RA and S/O did nothing?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: HK- A little bit of industrial China in every breath you take.
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tankengine, good point! So we are happy to be the lowest common denominator in the hope that the other aircraft in the near miss wasn't a CX or KA aircraft with the same crew deficiencies? Lovely thought.
So what will the CAD do about it do you think? Obviously managers directly remunerated for saving costs will not increase training, nor will they want to be responsible for increasing the package to attract experienced new hires who wont be too afraid to 'disconnect' an autopilot. Why not? It directly effects what they as individuals get paid. While this dangerous 'performance aligned' (read cost cutting in place of performance) remuneration exists, we need an independent body to make these decisions for the company. Someone with back bone, someone with power and strength and the conviction to say enough is enough, time to follw the FAA lead and realise we have finally found the bottom of the barrel when we signed of on new hires with 80 hours total experience, someone like our CAD!!!
So what will the CAD do about it do you think? Obviously managers directly remunerated for saving costs will not increase training, nor will they want to be responsible for increasing the package to attract experienced new hires who wont be too afraid to 'disconnect' an autopilot. Why not? It directly effects what they as individuals get paid. While this dangerous 'performance aligned' (read cost cutting in place of performance) remuneration exists, we need an independent body to make these decisions for the company. Someone with back bone, someone with power and strength and the conviction to say enough is enough, time to follw the FAA lead and realise we have finally found the bottom of the barrel when we signed of on new hires with 80 hours total experience, someone like our CAD!!!
Fat chance!
Can't think of a single example of the CAD showing any backbone against a CX deficiency. All done on the quiet, behind closed doors, as it always has been.
Can't think of a single example of the CAD showing any backbone against a CX deficiency. All done on the quiet, behind closed doors, as it always has been.
Someone with back bone, someone with power and strength and the conviction to say enough is enough, time to follw the FAA lead and realise we have finally found the bottom of the barrel when we signed of on new hires with 80 hours total experience, someone like our CAD!!!
CAD is going down exactly the same path with ATCOs.
Bureau refuses to allow the required number to be recruited. Prefers employment by stealth by getting AAHK to recruit via the back door but under CADs terms. Push them through fast to get a bum in the Tower seats.
General race to the bottom as on your side.
No wonder so many of the more experienced ones have applied to Airservices ads and have had interviews.
Anyway, Expect more RAs and more SOs ignoring them.
Sounds like it was fortunate the other aircraft responded.
Any hints roughly where??
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: hong kong
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be very interesting to bring back Charles Haddon Cave , and do A ' Part 2' and see what ' has ' changed ' , perhaps benchmarking to the previous effort ......no chance , heads are firmly planted up the proverbial up there in MGMT world.
, perhaps benchmarking to the previous effort ......no chance , heads are firmly planted up the proverbial up there in MGMT world.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up here, everyone looks like ants!
Posts: 966
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CN30YXU
In the mod 3/6, the recovery is initiated at the onset of either the stick shaker or buffet. The aircraft pitches nose down, the controls are mushy and rapid altitude loss will ensue. In my book, that's a stall. In the 777, that is.
Although I did spend a fairly decent amount of time on the 'bus (as a CN) the procedures, flight characteristics and experience are memories that have faded or I'd rather forget. I'm not looking for an A vs B fight, I just believe that the essos ARE trained for a stall recovery. Peace, out.
Oh, one more thing - mod 3/6 are the P2X rating sims. Inability to satisfactorily perform the recovery means the licence isn't signed.
Although I did spend a fairly decent amount of time on the 'bus (as a CN) the procedures, flight characteristics and experience are memories that have faded or I'd rather forget. I'm not looking for an A vs B fight, I just believe that the essos ARE trained for a stall recovery. Peace, out.
Oh, one more thing - mod 3/6 are the P2X rating sims. Inability to satisfactorily perform the recovery means the licence isn't signed.
Last edited by Cpt. Underpants; 24th Oct 2014 at 14:11.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not having the complete picture and the wha happened I think a lot of folks might be shooting in the dark.
I WILL say there is a big difference in being trained and being proficient. Cramming as many events as you can into an RT/HS might get you exposure but not necessarily proficiency. Training should be tailored with this in mind. Some scenarios are great; the overly 'busy' ones lack the time to get good and practice.
