SLF Can you give me your opinion Please
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF Can you give me your opinion Please
Here's an opinion from a seat in the back of the aircraft, shaped by 40 years in the airline industry, much of it in technical as opposed to commercial areas, and now involved in training of the next generation of airline staff.
When it all goes pear-shaped on a rainy night, with an incapacitated Captain in the left-hand seat, the crosswind gusting to 25knots, and an engine that just died on the approach I want a reasonably experienced pilot in control, please, not a young technician with fewer hours than I have who knows how to manage the systems - when they work - but has rarely actually handled, ie flown the aircraft other than in a simulator.
I don't think it makes any difference if he is paying or being paid. It's his lack of experience that frightens me.
The last real airline that I worked for required a minimum of 1,500 hours for a first officer to be rostered as p2 in a 2-crew flight deck. Fewer than that, and there would be a competent pilot aboard, just in case.
This frequently happened, as it was recognised that the FO's needed to gain the experience. But not at the expense of passenger safety.
Expense is the key word, isn't it? So I will say it out loud, no equivocation, sorry about the hurt feelings of young pilots who know it all. A 250-hour pilot is simply not trained, experienced or competent enough to handle the aircraft on his/her own when problems No. 2 and No. 3 add to the stress caused by a Captain's incapacity. And trying to justify having him/here there to meet the bean-counters expectations should be a criminal offence. Step forward the ever-complaisant CAA to do their job. Ah, sorry, it's tea and blind-eye time, again.
It isn't good enough to hope like hell that the combination of a Captain's incapacity and a number of other major difficulties won't ever happen when you've got an inexperienced trainee pilot in the RHS. Because it will because it can.
Here's an opinion from a seat in the back of the aircraft, shaped by 40 years in the airline industry, much of it in technical as opposed to commercial areas, and now involved in training of the next generation of airline staff.
When it all goes pear-shaped on a rainy night, with an incapacitated Captain in the left-hand seat, the crosswind gusting to 25knots, and an engine that just died on the approach I want a reasonably experienced pilot in control, please, not a young technician with fewer hours than I have who knows how to manage the systems - when they work - but has rarely actually handled, ie flown the aircraft other than in a simulator.
I don't think it makes any difference if he is paying or being paid. It's his lack of experience that frightens me.
The last real airline that I worked for required a minimum of 1,500 hours for a first officer to be rostered as p2 in a 2-crew flight deck. Fewer than that, and there would be a competent pilot aboard, just in case.
This frequently happened, as it was recognised that the FO's needed to gain the experience. But not at the expense of passenger safety.
Expense is the key word, isn't it? So I will say it out loud, no equivocation, sorry about the hurt feelings of young pilots who know it all. A 250-hour pilot is simply not trained, experienced or competent enough to handle the aircraft on his/her own when problems No. 2 and No. 3 add to the stress caused by a Captain's incapacity. And trying to justify having him/here there to meet the bean-counters expectations should be a criminal offence. Step forward the ever-complaisant CAA to do their job. Ah, sorry, it's tea and blind-eye time, again.
It isn't good enough to hope like hell that the combination of a Captain's incapacity and a number of other major difficulties won't ever happen when you've got an inexperienced trainee pilot in the RHS. Because it will because it can.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: A whole new world now!!
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Global Warrior you have raised an excellent question to the SLF here and I have just read the most recent response by Capot which I wholeheartedly agree with....both when flying as CC and as SLF.
Funny thing is when I expressed much the same opinion as CC on a Pilot thread I got flamed by one of your colleagues for daring to have it. I even got accused of poor CRM for expressing an opinion on what you as a Pilot are now asking on an anonymous forum.
It would seem that within aviation we do not want to admit there could be a problem with inexperience and it is growing all the time.
When you have canvassed SLF opinion what are you going to do with these results?
IMHO inexperienced Pilots are here to stay if the Loco's are left to their own devices. An inexperienced FO is the next inexperienced Captain and so it goes on.....
