Hand flying. Low hour co-pilots. Automation dependency.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meanwhile, if you were in charge of recruitment and had to choose between 2 candidates with all else being equal except one is ex-military and one is not, it's not rocket science which you would choose to fly your plane. If the answer is not clear to you, then you're the problem.
We all chose a certain path and that path brings its own unique experiences. Between an applicant that has a few years of experience flying in the tropics in a modern widebody and a guy fresh from the military bombing Syria, I certainly know which one I would hire if I was in charge of recruitment. The point here is military flying brings nothing to modern airline flying. If you think you do then you're the one with the problem. I've seen just as many f@ck ups in the sim and on the line by ex military types than non. Look no further than the recent AirAsia crash to emphasize this point.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The point here is military flying brings nothing to modern airline flying."
I see why it might be tempting to think that because the flying is so different. However, you could not be more wrong. It's not only stick and rudder skills; it's about decision making under pressure and experience with multiple variables in time critical situations. Truth is... The modern fighter jock has been faced with far more of these than non-military types and infinitely more than any cadet. Cadets are great right up until they see something they have never seen. That's where the military experience really pays off.
I'm not saying military pilots make better or worse airline pilots than non-military. It is highly variable based on the individuals. However, to argue that military experience is not relevant is obtuse in the extreme.
I see why it might be tempting to think that because the flying is so different. However, you could not be more wrong. It's not only stick and rudder skills; it's about decision making under pressure and experience with multiple variables in time critical situations. Truth is... The modern fighter jock has been faced with far more of these than non-military types and infinitely more than any cadet. Cadets are great right up until they see something they have never seen. That's where the military experience really pays off.
I'm not saying military pilots make better or worse airline pilots than non-military. It is highly variable based on the individuals. However, to argue that military experience is not relevant is obtuse in the extreme.
Firstly, I must acknowledge that the vast majority of the ex Military fast jet pilots I have flown with can certainly fly a big jet with no FD, AP or A/THR. However, they tend to be over confident and have huge egos which can also be a challenge at times. I am not sure of the standard of the FTA cadets supplied to CX, but the BAE cadets were generally well motivated and generally of a good overall standard.
Last edited by propaganda; 28th Mar 2016 at 08:53.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's been accelerated by line captains refusing to take the responsibility of giving the cadets the training the system hasn't delivered.
But let's take it to the extreme limit - let's not give the cadets any training at all beyond the absolute minimum regulatory requirements to be issued a licence, and let the line captains train them. Then we don't need all those extra trainers we can't get, and produces a 15% saving from the salary budget.
Job done.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not in a Bus
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe your "Propoganda"
...they tend to be over confident and have huge egoes
2) Very Ex Mil but don't believe I have a large Ego - (although if I may be so bold I can spell it).
3) Far be it from me to get specific in public but PM me if you'd like a list of incredibly egotistical f***wits from GA / Airline backgrounds.
4) In summary my friend - Horse S**t
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow Maverick, I wasn't sure whether to gag or laugh at your Hollywood scripted post. The only thing missing was a cinematic soundtrack.
To even suggest that an ex military pilot would simply be better at dealing with emergencies shows your complete arrogance.
If you would like to compare, "all things being equal", as to the difference between an ex military and a civvy, have a look at the ex military pilots competing in the Red Bull Air Races and see how they stack up against those that have come from a complete civilian background. Surprised? Try telling Chambliss, or Bonhomme that they just not as valuable in the cockpit of the airline they fly for as compared to a Top Gun Maverick like yourself just because they come from a complete GA background.
Yes partly agreed.
To even suggest that an ex military pilot would simply be better at dealing with emergencies shows your complete arrogance.
If you would like to compare, "all things being equal", as to the difference between an ex military and a civvy, have a look at the ex military pilots competing in the Red Bull Air Races and see how they stack up against those that have come from a complete civilian background. Surprised? Try telling Chambliss, or Bonhomme that they just not as valuable in the cockpit of the airline they fly for as compared to a Top Gun Maverick like yourself just because they come from a complete GA background.
I'm not saying military pilots make better or worse airline pilots than non-military. It is highly variable based on the individuals. However, to argue that military experience is not relevant is obtuse in the extreme.
It all sounds very idealistic Gnadenburg, and without doubt very well intentioned.
But let's take it to the extreme limit - let's not give the cadets any training at all beyond the absolute minimum regulatory requirements to be issued a licence, and let the line captains train them. Then we don't need all those extra trainers we can't get, and produces a 15% saving from the salary budget.
Job done.
But let's take it to the extreme limit - let's not give the cadets any training at all beyond the absolute minimum regulatory requirements to be issued a licence, and let the line captains train them. Then we don't need all those extra trainers we can't get, and produces a 15% saving from the salary budget.
Job done.
Broadband Circuit.
I'm not following you. Possibly due to the fact our Cadets and MPL are in the RHS whereas yours are in the jump seat.
The scenario you are putting forward is quite close to the reality down at the Boathouse. Our guys have been processed onto the line without ever having hand-flown a jet and it has been suggested line captains take up the slack.
Conceptually, the MPL process is supposed to present a competent candidate with this skill set upon check to line. It has not and in my experience working with the cadets they have been badly let down and under trained. The training needs to be significantly extended instead of the present hope that the line, through some sort of osmosis process, will train a cadet eventually. Problem being at present, with a culture of fear, captains and training captains in some instances , fear exposing their operation to near ab initio jet training!
Extending the training would probably suggest the system is a budgetary failure and that delivering this skills set that the MPL promised requires more expensive training and high competency trainers ( of which KA has many but not enough ).
