AirAsia
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bouvet Island
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirAsia
Don't request from ATC in a situation like that. Demand.
Then if you don't get what you need to fly safely, DO IT ANYWAYS, calculated, safely, and with good situational awareness. ATC is not in the airplane, they're comfortable in their chair.
It's time for this mentality of ATC always knows best to disappear from aviation.
Saddened heart goes out to victims and family.
Then if you don't get what you need to fly safely, DO IT ANYWAYS, calculated, safely, and with good situational awareness. ATC is not in the airplane, they're comfortable in their chair.
It's time for this mentality of ATC always knows best to disappear from aviation.
Saddened heart goes out to victims and family.
Last edited by plainpilot11; 30th Dec 2014 at 19:08. Reason: misspelled word...
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I enterred aviation, 40 years ago, ATC was there to help you.... today, it's the other around. ATC act as if pilots are there to make life easier for them.
I agree with you plain pilot: tell ATC what you need...and then act on it if they cannot "grant" your request.
I agree with you plain pilot: tell ATC what you need...and then act on it if they cannot "grant" your request.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@plainpilot11
You've mis-titled your thread. It should be "Arbitrary ATC bashing". In my experience, ATC provide variable service, sometimes exceptional, other times questionable. Your thread is clearly based upon your assessment of the possible ATC factors in the loss of QZ8501 but to say that pilots should demand clearances from ATC rather than request is elitist. Rather, we should plan ahead using all resources available to us and, should we not receive the clearance or assistance we require, if necessary transmit an urgency or distress call. Then, if no clearance is forthcoming, at least other aircraft on the frequency should be aware that an aircraft might be deviating in such a way that might infringe their own airspace.
Controllers might sit in comfortable chairs but I would hazard a guess that their job is more stressful than ours from time to time, particularly in the terminal area in poor weather.
I agree with your final comment.
STP
You've mis-titled your thread. It should be "Arbitrary ATC bashing". In my experience, ATC provide variable service, sometimes exceptional, other times questionable. Your thread is clearly based upon your assessment of the possible ATC factors in the loss of QZ8501 but to say that pilots should demand clearances from ATC rather than request is elitist. Rather, we should plan ahead using all resources available to us and, should we not receive the clearance or assistance we require, if necessary transmit an urgency or distress call. Then, if no clearance is forthcoming, at least other aircraft on the frequency should be aware that an aircraft might be deviating in such a way that might infringe their own airspace.
Controllers might sit in comfortable chairs but I would hazard a guess that their job is more stressful than ours from time to time, particularly in the terminal area in poor weather.
I agree with your final comment.
STP
I thought initially that this thread would be germane to EXPERIENCE levels, which are rapidly decreasing in Cathay Pacific, rather than ATC bashing. I noted on news clips archive shots of the Indonesian captain in a military flight suit; sources quote some six or seven thousand hours total; not a huge amount for a civilian jet transport captain. Was much of his background blasting around in VMC in fighters? And what about the French F/O? Was he 'paying to fly'?
Did the crew have the EXPERIENCE to assess and avoid the weather by however how much it would take (I personally have been over one hundred miles off track on several occasions)? Or the EXPERIENCE to deal with iced-up probes giving conflicting information? And one can imagine the pressure to 'SAVE FUEL', especially in a low-cost airline, especially destined for busy Singapore. Sound familiar?
Did the crew have the EXPERIENCE to assess and avoid the weather by however how much it would take (I personally have been over one hundred miles off track on several occasions)? Or the EXPERIENCE to deal with iced-up probes giving conflicting information? And one can imagine the pressure to 'SAVE FUEL', especially in a low-cost airline, especially destined for busy Singapore. Sound familiar?
Last edited by Captain Dart; 31st Dec 2014 at 00:29.
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
I think we have to dig a bit deeper than a single ATC communication. The worlds best low cost airline claim the worlds best training, which is why they have such young captains. Should we investigate those claims? Do any of us really have any faith that this accident will be investigated to anything more than a crew error in diverting around a big red cell? I certainly hope so.