I fly with low hours Pilots on many occasions. All our professional (some appear nervous at first) but all can fly a plane under normal circumstances. It's the abnormal that bothers me...in particular what happens if the Captain is incapacitated. At my lot these guys are generally put with Captains of experience due to their lack. I have never seen them put to the test and hope I never will.
On the BA 777 incident at LHR the FO was the Pilot flying. Under the Captains guidance the two of them saved countless lives in a few seconds of experienced airmanship. I wonder if we would have had the same positive outcome had a low hours cadet been at the controls??
Funny thing is when I expressed much the same opinion as CC on a Pilot thread I got flamed by one of your colleagues for daring to have it. I even got accused of poor CRM for expressing an opinion on what you as a Pilot are now asking on an anonymous forum.
It would seem that within aviation we do not want to admit there could be a problem with inexperience and it is growing all the time.
When you have canvassed SLF opinion what are you going to do with these results?
IMHO inexperienced Pilots are here to stay if the Loco's are left to their own devices. An inexperienced FO is the next inexperienced Captain and so it goes on.....
I fly with low hours Pilots on many occasions. All our professional (some appear nervous at first) but all can fly a plane under normal circumstances. It's the abnormal that bothers me...in particular what happens if the Captain is incapacitated. At my lot these guys are generally put with Captains of experience due to their lack. I have never seen them put to the test and hope I never will.
On the BA 777 incident at LHR the FO was the Pilot flying. Under the Captains guidance the two of them saved countless lives in a few seconds of experienced airmanship. I wonder if we would have had the same positive outcome had a low hours cadet been at the controls??
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: the temperate rain-forest usually but not always
Age: 74
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
replying to post 1
Nope this SLF thinks that;
The insurance, public liability costs, other potential lawsuit costs, bits falling off the aircraft and damaging the runway costs and no doubt such things as licence renewal expenses give me some confidence that the flying machine will make it to the destination if only because it is too expensive for them not to.
If you are asking whether this is right way to go about things then that is a philosophical/moral discussion which I do not have the energy, understanding of the business or education for.
erm, just a POV.
Oh gollygosh...my first post...more gin, Geeves
The insurance, public liability costs, other potential lawsuit costs, bits falling off the aircraft and damaging the runway costs and no doubt such things as licence renewal expenses give me some confidence that the flying machine will make it to the destination if only because it is too expensive for them not to.
If you are asking whether this is right way to go about things then that is a philosophical/moral discussion which I do not have the energy, understanding of the business or education for.
erm, just a POV.
Oh gollygosh...my first post...more gin, Geeves
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: the temperate rain-forest usually but not always
Age: 74
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lowcostdolly...message 22..
I think it was, obviously being an airhead SLF I have forgot.
Anyway, magic post, it made me larf
Anyway, magic post, it made me larf
Paxing All Over The World
red alder
If only that were the case ... Of course, one can never prove anything - particularly in the third world countries.
One of the greatest threats to airline safety is not the deliberative malfeasance of airline management but The Normalisation of Deviance. The most quoted example is the Challenger Shuttle disaster. There are some interesting items if you search for them.
Many suspect that the next big prang will prove to be entirely preventable. Not from some great mechanical or single human failure - but a series of small points of negligence of the "Well, it's always worked OK before" category. If you make minor changes in maintenance to save money - and nothing goes wrong. Then you congratulate yourself on saving money. If, over the next year - nothing goes wrong, it becomes the new normal. Then, you get the unusual combination of circumstance (like the 100 year flood level) and the plane crashes.
One example, why did the EuroStar train suddenly have such trouble with snow after all these years? Yes there was more snow but the problem of going from outside to tunnel and back with wet snow on the machine? Had they changed something in the eyars of not much snow? We will never know.
...if only because it is too expensive for them not to.
One of the greatest threats to airline safety is not the deliberative malfeasance of airline management but The Normalisation of Deviance. The most quoted example is the Challenger Shuttle disaster. There are some interesting items if you search for them.
