A bleak future for Aviation?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raw Data
<We all have to meet the standard, which involves manipulating the aircraft controls to acceptable standards of accuracy, assessing weather, etc. As all initial issue tests are performed by the regulatory authority, the implication of your statement is that these authorities deliberately lower the bar- no evidence exists for this.>
Would you say that standards are exactly the same across the whole of the EU/JAA? I would say that they vary from examiner to examiner in this country, we had 2 CAA IR examiners at the airfield I trained at, one was like Capt Christmas the other was like Capt Scrooge.
<No, because the training captains job is to ensure that he meets the minimum standard. Anything above that is icing on the cake.>
In my company in our past we had another airline integrated into ours, a friend of mine is a trainer and was responsible for converting some of the new arrivals onto one of our types. Although there were many capable pilots brought into the company he found the general standards of flying and airmanship to be well below par and began failing people. He was called into the office to explain himself and when he stated he wasn't prepared to sign some of these guys off, he was withdrawn from training and checking the new guys. This illustrates how company management can apply pressure to trainers to "get the lads through."
<Leaving aside for a minute the illogic of your last statement, The CAA takes a keen interest in the overall skill and experience levels within a company- ask anyone who has been through a routine CAA audit.>
My idea of CAA examiners/instructors conducting checks on pilots within a company would ensure that the standards are being applied to anyone within the company - not just a selected few. In my company the CAA only come in and assess the current/new TREs, they are not put in with random Joe "Line Pilot" Bloggs anymore. Thus they may only see the best guys within a company.
My comment wrt to the CAA answering to the £££'s of the company was a little indirect to the point I was trying to make. That is the CAA are answerable to the Government, the Government are answerable to the people, people want cheap flights, low cost operators will provide cheap flights by cutting corners - one of these being pilots.
My point about the heart surgeon was supposed to ask the question, "If someone hasn't got the skills and attributes to get hired by a number of companies and has to pay to fly for an operator - should he get the job?" You set a dangerous precedent whereby people with money (or those willing to get into further debt) are the ones taken on by airlines, rather than the guys with the right stuff.
<I no longer need the same skills I needed twenty years ago, and the CAA/JAA has recognised this by changing the content of the skills test- no longer requiring NDB approaches and allowing the use of autopilots etc. I am extremely glad that I fly a smallish, but very interesting and capable aircraft (146), which still has many quaint systems and rewards accurate hand flying.>
True the one man band IR has gone (a shame I enjoyed it), but the new system of checking your performance within a multi crew
environment is much more pragmatic to what we do day in day out. I don't know about handling a 146 but last count I've flown 11 different types of aircraft from little Chipmunks to 400 tonne 747-400 and all of them reward accurate hand flying.
<I am also glad that I get to fly into interesting and challenging places such as Innsbruck, Chambery, etc. To me, flying an automated aircraft between large, unobstructed runways would be like dying a thousand deaths- particularly if my every control input was monitored and recorded at Head Office, and every manouevre was required to be completely standard and inch-perfect.>
Flying into the old Kai Tak was fairly interesting, that along with Bogota at 8400 ft amsl surrounded by peaks up to 20,000 ft with oxygen critical paths along your route. As for Big Brother in the cockpit - I'd prefer it wasn't there but at the end of the day safety is the priority, not me having fun.
The rest of your post I agree with, whole heartedly.
Cheers
BB
<We all have to meet the standard, which involves manipulating the aircraft controls to acceptable standards of accuracy, assessing weather, etc. As all initial issue tests are performed by the regulatory authority, the implication of your statement is that these authorities deliberately lower the bar- no evidence exists for this.>
Would you say that standards are exactly the same across the whole of the EU/JAA? I would say that they vary from examiner to examiner in this country, we had 2 CAA IR examiners at the airfield I trained at, one was like Capt Christmas the other was like Capt Scrooge.
<No, because the training captains job is to ensure that he meets the minimum standard. Anything above that is icing on the cake.>
In my company in our past we had another airline integrated into ours, a friend of mine is a trainer and was responsible for converting some of the new arrivals onto one of our types. Although there were many capable pilots brought into the company he found the general standards of flying and airmanship to be well below par and began failing people. He was called into the office to explain himself and when he stated he wasn't prepared to sign some of these guys off, he was withdrawn from training and checking the new guys. This illustrates how company management can apply pressure to trainers to "get the lads through."
