PC/RT
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PC/RT
Next cycle start off PC first. No so fair for those who only get a sector or two a month. Who is the genius that dreamt this idiotic idea up? What is the upside to this?
C
C
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly it'll be a true reflection of how proficient we actually are without a practice session the day before.
If it changes back you'll know we all did so poorly that the cost of extra training didn't help the profit margin
If it changes back you'll know we all did so poorly that the cost of extra training didn't help the profit margin
Last edited by SMOC; 8th Nov 2012 at 04:16.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SMOC,
That depends on how you define proficient. I don't think many will be packing them in on V1 cuts, but if perfect mouth music equals proficiency then we might be in trouble.
That depends on how you define proficient. I don't think many will be packing them in on V1 cuts, but if perfect mouth music equals proficiency then we might be in trouble.
Cool as a moosp
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mostly Hong Kong
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's IOSA for you. The Training Section have no control over the facilitation of the test. IOSA say do the test before the refresher, that's what we have to do.
Crazy, but that is what happens when you let bureaucrats run Aviation...
Crazy, but that is what happens when you let bureaucrats run Aviation...
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is changing to accommodate the eventual training to proficiency that the industry is shifting to as a result of some high profile crashes, mainly the colgan dash 8 in buffalo.
If I remember correctly one of the NTSB recommendations was to tailor the training of individuals to beef up areas they are weak. Cathay being the cheapskates they are will use the PC before the training instead of adding another sim session which would be the more logical and useful alternative.
But honestly ladies, are you really sweating it that much? The PC is already so scripted that you truly need to be slightly incompetent to not pass. You know you will have an engine fail on first TO, followed by OEI ILS or RNAV, missed, another OEI approach, missed, followed by the last approach from wich you land. You might get an engine back only to loose another on a missed. The rest is all a reading excersise of the QRH / ECL.
Im no Chuk Yeager, but seriously, is it that stressful?
If I remember correctly one of the NTSB recommendations was to tailor the training of individuals to beef up areas they are weak. Cathay being the cheapskates they are will use the PC before the training instead of adding another sim session which would be the more logical and useful alternative.
But honestly ladies, are you really sweating it that much? The PC is already so scripted that you truly need to be slightly incompetent to not pass. You know you will have an engine fail on first TO, followed by OEI ILS or RNAV, missed, another OEI approach, missed, followed by the last approach from wich you land. You might get an engine back only to loose another on a missed. The rest is all a reading excersise of the QRH / ECL.
Im no Chuk Yeager, but seriously, is it that stressful?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree most will pass but why are we doing this, is it because our fleet and training offices are full of YES MEN who just go along with any crazy idea some manager dreams up. Most of those guys see the sim regularly whilst line guys see it every 180 days or so.
We are not all equal here, many RQ first officers do not even sit in a control seat for TKOF or LDG even as PM for a couple of months at a time. A practice ride before a sim which is examinable and not always marked on an even playing field does get you in the groove and enhances ones chances of passing which I would think would be the over riding objective.
Dragonair have been doing it PC first for ages but one very very different aspect is that they are flying loads of sectors each month and much more current than a CX F/O in the vast majority of cases.
C
We are not all equal here, many RQ first officers do not even sit in a control seat for TKOF or LDG even as PM for a couple of months at a time. A practice ride before a sim which is examinable and not always marked on an even playing field does get you in the groove and enhances ones chances of passing which I would think would be the over riding objective.
Dragonair have been doing it PC first for ages but one very very different aspect is that they are flying loads of sectors each month and much more current than a CX F/O in the vast majority of cases.
C
Line Orientated Evaluations
Can't see anything in CX being non-jeopardy - even chucking a couple of peanuts around in the bar
Last edited by Basil; 8th Nov 2012 at 14:34.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is apparently how most of the rest of the world does it. The "crazy" idea as some of you put it, is the way we used to do it and not the new way we will do it. Yes it isn't ideal from our point of view but from a true checking point of view then of course yes it makes sense. Getting a practice run before an unanticipated emergency in real life is not how reality works. If it exposes weaknesses amongst the ranks then hopefully things change around here with regards to getting sectors for some of us and perhaps will even change the work ethic of some of the lifestyle pilots amongst us....wait, did I say that out loud?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It gets better and better !