Even experienced Long haul pilots with most of the flight on Otto will always struggle to remain proficient. A rostered mix of regional and long haul flying can help those at the controls, but this option obviously isn't available to S/Os. This would be exacerbated greatly when someone in the seat didn't have the experience base to begin with.
I WILL say there is a big difference in being trained and being proficient. Cramming as many events as you can into an RT/HS might get you exposure but not necessarily proficiency. Training should be tailored with this in mind. Some scenarios are great; the overly 'busy' ones lack the time to get good and practice.
Even experienced Long haul pilots with most of the flight on Otto will always struggle to remain proficient. A rostered mix of regional and long haul flying can help those at the controls, but this option obviously isn't available to S/Os. This would be exacerbated greatly when someone in the seat didn't have the experience base to begin with.
Last edited by Shep69; 24th Oct 2014 at 19:39.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: HK- A little bit of industrial China in every breath you take.
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shep, agreed, proficiency is a longhaul nightmare, but when you dust off the cobwebs, there are basic skills in there somewhere, and as rusty as they are, they would allow even the least proficient pilot in the company to follow a simple RA. To become rusty assumes you had some level of handling skills in the first place. That is where this all falls over, hiring people with no handling skills at all, (not their fault, it is purely dollar driven, this is clearly not the safest way to crew the aircraft). Proficiency can be maintained even within our very restrictive SOPS with regards to hand flying and switching things off, but imagine using these restrictive SOPs to try and obtain handling skills in the first place? Imagine the load on the captain to manage the aircraft while your offsider practices one of his/her very first raw data approaches in a 200 ton aircraft. I am fairly sure that is not what our customers think they are paying for.
Now amplify this, give the pilot a total of 80 hours total time, and put them in the RHS of a 320/321/330 like KA do, and wonder why they can't fly a visual approach, or in this case gather the confidence to disconnect and avoid an oncoming aircraft that posses a significant risk of collision. Nero fiddles while Rome burns. The tragedy is we will be all standing around a smoking hole, peering in, management will be asking "How the hell did this happen?" while the line pilots will all be saying "We told you so."
Asiana 777 was an industry wide wakeup call on proficiency in raw handling skills, but these skills can only get rusty if you have them in the first place. An even worse scenario, the inability to handle an RA, quite possibly came about from a TOTAL reliance on automatics for fear of the unknown, the unknown in this case is a fear of handling an aircraft without the automatics. The company will say "our hands are tied, training resources are stretched as it is." Industry speak for "We aren't going to spend another cent, training costs us way too much already."
Time for the CAD to sort it out don't you think? Follow the FAA's lead and regulate in the interest of safety, not in the interest of profits. Time to step up CAD. Management will only do it when it is cheaper to do it than not to do it, that way they will be remunerated for it. Unfortunately that will only come after an accident, when the 'think tank' is formed to investigate the hull loss. Then it will be bonuses all round once they come up with the solution as to why it happened without apportioning blame to the underlying reason that we all know already, continually lowering terms and conditions, and putting kids with zero experience in the control seat to save paying attractive terms to those pesky experienced pilots.
Sorry if i am shooting in the dark as you suggest Shep, but i am fairly confident that I am not the only line pilot thinking this way.
Now amplify this, give the pilot a total of 80 hours total time, and put them in the RHS of a 320/321/330 like KA do, and wonder why they can't fly a visual approach, or in this case gather the confidence to disconnect and avoid an oncoming aircraft that posses a significant risk of collision. Nero fiddles while Rome burns. The tragedy is we will be all standing around a smoking hole, peering in, management will be asking "How the hell did this happen?" while the line pilots will all be saying "We told you so."
Asiana 777 was an industry wide wakeup call on proficiency in raw handling skills, but these skills can only get rusty if you have them in the first place. An even worse scenario, the inability to handle an RA, quite possibly came about from a TOTAL reliance on automatics for fear of the unknown, the unknown in this case is a fear of handling an aircraft without the automatics. The company will say "our hands are tied, training resources are stretched as it is." Industry speak for "We aren't going to spend another cent, training costs us way too much already."
Time for the CAD to sort it out don't you think? Follow the FAA's lead and regulate in the interest of safety, not in the interest of profits. Time to step up CAD. Management will only do it when it is cheaper to do it than not to do it, that way they will be remunerated for it. Unfortunately that will only come after an accident, when the 'think tank' is formed to investigate the hull loss. Then it will be bonuses all round once they come up with the solution as to why it happened without apportioning blame to the underlying reason that we all know already, continually lowering terms and conditions, and putting kids with zero experience in the control seat to save paying attractive terms to those pesky experienced pilots.