<Leaving aside for a minute the illogic of your last statement, The CAA takes a keen interest in the overall skill and experience levels within a company- ask anyone who has been through a routine CAA audit.>
My idea of CAA examiners/instructors conducting checks on pilots within a company would ensure that the standards are being applied to anyone within the company - not just a selected few. In my company the CAA only come in and assess the current/new TREs, they are not put in with random Joe "Line Pilot" Bloggs anymore. Thus they may only see the best guys within a company.
My comment wrt to the CAA answering to the £££'s of the company was a little indirect to the point I was trying to make. That is the CAA are answerable to the Government, the Government are answerable to the people, people want cheap flights, low cost operators will provide cheap flights by cutting corners - one of these being pilots.
My point about the heart surgeon was supposed to ask the question, "If someone hasn't got the skills and attributes to get hired by a number of companies and has to pay to fly for an operator - should he get the job?" You set a dangerous precedent whereby people with money (or those willing to get into further debt) are the ones taken on by airlines, rather than the guys with the right stuff.
<I no longer need the same skills I needed twenty years ago, and the CAA/JAA has recognised this by changing the content of the skills test- no longer requiring NDB approaches and allowing the use of autopilots etc. I am extremely glad that I fly a smallish, but very interesting and capable aircraft (146), which still has many quaint systems and rewards accurate hand flying.>
True the one man band IR has gone (a shame I enjoyed it), but the new system of checking your performance within a multi crew
environment is much more pragmatic to what we do day in day out. I don't know about handling a 146 but last count I've flown 11 different types of aircraft from little Chipmunks to 400 tonne 747-400 and all of them reward accurate hand flying.
<I am also glad that I get to fly into interesting and challenging places such as Innsbruck, Chambery, etc. To me, flying an automated aircraft between large, unobstructed runways would be like dying a thousand deaths- particularly if my every control input was monitored and recorded at Head Office, and every manouevre was required to be completely standard and inch-perfect.>
Flying into the old Kai Tak was fairly interesting, that along with Bogota at 8400 ft amsl surrounded by peaks up to 20,000 ft with oxygen critical paths along your route. As for Big Brother in the cockpit - I'd prefer it wasn't there but at the end of the day safety is the priority, not me having fun.
The rest of your post I agree with, whole heartedly.
Cheers
BB
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread long overdue.
Aviation has been in decline since the late 80's and there are 3 major reasons for this IMHO:CRM,the arrival of Airbus fly-by-wire products and the explosion of low-cost travel which has gone largely unchecked by the governing authorities.
All three have slowly but surely turned aviation on its head and reduced the pilot to a emasculated bystander.
Ironically,the 3 factors are not intrinsically without merit.There was a need for CRM,and taken in small measured doses,it is undoubtedly benficial.Instead we were all subject to a rigorous overdose and now we have the "modern" flightdeck where democracy and political correctness rule.If CRM had replaced autocracy with quiet assertion,then it would have worked.What we have today are Captains running scared.Scared to make a decision lest it upset the guy in the right seat or the purser,and the inevitable "grassing",one of CRM's most damning legacies.This blurring of the hierarchial pyramid has left us very vulnerable.We lost the respect of the FA's;afterall,we're all the same now arent we?They started thinking it really was their ship,and then they got their own union,and pretty soon any decision about a problem in the cabin was theirs to make.Its the old divide and rule.If the bean counters can divide us,we're easy pickings.
The arrival of the A320 was a revolution.The use of fly-by-wire in a commercial airliner was Gallic bravado at its best,a real coup d'etat for the French,despite the fact that Uncle Sam invented the damn thing.More sinister was the software programming contained in the plane's computers.For the first time in the history of aviation,the pilot no longer had complete control of the aircraft he was flying.Bank angle,angle of attack et al were now monitored by computers.Pilot actions could be overridden.The inability to firewall remains controversial.The autothrust and autoflight system that arrogantly keeps the pilot out of the loop is indicative of the mindset of the people who designed this thing.WE KNOW BEST.Problem is they dont,and A320's started crashing.Mode confusion caught their own chief pilot out and Air France's star pilot nearly died when he took to the skies at Habsheim.I ask if a thing is ambiguous,even to its staunch supporters,then it is unsafe.Time has passed and bugs have been ironed out now,but the fact remains that the Airbus has encroached heavily on the pilot's traditional role.The Airbus is not flown,it is programmed to fly.In the sixteen years that have elapsed since its inception,Boeing have never gone down the same garden path,and I believe they never will.