The worlds best low cost airline in reality has profited handsomely from such claims that its training is superior to other airlines, the investigation will be a good time to show how superior it's training is wont it? The reality will be obvious when they are given a chance to back up their lofty claims. Who's responsible for it? I would imagine those that have profited the most are removed enough through franchising and separate companies not to get their personal earnings effected which for them is a relief. When the board at AirAsia were presented the numbers on risk assessment and a hull loss, I wonder if those numbers still look the same once the reality of what risk assessment and hull loss really means. The old saying, "If you think training and safety are expensive, try having an accident." Try explaining the rationality of an organisation's obsession with cost cutting to those attending 166 funerals.
The reality is, low cost is not safer. They have gouged profits from unsuspecting customers, by simply reducing safety margins, and manufacturers and regulators are equally to blame. All complicit in gouging at the trough, but they are simply eating bigger holes in the swiss cheese. Manufacturers want to sell planes, so they convince airlines that these machines can be flown with 5 expensive days of training, preceded by a 2 day classroom on systems. Do you really think that airbus give Airasia such a massive discount over the prices they offer CX KA BA EK QF etc etc? No. So they arent saving money on airframes. Do they have the same cost for spare parts? Do you think tyres and fan blades are cheaper for low cost carriers? I doubt it. Where else do you think they could save money when it comes to maintenance do you think? Its up to them to prove they do the same maintenance. Do you think they get a massive discount on fuel? No? So they aren't saving money there either.
Regulators sign off on these minimum requirements because they are too understaffed or what ever excuse you want to use this week to cover up the fact that they rubber stamp these 'fast track' courses. So who is ultimately responsible for this? Certainly not the unfortunate souls on board the downed 320. Time to look a bit higher up the tree, where the riper more juicy fruit is hanging. Just because an airline meets minimum regulatory requirements doesn't automatically make it safe.
Ok, so if you want a can of coke, you pay for it. How much does that make? a few dollars per pax maybe. So where are the massive savings coming from? Staff salaries? Yes, training costs? maybe, up to them to prove it.
Indonesian SAR has been rightfully commended for being open honest and transparent during the search. They have hopefully set the tone for the crash investigators, the investigation into the regulation of this airline "franchise" and the internal company investigation, and hopefully an external audit. We can only hope. Then, once we see the reality of "low cost" maybe the families can have some real closure as to why their loved ones lost their lives.
The worlds best low cost airline in reality has profited handsomely from such claims that its training is superior to other airlines, the investigation will be a good time to show how superior it's training is wont it? The reality will be obvious when they are given a chance to back up their lofty claims. Who's responsible for it? I would imagine those that have profited the most are removed enough through franchising and separate companies not to get their personal earnings effected which for them is a relief. When the board at AirAsia were presented the numbers on risk assessment and a hull loss, I wonder if those numbers still look the same once the reality of what risk assessment and hull loss really means. The old saying, "If you think training and safety are expensive, try having an accident." Try explaining the rationality of an organisation's obsession with cost cutting to those attending 166 funerals.
The reality is, low cost is not safer. They have gouged profits from unsuspecting customers, by simply reducing safety margins, and manufacturers and regulators are equally to blame. All complicit in gouging at the trough, but they are simply eating bigger holes in the swiss cheese. Manufacturers want to sell planes, so they convince airlines that these machines can be flown with 5 expensive days of training, preceded by a 2 day classroom on systems. Do you really think that airbus give Airasia such a massive discount over the prices they offer CX KA BA EK QF etc etc? No. So they arent saving money on airframes. Do they have the same cost for spare parts? Do you think tyres and fan blades are cheaper for low cost carriers? I doubt it. Where else do you think they could save money when it comes to maintenance do you think? Its up to them to prove they do the same maintenance. Do you think they get a massive discount on fuel? No? So they aren't saving money there either.
Regulators sign off on these minimum requirements because they are too understaffed or what ever excuse you want to use this week to cover up the fact that they rubber stamp these 'fast track' courses. So who is ultimately responsible for this? Certainly not the unfortunate souls on board the downed 320. Time to look a bit higher up the tree, where the riper more juicy fruit is hanging. Just because an airline meets minimum regulatory requirements doesn't automatically make it safe.