Sorry if i am shooting in the dark as you suggest Shep, but i am fairly confident that I am not the only line pilot thinking this way.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Honkytown
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not disagreeing with your (very good) point, Lowkoon; though I wonder why everyone keeps heralding the dawn of the 1500 he requirements for FAA pt.121.
Marvin Renslow had thousands of hours. From the last 18 months or so - the combined cockpit experience of the US A320 at PHL, the SWA 737 at LGA and the UPS A300 at BHX (all hull losses) were all in the tens of thousands of hours...
Whilst agreeing with everything else you wrote, I believe flight time bears very little resemblance to proficiency. What is needed is better training. The military being perhaps the best example of this.
It's better than nothing, but throwing in a 1500hr requirement is going about it in the wrong way. 1500 going up and down Hermosa Beach towing an insurance banner in a 152 isn't going to do you much good, come airline time.
Marvin Renslow had thousands of hours. From the last 18 months or so - the combined cockpit experience of the US A320 at PHL, the SWA 737 at LGA and the UPS A300 at BHX (all hull losses) were all in the tens of thousands of hours...
Whilst agreeing with everything else you wrote, I believe flight time bears very little resemblance to proficiency. What is needed is better training. The military being perhaps the best example of this.
It's better than nothing, but throwing in a 1500hr requirement is going about it in the wrong way. 1500 going up and down Hermosa Beach towing an insurance banner in a 152 isn't going to do you much good, come airline time.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: HK- A little bit of industrial China in every breath you take.
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
McNugget, I understand 1500 hours isn't in any way a magic number, how about 500 hours in an aircraft that isn't 100% reliant on automatics? 400 hours? Take two extremes. 500 hours flying circuits in a 150, or 500 hours in the Red Arrows, there is no comparison between the two, but neither of those guys would have been afraid to disconnect and follow an RA.
Over a beer, we could probably put our heads together and come up with 100 different flying jobs that don't offer excellent opportunities to hone your hand flying skills, (I probably wouldn't list banner towing as one, most banner towing pilots have at least scared themselves and learnt a few home truths, but at least they did it in a 182 alone, not in a 777). What about 1500 hours flying RPT in command of a two crew turbo prop that doesn't have an autopilot? Good experience? Are these the guys we are attracting? Of course 1500 is a token number, but it is a number that extensive industry consultation came up with, not a couple of pilots over a few beers, or a discussion on pprune.
Maintaining proficiency infers the maintenance of the skills we had when we were hired, and applying them and honing them on the type we are flying now. It is our responsibility to maintain them, and to improve them, within the guidelines stipulated in our SOPs. It certainly DOES NOT infer developing skills that we never had in the first place, or something that we saw once in a time critical sim session aimed at meeting minimum regulation requirements, not at training individuals to a proficient level.
Over a beer, we could probably put our heads together and come up with 100 different flying jobs that don't offer excellent opportunities to hone your hand flying skills, (I probably wouldn't list banner towing as one, most banner towing pilots have at least scared themselves and learnt a few home truths, but at least they did it in a 182 alone, not in a 777). What about 1500 hours flying RPT in command of a two crew turbo prop that doesn't have an autopilot? Good experience? Are these the guys we are attracting? Of course 1500 is a token number, but it is a number that extensive industry consultation came up with, not a couple of pilots over a few beers, or a discussion on pprune.
Maintaining proficiency infers the maintenance of the skills we had when we were hired, and applying them and honing them on the type we are flying now. It is our responsibility to maintain them, and to improve them, within the guidelines stipulated in our SOPs. It certainly DOES NOT infer developing skills that we never had in the first place, or something that we saw once in a time critical sim session aimed at meeting minimum regulation requirements, not at training individuals to a proficient level.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Honkytown
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're dead-right, Lowkoon. All except the bit where you claimed 1500 wasn't pulled out of thin air by congress. It coincided with ATP requirement, and was merely being seen to be doing something (much like FAR-117) - all in spite of the far higher experience levels of the crew.
With the variety of flying jobs around, it's very, very difficult to use hours as a mantle. I'd be much more in favour of more rigorous sim testing, and a far longer training course. One that would be proficiency based, heavy on practice, rather than ticking boxes.
