Can you actually do a Visual Approach with confidence?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 000 hours on a long haul is hardly experienced....you spend what ?5000 of those in the bunk?4000 hours in cruise?500 in climb and 500 in descent?how many landings?200 at most?
Not all CX are cadets either thanks god..blood needs to be mixed a bit ...dont you think? Bit of a nerd Cadet and bit of a yeager can produce a well balance flight deck dont you think?
Dont worry...i guess you still have 190 landings from an ils to practice..
Not all CX are cadets either thanks god..blood needs to be mixed a bit ...dont you think? Bit of a nerd Cadet and bit of a yeager can produce a well balance flight deck dont you think?
Dont worry...i guess you still have 190 landings from an ils to practice..
Last edited by de facto; 15th Jul 2013 at 10:59.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear, hear Flap10. I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again at some point, I've flown with "experienced" pilots (by raven11's measure) who were woeful and I've flown with "inexperienced" pilots who were nothing short of exceptional. On occasion, I've flown with pilots who I would normally categorise as excellent who turn out to be a liability on the day and I'm sure they might say the same about me.
Those who think that experience alone is the sole measure of what it takes to be a good pilot/crewmember are deluding themselves. Of course, a capable pilot who is also experienced is likely to be "better" than a capable inexperienced pilot but there is no guarantee of that.
Hear, hear Freehills but stand-by for incoming over having an alternative, rational, point of view.
STP
Those who think that experience alone is the sole measure of what it takes to be a good pilot/crewmember are deluding themselves. Of course, a capable pilot who is also experienced is likely to be "better" than a capable inexperienced pilot but there is no guarantee of that.
Hear, hear Freehills but stand-by for incoming over having an alternative, rational, point of view.
STP
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve, you're not being rational, you are being a contrarian....what you are describing are aberrations.
By your logic you wouldn't mind hiring the least experienced lawyer? What about the least experienced Doctor....financial planner....contractor? By your logic there's an inverse relationship between experience and competence. Now do you really believe that?
You're right in one sense, that even among the most experienced professionals there are bad apples....I'll buy that! But for the most part, in the vast majority of cases, it's the experienced members in any profession that have the polished competence. They got that way by learning from the mistakes they made along the way. They weren't born with it.
There are times when I know that I can go the bunk and sleep like a baby. Yet, there other times when my spidey senses tingle. Its not arrogance...well, maybe a little...but I feel better when I fly with guys and gals that have been around the block a few times.
It's common spence really. Don't believe me, ask any passenger what they would prefer?
By your logic you wouldn't mind hiring the least experienced lawyer? What about the least experienced Doctor....financial planner....contractor? By your logic there's an inverse relationship between experience and competence. Now do you really believe that?
You're right in one sense, that even among the most experienced professionals there are bad apples....I'll buy that! But for the most part, in the vast majority of cases, it's the experienced members in any profession that have the polished competence. They got that way by learning from the mistakes they made along the way. They weren't born with it.
There are times when I know that I can go the bunk and sleep like a baby. Yet, there other times when my spidey senses tingle. Its not arrogance...well, maybe a little...but I feel better when I fly with guys and gals that have been around the block a few times.
It's common spence really. Don't believe me, ask any passenger what they would prefer?
Last edited by raven11; 15th Jul 2013 at 12:49.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
raven, have a re-read of my post. At no stage did I imply that there is an inverse relationship between experience and competence. You also mentioned that these 'now polished professionals' learned from the mistakes they made along the way. How? By misdiagnosing a cancer patient? By losing a case such that an innocent client was jailed? By reading the markets so badly that a retired couple lost all of their savings? You get my drift.
Experience is not always a reliable marker for ability and yet we tend to view it as some sort of Holy Grail.
STP
Experience is not always a reliable marker for ability and yet we tend to view it as some sort of Holy Grail.
STP
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I joined cx I had zero jet time, but I did have 4 1/2 thousand hours, mostly on twin turboprops and I had flown literally thousands of visual approaches. Now I have been told a visual approach is a dangerous manouver, and I have almost been brainwashed into believing it is. What ever happened to see the runway, fly the approach using basic profile monitoring, land - it's really not that hard - of course use whatever aids you have available to assist.
On the last PCRT cycle there was a training element on visual approaches using VNAV (777) - the problem with this I thought was, unless you practice the procedure on a regular basis, you're probably going to screw it up when you do eventually use it. What ever happened to see the runway, fly the aircraft, land -like a C172 or a King Air - never managed to screw that up ever - it's not that hard!!! Isn't that why its called a visual approach?
