What to do with DEFO who can't fly
 

DEFO onto 747. Couldn't fly two eng out for 528. What do you do?

STC recommended termination due to lack of fly ability. Company moved her to 777 - easier to fly, no need to handle 2 out on one wing.

Good to see standards are being upheld!

Initials please. It will be researched and dealt with.

Standards - Not
 

The Jellyfish and his predecessor implemented "Flexistandards" so they can hire anyone and once here, you never get fired.
Even more sad, both these "leaders" were onboard with the firing of 600 but low cost flight crew who don't have the ability to properly carry out the duties of their position get to stay.
Maybe this is one of the DFO's "diversity" programs ?

#CXit

Maybe that's why she's been so quiet lately.

More than the 528 STC recommended stopping training, others as well. Think that through.. Welcome to the 777, the "flexistandards" charity fleet.

#CXit

Well, she can be certain of never getting a sector from me. Still need to know the initials, but will figure it out through the system regardless. Can't believe what is going on with this airline. And who in the training dept thought it would be a good idea to just transfer her to the 777 fleet? Will make for an interesting legal case if and when there was an incident regarding her. Best thing to do is make it clear that she and her 'skills' are probably best employed elsewhere. What a :mad: show this airline has become. Time to win...but getting a job with a sane and stable carrier. Cxit.

Oh, and this little link regarding Jet2 is interesting. Seems like a nice carrier, which is obviously growing quickly. Point 11 however reminds me that whoever that manager was in charge of that marketing program, obviously has the morals (!) to get a job at CX.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/t...gures-history/

Flexistandards or NO Standards
 

Who in the training dept.? The training leader of course, there is only one these days.

Have had to input on controls 5 times the first 4 months of this year on FO landings (with still a heavy landing resulting). Not rhetoric, but fact. Ten years ago, maybe twice a year max. The facts of what is going on in the operation are what they are, and they don't make for pretty reading. Of course, the management will continue to pretend that nothing has changed. Prepare for the front page of the SCMP sometime in the next decade. Inevitable.

Oh, and how does the company justify and rationalize a FO who is so tiny she can't manipulate the controls fully? Just asking... (and there is more than one fyi).

BTTGS. You are the joke. A wannabe who thinks his opinion has any validity, other than emanating the stench of management input. Run along now, your mommy is calling. (and please, sort out the spelling and grammar, thank you)

I snorted on my evening coffee when I read that....the hilarity was more than I could bare.

As someone who has flown both, essentially no difference, thereby further highlighting the absurdity of CX's "solution" to the problem with said DEFO. Of course, our management have continued to insist that the CX of today (hundreds of low time pilots, limited experience, ballet dancers and LGBT's) is JUST the same as the CX of old, which hired only very experienced FO's, who had proven their abilities, either in the civil aviation world or the western militaries. As you can see, there couldn't possibly be any lowering of standards. :rolleyes:

gulliBell: It sure is! Have you not heard of VMCA2 considerations?

What to Do ??
 

This slide started many years ago with the "non pilot" DFO and has continued since. The Jellyfish will make NO changes - cheap pilots rule !
Now, the only persons with ANY flight crew experience in the "People" dept (flight crew selection) have quit in disgust. The people selecting flight crew now are the same as those who interview and select clerks.
The whole experience / standards expectations thing really died when they put AW in charge and the then GMF selected the Dancing Buffoon to be in charge of the "young" "impressionable" "innocent" cadets in Adelaide.

#CXit

Because daddy stomped his feet.
If you were a trainer Mr. Mole, and that's a big IF , unfortunately you'd have to, even though it went against all your principles, after them even being allowed to be employed over S/O's in the first place.

Come on guys, that's too much coffee snorting for me for one day!

She's not the first one.
A few years ago, a cadet couldn't fly the 747 and was sent to the airbus.

I hope she'll develop flying skills in case she's got to upgrade on another fleet.
I don't know why, but I think the opposite could happen. I must admit my flying skills are not as good as when I was fresh out of school.

It makes one wonder. How do they manage to graduate from flight school? What's

Threethirty: Unless the handling qualities of the -400/-8 are very much improved from the -200/-300 then the final approach flown from below Vmca2 to touchdown was much more challenging than a stabilised 1-eng inop. final approach on a twin. ( however I have only got VC9,B707,B747,A340 experience to compare to B737,A330,A320 ) Incidently the VC9 and B707 2-eng. inop. training used to be done on the real aircraft so simulator fidelity could be discounted. A point that should be borne in mind since these days precious few airline pilots will be given this rather "dubious" pleasure!

You people suck. Leave the lass alone. She is keen and a pleasant person. Whether or not she should be here is a quite a few pay grades above the likes of you and me. I wish her the best in her CV. I would have sent her to an even pussier aircraft, the French one perhaps. Anyone posting that a single engine approach in a 777 equates in any way to 2 engine inop approach in a Jumbo is a joker.

The RAAF used to do double-engine asymmetric in B707. That is, until they dropped one in the sea when doing so and killing everyone on-board. Save that stuff for the sim, however realistic or otherwise it might be.

gullibell, you are like my son - you have opinions on issues of which you have very limited knowledge. That tragedy off Sale was exactly that, a tragedy and it had been waiting to happen for a while. If you are really interested in the facts PM me.

I posed the question originally because I didn't know the answer. But I would have thought all the elements viz the comprehension of the relevant ECL, the adherence to the target numbers, the assimilation of the maneuver, and the physical dexterity required for manipulation of controls, would be similar across both platforms. And the opinion of somebody who has flown both I don't count as a joker.

We have the same issue in the helicopter world. Young, ambitious, light weights usually of female gender who don't have the physical strength to fly an aircraft without hydraulic assistance when they should be able to. We had one in HK, she was scrubbed. There really can be no alternative if the pilot can't competently handle all the required maneuvers.

Post #35 isn't an opinion, it is simply stating a fact. Stated as per iterated on the 6pm news on the day it happened.

With interest, I just read the summary report on the crash that you guys are talking about and have copied and pasted:

Tick tock tick tock...

Serious thread drift. I'm sure there is a dedicated thread elsewhere to discuss that incident.

The only defence for the said individual at the source of this thread might be a lack of training. However, ... I very much doubt that the STC's decision came down to only the two engine out work?

Whenever I read that our training department is exceptional, ... I think self-aggrandising, delusional propaganda.

Betpump5: You have hit the nail on the head! Knowing some of the people involved at the time there was definitely a serious "dilution of expertise" going on when the RAAF aquired the aircraft from Qantas.

Not quite correct, the dilution of experience occurred about 10 years later when QF put up their maximum recruitment age, not when they acquired the aircraft in '79.
In addition, double asymmetric on the aircraft was just fine and crews were trained to deal with that. The issue in that very sad event was that it was combined with a loss of rudder boost (triple failure outside of the aircraft certification). The result of this combination of failures is described in "Handling the Big Jets" written in 1967 with exactly the same result.