Here at CX, we do have some highly capable, highly motivated instructors. It's a shame that these guys aren't given the means to do what is possible. It's the same accross the industry.
With the variety of flying jobs around, it's very, very difficult to use hours as a mantle. I'd be much more in favour of more rigorous sim testing, and a far longer training course. One that would be proficiency based, heavy on practice, rather than ticking boxes.
Here at CX, we do have some highly capable, highly motivated instructors. It's a shame that these guys aren't given the means to do what is possible. It's the same accross the industry.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take this with a grain of salt, given I'm only regular CX SLF, HK ATC ,with a mediocre couple of thousand hours many moons ago.
I know who I want to hear is up the front when I do my regular CX flights.
Somebody with experience in making command decisions under adverse conditions.
You can't buy or train that.
Something you can't get in the Parafield training area, either as a cadet or 'VDO watching' as an instructor for 1500 hrs or the sim or banner towing or Parachute dropping.
I want to hear somebody who has flown multi engine Non-precision approaches, at night, into sh1tty strips, without ATC, or ground support. Who know what it's like to load and refuel the plane themselves. Who doesn't have somebody spoon feeding them every step of the way.
Sadly, I'm seeing/hearing way too much of that now.
On both sides of the radio.
Apologies for the rant.
BB
I know who I want to hear is up the front when I do my regular CX flights.
Somebody with experience in making command decisions under adverse conditions.
You can't buy or train that.
Something you can't get in the Parafield training area, either as a cadet or 'VDO watching' as an instructor for 1500 hrs or the sim or banner towing or Parachute dropping.
I want to hear somebody who has flown multi engine Non-precision approaches, at night, into sh1tty strips, without ATC, or ground support. Who know what it's like to load and refuel the plane themselves. Who doesn't have somebody spoon feeding them every step of the way.
Sadly, I'm seeing/hearing way too much of that now.
On both sides of the radio.
Apologies for the rant.
BB
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not in a Bus
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No apologies necessary, I'd like to comment on the often quoted "Multi Engine" requirement for Good Experience though. Only having one engine doesn't always make your life less stressful - Cough Cough.... Also the assumption is often a nice Sunday flight in a Cessna, but try leading inexperienced mates on a ****ty night for a formation landing - or whatever typical Mil scenario. Transferable skills?? - ABSOLUTELY
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: DT's cocaine mirror
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
White none.
Stop letting your ego get in the way of your brain.
Yes yes yes… we know you are a fighter jock and probably look like Tom Cruise.
Cough, cough!
I'm sure BB could have said "single engine", "multi engine", "3 engine", "4 engine" or, "4 engine with APU", and most readers here would have understood his "big picture" point.
Please re-read, and in place of "multi engine", insert: "single engine, mach 2.3 MMO, mach 5 razor, ninja 900 riding, "she's lost that loving feeling" A-hole.
Does it make any sense now??
Good post BB!
Please bear in mind our C-172 jocks next time!
Stop letting your ego get in the way of your brain.
Yes yes yes… we know you are a fighter jock and probably look like Tom Cruise.
Cough, cough!
I'm sure BB could have said "single engine", "multi engine", "3 engine", "4 engine" or, "4 engine with APU", and most readers here would have understood his "big picture" point.
Please re-read, and in place of "multi engine", insert: "single engine, mach 2.3 MMO, mach 5 razor, ninja 900 riding, "she's lost that loving feeling" A-hole.
Does it make any sense now??
Good post BB!
Please bear in mind our C-172 jocks next time!
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Not for Sale
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree completely Lowkoon.
McNugget defends lack of hour, experience and credentials from his iCadet point of view. He agrees in theory with "standards" but is part of the problem. You accept C-Scale and therefore the standards it represents yet want to defend what you contributed to?
But if those were the standards at the RECRUITMENT stage then how many iCadets like yourself would have been employed?
And many have stood down from training roles as they see the workload required to train so many of the iCadet generation at CX as not met by management and too great a challenge to too many iCadet SO's to bring to what used to be the standard.
It is only "the same across the industry" when more people accept lower standards in remuneration and experience to accept a job that previously was beyond their reach.