I think the main problem is the training department is taking a fly by numbers approach, to deal with the lowest common denominator.
I think Cathay is taking a massive gamble by eroding the skills base of the pilots they are employing. In the long run you cannot defeat the odds, and the house will always win..
On the last PCRT cycle there was a training element on visual approaches using VNAV (777) - the problem with this I thought was, unless you practice the procedure on a regular basis, you're probably going to screw it up when you do eventually use it. What ever happened to see the runway, fly the aircraft, land -like a C172 or a King Air - never managed to screw that up ever - it's not that hard!!! Isn't that why its called a visual approach?
I think the main problem is the training department is taking a fly by numbers approach, to deal with the lowest common denominator.
I think Cathay is taking a massive gamble by eroding the skills base of the pilots they are employing. In the long run you cannot defeat the odds, and the house will always win..
Last edited by wheels up; 20th Jul 2013 at 01:50.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: crewbag
Age: 51
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raven; wise as always. Just wish we had guys like you on the third (and seventh) floor.
Wheels up; spot on. But anyone sharing your views will never be placed in any position of influence within CX. And that is unique to our company culture, where managers are not recruited for their skill or knowledge but their unwillingness to object or filter the crap that comes from above. You show me a good pilot with a grasp of where this is heading and I'll dhow you a guy who would never consider taking on a management role.
While leading, there is also a duty to protect your troops. Not so in this outfit. But perhaps there is some glimmer of hope with the last shuffle; there's a ex 747 manager who just might prove me wrong. Which would be great.
Wheels up; spot on. But anyone sharing your views will never be placed in any position of influence within CX. And that is unique to our company culture, where managers are not recruited for their skill or knowledge but their unwillingness to object or filter the crap that comes from above. You show me a good pilot with a grasp of where this is heading and I'll dhow you a guy who would never consider taking on a management role.
While leading, there is also a duty to protect your troops. Not so in this outfit. But perhaps there is some glimmer of hope with the last shuffle; there's a ex 747 manager who just might prove me wrong. Which would be great.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: VHHH Ocean 2D
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raven, once again you do talk a load of nonsense- but don't worry mate, you ain't the only one.
This thread has a lot of sub topics but all coming under the main point being safety. And once again, a few clowns rear their ugly head and start going on about cadets and experience.
On a sub note, I 'd be interested to hear from our colleagues in Lufthansa, British Airways and Singapore Airlines, to see if there is this much abuse to their own 250hr cadets.
I'd also be even more interested to hear data regarding airline hull-loses due to pilot error: what percentage of these pilots had 'experience' flying Tornados/ Caribous, and what percentage started their careers on jets as cadets.
Anyway Raven, let me see if I can infer some conclusions from your ridiculous and contradictory statement. Cadets should fly small jet aircraft, and with experience can then be promoted to flying 300 plus passengers. Therefore, you deem it safe for a 250hr cadet to fly your family domestically around the likes of S.E Asia on some ATR or Dash-8, but unsafe for him/her to fly a 777 to the UK with your family aboard?
For those with the same logic as the above comedian, I'd be very interested to hear what cut-off points you have in mind before a cadet can fly a , ehem "big plane"? Are we talking '000lbs of thrust? Passenger seats. Weight? Penis size?
Or can I stick my neck out a little bit further and conclude that we don't actually care. Behind all these conversations, at the end of the day, we just want to send the message out to the third floor to stop their cadet scheme, so our T&C don't erode any further?
This thread has a lot of sub topics but all coming under the main point being safety. And once again, a few clowns rear their ugly head and start going on about cadets and experience.
On a sub note, I 'd be interested to hear from our colleagues in Lufthansa, British Airways and Singapore Airlines, to see if there is this much abuse to their own 250hr cadets.
I'd also be even more interested to hear data regarding airline hull-loses due to pilot error: what percentage of these pilots had 'experience' flying Tornados/ Caribous, and what percentage started their careers on jets as cadets.
Anyway Raven, let me see if I can infer some conclusions from your ridiculous and contradictory statement. Cadets should fly small jet aircraft, and with experience can then be promoted to flying 300 plus passengers. Therefore, you deem it safe for a 250hr cadet to fly your family domestically around the likes of S.E Asia on some ATR or Dash-8, but unsafe for him/her to fly a 777 to the UK with your family aboard?
For those with the same logic as the above comedian, I'd be very interested to hear what cut-off points you have in mind before a cadet can fly a , ehem "big plane"? Are we talking '000lbs of thrust? Passenger seats. Weight? Penis size?
