joined as first officers on the freighter and have much more experience than many of the newly-minted, ex-second officer captains.
Stop demonizing freighter pilots. If the pilots of Cathay Pacific had wanted to put a stop to the whole freighter thing, they should have done more back in 1996 than just whine. Cathay just loves it when we perpetuate the habit of sh*tting on the "new guy" because he has joined on terms less than ours.
You say
we now have some Freighter Captains... who have less experience that [sic] some of the F/O's that they fly with.
Stop demonizing freighter pilots. If the pilots of Cathay Pacific had wanted to put a stop to the whole freighter thing, they should have done more back in 1996 than just whine. Cathay just loves it when we perpetuate the habit of sh*tting on the "new guy" because he has joined on terms less than ours.