Ok, so if you want a can of coke, you pay for it. How much does that make? a few dollars per pax maybe. So where are the massive savings coming from? Staff salaries? Yes, training costs? maybe, up to them to prove it.
Indonesian SAR has been rightfully commended for being open honest and transparent during the search. They have hopefully set the tone for the crash investigators, the investigation into the regulation of this airline "franchise" and the internal company investigation, and hopefully an external audit. We can only hope. Then, once we see the reality of "low cost" maybe the families can have some real closure as to why their loved ones lost their lives.
Considering the issues we are having in our own backyard with training and the MPL scheme, I'd suggest low cost carriers and their cost pressures struggle to produce a product that isn't totally reliant on aircraft technology buffering against vast levels of inexperience.
The system needs to be turned on it's head, from Airbus right down to the line captain who doesn't have the confidence or faith in the system, to encourage his young 150 hour protege to practice some hand flying, raw data, NPA or visual approach.
Oh, and where's the jet upset training these days? Despite issues of sim fidelity Airbus could put a package together. They have before with Boeing and the driver was inexperience in jet airliner handling ( specifically targeting inexperience from the civilian background and overly aggressive from a military background ).
The system needs to be turned on it's head, from Airbus right down to the line captain who doesn't have the confidence or faith in the system, to encourage his young 150 hour protege to practice some hand flying, raw data, NPA or visual approach.
Oh, and where's the jet upset training these days? Despite issues of sim fidelity Airbus could put a package together. They have before with Boeing and the driver was inexperience in jet airliner handling ( specifically targeting inexperience from the civilian background and overly aggressive from a military background ).
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and manufacturers and regulators are equally to blame. All complicit in gouging at the trough, but they are simply eating bigger holes in the swiss cheese.
This approach to safety has a hangover, and this is it. Absentee regulatory agencies with profit driven (at all costs) air carriers is a recipe for disaster. Just here in HKG, notice how concerns about safety brought up to the regulator are met with a suggestion to bring it up with the operator. Really? You want the person committing the crime to judge himself? So much for checks and balances.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very succinct piece Lowkoon..send it to the SCMP!! its about time the media locked on to the sense that sometimes comes from this site….Air Asia, being what it is, makes you wonder how our HK LCC has managed to keep all their hulls. The corporate 'elasticity" in Air Asia and their assessment of risk to cost and loss will absorb this more than adequately. There will be the usual theatre from the CEO and after the dust has settled, together with the rhetoric of the regulators, it will be business as usual in the Asia region!!! RIP to 162 souls.
Air Asia, being what it is, makes you wonder how our HK LCC has managed to keep all their hulls
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Asia
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passengers will continue to endorse and support AirAsia's low cost model because they will continue to buy tickets. They are the only ones who can ultimately 'regulate' the LCCs by paying proper fares to proper airlines, but they won't. It costs more than USD30 per seat to fly an A320 from SUB - SIN. So if you get a ticket for that you should understand that you get what you pay for and accept the consequences.
N4790P
Lowkoon,
Your post implies that only LCCs take the ‘cheap’ training option. I would suggest that the Airframe manufacturers do not differentiate.
Whether it be Boeing with the B777/B787 or Airbus with their A333/A350 CTR, the overall training package is being changed (lowered?) and with regulatory approval and this type of training is what all operators now tend to receive.
However, does an initial one off traditional TR of say US40K per crew make that much difference to the operating costs – again I would suggest not.
Minimum regulatory requirements and standards ARE meant to ensure safe operations else there is no point in having them. Whether these minimum regulatory requirements and standards are at the correct level is another question.
The reality is, low cost is not safer. They have gouged profits from unsuspecting customers, by simply reducing safety margins, and manufacturers and regulators are equally to blame. All complicit in gouging at the trough, but they are simply eating bigger holes in the swiss cheese. Manufacturers want to sell planes, so they convince airlines that these machines can be flown with 5 expensive days of training, preceded by a 2 day classroom on systems. Do you really think that airbus give Airasia such a massive discount over the prices they offer CX KA BA EK QF etc etc? No. So they arent saving money on airframes. Do they have the same cost for spare parts? Do you think tyres and fan blades are cheaper for low cost carriers? I doubt it. Where else do you think they could save money when it comes to maintenance do you think? Its up to them to prove they do the same maintenance. Do you think they get a massive discount on fuel? No? So they aren't saving money there either.
