Easy answer
 

Well gone away for leave and thought you all would a solved this !

Flex, Couple of points.

As far as cost for training ( well actually cost for command courses as opposed to "training" goes it probably is not as simple as it looks. The FOs that are able to move right to left to do a command have some advantage under the current system. Those that change aircraft to do command have it a little harder. It is those FOs that may alter the appearance of cost per successful candidate. It is common sense that a command candidate will do better on a familiar airplane. So BBS in their wisdom decide to throw the FOs straight into the command course, knowing it is not the ideal situation but that if more than half pass then it is cheaper than checking them on to the airplane for 6 mos (or whatever)as an FO proir to a command course.

After someone fails the command course they then do 1 year or so in the right seat and viola pass the second time with very few exceptions. The down side of all of this is the toll it takes on the unsuccessfull candidates.

So for all we know BBS is quite happy to carry on this way as it is cheaper than giving two courses to every FO who must change aircraft for command. However the statistics show that there is still a high initial failure of candidates who attempt on the same aircraft, but that is a whole other problem and is offset by the above.

On another point, perfection is a long way from 55% ( exactly 45% away as a matter of fact). Most pilots realise that 100% pass rate is not a realistic goal, however a pass rate more in line with similar air carriers would be nice.

Not sure how you come up with a strategy for luck, as that is what makes the difference in most cases.

My 2 cents.

why make it easy when you can...
 

Lots of failing, heard it was an Aussie thing.

Reality check

There are plenty of pilots in Europe and the US that are getting direct entry jet commands that are non type rated and some do not even have any previous jet time.

Changing types is just getting another type rating, I don't get what the big deal is.

Those airlines' safety records are no better or worse than Cathay's. At the end of the day that is what it's all about.

And another thing that is almost for certain, there are a lot less cock-ups swept under the carpet over there than in this part of the world.

I rather doubt it...

"I rather doubt it"

Well you better pull your head out of your arse and have a look around cause the world extends a lot further than Hong Kong and CX.

"And another thing that is almost for certain, there are a lot less cock-ups swept under the carpet over there than in this part of the world."

This is an important point. The total lack of transparency in the airline industry in HKG and Asia in general means that many things can be conveniently overlooked in a way not possible in a western country. How many times would CX/KA "self report" transgressions to CAD as happens in the US, aus etc. CX have had some pretty major "events" that are barely mentioned in the world press and could create a rosier picture than that of other carriers that live under the microscope.

we have had our share of incidents, no denying that.

However would you care to enlighten us as to which ones were "swept under the carpet"?

mmm..................well go on then.

What about last year when a 744 management pilot landed a one short in manilla, taking out part of the approach lights?

Or....
 

...a certain CPwho xxxxxxx in TPE and really xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Bet HIS xxxxxxxxxx didn't get presented at Fleet Forums like some articles have over the last year!

And then there was ......

Carefull you don't open a can of worms ACMS.

Thanks for the invitation but I will refrain from mentioning the low profile screwups as there is little to be gained from throwing mud at CX in public.

I do fing it surprising to discuss this topic with old timer CX pilots who can name many major stuffups that simply dont see the light of day.

iLuvPX: what the?????????
you mean to tell me one of our 400's lands short in Mnl, takes out approach lights, obviously damages the aircraft and CX covered it up?????
I don't think so buster.
If they did cover it up then it would have taken a hell of a lot of bribery in Manila, the engineering dept, the other flight crew and pax.
Couldn't be done.

The 330 Heavy landing in TPE by the CP was not covered up, he made a full report, it was investigated and published.
Although what punishment a normal Captain would have received is another thing..........

AMCS,

It did happen, my mate was the FO...thats why they call it "sweeping it under the rug" cause most people outside the incident dont ever hear of it...duh.

It depends on what you mean by "swept under the carpet"
do you mean - reported but kept quiet
or do you mean - never reported in the first place.


I'm sorry but what utter rubbish.
Let me get this straight: A 400 hits approach lights, damages the aircraft, the lights and then no body says anything.................you must be bloody kidding.
And if your mate was the FO then he should have put in his own ASR or even a confidential report. What about the Manila authorities? don't you think they would launch an inquiry into who damaged their runway approach lights?
Not to mention the ground engineers who turned around the aircraft.
You are grasping at straws my friend.
Not only that the FDAP reports would have come through as well.
I can believe it may have happened, but for it to have been "swept under the carpet" utter BS.
Not one single rumour went round about this supposed incident.

Ok ACMS,
As you are the keeper of all things true and wise kindly tell us all about the CX 744 just out of the hangar the other month that flew to TPE to do some runway improvements with its gear doors?