Or can I stick my neck out a little bit further and conclude that we don't actually care. Behind all these conversations, at the end of the day, we just want to send the message out to the third floor to stop their cadet scheme, so our T&C don't erode any further?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: crewbag
Age: 51
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
, let me see if I can infer some conclusions from your ridiculous and contradictory statement. Cadets should fly small jet aircraft, and with experience can then be promoted to flying 300 plus passengers. Therefore, you deem it safe for a 250hr cadet to fly your family domestically around the likes of S.E Asia on some ATR or Dash-8, but unsafe for him/her to fly a 777 to the UK with your family aboard?*
I think you'll find that's exactly the way others do it. Low hour cadets work fine in the right environment, but like any other skill require lots of practice to get good at it. While BA and Lufthansa put their cadets on regional ops to get sectors - sectors - sectors we put them in the back seat for 3 years and then have them land 5, maybe 10 sectors a month ( at best) for their next 30. Long haul flying erodes your handling skills, no question, and the best way to mitigate against that is to start with plenty. Going backwards from 0 is just plain stupid.
Cadets make great pilots, there is no argument there. They've been used in Europe for over 30 years by endless airlines, but they all concluded the same: get them sectord / sectors and sectors early on. For **** sake, even the USAF put 300h pilots in the front of a F15; but in a very, very different training environment. If anyone claims that a CX instructor has the same level of excess capacity to teach approach and landing techniques after a 12h long haul into what is most likely some of the most trafficated and busy airports in the world then you need a brush up on human factors and the limits of human performance.
We just don't have Lufthansas CRJs, BA's 737's or KLM's E190's to bridge the gap. That is the problem.
Last edited by quadspeed; 15th Jul 2013 at 22:50.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: VHHH Ocean 2D
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quad, I'm one of those who started off doing sectorsx4 a day on 732s.
My point is that when I was in that 737 cockpit, whether there were just 5 pax in the back or 150, it didn't affect the way I flew the aircraft or my decisions. Likewise when I started on the 744, whether we had a full load or a couple of hundred pax, I still flew the a/c the same.
On your point about sitting in the back for three years - it's irrelevant. When it comes to the upgrade, that's when they start the sectors! Just like any BA cadet who starts out on the A319/737.
If you are a Captain and in the RHS is a new FO checked to the line flying his first flight as an FO - who would you prefer to sit along side? A BA cadet flying his first sector, or a CX cadet flying his first sector, BUT had 3 years "experience" sitting in the back observing operations?
My point is that when I was in that 737 cockpit, whether there were just 5 pax in the back or 150, it didn't affect the way I flew the aircraft or my decisions. Likewise when I started on the 744, whether we had a full load or a couple of hundred pax, I still flew the a/c the same.
On your point about sitting in the back for three years - it's irrelevant. When it comes to the upgrade, that's when they start the sectors! Just like any BA cadet who starts out on the A319/737.
If you are a Captain and in the RHS is a new FO checked to the line flying his first flight as an FO - who would you prefer to sit along side? A BA cadet flying his first sector, or a CX cadet flying his first sector, BUT had 3 years "experience" sitting in the back observing operations?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Betpump.....really? I'm being ridiculous?
You offer a false choice as to "If you are a Captain and in the RHS is a new FO....who would you prefer to sit along side? A BA cadet flying his first sector, or a CX cadet flying his first sector, BUT had 3 years "experience" sitting in the back observing operations"
The answer to your dumb question is neither one. Most sane people would rather have a newly checked out F/O with a few thousand hours under his/her belt....wouldn't you? I'm sure the passengers would too.
While you argue the merits of a zero experience cadet you mention that you started out flying 732's. Really? Did Cathay make a mistake hiring you? From what you're suggesting I guess they would have been better off selecting a flight attendant, send him/her to Adelaide for 14 months training, and hiring him/her instead of you? Because that is what your argument leads one to conclude?
Making adolescent insults and suggesting that I am being ridiculous to argue that experience is better than no experience is sadly all too typical of those among us who labour with a massive chip on their shoulder.
Case in point: "Anyway Raven, let me see if I can infer some conclusions from your ridiculous and contradictory statement. Cadets should fly small jet aircraft, and with experience can then be promoted to flying 300 plus passengers. Therefore, you deem it safe for a 250hr cadet to fly your family domestically around the likes of S.E Asia on some ATR or Dash-8, but unsafe for him/her to fly a 777 to the UK with your family aboard?"
I can't help you with your deductive skills if you cant figure that one out......
There is only one reason why airline management choose to hire zero time pilots over experienced ones.....can you guess what that reason is? Now take a breath and count to 10 before you start typing.
