|
......which is kind of part of the discussion here really.
How long ago was the mod completed? What was the reason for packs off? Whats wrong with APU bleed on? |
What part of my point confuses you?
|
Airbus OEB
|
The OEB regarding APU use has been in force for about one tenth of the time of the CX policy regarding the use of packs off for takeoff.
Again, why has CX employed a packs off takeoff all this time. Anybody? |
CX is no thinking pilot's airline.
It's an airline driven by a training system led by out-of-date ex RAF/RAAF types who have (mostly) never worked for any other airline except CX. It's not their fault - it's just that all they know is CX. It's a C&T system completely focused on the inane at the expense of the BIG picture. One stuck in the 50's whilst pretending to be at the forefront of modern airline operations. Sure, over the last few decades CX may have been at the front, but there are now plenty of airlines doing it easier, faster and safer without any need for pedantics. I'd be willing to put money on the fact that people who have recently joined CX from other airlines would rank CX's C&T system, particularly the culture, near the bottom of their experience pile. It'd be interesting to see an AoA poll on the topic. With that, you've hit the nail on the head. There is a long laundry list of SOPs which other world airlines implemented long ago because either they themselves learned a harsh lesson the hard way, or they were smart enough to learn from other airlines' mistakes. Why the f'kkk would you not want to learn from someone else's mistakes & solutions to do things better and instead rather wait until it bites you in the @$$ so you get the pleasure of learning the same lesson the hard way??? And even then why would you not want to see how others fixed that same problem so you don't have to invent a wheel from scratch when you can maybe use someone else's solution which may be better than yours??? Liaising with other airlines which have the same aircraft and operation is a well established practice in the US airline industry specifically so they can learn from others' mistakes, not just among the airlines but among their respective FAA certificate holding offices as well. Does Cathay liaise with United, Delta, American, BA, Quantas, Lufthansa, etc...??? I don't think so! I guess if you don't run with the pack because you're too arrogant to do so, you can't realize how slow and far behind you really are! |
come on Oic!!!
Your argument is reasonable and logical!! No room for that sort of stuff here. Bak under yr rock pls..... b. Didn't Waldo say earlier that his/her colleagues would be lost without an ADF and manual tuning?!?!?!?! I feel de same way :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: b. |
As someone who worked for one of the major international airlines mentioned in this thread (for 15 years) I have to dispute the training comments. There has been one a******e trainer in every fleet in every airline and most of the others are of good standard.
Sounds like ill informed sour grapes to me.:ok: |
I wasn't talking about individual trainers. As we all know there's the occasional 'odd bod' in every airline's C&T department.
What I was talking about was CX's regression from being at the forefront of C&T to now really lagging behind - principally (I believe) because they don't collaborate. CX's SOP's are chalk & cheese from most other airlines (even the manufactures). And I'm starting to wonder why? Why are the CX SOP's and mouth music so different to elsewhere? :confused: |
Over to you jizzmonkey.
A few here kinda hopin you aint a pilut mate. The pond is deep, the wall is high, aint it bud. |
Jizzmonkey. Any further thoughts on the subject or are you hiding after your dumb comments?
|
The order to "make my bunk" pretty much encapsulates the entire problem.
|
What a load of crap-Cathay did packs off take offs on the 707!
|
Albeit for completely different reasons :rolleyes:
|
The prime reason was the tailored runway performance chart.
|
CX is no thinking pilot's airline. It's an airline driven by a training system led by out-of-date ex RAF/RAAF types who have (mostly) never worked for any other airline except CX. It's not their fault - it's just that all they know is CX. It's a C&T system completely focused on the inane at the expense of the BIG picture. One stuck in the 50's whilst pretending to be at the forefront of modern airline operations. Sure, over the last few decades CX may have been at the front, but there are now plenty of airlines doing it easier, faster and safer without any need for pedantics. I'd be willing to put money on the fact that people who have recently joined CX from other airlines would rank CX's C&T system, particularly the culture, near the bottom of their experience pile. It'd be interesting to see an AoA poll on the topic Cathay was very lucky recently. There's been 3 serious incidents which could have happened to any of us, which hilighted the seriousness of the situation. These incidents shared one thing in common - big picture stuff was overlooked / sacrificed for pedantic useless ****t. What did Cathay choose to do to fix the situation? Well, first of all, punitive action. :yuk: Second of all, make the situation worse by introducing more pedantic useless ****t which just compounds the situation. Someone hits a tug and people taxi before the ground disconnects? Fine, lets make another procedure for it. Surely they did these mistakes due to the lack of procedures, right? :yuk: You can't solve everything by making a procedure for it. Sometimes, the way to improve safety is to actually free up your pilots a bit so that they are unloaded enough to use their brains. That is the best tool against stupid mistakes, not new checklists or 15 step processes. :ugh: |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:50. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.