Regulators sign off on these minimum requirements because they are too understaffed or what ever excuse you want to use this week to cover up the fact that they rubber stamp these 'fast track' courses. So who is ultimately responsible for this? Certainly not the unfortunate souls on board the downed 320. Time to look a bit higher up the tree, where the riper more juicy fruit is hanging. Just because an airline meets minimum regulatory requirements doesn't automatically make it safe.
Ok, so if you want a can of coke, you pay for it. How much does that make? a few dollars per pax maybe. So where are the massive savings coming from? Staff salaries? Yes, training costs? maybe, up to them to prove it.
Regulators sign off on these minimum requirements because they are too understaffed or what ever excuse you want to use this week to cover up the fact that they rubber stamp these 'fast track' courses. So who is ultimately responsible for this? Certainly not the unfortunate souls on board the downed 320. Time to look a bit higher up the tree, where the riper more juicy fruit is hanging. Just because an airline meets minimum regulatory requirements doesn't automatically make it safe.
Ok, so if you want a can of coke, you pay for it. How much does that make? a few dollars per pax maybe. So where are the massive savings coming from? Staff salaries? Yes, training costs? maybe, up to them to prove it.
Whether it be Boeing with the B777/B787 or Airbus with their A333/A350 CTR, the overall training package is being changed (lowered?) and with regulatory approval and this type of training is what all operators now tend to receive.
However, does an initial one off traditional TR of say US40K per crew make that much difference to the operating costs – again I would suggest not.
Minimum regulatory requirements and standards ARE meant to ensure safe operations else there is no point in having them. Whether these minimum regulatory requirements and standards are at the correct level is another question.
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
ZFT thanks for the thoughtful reply, i would argue LCC's do take the low cost training option, with training 'bundled' into purchase costs, everything from 'self sponsored' training, bonds, pay to fly, and outsource to the lowest cost sim centre they can find. All of these options are fundamentally flawed, as it is not in the service providers interest to do anything but pass the candidates with the minimum input required in the minimum time to meet costs and deadlines imposed by the LCC. otherwise they stand to lose the customer. This in no way is the safest option, it is purely the cheapest option, period.
Yes, legacy carriers suffer from reductions in training budgets, but still when the training is inhouse, they are more likely to retrain or fail a candidate. That is reality.
Minimum regulatory requirements if properly policed, allow you to meet the minimum safety standard, it is hard to say you practice worlds best practice if you barely meet minimum regulatory requirements. Regulators are typically behind the drag curve, they tend to be reactive, not proactive when it comes to regulating airlines. For this reason meeting their minimums simply makes you compliant, it doesn't make you safe. A good example of this is that the CAD have no regulation on a controlled rest policy. If you have no controlled rest policy, you are compliant with HK regulation, yet there isnt a safety organisation in the world that doesn't recommend a controlled rest policy properly implemented and practiced on back of the clock flying to make the operation safer. Just one example of being 100% compliant but being less safe by being compliant with a reactionary regulator.
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?
Yes, legacy carriers suffer from reductions in training budgets, but still when the training is inhouse, they are more likely to retrain or fail a candidate. That is reality.
Minimum regulatory requirements if properly policed, allow you to meet the minimum safety standard, it is hard to say you practice worlds best practice if you barely meet minimum regulatory requirements. Regulators are typically behind the drag curve, they tend to be reactive, not proactive when it comes to regulating airlines. For this reason meeting their minimums simply makes you compliant, it doesn't make you safe. A good example of this is that the CAD have no regulation on a controlled rest policy. If you have no controlled rest policy, you are compliant with HK regulation, yet there isnt a safety organisation in the world that doesn't recommend a controlled rest policy properly implemented and practiced on back of the clock flying to make the operation safer. Just one example of being 100% compliant but being less safe by being compliant with a reactionary regulator.