Many suspect that the next big prang will prove to be entirely preventable. Not from some great mechanical or single human failure - but a series of small points of negligence of the "Well, it's always worked OK before" category. If you make minor changes in maintenance to save money - and nothing goes wrong. Then you congratulate yourself on saving money. If, over the next year - nothing goes wrong, it becomes the new normal. Then, you get the unusual combination of circumstance (like the 100 year flood level) and the plane crashes.
One example, why did the EuroStar train suddenly have such trouble with snow after all these years? Yes there was more snow but the problem of going from outside to tunnel and back with wet snow on the machine? Had they changed something in the eyars of not much snow? We will never know.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a very frequent flyer I am concerned only to know that the people sat at the sharp end are fully qualified to do the job.
When I get on board the aircraft I don't know how qualified the flight crew are, it is not something that is published. ( I can make an informed judgement based on the carrier of course, a point to which I suggest your eluding).
What I do suspect is that as long as there isn't an accident certain LCC's in particular will push the envelope, however one bad incident and their image is tarnished beyond repair possibly, can they take that risk, I dont know.
So my view as SLF is to throw the question back to the OP, do you think that it is unsafe.
I can't get the thought out of my mind that there is an ulterior motive to the original question.
When I get on board the aircraft I don't know how qualified the flight crew are, it is not something that is published. ( I can make an informed judgement based on the carrier of course, a point to which I suggest your eluding).
What I do suspect is that as long as there isn't an accident certain LCC's in particular will push the envelope, however one bad incident and their image is tarnished beyond repair possibly, can they take that risk, I dont know.
So my view as SLF is to throw the question back to the OP, do you think that it is unsafe.
I can't get the thought out of my mind that there is an ulterior motive to the original question.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: the OFCR......and probably somewhere over China zzzzzzzz
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I'd be more concerned by widespread adoption of the Multi crew
certification (the name eludes me at the moment), where the actual
training is cut down.
certification (the name eludes me at the moment), where the actual
training is cut down.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 32°55'22"S 151°46'56"E
Age: 39
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Is low houred (250 hour) pilots in itself the real problem? Bearing in mind that many of the legacy carriers used to sponsor pilots and some still do (as well as taking direct from OATS), therefore meaning that various BA and similar airline flights have been flown with a low houred FO. I would imagine though, they are normally partnered with very experienced Training Captains.
However; if the question relates to the pay to fly, and whether that changes the attitudes, and a company with a lot of low hour pilots places more demand on having training captains who may not be as experienced as you'd expect, then that makes the topic a bit more complex.
As a passenger do I worry about that? Not really, but I think that the general public perception is very different, particularly if they see two young pilots on a flight.
I personally don't fly with LCC often for practical and comfort reasons; but try to avoid flying with aircraft of certain registration nationalities based on safety records.
However; if the question relates to the pay to fly, and whether that changes the attitudes, and a company with a lot of low hour pilots places more demand on having training captains who may not be as experienced as you'd expect, then that makes the topic a bit more complex.
As a passenger do I worry about that? Not really, but I think that the general public perception is very different, particularly if they see two young pilots on a flight.
I personally don't fly with LCC often for practical and comfort reasons; but try to avoid flying with aircraft of certain registration nationalities based on safety records.
It's not that long ago that a Ryanair flight had the captain taken ill. The FO was unsure about the landing in Ireland as he didn't know the airport (Londonderry?)and turned back to Stanstead, which he did know. Fine, and sensible under the conditions. But just suppose he hadn't erred on the side of safety? Or that he had an emergency? Remember the BA 'plane where the windscreen on the captain's side popped out at 30,000 feet, and the captain nearly with it?
You would now have an inexperienced FO in an emergency situation quite likely landing at an airport he didn't know, quite possibly up at (even above if the situation is frantic enough) cross wind limits, while sod's law says it will be at night and raining..
Meantime, the CC could have problems getting into the cockpit to help with check lists...