You offer a false choice as to "If you are a Captain and in the RHS is a new FO....who would you prefer to sit along side? A BA cadet flying his first sector, or a CX cadet flying his first sector, BUT had 3 years "experience" sitting in the back observing operations"
The answer to your dumb question is neither one. Most sane people would rather have a newly checked out F/O with a few thousand hours under his/her belt....wouldn't you? I'm sure the passengers would too.
While you argue the merits of a zero experience cadet you mention that you started out flying 732's. Really? Did Cathay make a mistake hiring you? From what you're suggesting I guess they would have been better off selecting a flight attendant, send him/her to Adelaide for 14 months training, and hiring him/her instead of you? Because that is what your argument leads one to conclude?
Making adolescent insults and suggesting that I am being ridiculous to argue that experience is better than no experience is sadly all too typical of those among us who labour with a massive chip on their shoulder.
Case in point: "Anyway Raven, let me see if I can infer some conclusions from your ridiculous and contradictory statement. Cadets should fly small jet aircraft, and with experience can then be promoted to flying 300 plus passengers. Therefore, you deem it safe for a 250hr cadet to fly your family domestically around the likes of S.E Asia on some ATR or Dash-8, but unsafe for him/her to fly a 777 to the UK with your family aboard?"
I can't help you with your deductive skills if you cant figure that one out......
There is only one reason why airline management choose to hire zero time pilots over experienced ones.....can you guess what that reason is? Now take a breath and count to 10 before you start typing.
Last edited by raven11; 16th Jul 2013 at 00:33.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: VHHH Ocean 2D
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raven,
I accept and have made peace with the fact that in order to sit next to the FO with "a few thousand hours", HE would have needed to sit next to someone during his first hour and subsequent thousand.
Have you forgotten where you started? I'm pretty sure you wasn't born with a few thousand hours under your belt.
I accept and have made peace with the fact that in order to sit next to the FO with "a few thousand hours", HE would have needed to sit next to someone during his first hour and subsequent thousand.
Have you forgotten where you started? I'm pretty sure you wasn't born with a few thousand hours under your belt.
My point Hobo, is
Hobo, It is the same at all the airlines Dunnunda, and at yours up there also, by the sounds of this thread.
The FCOM says, use the electronic glideslope for approach guidance if available (even if Visual), if not available, make sure you sequence the flight plan correctly to give a pseudo G/S, then use the Vasis/Papi (adjusted for Mean eye height), then if nothing else is available cross check the distance to the threshold and multiply by 3 for height.
Nothing about using your skill honed over years of flying, looking out the window, setting an appropriate thrust setting and monitoring the a/c's progress and adjusting as required.
it's all about having some "guidance". What if the "guidance" is wrong?
Fortunately, most of us have had years of multi sector days into airports without even a VASIS/PAPI, no A/P, A/T, FMC, TCAS, EGPWS etc and managed well enough to be here today.
So I guess my point is, "Let us be the pilots you want us to be". Let us fly the aeroplane using all the available "aids" or not, as the situation dictates. This will allow good pilots to make good decisions, and good use of the systems at the appropriate time.
Before anyone gets too excited, I am not advocating turning everything off for practice when the weather is crap, traffic is heavy, you're dead tired or at anytime when it is just not a good idea.
But when you end up in the situation Asiana found themselves, your skill will be good enough to get you and your passengers on the ground safely and without an increase in heart rate.
The FCOM says, use the electronic glideslope for approach guidance if available (even if Visual), if not available, make sure you sequence the flight plan correctly to give a pseudo G/S, then use the Vasis/Papi (adjusted for Mean eye height), then if nothing else is available cross check the distance to the threshold and multiply by 3 for height.
Nothing about using your skill honed over years of flying, looking out the window, setting an appropriate thrust setting and monitoring the a/c's progress and adjusting as required.
it's all about having some "guidance". What if the "guidance" is wrong?Fortunately, most of us have had years of multi sector days into airports without even a VASIS/PAPI, no A/P, A/T, FMC, TCAS, EGPWS etc and managed well enough to be here today.
So I guess my point is, "Let us be the pilots you want us to be". Let us fly the aeroplane using all the available "aids" or not, as the situation dictates. This will allow good pilots to make good decisions, and good use of the systems at the appropriate time.
Before anyone gets too excited, I am not advocating turning everything off for practice when the weather is crap, traffic is heavy, you're dead tired or at anytime when it is just not a good idea.
But when you end up in the situation Asiana found themselves, your skill will be good enough to get you and your passengers on the ground safely and without an increase in heart rate.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATSB have done a study.
