AirAsia
Another good example would be our SIM profiles. Countless V1 cuts, and hand flown ILS's. I cant remember the last airframe lost to a V1 engine failure, can you? Why aren't we practicing the things that are killing people? Our training departments would love to be teaching how to handle uncommanded pole overs in an airbus, or unreliable airspeed, or practicing visual approaches, the things that are killing people in this day and age. But are we doing that? No, but hey, we are meeting regulatory requirements aren't we?
Lowkoon I think you are falling into a trap here along the lines of evidence based training which has missed the target with the MPL and delivered enthusiastic youngsters with gaping holes in their knowledge and skill bases ( please somebody important ask for feedback from line pilots ) .
"Loss of airplane control in FLIGHT is a leading cause of fatalities in the commercial aviation industry" so cites Boeing !
Assymmetric handling is our bread and butter and granted, the chances of a V1 cut in real life are remote. But it is a skill base required ( basic aircraft handling ) as if you can manage a V1 cut you should be able to manage an engine failure throughout the envelope. What I'd like to see is more expanded single engine exercises with competencies in VMC immediate returns, uncontained fires and more failure profiles throughout the various climb segments- without prior knowledge and without unrealistic expectations from an STC who has seen the same exercise many times.
Our training departments have every opportunity to train for what you've stated. We just need more training time. Please, ask your cadet pilot what is a jet upset and what training have they received- actually ask any exclusively Hong Kong trained airline pilot what upset training they've received?
Visual approaches? Don't start me! Visual approaches are available on most of the non-China networks for regional HKG carriers. These happen to be training sectors yet First Officers can come up to their command training having never done a visual approach. In a short time, there has been a generational loss of visual flying skills ( which aren't terribly perishable ) and the responsibility lies directly with whoever is signing young pilots off as having done a visual approach.
HKG carriers have an arrogance to believe that they produce command quality Sullenbergers. Sorry, the above paragraph suggests we are facing the same issues as the Koreans. Ok, sure, let's ban circling approaches and then create a culture terrified of flying the aircraft visually which may be called upon in a number of abnormal scenarios. We now have training pilots who don't appear confident enough to demonstrate these skills- that's the generational loss.
The regulatory minimums are too shallow. We need more training and we need to build better jet handling skills in the simulator with a requirement that cadet and direct entry pilots have the confidence to fly the aircraft on the line without automation.
We have had an unrelaible airspeed exercise and I was shocked to see the F/O fall into the same trap as AF447. Asked about AF he had never heard of it! After taking control from the F/O and recovering from the jet upset it was time to move onto the next exercise.....
So I ask again, who has received jet upset training here in HKG?
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 2nd Jan 2015 at 00:26.
short flights long nights
How can a professional pilot never heard of Air France 447?
I think cadet programs have not cottoned onto the importance of aviation general knowledge and interest with the leadership failing being an over emphasis on FCOM manuals that are in need of fleshing out.
Where is the upset training in FCOM for example? But someone with interest could at the very least hunt online for some sort of guidance. And I'm not suggesting this is anywhere near satisfactory.
Where is the upset training in FCOM for example? But someone with interest could at the very least hunt online for some sort of guidance. And I'm not suggesting this is anywhere near satisfactory.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High altitude stalls/mis handled Go Arounds/icing/component and system failures/ power plant loss or degradation/ wave upset and u recovered rolls...all contributors to recent and less recent accidents and incidents...yet here we are, still flying the V1 cuts and eng inop go arounds..same old crap with LVO's and the yep..predetermined vol 8 questioning that we all theatrically entertain. No system instruction, knowledge base questioning with construction..all down to the dumbing down by both the manufacturer and the company as part of the plan to marginalise the crews...trouble is..it's NOT working..the trickle down from the legacies to the LCC's has inevitably caused a tragic sting in the tail...time for change??!!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can a professional pilot never heard of Air France 447?
This is a feature of our current work environment which was unforeseen by our great leadership when they embarked on this race to the bottom.
Imagine that, a declining employment package equals lower motivation and dedication. Who would have thunk it?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sale of shares
This is from an unconfirmed report but if true raises troubling questions
For these efforts as well as the 13 years of running the air carrier from a losing state-owned company to a profitable budget carrier - at times even helping carry baggage at airport counters - Fernandes has earned the respect of the aviation industry.
