I am a currently serving HKA A330 Captain.
Before I joined HKA I spent 33 years working at a European National Carrier, an airline in the "Top Ten Safest Airlines" in the world - at a spot well above CX (which just scrapes in at #10).
My previous company has an international reputation for high standards and safety.
I have 16,500hrs total time, of which 4,500hrs is A330 LHS time. I have far more experience on the A330 than Mr.Allan, who was a newbie on the type.
My total P1 time is over 10,000hrs.
I was an instructor at my previous company.
I have never been involved in an accident. I have never failed a Check.

I believe the above quote by Mr.Allan to be defamatory. By making this absurdly generalised accusation - without identifying those he deems 'good' - he has defamed every pilot at HKA.

In future, if I am asked who I work for by anyone who has read that article, they are now likely to consider me as a 'below average pilot' with 'standards below industry level'. That is a lie, and an insult.

I am away at present, but when I return to Hong Kong I will be seeing a Lawyer, and if I'm correct in my legal interpretation I will certainly sue Mr.Allan for defamation.

Ishmael,
Perhaps you fall under the umbrella of "good pilots"?
Also, I am afraid that after some of the well documented incidents at HKA in the recent past, attempting to take off on taxiways at CLK springs to mind, HKA is not widely recognized as one of the safest airlines to fly with, regardless of your ability or elevated ego.
Go see your lawyer, but I think it would be a brave lawyer indeed that tried to defend the utterly indefensible.
Fly safe!:ok:

Nop
 

British Royal Air Force corsair:= Sir Francis Drake, go back home:=shame on you:=

You worked for Finnair?

Ishmael..you are still a ****..probably belgian or maybe SIN..but either way,,the truth is out. CA had a mass of time on777..we all know at the sharp end, even if we are 330 drivers, it is pretty much the same..type is not the issue..your mob is a travesty,..period!!

Ishmael, you should be careful as your assertion could be considered defamatory inasmuch that you imply that CA's inexperience on type made him unfit to act as a TRE/IRE. I'm sure that's not what you meant but that's how his lawyer would read it.

Good luck with your lawsuit but be prepared for an aggressive defence. I think you're being over-sensitive.

Fly safely.

STP

So what if CA was new to the Airbus? He is a very experienced checker and I suspect his concerns relate to standards in general rather than anything specific to the Airbus.

It seems fairly clear that something is amiss at HKA. To add fuel to the fire, I've lost track of the number of times I've heard HKA aircraft (amongst others) ask for an early left turn off 25L at HKG due wx, whilst well below MSA. Have some of your people not looked out the window on a clear day and seen the big hills??

Ishmael,

There has always been a massive amount of information regarding HKA available. I am sure you did your due diligence prior to accepting a position there. However you still joined.
Now the mudslinging has started, I am sorry to say, it will stick to everyone.

Best of luck.

Jayto.

Do-27
 

Genuine Question - Can you please explain your post - or anyone else??

@Ishamel, obviously with your huge experience you should have been able to pull a far more lucrative career at another airline....but then it makes one wonder why you are at HKA and not elsewhere?

You flop your qualifications out pretty fast, as well run screaming for a lawyer because you feel slighted? I smell crap. "Never failed a check..." But you probably aint been so hot on your sim check for company interviews huh if your slumming in HKA...were having a pulse probably means your hired.

Yeah i have seen very very average pilots with thousands of hours who think they are hot stuff.....when actually they have been just very lucky not to be a horrible statistic....

As someone said good luck wasting your salary and time on a lawyer

Ishamel, you are kidding right?


We both know of these below...

- Aircraft depressurisation, entirely brought on by the incompetence of the crew.

- 2 rejected takeoffs after V1

- Take off config warning at thrust lever advancement, continued the take off while the crew tried to solve the problem and finally decided to abort just before V1


I was there when the following was presented to us in a pilot meeting...maybe you were too busy clocking up your quality 10,000hrs to miss this particular meeting?

- Vref +56kts @ 1000ft and still landed

- Vref +29kts @ 1000ft and still landed

- Aircraft touching down 1500 and 1800 mtrs down the runway.


And then these little gems...all going on all the while...

- Training Captain with flaps still extending at touchdown

- Crews using speedbrakes @ 400ft AGL

- Crew sacked for having a false passport

- Crews that said the Air Phil Express runway overrun (that can be seen on you tube) was ok, because no one got hurt


...and the list goes on and on and on and on and on...

The list you have comes from the Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Centre (J.A.C.D.E.C. - Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Centre) published earlier this year. Finnair received their first A330 in 2009.

I suspect the other "top 10" list came from very highly respected source at "askmen.com"

Give you a hint, they probably used the callsign Shamrock since the late 1970s, Rubens with Vlaamse Luchttransportmaatschappi in the mid 1990s, before going green again.

You're not correct and you won't sue. You would do much better to try and improve standards at your airline.

No smoke without fire! What ARE the CAD doing??? Surely a Check Captain (representing the CAD) can't be removed by Fleet Management because he won't follow orders regarding a Manager's Simulator test!! Whatever next!!!

Sounds like he brought his pathetic 18th century CX attitude to his new company and guess what? The rest of the world don't destroy careers for no reason. What a fool to think he can just go around failing anyone he likes with no repercussions as CX do. I'd have fired him immediately. He's the one who needs re training. Good riddance and take your CX crap with you.

@ OEB
 

I agree - Rah Rah! ( or not - don't know who you're on about?) One point though ???

Are you saying CX is crap, everyone at CX is crap, CX crap on everyone else, I'm crap I couldn't get in CX, you can't throw crap around without expecting response. :ok:

OEB while I agree CX and KA for that matter have a horrible reputation with Checking and Training crap, CA was an awesome guy to fly with, knowledgeable, practical and if you had the right attitude you would learn a hell of a lot from him.

I for one am sad he is gone, his experience and standards were always to a higher level than most of the junk we have at HKA now.

The only people who complained about CA and others who actually had standards are the pilots whose first whinge was to scream 'you're racist'.

HKA is a disaster, nothing else...and to sit and think that having trainers like one of mine on the 330 (who did not ask 1 'one' single question for an entire day of flying is embarrassing!


And don't worry, I'm not hanging around...I'm on my way out, but I will be doing it when I'm overseas on days off, after my pay goes in. There is no way these pricks will be getting any BS bond from me...it is a hoax and I hope many more pilots see the light and do a runner on these mongrels. Get your pay cheque and then don't turn up, send them a message.

OEB..take care with your vitriol. CX standards may be a little arcane but CA left CX since he was unable to change a system that was and is inherently fossilised. He brought to HKA a higher bench mark of both checking and training, the former with fairness but also with established standards. Like it or not, this is an industry reliant on the good and solid audit of standards...without that, you end up with airlines like HKA and attitudes like yours.

The HKCAD bears responsibility to the Hong Kong Public and HKA passengers for issuing HKA's AOC. Or not.
A large part of the present issue is between CA and HKCAD:
A Hong Kong TRE is authorised by the HK CAD. He/she is required to check to the standard as set by the HKCAD.
That standard may be "embedded" within a further Qualification Program [eg CathayQP], but the underlying requirement is that manoeuvers must be performed to the CAD requirements. Not airline requirements.
CA was a HKCAD Authorised Examiner, testing candidates to HKCAD parameters.

You are SO RIGHT Dumbo! You'd never catch a CX pilot turning up for the Sim in a T Shirt, or behaving at all inappropriately. Perish the thought.
Same goes for the CCMs.

CX = Pure Class.

CX Crew show us all how it's done.

:E
:p
:8