Agree with Cyril
Not to mention the checkers are all marking differently and have their own pet sops.
The pedantic checkers would have to let up a little. As good as SMOC is I would bet my left nut even he/she has a few more de-brief points on the RT than on the PC.
If they really do go to a train to standard it will be an improvement. If they start to scupper careers then this place will be even less pleasant to work at .
FG
Not to mention the checkers are all marking differently and have their own pet sops.
The pedantic checkers would have to let up a little. As good as SMOC is I would bet my left nut even he/she has a few more de-brief points on the RT than on the PC.
If they really do go to a train to standard it will be an improvement. If they start to scupper careers then this place will be even less pleasant to work at .
FG
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard that it has been signed off, and the fleet training offices have already designed the 2 sessions.
AND, Henry is scared to publicly announce it to the line crews.
AND, Henry is scared to publicly announce it to the line crews.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Retired-ville
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....and when it does get announced, what's the betting it's a Friday afternoon at 5pm?
As an aside, and in all seriousness, it's not that big a deal.
Sure most of us don't get as many sectors as a KA guy, I wouldn't want his type of sectors anyway, but checking idiosyncrasies aside, all will be checked to ostensibly the same standard.
If this highlights that crew who are only doing a sector every month or two in the jet stuff up their V1 cut, then a) it's better found out in the sim, and b) if enough stuff ups come to light, it may/should change the emphasis on recency and training.
Misguided optimist perhaps, and I'm sure someone famous would have said - there will be no progress without change, so on balance I think it's a good idea.
As an aside, and in all seriousness, it's not that big a deal.
Sure most of us don't get as many sectors as a KA guy, I wouldn't want his type of sectors anyway, but checking idiosyncrasies aside, all will be checked to ostensibly the same standard.
If this highlights that crew who are only doing a sector every month or two in the jet stuff up their V1 cut, then a) it's better found out in the sim, and b) if enough stuff ups come to light, it may/should change the emphasis on recency and training.
Misguided optimist perhaps, and I'm sure someone famous would have said - there will be no progress without change, so on balance I think it's a good idea.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree no big deal. If you can't do a V1 cut without previous training on your PC you shouldn't fly an airplane. On your PC you know you will get a V1 cut, in real life you don't. Never understood why we have pilots who are so nervous going in the sim and memorizing the VOL8 for the RT/PC 4 weeks before they have it. The RT/PC's are now so straight forward, don't even know why someone would go through the trouble to write up a VOL8.
Last edited by GTC58; 10th Nov 2012 at 22:58.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The purpose of flight simulation
The main concern I have is that we are accepting the dribble which originates from authorities and so called professionals, many who have failed pilot courses and wound up in the psychobabble world enforcing their views.
The point is, after a RT/PC over 2 days you go back to the line tuned up and practiced on emergencies that you rarely experience in the real world. The net result of doing it PC/RT would in the vast majority of cases be almost identical. So why change it, what is the advantage of switching it around?
We all should appreciate that our scan rate slows down if we are not current. As per some of our ULR RQ colleagues. Some years ago a handling sim was introduced to give more practise to those on the ULR fleets, in other words using flight simulators for pilot training/practice. Practice makes perfect!
No doubt a little practice in a RT before a PC blows a few cobwebs away and you are better prepared to undertake the testing for the PC. Doing it the other way will only emphasise our "rustiness" something which is blatantly obvious to us all. In the end most will pass, maybe more retests will occur, but what is the point if after 2 days sim you go back to the line more or less at the same level of competency as if it was undertaken the other way around, probably demoralising some candidates. (maybe thats the intention)
When a pilot has been off work for 6 months, 2 years etc are we going to strap him in to do a PC on day one and then give him/her some training on day 2? Flt Ops has gone mad!! , we are using a fantastic expensive training machine as a culling device and that is sheer lunacy!
