Interesting article
 

geeeee.....ya think???

i wonder how many billions of dollars were spent doing this stupid study.

From the article:

"But it is the less experienced first officers starting out at smaller carriers who most need manual flying experience. And, airline training programs are focused on training pilots to fly with the automation, rather than without it. Senior pilots, even if their manual flying skills are rusty, can at least draw on experience flying older generations of less automated planes."

What's that say about our Company's plan to hire 100% of our future pilots from the cadet pilot scheme, or to push for reducing the cadet pilot training hours even further by introducing a multi-crew cruise pilot rating....?


I would venture to say....not a lot.


Whether previous flying experience is from the military or from commercial aviation, experience is essential....especially in today's automated cockpit. The Cadet Pilot Scheme is a good way to introduce new pilots into the airline, but only in proper proportion to experienced pilots.

But cadet pilots are cheaper than the occasional AF447.

Hull losses are budgeted for unfortunately.

The whole Cathay ethos to flying, seems to be to overly complicate the mission with cumbersome SOPs, which provide some sort of management recourse if something ever goes wrong. That is, the SOPS are not there as professional guidance, but they are there to bury you and protect the system at all costs if need be.

As an example, and this is one of many, in event of a runway change a simple Airbus mnemonic of FRPP would guide a "thinking pilot" through the procedural dynamics of the event. Yet, over at CX, there is near two pages in the FCTM of how this simple task should be done. It's overcomplicated.

Since CX SOPs have been pushed on KA, I feel flying standards deteriorated and the task of flying into China has been complicated due unworkable SOPs- and correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been told PEK was deemed unsuitable as a training or checking sector because of this by the CX TRG Dept?


KA has pushed away ever so slightly by binning a number of CX SOPs and reintroducing raw data flying. Albeit, with questionably restrictive parameters.

What Rubbish
 

You obviously don't know the history of the Airbus FCTM. CX wanted to write a FCTM before the Airbus document was conceived. Two CX STCs went to Toulouse and worked with Airbus to write the very first FCTM. It was only after they had finished the job, Airbus decided to issue their own based on the CX product. This is the fact.

You should ask the two very respected STCs how hard it is to write an operational document from scratch.

Overcomplicated...? Perhaps in hindsight you might agree that the Airfrance/KLM FCTM was somewhat "undercomplicated"?

A340-A330 FCTM for reference (by professional pilots only):

http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdf...ing_Manual.pdf

Datsun120Y

It is easy to state

Please give us an example so that we can change the manual or is it all hot air? A copy of your emails to Airbus and Honeywell and their replies would suffice!

Flexible Response I thought you had me downloading something useful not the whole CX FCTM!!!

I would have thought, proficiency in unreliable airspeed scenarios would involve both the technical knowledge that various manuals deliver and high levels of raw data confidence and competency.

This is another relevant point. When CX pushed its SOPs onto KA, we went from a culture of where hand flying and raw data competency was expected, to a culture of where it was restrictive, seemingly discouraged and in the case of raw data flying it was banned!

Pilots recognized the deterioration of their hand flying skills under the new ethos as did the TRG Dept. Management have partially rectified the problem.

Personally, I firmly believe that KA operations into China, with Second Officers in the RHS, requires core competencies that would not seem apparent in a long haul dominated operation such as CX.

KA was based around a loose philosophy that we can't show you everything on command training, but we expect you to demonstrate hand flying competency, in a multi-failure scenario ( more challenging 320 versus 330 ) with a very inexperienced co-pilot ( getting worse with MPL ). What evolved were core competencies in this worst case scenario such as good hand flying skills and very robust and disciplined ECAM procedure.

I'm no luddite, however, I see considerable merit in the above and the challenges the KA operation presents. Yesterday's meeting indicated some commercial autonomy between KA & CX. I hope our pilot managers recognize this and we continue to move back toward Airbus SOPs and a more relevant cockpit culture.

Datsun120Y

The fact that you do not want to give the information just gives strength to the argument that you were talking BS in the first place. Very easy to "complain", but when asked what your complaint is you are unable / unwilling to discuss it.

If the information is that vital and NOT in our manuals then you have a "duty" to inform the fleet office. Now what are the chances of that?

Ice, why don't you do your name and chill? Datsun would dig his own grave if he posted such emails here. Also, he'd probably be facing a chop check if the fleet office knew what he's emailed to Airbus and Honeywell. Second guessing a bunch of people who think they invented aviation isn't a good career move if those people have the ability to end your career, and at CX, they do.

KA went overnight from Airbus FCTM to CX FCTM. There were significant differences with the Airbus FCTM being more evolved and detailed in many areas.

Keeping the old Airbus FCTM seemed like a good idea and many have. It would be near obsolete now so I got rid of my copy. No need having two obsolete FCTM's about the place. :)

Hopefully our move back to Airbus SOPs will gain momentum with a clearer direction for KA.

Oval3Holer

Not asking for his name or address, just give us the questions and answers, looking for FACTS! You have fallen into the standard PPRUNE / CX bashing reply.

Datsun120Y

Well who brought up the first bit of negativity then? We cannot actually have anyone who stands up for CX, can we, the comments must always be negative, with vitriol and without FACTS to back up said claims.

Interesting viewpoints being presented, but it would seem some are proposing the Airbus FCTM as some kind of secret document (to CX crew)which contains amazing revelations about how to do things "correctly"!

Please go to one of our esteemed managers on the 3rd floor and ask the history of said document. I heard a that it was a CX Manager who went to TLS a few years back and wrote the original Airbus FCTM. Is this true?

Must be!! Didn't CX invent flying????

b.

Not at all. What I was saying is the KA guys went from Airbus FCTM to the CX FCTM overnight. There were many noticeable differences and it seems the Airbus FCTM is more evolved and has a more depth in some areas. As you would expect from the resources available to the manafacture.

Now, some are claiming here that CX invented the concept of the FCTM. Maybe this is so. But I do recall seeing an FCTM of similar structure in another Airbus airline around 15 years ago. It was a poor example but the fact the structure was so similar to today's example, may suggest the FCTM was pushed by Airbus long ago to its customers.

If it's important for people here to think the FCTM was invented by CX then so be it. Personally, I preferred the Airbus FCTM, as I felt it more open minded. One simple example coming to mind was flying below maneuver speeds on approach. Another reason I favor the the Airbus SOPs and FCTM is mobility. It is a lot easier when you move on and join another airline. This would not be much of a consideration at a legacy type carrier such as CX I suppose.

Here's another good article called "Cockpit Crisis":


Cockpit crisis - World - Macleans.ca