You know what's really sad? The number of discussions that get hijacked by a pathetic minority of employees with some kind of axe to grind. It's little wonder that the vast majority of CX pilots don't bother with Pprune these days.
:uhoh:

You know whats really, really sad Buzzbox? Copying and pasting the same post across multiple threads due to a lack originality and intelligence.

Ref "Sacked on Purpose" #45

iLuvPX said:

Care to try and add any factual information to this allegation? I don't think "my mate was on the flight" lends very much credibility to this story.

Perhaps a little more detail might also assist your credibility?

The people we work for will do whatever possible to "save face". That is their mentality.

Despite what FR and his cousin might think this is not the place to air one's dirty laundry.

Back to the original post

"we have had our share of incidents, no denying that."

Since the end result is the same, Cx's and KA's anal approach to aviation is nothing but a waist of time, effort and resources.

What about the FO who got put out to dry regarding the 777 tail strike.

The captain was PF and the fo got all the stick for it....go figure.

badairsucker: I seem to remember the tail skid scrape. The FO was the PM but did get the blame from the Training Captain I think? not too good := infact didn't the FO resign after? Not a blue chip day for the 777 crew.
Shot Nancy do tell us more?
If this has any truth then it will be in the Safety mag in a month or two, then we can read the report.
I maintain that we have a pretty good reporting culture here in Cx and these incidents are being reported and acted apon.

No. There were several contributing factors, but nobody 'blamed' anybody else.

"No. There were several contributing factors, but nobody 'blamed' anybody else"

I don't think in any of the above incidents they were coming in with an engine on fire, a couple of IRSs out and a double hydraulic failure.

how could this supreme "best of the best" highest calibre, bla bla bla command upgrade course get it so wrong?

We all cock up that is how it is!

The Manila incident though if true, most embarrassing.

Buzz,

Tail strike, scrape, hit the deck, ground contact = the same bloody thing....it's not ment to happen.....no matter how much spin you care to put on it.

ACMS,

Agreed sir. Not a good day.

Buzzbox,
I don't know where you learned to fly, but anytime an aircraft's tail skid makes contact with the ground, it's a tail strike, no if and or buts about it.
I have been reading this thread with great interest, and it seems to me that the individuals that are defending Cathay's failure rates as maintaining of high standards have a lot to learn about flying. Cathay didn't invent flying, there are many great airlines out there that do similar type of flying, even more so, yet they do not have the failure rate Cathay has. So what gives, the only possible answer is a weak training department. Any training department that cannot keep failure rates below 5% needs to be revamped. However, just like alcohol, one has to admit there is a problem before help can be sought. As it stands, Cathay doesn't seem to think there is a problem, so end of story.

Xtwapilot

Xtwapilot: GREAT STATEMENT! - but changes take long in CX...

Sorry BuzzBox but what a load of bollox.


A question for you...How does most of the worlds airlines manage to cope with employing low time pilots and sticking them in the right hand seat of a jet and letting them lose, then after a few years they are in the left hand seat.

I have countless friends in all types of airlines around the world with different experience levels and none of them I say again NONE of them have ever had a proplem upgrading.


You seem to be one of those poor suckers that think CX is the best airline in the world mate.....


Another question for you....Why does CX make their JFO do a QL?????

What a bloody waste of time.....

Buzzbox,

As I also said in a previous post,

Cathay is THE BEST AIRLINE IN THE WORLD at keeping most of the dickheads in this industry in one place.

Absolutely clueless!

So, Badairsucker, let me see if I understood you correctly. You're suggesting that airlines such as United, BA, Lufthansa, Qantas, etc, put a low time pilot straight into the RHS of a B777, A330 or B744 and then give him a command a few years later. Sorry, but I don't think so.

As I tried to point out, I think a lot (but not all) of the problem stems from pilots doing their command on a regional fleet with little or no experience at that type of flying, and unfortunately the training system has taken a long time to adapt to that problem. Most of the pilots that do have experience as FOs on the regional fleets generally do quite well on command course. Believe me, those on the regional fleets face more threats, problems, etc in a week than the long haul guys do in a year - that in itself is very good training for command.

As far as the QL goes, I understand there were a few problems with some of the low-time JFOs a few years back. I believe the decision was made to check all JFOs (regardless of experience) to line, but with additional limits (x-wind, visibility, etc) while they gained experience flying on the line. After six months they would then be QL'd, and if successful upgraded to FO.

BuzzBox,

Read my post again, I stated that I have friends with all types of airlines not just the majors.

I know of 3 guys who had low hours, got their first jobs straight on a 757 and were in the left hand seat within 3.5 years. These a large charter companies in the UK.