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?
N4790P
Lowkoon,
Even (properly accredited) simulator providers have to comply with quite rigid regulations and whether training is in house or outsourced, at the end of the training a TRE is signing that pilot off as competent to operate the aircraft.
He is the only person that determines pass/fail or remedial training, if required. That is the final check and balance.
If he can be ‘bought off’ or influenced by his employer (the training provider) then the system is really broken.
I cannot disagree with any of your other comments.
Even (properly accredited) simulator providers have to comply with quite rigid regulations and whether training is in house or outsourced, at the end of the training a TRE is signing that pilot off as competent to operate the aircraft.
He is the only person that determines pass/fail or remedial training, if required. That is the final check and balance.
If he can be ‘bought off’ or influenced by his employer (the training provider) then the system is really broken.
I cannot disagree with any of your other comments.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Indonesia, the DGAC report to the Ministry of Transport.
By encouraging massive expansion of LCC, they have saved tens of thousands of lives. Lion Air, Air Asia et al have taken people off ferries and overnight busses that have a much much worse safety record.
In an ideal world, yes, the busses and ferries should be better regulated. But at least the Indonesian LCC have to at least try and meet ICAO standards - a bus crash in Sumatra would never get investigated.
By encouraging massive expansion of LCC, they have saved tens of thousands of lives. Lion Air, Air Asia et al have taken people off ferries and overnight busses that have a much much worse safety record.
In an ideal world, yes, the busses and ferries should be better regulated. But at least the Indonesian LCC have to at least try and meet ICAO standards - a bus crash in Sumatra would never get investigated.
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
ZFT, I wish I had your confidence in out sourced training. I would suggest that if a TRE ripped up a few licenses on a single day, he would at best not be used on the next contract. I am in no way questioning their personal ethics, but there is some protection in an inhouse training department that doesnt have to answer to an accountant. Outsourced trainers don't have that luxury. KA were asked to train HKA TRE's. After failing the first few candidates put forward, KA quickly lost the contract and they simply just went somewhere else and the failures stopped. Coincidence?
N4790P
Lowkoon
My TREs do fail trainees and admittedly we have had a few 'interesting' visits from CPs and HR but with very few exceptions, we retain the contracts.
The TREs are and must be independent of commercial pressures and if Customers want 'rubber stamp' checks, then there are (as you indicate) unfortunately still plenty of ducks who will oblige.
Eventually the regulatory authorities will get to grips with this as they must if safety is to remain the priority and one day those ducks will be rightfully shot.
My TREs do fail trainees and admittedly we have had a few 'interesting' visits from CPs and HR but with very few exceptions, we retain the contracts.
The TREs are and must be independent of commercial pressures and if Customers want 'rubber stamp' checks, then there are (as you indicate) unfortunately still plenty of ducks who will oblige.
Eventually the regulatory authorities will get to grips with this as they must if safety is to remain the priority and one day those ducks will be rightfully shot.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: HKG
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"One Air Asia crash body was found wearing a life jacket"
So it seems they knew they would have to ditch ? no engine power ?
is this the same cause that almost put CX in the drink earlier in 2014 ?
Pilots reveal death-defying ordeal as engines failed on approach to Chek Lap Kok | South China Morning Post
Is this a Surabaya repeat ? polluted fuel loaded from Surabaya?
CX “Ladies and gentlemen, this is the captain speaking. As you no doubt may be aware, we have a small problem with our engines …” Minutes earlier, the pilot who spoke those calm but ominous words, Malcolm Waters, then 35 years old, had been struggling alongside First Officer David Hayhoe to prevent the crippled Cathay Pacific aircraft from plunging into the South China Sea. Filled with contaminated fuel before take-off in Surabaya, the Airbus A330-342, with 322 passengers and crew aboard, had been gliding ever closer to the sea with no power in either engine”
So it seems they knew they would have to ditch ? no engine power ?
is this the same cause that almost put CX in the drink earlier in 2014 ?
