DEFO back at CX

[mrfox]

I'd take good judgement over "experience".

[flyhardmo]

Good judgement come from experience mrfox

[mrfox]

Originally Posted by flyhardmo

Good judgement come from experience mrfox

Are my pictures of Jacob Veldhuyzen van Zanten and "the wilkinsons' sword" not showing up on the above post???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...umbo-VIPs.html

How about the following?

You Tube

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Fa...ase_B-52_crash
http://sbfpd.org/uploads/3/0/9/6/309...es_of_blue.pdf

Good judgement comes from learning the right lessons.
Experience sometimes teaches the wrong lessons.

[mrfox]

Originally Posted by Trafalgar

Ok, seems like a normal day in the new 'spiky hair brigade' era.

The co-pilot had 2,800 hours of experience on Airbus A320 series aircraft
https://assets.publishing.service.go...EZTE_08-16.pdf

[Oval3Holer]

Oval, if you're going to leave this career for the stated reasons, presumably you're going to stop flying as a passenger too? To do otherwise would be illogical.

STP

Yes, STP, I am also going to stop flying as a passenger. Really.

[Trafalgar]

STP. Your attempts to establish a relative competency are breathtaking. I eagerly await your next missive. Why don't you just simply admit that the bean counters have set in motion a process that will lead one day to hundreds of deaths? At least, that is what i've concluded.

[raven11]

To argue that there is an inverse relationship between experience and competence is nuts....

As I said earlier, do members of any other profession make such a ludicrous claim? Do people seek the least experienced professional when looking for a Doctor, lawyer, or any other skill set?

OMG...in sanctioning and supporting the MPL, and other low cost schemes, certain members of the Pilot community will one day be the basis of a case study in professional stupidity.

Oval, you're right. I too think long and hard before setting a foot on certain airlines.

[flyhardmo]

Good judgement comes from learning the right lessons.
Experience sometimes teaches the wrong lessons.

Really, so no good judgment was ever learnt from the wrong lessons or bad experiences. You are over simplifying things to make a point. Your pictures showed up fine but those were more of a attitude problem with certain individuals which contributed to poor judgement.

[Sam Ting Wong]

The likelihood of dying in a plane crash (or even being in one) is so slim it's almost pointless to quantify. According to The Economist, the probability of your plane going down is around one in 5.4 million. Other reports place the odds closer to one in 11 million.

Numbers don't lie,folks.

Now, this is the general probability of a crash. Including airlines in India, China, Africa, South America. If you want to calculate the probability of a crash of a Cathay aircraft caused by the lack of experience of the pilot you will need an extra solar system for the zeros behind the 0.

We are all trained to be a bit paranoid, but if you want to win this argument waiting for an accident, you will need a lot of patience.

Statistically about 25000 years to be excact:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/New-app-predicts-likelihood-of-plane-crash

You guys just have to face the truth: safety is not a selling argument
anymore, period.

Ask yourself: will Emirates have one passenger less in the future?

Of course nobody will admit this, safety will always be our highest priority bla bla bla, but in the end they will take the risk.

Another example:

We know that we all would be better if we would go in the sim more often ( I know I would be)

But it would cost more money.

We need to accept that in the end this is a business.

You will not win this war with these arguments, no way.

[Mill Worker]

Sam, I totally agree with your thoughts on this. This is the sad reality of our world.

The only thing that I would add is that a crash with fatalities often creates enough law suits to put an weaker airline out of business (unless they are State backed). This takes years to play out but a crash is often followed by business failure. CX is probably strong enough to suck up up one or two.

[OK4Wire]

And yet pilot error is STILL the major cause of accidents.

One accident every 4 days. No links to these stats because its all easily available, too many to chose from.

[Steve the Pirate]

Trafalgar, I've posted reference to an academic study by the safety bureau of a first world country and 3 accidents where the crew were "experienced" by your standard. If you can post reference to statistics or scientific study that will counter my position, rather than relying on dismissive, ad hominem one liners, then I'll consider on your input. Until then, it seems that all you are doing is looking at this discussion from your own narrow point of view based on personal experience (and by that I don't mean the number the hours you have).