1500 hrs was the magic number due to raw ATP / ATPL requirements (but pre iCadet days CX mins were 1000 hrs TT for DESO's by the way). Due to competition for DESO positions applicants generally needed > 3000 hrs TT including > 1000 hrs twin PIC time, etc.... The recruitment team at CX HR told me face to face that single pilot (night) hours in a twin were regarded far better than the same TT built in 8/8 blue sky in a C152 circuit or training area (i.e., instructing hours). So, no: hours don't necessarily coincide with competence which is why CX used to take this into account. Not anymore when zero hours is the new requirement.
I've been slammed by C-Scalers and others when they say that A-Scale permitted B-Scale to happen and hence I'm a hypocrite to speak out against C-Scale. I disagree, and have always said so. B-Scale DID NOT sink standards down to this extreme level as C-Scale has. Fact.
Sadly and regrettably too many still ask "Who saw this coming??"
McNugget defends lack of hour, experience and credentials from his iCadet point of view. He agrees in theory with "standards" but is part of the problem. You accept C-Scale and therefore the standards it represents yet want to defend what you contributed to?
I'd be much more in favour of more rigorous sim testing, and a far longer training course. One that would be proficiency based, heavy on practice, rather than ticking boxes.
Here at CX, we do have some highly capable, highly motivated instructors. It's a shame that these guys aren't given the means to do what is possible. It's the same accross the industry.
It is only "the same across the industry" when more people accept lower standards in remuneration and experience to accept a job that previously was beyond their reach.
1500 hrs was the magic number due to raw ATP / ATPL requirements (but pre iCadet days CX mins were 1000 hrs TT for DESO's by the way). Due to competition for DESO positions applicants generally needed > 3000 hrs TT including > 1000 hrs twin PIC time, etc.... The recruitment team at CX HR told me face to face that single pilot (night) hours in a twin were regarded far better than the same TT built in 8/8 blue sky in a C152 circuit or training area (i.e., instructing hours). So, no: hours don't necessarily coincide with competence which is why CX used to take this into account. Not anymore when zero hours is the new requirement.
I've been slammed by C-Scalers and others when they say that A-Scale permitted B-Scale to happen and hence I'm a hypocrite to speak out against C-Scale. I disagree, and have always said so. B-Scale DID NOT sink standards down to this extreme level as C-Scale has. Fact.
Sadly and regrettably too many still ask "Who saw this coming??"
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, is it only a matter of time before CX has its own AF447?
Reading the "experience" of the JFO, it is clear that even though he had what the public might consider a reasonable 2,900 hours, it seems he had hardly truly "flown" an IFR aircraft.
My earlier comment about experience meant "grass roots" type flying experience. Not going and getting an A320 endorsement with only 200 hours.
The trouble is, in a few years, these cadets are going to be Captains.
You can't gain this experience by "osmosis" ie sitting there watching somebody else making decisions.
Is that what I have to look forward to as SLF on CX?
It's a worry.
Reading the "experience" of the JFO, it is clear that even though he had what the public might consider a reasonable 2,900 hours, it seems he had hardly truly "flown" an IFR aircraft.
My earlier comment about experience meant "grass roots" type flying experience. Not going and getting an A320 endorsement with only 200 hours.
The trouble is, in a few years, these cadets are going to be Captains.
You can't gain this experience by "osmosis" ie sitting there watching somebody else making decisions.
Is that what I have to look forward to as SLF on CX?
It's a worry.
Last edited by bekolblockage; 26th Oct 2014 at 02:37.
short flights long nights
And many many years ago, when I wanted to join Cathay as my airline career choice, ( this was the A scale days, so I know getting was hard)! However my 5000 hours total time and my 1800 hours jet time did not help me one little bit.
I did not pass the interviews or display the Cathay standard in the sim check.
No problems there.
What worries me now, as a about to be retired 777 captain, who in retirement would choose CX,
Who the hell is flying your planes?
I did not pass the interviews or display the Cathay standard in the sim check.
No problems there.
What worries me now, as a about to be retired 777 captain, who in retirement would choose CX,
Who the hell is flying your planes?
So the time bomb is ticking. Entire responsibility for this rests with the sycophants who implement the orders from Swire House. Gutless, money grabbing cowards filling their own coffers and hoping they can retire or resign before the bomb goes off.
Short term, talentless yes men who are a disgrace to any concept of proper 'Management'.
Shame on you.
Short term, talentless yes men who are a disgrace to any concept of proper 'Management'.
Shame on you.
Last edited by Arfur Dent; 26th Oct 2014 at 07:31.