Pilot experience and performance in an airline environment
"What the ATSB found
The overall performance of cadets and low-hour pilots matched that of their direct entry and high-hour peers. All pilots were marked as proficient at the completion of the check flights, with the only differences between the groups being a function of how many exceeded the required standard.
The differences between the low and high-hour pilots in ‘meeting’ and ‘exceeding’ the standard across all metrics were variable within airlines and inconsistent across all three airlines. This suggests that the differences between the groups were not of a systemic nature that would highlight an area of concern for industry. While the metric normal landing showed a difference across two of the three airlines, none of the other required regulatory manoeuvres or technical metrics were significantly different in more than one airline. For non-technical metrics, both leadership and situation awareness were significantly different in all three airlines. Although this is understandable given the low experience of cadet and low-hour pilots, focused exposure to those metrics during initial airline training may reduce this difference as was seen in the data for cadets collected at the 5-year mark in one airline.
Safety message
The evidence in this report indicates that the cadet pathway for low-hour pilots is a valid option for airlines. There was no evidence to indicate that cadets or low-hour pilots within the airlines studied were any less competent or proficient than their direct entry and high-hour peers."
Of course, I guess you could say that they would say that, wouldn't they, but at least it is an attempt to do some research
Pilot experience and performance in an airline environment
"What the ATSB found
The overall performance of cadets and low-hour pilots matched that of their direct entry and high-hour peers. All pilots were marked as proficient at the completion of the check flights, with the only differences between the groups being a function of how many exceeded the required standard.
The differences between the low and high-hour pilots in ‘meeting’ and ‘exceeding’ the standard across all metrics were variable within airlines and inconsistent across all three airlines. This suggests that the differences between the groups were not of a systemic nature that would highlight an area of concern for industry. While the metric normal landing showed a difference across two of the three airlines, none of the other required regulatory manoeuvres or technical metrics were significantly different in more than one airline. For non-technical metrics, both leadership and situation awareness were significantly different in all three airlines. Although this is understandable given the low experience of cadet and low-hour pilots, focused exposure to those metrics during initial airline training may reduce this difference as was seen in the data for cadets collected at the 5-year mark in one airline.
Safety message
The evidence in this report indicates that the cadet pathway for low-hour pilots is a valid option for airlines. There was no evidence to indicate that cadets or low-hour pilots within the airlines studied were any less competent or proficient than their direct entry and high-hour peers."
Of course, I guess you could say that they would say that, wouldn't they, but at least it is an attempt to do some research
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This article published three years ago says it all regarding whether today's airlines need better oversight in how they recruit new pilots:
Cockpit crisis - World - Macleans.ca
Regarding the second link below, it seems that the FAA has grown frustrated with under experienced pilots operating commercial airliners and is legislating minimum requirements. It would appear that there is ample evidence in the degradation of pilot experience that requires the regulatory authority to intervene to protect the traveling public from airlines that hire under experienced pilots. The question now is how this will impact international operators operating into US airspace.
"Safety will be my overriding priority as Secretary, so I am especially pleased to mark my first week by announcing a rule that will help us maintain our unparalleled safety record,” said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “We owe it to the traveling public to have only the most qualified and best trained pilots."
WASHINGTON – In a final rule to be published soon, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced today that it is increasing the qualification requirements for first officers who fly for U.S. passenger and cargo airlines.
Press Release ? FAA Boosts Aviation Safety with New Pilot Qualification Standards
Cockpit crisis - World - Macleans.ca
Regarding the second link below, it seems that the FAA has grown frustrated with under experienced pilots operating commercial airliners and is legislating minimum requirements. It would appear that there is ample evidence in the degradation of pilot experience that requires the regulatory authority to intervene to protect the traveling public from airlines that hire under experienced pilots. The question now is how this will impact international operators operating into US airspace.
"Safety will be my overriding priority as Secretary, so I am especially pleased to mark my first week by announcing a rule that will help us maintain our unparalleled safety record,” said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “We owe it to the traveling public to have only the most qualified and best trained pilots."
WASHINGTON – In a final rule to be published soon, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced today that it is increasing the qualification requirements for first officers who fly for U.S. passenger and cargo airlines.
Press Release ? FAA Boosts Aviation Safety with New Pilot Qualification Standards
Last edited by raven11; 17th Jul 2013 at 12:22.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Down South
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Experience, when combined with good judgment, helps a pilot make the best choice when faced with a decision. No amount of experience (Asiana) can reduce or prevent the possibility of a failure to execute basic piloting skills. Honestly, almost anyone could land a 777 with a little bit of training. However, put that person (or two like him) in a 777 in the ITCZ at night. That is where experience will matter.