Low-cost travel had a great start with Southwest and some like Jet Blue continue in that tradition;cheap tickets but no compromise on maintenance,customer service,and employer-employee relations.Others have jumped on the bandwagon and totally watered down the high standards that were initially set.We lost Valujet but only when people died.Ample evidence of their criminal behavior was available prior to 592,but the FAA looked the other way.And now I hear stories of pilots starting their careers laden with debt because they're so desperate to get a job,even if it means being screwed by the unscrupulous.Of pilots being made to pay for their uniforms,the sandwiches and the candy bars on board.Of passengers being shouted at by rude and abusive FA's who hate their job so much they can only stick it for 10 months.FA's used to take pride in their job and some worked for twenty years.Of passengers being stranded at airports and told nothing and given no compensation.And all of it being done under the convenient umbrella of "Low-cost".ie.you get what you pay for.Flag-carriers are finding it hard to compete and so pretty soon all we'll have left is....crud.
Great future isnt it?
Aviation has been in decline since the late 80's and there are 3 major reasons for this IMHO:CRM,the arrival of Airbus fly-by-wire products and the explosion of low-cost travel which has gone largely unchecked by the governing authorities.
All three have slowly but surely turned aviation on its head and reduced the pilot to a emasculated bystander.
Ironically,the 3 factors are not intrinsically without merit.There was a need for CRM,and taken in small measured doses,it is undoubtedly benficial.Instead we were all subject to a rigorous overdose and now we have the "modern" flightdeck where democracy and political correctness rule.If CRM had replaced autocracy with quiet assertion,then it would have worked.What we have today are Captains running scared.Scared to make a decision lest it upset the guy in the right seat or the purser,and the inevitable "grassing",one of CRM's most damning legacies.This blurring of the hierarchial pyramid has left us very vulnerable.We lost the respect of the FA's;afterall,we're all the same now arent we?They started thinking it really was their ship,and then they got their own union,and pretty soon any decision about a problem in the cabin was theirs to make.Its the old divide and rule.If the bean counters can divide us,we're easy pickings.
The arrival of the A320 was a revolution.The use of fly-by-wire in a commercial airliner was Gallic bravado at its best,a real coup d'etat for the French,despite the fact that Uncle Sam invented the damn thing.More sinister was the software programming contained in the plane's computers.For the first time in the history of aviation,the pilot no longer had complete control of the aircraft he was flying.Bank angle,angle of attack et al were now monitored by computers.Pilot actions could be overridden.The inability to firewall remains controversial.The autothrust and autoflight system that arrogantly keeps the pilot out of the loop is indicative of the mindset of the people who designed this thing.WE KNOW BEST.Problem is they dont,and A320's started crashing.Mode confusion caught their own chief pilot out and Air France's star pilot nearly died when he took to the skies at Habsheim.I ask if a thing is ambiguous,even to its staunch supporters,then it is unsafe.Time has passed and bugs have been ironed out now,but the fact remains that the Airbus has encroached heavily on the pilot's traditional role.The Airbus is not flown,it is programmed to fly.In the sixteen years that have elapsed since its inception,Boeing have never gone down the same garden path,and I believe they never will.
Low-cost travel had a great start with Southwest and some like Jet Blue continue in that tradition;cheap tickets but no compromise on maintenance,customer service,and employer-employee relations.Others have jumped on the bandwagon and totally watered down the high standards that were initially set.We lost Valujet but only when people died.Ample evidence of their criminal behavior was available prior to 592,but the FAA looked the other way.And now I hear stories of pilots starting their careers laden with debt because they're so desperate to get a job,even if it means being screwed by the unscrupulous.Of pilots being made to pay for their uniforms,the sandwiches and the candy bars on board.Of passengers being shouted at by rude and abusive FA's who hate their job so much they can only stick it for 10 months.FA's used to take pride in their job and some worked for twenty years.Of passengers being stranded at airports and told nothing and given no compensation.And all of it being done under the convenient umbrella of "Low-cost".ie.you get what you pay for.Flag-carriers are finding it hard to compete and so pretty soon all we'll have left is....crud.
Great future isnt it?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: tracy island
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from a non flying side..no.. best is to take the stick right now,the carrot will surely come
but right now supply exceeds demand,but in 5-10 years unless progress towards automation is rapid then i see the return of sponsorships and entry level students as the supply of qualified aviators dries up and the community & governing bodies impose every more restrictive timetables on the operators
meanwhile, the more complex the system,the more careful you have to be..nothing designed by humans is perfect
but right now supply exceeds demand,but in 5-10 years unless progress towards automation is rapid then i see the return of sponsorships and entry level students as the supply of qualified aviators dries up and the community & governing bodies impose every more restrictive timetables on the operators
meanwhile, the more complex the system,the more careful you have to be..nothing designed by humans is perfect
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rananim -
You trying to provoke an argument?