2 friends who are captains on the A320, 4 mates on the 737 as captains, all for easyjet and started with low hours. Same goes at Ryanair.

Tell me, whats the difference between a 320 and a 330, not a lot.

You seem to fall into "mines bigger than yours" way of thinking.

As far as the QL...If your going to let someone who has a type rating on the aircraft and let them lose on the line for 6 months then give them another line check, then the company MIGHT fail them, then what do they do, let them out on the line again for another 6 months. Wow, if they pass they get another 5 KTS cross wind and a little better bit of vis. Nothing more than a checking process which this company needs to get rid of. If it's to do with low hour guys, give them more training till they are up to speed.


Please don't think I am getting on your case, I am just fed up of all the hoops we have to jump through in this company, friends in Virgin and BA think I am nuts being here getting all these hoops put up in front of us.



We seem to be the only airline with it's own hoop factory, I am off to buy some more stocks in the hoop business.

Badairsucker, I did read your post again and you said: Sorry, but Easyjet, Ryanair and UK charter companies aren't "most of the world[']s airlines". Let's compare apples with apples.

As far as "give them more training until they are up to speed", I believe that is the whole point of the JFO system. JFOs are kept in the 'system' where they can be monitored and can consolidate their initial training for 6 months before the QL. Along the way the low time guys (and anyone else who needs it) are given consolidation flights with training captains to help them achieve the required standard by the time they come up for their QL. If they don't achieve that standard then they are given more training before a further QL.

It's unfortunate that all JFOs are sent through the same process, regardless of experience. Perhaps the experienced guys could be upgraded straight away to FO once they pass the Aircraft Line Check, but where do you draw the line in the sand experience-wise: 1,000 hours, 2,000 hours? It wouldn't matter where the line was drawn, someone would feel hard done by. I guess CX has chosen to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator and start from there.

ACMS said:
"If they did cover it up then it would have taken a hell of a lot of bribery in Manila, the engineering dept, the other flight crew and pax.
Couldn't be done."

Think again cupcake! If there's one thing you can do freely in MNL, that is bribery. And it doesn't take much. That's how they make a living. Corruption at its best. Trust me, I lived and worked there for 15+ years. So, any other ideas coming out of your arse?

Buzz,

Let's see.

Are you comparing United, BA, Lufthansa, Qantas with CX, we are small fry compared to BA, United etc. We have just over 100 aircraft and 2000 odd pilots, not massive numbers.

Just worthy of a note that Ryanair carry more passengers that BA per year so why is it you think we can't compare with them. They seem to operate massive amount of sectors per year and don't have many problems.


Are you thinking that CX is the be all and end all. Face it, we are just a humble midsize airline with some pilots who fell we are the biggest and greatest, NEWS FLASH, were not.

you are one t:mad:.
The pictures would be on the net before the engines spun down.
Not to mention the Filipino cabin crew grapevine would have a field day.
You can't be serious.
Keep an incident like that quiet.........................yeah right.:D


prove it happened..................come on then, prove it.

Ryanair don't have many problems??????????????????????? huh
There must be another Ryaair:eek:
Doing a 360 on final to lose speed and height and ending up at 100' AGL on base leg is one that springs to mind.
And there have been a few others.
All documented in Flight International.

That may not be "many problems" but boy that's a doosey:(

ACMS,

And CX then, 747-400 500 FT above the sea at 7 miles, then the 747-400 climbing over Lantau with nobody flying the damn thing, and a 340 scrapping it's tail.


Nobody is perfect, even us CX pilots.

ACMS
 

Mate,
Wasn't that CX??

Badairsucker,

When I said let's compare apples with apples, I was referring to long haul airlines. Last time I checked, EasyJet and Ryanair don't fit that criteria.

I would argue that airlines such as EasyJet and Ryanair have a far easier time upgrading pilots to command simply because they operate so many sectors. Long haul airlines have trouble providing enough sectors for pilots to meet the recency requirements, let alone develop those pilots for command.

PS. I don't believe I have ever said that CX is the 'be all and end all'. If there's an airline out there that fits the bill, I'm sure we'd all like to hear about it.

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Well I could also argue that Virgin don't operate ANY short haul sectors and they don't have problems with their upgrades. (Best mate is there).
Nor do the many charter companies in Europe who also operate long and short haul routes. I could go on to mention the likes of EK, SIA etc.

We are operating airplanes just like every other airline, not the bloody space shuttle, why do we have so many problems???

Well, Badairsucker, you seem to have all the answers. What's your take on the issue, and how can it be solved?