That's understandable but not reasonable, in my opinion. If everything that people did or thought was based on their own background and life experience then there would be no innovation or acceptance of new technologies. Yet here we are, flying around aircraft that require 2 pilots rather than a crew of 5, have 2 engines rather than 4, flying approaches based on a system in orbit rather being at the end of the runway and debating a point (well, not really in your case), written anonymously on a machine that has massively more computing power than the systems that put man on the moon.

The following quote has been around for years and attributed to a number of people, including Frank Borman:

A superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid situations which require the use of his superior skill.

There's no doubt that experience will influence judgement but it's not the only factor: innate intelligence, innate ability, personality type, self-confidence, perception of own skill level, mood, attitude, fatigue level, crew combination and so forth. The wrong combination in a particular set of circumstances will inevitably affect the outcome and not always in a good way.

@mrfox

The co-pilot had 2,800 hours of experience on Airbus A320 series aircraft

Please stop quoting facts.

@raven11

I’m not sure anyone’s arguing that there’s an inverse relationship between experience and competence, certainly I’m not. I am arguing however, that there is no direct relationship between experience and competence - 2 different arguments I think you’ll agree? You often quote lawyers and doctors in your posts but a fundamental difference is that, as the client/patient, you will have a choice as to who you consult, whereas when you board an aircraft as a passenger you have no idea as to the crew composition, experience or ability. I’m sure you would have been happy boarding Air Canada 624 to Halifax for example?

@Oval

Yes, STP, I am also going to stop flying as a passenger. Really.

If that’s how you honestly feel I sincerely think you should consider stopping now.

STP

[Gnadenburg]

I have flown with the MPL/Cadet pilots who are labelled second officers though sit in the RHS as first officers.

Somebody earlier had similar experience with the HKG product though I feel their operation was a A to B, way-point to way-point, green line type affair. I don't think assessing them flying the same hour, over and over again, with a VNAV descent and coupled approach with FD guidance is much of a measure for comparison against a more experienced product.

I take a bit of interest in the cadets and I find it obscure that young HKG kids with IQ's above 120 and tertiary education, though with the challenge of ESL, seem to be bombarded with a rigid bookworm like approach to their training from some quarters.

I was shocked to discover MPL and Cadets after a few years on the line had never flown a visual approach nor a raw data approach. They'd done some hand-flying with FD's on. No cadet was ever briefed on how to fly a visual approach or a raw data technique- it was in the book which frankly, is bare bones in the case of the latter and a impractical template for the real world in the case of the former.

So the studies quoted are only as good as the commercial short cuts taken to process the cadets onto the line. The MPL program requires specialist instructor training yet we see our guys come onto line with obscure interpretations of the books yet no hand flying experience. The arguments for this type of training is that it delivers a product that addresses pilot deficiencies of the day- well, PLOC is the big one today and our guys have never flown the jet manually or visually !

A low cost carrier, self-funded endorsement can be about as good as an MPL too. Not in all cases. Some.

[mrfox]

Originally Posted by flyhardmo

those were more of a attitude problem with certain individuals which contributed to poor judgement.

Thank you. That is exactly the point I was trying to make.

Originally Posted by flyhardmo

Good judgement come from experience mrfox

Their "experience" did not translate to good judgement when called upon on the day.

Originally Posted by Steve the Pirate

There's no doubt that experience will influence judgement but it's not the only factor:

And occasionally judgement may even be adversely affected, if the particular experience being drawn on encouraged risky behaviour.

Originally Posted by Steve the Pirate

Please stop quoting facts.

You Tube

[drfaust]

If experience really does not matter, why don't we crew all passenger flights with brand new MPL cadets? Surely they're very intelligent and their innate self confidence and ability will guide them through all the trials and tribulations of commanding an aircraft safely and efficiently. And it will be much cheaper too!