If I see a very well flown raw data, manual thrust approach in the Airbus, first thing I ask is: "Ex 737"?
The answer is usually: "Yes".
If not then ex-mil.
The answer is usually: "Yes".
If not then ex-mil.
This is another example of a latent race to the bottom. We willingly let our skill set deteriorate to make us easily replaced. No visual flying competency, no raw data competency, no circling over at Kitty City......
I'd be paid a lot more if I was required to demonstrate the airline flying skills expected 20 years ago on Airbus.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see our annual military versus the rest of the world thread is back. Always a gem.
Just give me a bloke that can do the job and I couldn't give a rats where he came from.
In saying that I would prefer someone with some sort of track record of flying around solo for a few thousand hours without bending one then at least you know they have got something in the bag of talent when they reach into it when it all turns bad.
Now as far as cadets are concerned, they can of course work out fine but the screening and the training has to be rigorous and of course the willingness to cut a few if they can't perform has to be there and I think at CX we have let ourselves down in all those areas.
Just give me a bloke that can do the job and I couldn't give a rats where he came from.
In saying that I would prefer someone with some sort of track record of flying around solo for a few thousand hours without bending one then at least you know they have got something in the bag of talent when they reach into it when it all turns bad.
Now as far as cadets are concerned, they can of course work out fine but the screening and the training has to be rigorous and of course the willingness to cut a few if they can't perform has to be there and I think at CX we have let ourselves down in all those areas.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Not for Sale
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheap and aviation are two words which cannot live together.
To even compare military recruitment and training to CX's "iCadetship" is really insulting to anyone without spiky gelled hair & inherent SJS. I'm not sure where the ignorant blind memorising of aircraft types, engines, names of the board of directors, or questions like "What does your mummy and daddy think about you becoming a pilot?" really enter into the needs of the next Raptor pilot intake. What if the RAF, USAF, RAAF, etc lowered the pay by a career long 70% you ask kids??? Well maybe that's how far they too might have to dig to find people also if that were the case.
Yes, CX has taken cadets from the early 80's but in far, far less numbers. And as the illustrious RH stated back in an offical CX newsletter (to paraphrase his quote) "The Cathay Cadetship is designed to promote and support aviation to the local HK population whereas the opportunity might be lost to them otherwise". But this quickly changed as a profit grabbing exercise. Nothing more. Previous to the iCadet money grab the vast majority of pilots came with many thousands of hours experience from all aviation sectors and many with a few thousand hours of command experience. The trainers could afford the extra training time to the cadets as the experienced new joiners needed far less. And look at the state of the CX training department today... Many quit as trainers due to the iCadet scheme and the added pressure placed on them. Now the only trainers CX seem to attract are picket line jumpers and kiss ar$es. So potentially the cheapest seat available gets trained by type of "trainer" who sells out the AOA and pilot body due the more experienced and genuine trainers refusing to do it. Another slice of cheese lined up.
Even then the new "experienced" SO's received something like 12 full flight sims as part of their training requirements. Now with zero hours as the bench mark it's something like 6 FFS? And yet people dare to say profit and cost cutting isn't part of aviation safety & training?
When safety is a mere advertising slogan and cockpits become more and more filled with pilot impersonators more skilled and recruited for their AP monitoring capabilities than actual "flying skills" then you're right to think that standards are a joke.
The sad part is that these iCadets genuinely believe the propaganda their recruiters fed them. They genuinely believe that their training and abilities are on par with those with many thousands of hours of experience; be that from military, GA or regional operations. When they are told they're "to standard" they therefore believe they are. They've no yardstick to compare & a head in the sand attitude to even consider it.
Great article below. Warning: some of you might not like it as it disagrees with your "I'm a highly skilled pilot dude" self belief. Lax labour laws, profit chasing.... but not in HK or at CX!! Heaven forbid! The Swiss cheese slices are all there and most of you arguing here are the EXACT willing contributors to this race to the bottom.
Andreas Lubitz and the Global Pilot Scam Threatening Your Safety - The Daily Beast
Cockpit automation has meant that the new generation of pilots has never had the “seat of the pants” instincts wired into them that older generations brought to the job. Nonetheless recent experiences (notably the crash of AirAsia Flight 8501 in December 2014) have shown that, more than ever, pilots need to keep sharp reflexes and well-trained responses for those moments when a human needs to intervene if the technology fails.
Last edited by ChinaBeached; 28th Mar 2016 at 12:30.
low time right seat
I have no problem at all with the cadet training setup..most legacy carriers utilize it. Where I have an issue is what occurs in the interim. The pairing of new 'low time' line crews,who in my opinion are now grossly undertrained,leading to situations where two or more are in charge or with a weary single high time Captain on 3 man ops is asking for trouble. Luck will eventually run out. I'm not trying to offend anyone here but situations such as crashes in the atlantic,caribbean,and egypt for example,with limited panel loss of control are undeniable examples of automation not 'saving the day'.
It simply will not work combining low time..poor training..no oversight..budget cutting..and totally irresponsible rostering are just stacking the odds against us.
This company has been incredibly lucky and continue to turn a deaf ear..The front line pilots and trainers try to maintain standards and self-police fatigue but time is running out.
"I told you so" will soon be ringing in their ears..
Yes I know...they still won't listen..or they'll blame the crew..business as usual.
It simply will not work combining low time..poor training..no oversight..budget cutting..and totally irresponsible rostering are just stacking the odds against us.
This company has been incredibly lucky and continue to turn a deaf ear..The front line pilots and trainers try to maintain standards and self-police fatigue but time is running out.
"I told you so" will soon be ringing in their ears..
Yes I know...they still won't listen..or they'll blame the crew..business as usual.