Analysts believe he and AirAsia could survive the tragedy that befell QZ8501, but there are also reports that could potentially damage both the CEO and the brand.
One such report which came out in Malaysian Insider states that Fernandes sold 944,800 shares of Tune Insurance Holdings on Dec 22 and 23 for RM1.60 per share.
Tune provides insurance to passengers of Air Asia, but its shareprice has been declining since August. The timing of the sale of the bulk of the shares, which left Fernandes with a 0.01 percent direct shareholding and 3073 percent indirect stake in Tune, provides a perfect angle to speculations of knowledge of an alleged conspiracy because of the timing of the sales with the air accident.
For these efforts as well as the 13 years of running the air carrier from a losing state-owned company to a profitable budget carrier - at times even helping carry baggage at airport counters - Fernandes has earned the respect of the aviation industry.
Analysts believe he and AirAsia could survive the tragedy that befell QZ8501, but there are also reports that could potentially damage both the CEO and the brand.
One such report which came out in Malaysian Insider states that Fernandes sold 944,800 shares of Tune Insurance Holdings on Dec 22 and 23 for RM1.60 per share.
Tune provides insurance to passengers of Air Asia, but its shareprice has been declining since August. The timing of the sale of the bulk of the shares, which left Fernandes with a 0.01 percent direct shareholding and 3073 percent indirect stake in Tune, provides a perfect angle to speculations of knowledge of an alleged conspiracy because of the timing of the sales with the air accident.
High altitude stalls/mis handled Go Arounds/icing/component and system failures/ power plant loss or degradation/ wave upset and u recovered rolls...all contributors to recent and less recent accidents and incidents...yet here we are, still flying the V1 cuts and eng inop go arounds..same old crap with LVO's and the yep..predetermined vol 8 questioning that we all theatrically entertain. No system instruction, knowledge base questioning with construction..all down to the dumbing down by both the manufacturer and the company as part of the plan to marginalise the crews...trouble is..it's NOT working..the trickle down from the legacies to the LCC's has inevitably caused a tragic sting in the tail...time for change??!!
I was alarmed when I heard a second hand report from a discussion with a manager, that evidence based training has identified asymmetric handling ( notably the V1 cut ) as being a problem area for a percentage of the pilot group ( I'd guess MPL's/ Cadets though a couple of big personalities too by F/O accounts ) . The story went that, OK, since it's such a problem, let's remove so we can concentrate on more pressing handling issues.
How does that work? I thought EBT identified key areas wanting and addressed them? Not like the story goes in making pilots cheaper in both the training and what you have to pay them by making them easy to train and replace.
Don't let the system rob Peter to pay Paul. It's broken and needs mending!
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
Gnadenberg, dont get me started on MPL's surely the only people who still believe in that little experiment are the accountants, it was a way of reducing the lofty 170 HRS TT down to 80. Was anyone really surprised when the result was well, close to half? Remember the memo the poor guy who had to pitch it to us as "not a cost saving exercise", but rather a better way? He must have been choking on his own vomit as he typed.
EBT... In the right hands, it could be a valuable tool. Note I chose my words carefully there. Train the skills we need on a dark and stormy. The skills you suggest we practice are fine, lets just move on from the V1 cuts that used to be useful in a Bristol Blenheim. Flying around asymmetrically is an essential skill, no question, but lets move it beyond the regulatory box ticking exercise we face time after time.
You mentioned cadets and general knowledge. You shouldn't get a cadetship without it, no exception, if you cant demonstrate an interest in aviation, don't expect to pitch up and have a million dollars spent on you.
EBT... In the right hands, it could be a valuable tool. Note I chose my words carefully there. Train the skills we need on a dark and stormy. The skills you suggest we practice are fine, lets just move on from the V1 cuts that used to be useful in a Bristol Blenheim. Flying around asymmetrically is an essential skill, no question, but lets move it beyond the regulatory box ticking exercise we face time after time.
You mentioned cadets and general knowledge. You shouldn't get a cadetship without it, no exception, if you cant demonstrate an interest in aviation, don't expect to pitch up and have a million dollars spent on you.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mentioned cadets and general knowledge. You shouldn't get a cadetship without it, no exception, if you cant demonstrate an interest in aviation, don't expect to pitch up and have a million dollars spent on you.