Pilots reveal death-defying ordeal as engines failed on approach to Chek Lap Kok | South China Morning Post
Is this a Surabaya repeat ? polluted fuel loaded from Surabaya?
CX “Ladies and gentlemen, this is the captain speaking. As you no doubt may be aware, we have a small problem with our engines …” Minutes earlier, the pilot who spoke those calm but ominous words, Malcolm Waters, then 35 years old, had been struggling alongside First Officer David Hayhoe to prevent the crippled Cathay Pacific aircraft from plunging into the South China Sea. Filled with contaminated fuel before take-off in Surabaya, the Airbus A330-342, with 322 passengers and crew aboard, had been gliding ever closer to the sea with no power in either engine”
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lowkoon,
Excellent posts. How many radar courses taught by real experts have WE been to ? Other than online training slides, access to manuals somewhere, newsletters, and on-the-job training how much initial and recurring radar interpretation training do we or maybe this carrier get ? How detailed is it ? Other than windshear scenarios, How many sim scenarios of large lines and multiple areas of weather--along with airspace and ATC considerations (with the inherent limitations and problems of the Honeywell radar realistically presented) are trained to ? Do these include regional nuances to places some rarely go ? Do these include turbulence, icing, possible upsets, operating near maximum altitude etc. as part of it ? How qualified would one consider a newly checked out SO to be to operate our radars in a challenging weather situation by himself in cruise ?
How often are we given extra fuel as part of the CFP (especially with the emphasis on taking CFP fuel) to work around large areas of enroute (not terminal) weather ?
We deal with weather every day while one could likely go one's entire career without seeing an engine fail at V1.
Radar interpretation is still kind of an art--and requires both training and experience. While no one would fly through a storm because of borders or ATC direction, airspace, traffic, and fuel are always considerations when trying to formulate a plan to work around areas of weather and exactly where to go. Assistance in seeing weather which might not be yet seen or properly interpreted ranges from nonexistent in asia to very helpful in the US.
Marco, while nothing can be ruled out and everything is speculation I can't see how a power loss at cruise would preclude some form of emergency communication during what would be a controlled descent. Battery and standby power would be available, and even if the APU wouldn't start for whatever reason a ram air turbine would also deploy to provide some form of backup power for communications as well as battery charging. Also total power loss at altitude would result in a lengthy and controlled descent of over 100 miles and more than 20 minutes or so--with multiple radar hits and comm opportunities along the way.
Excellent posts. How many radar courses taught by real experts have WE been to ? Other than online training slides, access to manuals somewhere, newsletters, and on-the-job training how much initial and recurring radar interpretation training do we or maybe this carrier get ? How detailed is it ? Other than windshear scenarios, How many sim scenarios of large lines and multiple areas of weather--along with airspace and ATC considerations (with the inherent limitations and problems of the Honeywell radar realistically presented) are trained to ? Do these include regional nuances to places some rarely go ? Do these include turbulence, icing, possible upsets, operating near maximum altitude etc. as part of it ? How qualified would one consider a newly checked out SO to be to operate our radars in a challenging weather situation by himself in cruise ?
How often are we given extra fuel as part of the CFP (especially with the emphasis on taking CFP fuel) to work around large areas of enroute (not terminal) weather ?
We deal with weather every day while one could likely go one's entire career without seeing an engine fail at V1.
Radar interpretation is still kind of an art--and requires both training and experience. While no one would fly through a storm because of borders or ATC direction, airspace, traffic, and fuel are always considerations when trying to formulate a plan to work around areas of weather and exactly where to go. Assistance in seeing weather which might not be yet seen or properly interpreted ranges from nonexistent in asia to very helpful in the US.
Marco, while nothing can be ruled out and everything is speculation I can't see how a power loss at cruise would preclude some form of emergency communication during what would be a controlled descent. Battery and standby power would be available, and even if the APU wouldn't start for whatever reason a ram air turbine would also deploy to provide some form of backup power for communications as well as battery charging. Also total power loss at altitude would result in a lengthy and controlled descent of over 100 miles and more than 20 minutes or so--with multiple radar hits and comm opportunities along the way.
Last edited by Shep69; 31st Dec 2014 at 11:54.