So it's an unlikely scenario. So was the windscreen popping. So were situations such as the Virgin flight with 2 tons less cargo that all the weight and balance calcs were done on....because of outsourcing for lower cost.
You would now have an inexperienced FO in an emergency situation quite likely landing at an airport he didn't know, quite possibly up at (even above if the situation is frantic enough) cross wind limits, while sod's law says it will be at night and raining..
Meantime, the CC could have problems getting into the cockpit to help with check lists...
So it's an unlikely scenario. So was the windscreen popping. So were situations such as the Virgin flight with 2 tons less cargo that all the weight and balance calcs were done on....because of outsourcing for lower cost.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: A whole new world now!!
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pwalhx the OP does think this practice is unsafe or at least his posts in the Pilot's forum indicate safety is compromised at the very least. I think he wanted to get SLF perceptions here as well.
I think you are right about LoCo's "pushing the envelope" here and I work for a LoCo. The financial benefits of them having low houred pay to fly pilots far outweigh any potential safety risk for them.
Any safety risk is managed by having an experienced Captain flying with these Guys all of whom are qualified to fly a plane under normal conditions anyway and are building on their experience all the time. There is little risk to the company here IMHO and that's why they continue this practice.
That's not to say there is no risk. radeng cites some good examples below which I'm sure the respective companies thourght would never happen to them. Could a low hours pilot handle these? Who knows.
It's easy to assume these guys cannot handle the untoward and I worry about this sometimes when I fly. However there are incidences when they have and done it very well.
Unless there are hull losses associated with the LoCo pay 2 fly cadets then the public will hear nothing about any safety incidences which fall short of this. Or will they hear the good bits either!
PPRune is a safe haven for this valid subject to be discussed. I suspect if the OP works for a company who employs this practice he would feel unable to voice his concerns for fear of his career.
redalder please can I have some of whatever you are drinking? Perhaps then I can see what is humerous in my previous post or this topic generally
I think you are right about LoCo's "pushing the envelope" here and I work for a LoCo. The financial benefits of them having low houred pay to fly pilots far outweigh any potential safety risk for them.
Any safety risk is managed by having an experienced Captain flying with these Guys all of whom are qualified to fly a plane under normal conditions anyway and are building on their experience all the time. There is little risk to the company here IMHO and that's why they continue this practice.
That's not to say there is no risk. radeng cites some good examples below which I'm sure the respective companies thourght would never happen to them. Could a low hours pilot handle these? Who knows.
It's easy to assume these guys cannot handle the untoward and I worry about this sometimes when I fly. However there are incidences when they have and done it very well.
Unless there are hull losses associated with the LoCo pay 2 fly cadets then the public will hear nothing about any safety incidences which fall short of this. Or will they hear the good bits either!
PPRune is a safe haven for this valid subject to be discussed. I suspect if the OP works for a company who employs this practice he would feel unable to voice his concerns for fear of his career.
redalder please can I have some of whatever you are drinking? Perhaps then I can see what is humerous in my previous post or this topic generally
red alderIf only that were the case ... Of course, one can never prove anything - particularly in the third world countries.
One of the greatest threats to airline safety is not the deliberative malfeasance of airline management but The Normalisation of Deviance. ...
One example, why did the EuroStar train suddenly have such trouble with snow after all these years? Yes there was more snow but the problem of going from outside to tunnel and back with wet snow on the machine? Had they changed something in the eyars of not much snow? We will never know.
One of the greatest threats to airline safety is not the deliberative malfeasance of airline management but The Normalisation of Deviance. ...
One example, why did the EuroStar train suddenly have such trouble with snow after all these years? Yes there was more snow but the problem of going from outside to tunnel and back with wet snow on the machine? Had they changed something in the eyars of not much snow? We will never know.
The French TGV is essentially the same train which sits in warm (-ish) stations between trips. Kept on trucking. Different maintenance regime.
Normalisation of Deviance again? Yup.
However, one must not lose sight of the fact that the most dangerous parts of airline flying are the journies along the motorways to and from the airport.