As for other flying knowledge, does it really matter what background of the pilot is coming? Do we honestly think that a direct entry SO from years past (those with 2-3000 hours experience flying around in Europe or North America), do we honestly think, when they first join the company as SO, that they will have the knowledge of flying in tropical areas with towering thunderstorm up to 50,000ft? This types of experience and knowledge, regardless of background comes from learning on the line and on the job, based upon the environment that you operated into. The company can help improve upon this by providing more training that is actually relevant to our operations. For example, our annual tech quiz and route briefing? or even our annual CRM and Annual Emergency? They are all mostly pointless exercise and we repeat it for regulatory sake. The class room time spend on the CRM course will probably be better spend if the company actually create a course that introduce some learning and training that specifically target our area of operations, and these course should be tailor to various rank. As for the Tech quiz, maybe the training department should consider creating an actual learning package that provide a refresher on various systems with common tips and tricks (something that pilot can read and can actually learn something from it), at the end of that reading, you can have a short quiz based upon that refresher, that will be much more useful. Because as we all know, our current tech quiz is really a word searching exercise with the iPad search function, it is so pointless that most of us learn nothing from it (although it has been improve over the years). To accomplish all that will require a training department that actually have the resources to create courses that are tailored to our operational needs, but unfortunately our current training department only really have resources to meet the regulatory needs.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Asia
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are parts of the US that have just as developed and severe thunderstorm activity along with weather systems more extensive than that in SE Asia .
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: hong kong
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are; the difference being that they have an ATC SERVICE that is cooperative, professional, harmonised throughout the entire US and indeed are ever ready to offer advice, pireps, a change of route of necessary and level. In fact they bend over backwards to accomodate requests and that is the way it should be.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
777 , thanks ..I am well aware ... I was intentionally being very conservative so as not to offend, as there are some very thin skinned persons present here , but my message could be had "in between the lines " . It was just a response to the slight about 2-3000 hours flying around North America by someone who seemingly has never been exposed .
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting ideas CXHK.
However, it does seem a little bit of let someone else do the hard work of reading the manuals so that I don't have to do it. I then just read their notes (read vol 8) and I can pass the "test". If we were "really" professional we would be reading the books more often without having to be forced to do it as a "regulatory" item. Being able to regurgitate chapter, verse and line of the FCOM / OPS A is not necessarily "knowledge" if it cannot be applied.
Your comment about the 2-3000 hours flying around Europe / North America being not good training for the operating environment here, is also a little off the mark. As it is 2-3000 of "operating" an aircraft and honing basic flying skills in all sorts of conditions.
However, it does seem a little bit of let someone else do the hard work of reading the manuals so that I don't have to do it. I then just read their notes (read vol 8) and I can pass the "test". If we were "really" professional we would be reading the books more often without having to be forced to do it as a "regulatory" item. Being able to regurgitate chapter, verse and line of the FCOM / OPS A is not necessarily "knowledge" if it cannot be applied.
Your comment about the 2-3000 hours flying around Europe / North America being not good training for the operating environment here, is also a little off the mark. As it is 2-3000 of "operating" an aircraft and honing basic flying skills in all sorts of conditions.
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
Give me the 2000-3000 hr direct entry from Europe sitting beside me while deicing in Beijing over a 200 hr guy who has never seen ice other than in his sprite he gets with his Happy meal from Maccas any day of the week, or the Canadian who flew 2000 hours in a turbo prop who flys in ice regularly, or the American who flys through tornado alley daily, how on earth is that not valuable seat of the pants experience worthy of offering a package to attract to join us?
Absolutely back ground matters a whole damn lot on the proverbial dark and stormy night when things start going wrong. While the cadets are deciding whether to go 10 or 20 miles left or right of track around the rather ominous looking ground return at 80 miles... "Oh and there is a bit of purple in it, should we sit the girls down do you think?"
Absolutely back ground matters a whole damn lot on the proverbial dark and stormy night when things start going wrong. While the cadets are deciding whether to go 10 or 20 miles left or right of track around the rather ominous looking ground return at 80 miles... "Oh and there is a bit of purple in it, should we sit the girls down do you think?"