Yet somehow I have the feeling that would end in total catastrophe. I've got nothing against cadet training but please let's get a grip. Claiming that experience is so relative etc. is all well and good but I don't think that anyone can debate that the vast majority of experienced operators are significantly more operationally adjusted than the vast majority of fresh cadets. It's normal. You'll have a few outliers either side, but come on.

I don't even know why this is a debate at all as it's so glaringly obvious.

[Steve the Pirate]

Originally Posted by drfaust

If experience really does not matter, why don't we crew all passenger flights with brand new MPL cadets?

But that's not the argument. No-one's advocating that all passenger flights should be crewed by only brand new MPL cadets.

STP

[Freehills]

Given the screw up rate of doctors, not sure I would use them as a good example of experience over knowledge. Oddly enough, malpractice insurance in the USA is cheaper for new doctors than experienced doctors - whether that is because new doctors have fewer patients or because they are more careful or because their medical knowledge is more up to date I don't know.

[drfaust]

Originally Posted by Steve the Pirate

But that's not the argument. No-one's advocating that all passenger flights should be crewed by only brand new MPL cadets.

STP

Why not? What is the added value of crewing it with the experienced Capt. McCrusty? If I'm to believe some people on here, there's no difference between Senior FO's and brand new cadets. Yet SFO's tend to get upgraded and fly with these cadets immediately after. This would lead me to conclude that Captains are not much different from SFO's who are in turn the same as SO's. If only someone would be able to demonstrate this the debate would be finished.

Until that time I'll hold off on my conclusions. Being a cadet is on the job learning and it should be treated as such. There is nothing against it if you have a sufficiently experienced population to absorb it. As a pilot you might never stop learning, but the curve definitely gets asymptotic the more experience is gained.

[JPJP]

Originally Posted by drfaust

I don't even know why this is a debate at all as it's so glaringly obvious.

I'll tell you why they defend the MPL schemes - they were cadets. They have to justify their own employment as airline pilots.

The point that Sam Ting Wong et al. miss when pointing out the 'experience' of the incident pilots (attempting to stall a perfectly good A320 on a visual approach) - Both the Captain and F.O. were the product of the MPL scam. Their training and background were lacking, followed by years of tooling around on an autopilot. When called upon to conduct a Visual approach, the F.O. nearly stalled, followed my the Captain nearly driving the jet into a midair.

Again - two products of the MPL Scheme on the flight deck. Whose entire careers are summed up in a Sim and an Airbus.

[Steve the Pirate]

drfaust, good post but the obvious response to your question regarding Capt. McCrusty would be, why have any pilot training at all? I agree that being a cadet is on the job training and I’ve never said otherwise. I also agree that learning, in any field, should be continual and probably becomes asymptotic as experience increases. However, my issue is with those who state that low hours pilots has led or will lead to an increase in aircraft accidents and incidents without backing up their positions with any tangible supporting evidence.

To use raven11’s premise, brand new law school graduates don’t become judges; brand new medical school graduates don’t become consultants. Similarly, brand new flying school graduates don’t become legacy airline captains. All professional people go through apprenticeships of varying length before they are considered 'experienced' enough to take on the responsibilities associated with senior rank. So, I agree, experience is a good thing but it’s not the only thing that people's competence should be judged by.

Being very regulated, the airline industry perhaps has a better ability to monitor the progress of pilots than do the legal or medical professions junior lawyers and doctors but this of course hinges on the objectivity and honesty of the checking system that we undergo on a regular basis. If it transpires that low experience pilots (or any pilots for that matter) are not achieving the required standard then those who conduct checks have a responsibility to record failures as appropriate. In so many ways, this is the crux of this whole discussion. Either the pilots are good enough or not.

JPJP. At last, someone from the opposing side who sees the fallacy of using hours as the sole metric for experience, and by association competence. I'm not an ex-cadet by the way.

STP