It is simply ridiculous to bow to the idea of doing it the other way around without tangible benefits. So what is the basic purpose of a Flight Simulator
UNDERSTANDING THE PURPOSE A FLIGHT SIMULATOR
A flight simulator seeks to duplicate the experience of flying as realistically as possible for the purpose of training pilots.
The point is, after a RT/PC over 2 days you go back to the line tuned up and practiced on emergencies that you rarely experience in the real world. The net result of doing it PC/RT would in the vast majority of cases be almost identical. So why change it, what is the advantage of switching it around?
We all should appreciate that our scan rate slows down if we are not current. As per some of our ULR RQ colleagues. Some years ago a handling sim was introduced to give more practise to those on the ULR fleets, in other words using flight simulators for pilot training/practice. Practice makes perfect!
No doubt a little practice in a RT before a PC blows a few cobwebs away and you are better prepared to undertake the testing for the PC. Doing it the other way will only emphasise our "rustiness" something which is blatantly obvious to us all. In the end most will pass, maybe more retests will occur, but what is the point if after 2 days sim you go back to the line more or less at the same level of competency as if it was undertaken the other way around, probably demoralising some candidates. (maybe thats the intention)
When a pilot has been off work for 6 months, 2 years etc are we going to strap him in to do a PC on day one and then give him/her some training on day 2? Flt Ops has gone mad!! , we are using a fantastic expensive training machine as a culling device and that is sheer lunacy!
It is simply ridiculous to bow to the idea of doing it the other way around without tangible benefits. So what is the basic purpose of a Flight Simulator
UNDERSTANDING THE PURPOSE A FLIGHT SIMULATOR
A flight simulator seeks to duplicate the experience of flying as realistically as possible for the purpose of training pilots.
As others have said, the ultimate aim is tailor the training (and checking) to where it's really needed in order to get the best value for money (ie the best safety outcome). If most people can fly a V1 cut to an acceptable standard without practice (and I sincerely hope they can, given they're not going to get a practice if it occurs for real!), then do we really need to spend all that time practicing V1 cuts and engine out work during RT sessions? Perhaps the time could be better spent practicing other things that would provide a greater safety benefit. Taking it a step further, the likelihood of a V1 cut occurring in the real world is very low, so do they really need to be checked every 6 months or should they be part of a 2-3 year cycle?
The biggest problem in implementing such a system (apart from convincing the pilots!) is convincing the regulators, who are notoriously slow to accept any kind of change. The airlines need data in order to convince the regulators, but that data is skewed when everybody gets to practice beforehand. On the other hand, if the airlines can show that most people can fly a V1 cut to an acceptable standard on the first attempt, then perhaps the regulators will be more willing to change.
The biggest problem in implementing such a system (apart from convincing the pilots!) is convincing the regulators, who are notoriously slow to accept any kind of change. The airlines need data in order to convince the regulators, but that data is skewed when everybody gets to practice beforehand. On the other hand, if the airlines can show that most people can fly a V1 cut to an acceptable standard on the first attempt, then perhaps the regulators will be more willing to change.
Last edited by BuzzBox; 12th Nov 2012 at 03:54.
1/ the Aircraft is a damn side easier in a V1 cut to fly than the Sim
2/ the problem isn't "flying the V1 cut" its getting the mouth music 100% for the pedantic checking system that is CX using the crap ECAM….
It's your job on the line each 6 months, why shouldn't we get an opportunity to fine tune before the "test"
Just another BS change brought to you by the man that tells HC what to do.
2/ the problem isn't "flying the V1 cut" its getting the mouth music 100% for the pedantic checking system that is CX using the crap ECAM….
It's your job on the line each 6 months, why shouldn't we get an opportunity to fine tune before the "test"
Just another BS change brought to you by the man that tells HC what to do.
Last edited by nitpicker330; 12th Nov 2012 at 04:10.