1. CRM, generally a good thing, but I don't feel the need to prostrate myself. If I have signed for c. $80m of aircraft and $astronomic of passenger liability then for sure I'm having the final say in what I do with it. However, I'm not so stupid as to think that F/Os and Cabin Crew have nothing useful to say, so if CRM helps us get on and understand each other that's OK by me. Just as long as they all understand where the buck stops.
2. Airbus FBW. On this subject you are talking the most arrant nonsense. a) It's got wings. b) It's got jet engines. c) It flies. d) It has a stick and throttles. Not suprisingly you fly it just like any other aircraft. If you find the autothrust and autopilot keep you out of the loop, then what in the nether hell are you doing in the flight deck of one?
3. LoCost Airlines. Inclined to agree, but the jury is still out on them. Mind you, Mike O'Leary: Guilty as Charged M'Lud!
You trying to provoke an argument?
1. CRM, generally a good thing, but I don't feel the need to prostrate myself. If I have signed for c. $80m of aircraft and $astronomic of passenger liability then for sure I'm having the final say in what I do with it. However, I'm not so stupid as to think that F/Os and Cabin Crew have nothing useful to say, so if CRM helps us get on and understand each other that's OK by me. Just as long as they all understand where the buck stops.
2. Airbus FBW. On this subject you are talking the most arrant nonsense. a) It's got wings. b) It's got jet engines. c) It flies. d) It has a stick and throttles. Not suprisingly you fly it just like any other aircraft. If you find the autothrust and autopilot keep you out of the loop, then what in the nether hell are you doing in the flight deck of one?
3. LoCost Airlines. Inclined to agree, but the jury is still out on them. Mind you, Mike O'Leary: Guilty as Charged M'Lud!
stilljustanothernumber
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the night sky
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Airbus FBW computers will let you do anything permitted by the Flight Manual. CARRUTHERS - What do you think about Airbus FBW architecture? What do you think about Airbus vs. Boeing autothrust?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don’t fly Airbus. I think they took a step to far initially and it took some time for pilots to adjust but now they work very well.
Most of the points raised so far are really concerned with management of both systems and personnel. The question is what is the future for pilots as we know them?
Most understand the impact of low cost airlines on the cushy establishment of ‘traditional’ airlines. Well folks, they are here to stay, no one is going to pay £300 to go to Paris anymore. The low cost guys have discovered that pilots are plentiful and cheap and the old airlines now have to cut their costs to compete. Ultimately market forces will inevitably decide what our trade is worth and wishing for the old days will not work. As for operating the aircraft, they will become more automated; it will not be necessary to have cat3 capability at airfields it will all be done on board. Already the technology exists to use pilot less aircraft that can deliver weapons to within a metre anywhere, setting up a typical commercial flight profile is simplicity itself. These systems will be developed and used in the near future; we cannot have pilots flying into the ground any longer. You cannot stop progress. Giving us tales of daring do and sending 1000 pax safely home is irrelevant, facing irate pax is nonsense your managers can do it, they simply have to leave the flight deck foe a while.
You've got to look ahead chaps, Airbus and Boeing FBW systems are only a start, lot of development to come and it will demand and require fewer and fewer traditional skills. As for standards, only us white chaps can do it Heh!! Don't be silly.
Most of the points raised so far are really concerned with management of both systems and personnel. The question is what is the future for pilots as we know them?
Most understand the impact of low cost airlines on the cushy establishment of ‘traditional’ airlines. Well folks, they are here to stay, no one is going to pay £300 to go to Paris anymore. The low cost guys have discovered that pilots are plentiful and cheap and the old airlines now have to cut their costs to compete. Ultimately market forces will inevitably decide what our trade is worth and wishing for the old days will not work. As for operating the aircraft, they will become more automated; it will not be necessary to have cat3 capability at airfields it will all be done on board. Already the technology exists to use pilot less aircraft that can deliver weapons to within a metre anywhere, setting up a typical commercial flight profile is simplicity itself. These systems will be developed and used in the near future; we cannot have pilots flying into the ground any longer. You cannot stop progress. Giving us tales of daring do and sending 1000 pax safely home is irrelevant, facing irate pax is nonsense your managers can do it, they simply have to leave the flight deck foe a while.
You've got to look ahead chaps, Airbus and Boeing FBW systems are only a start, lot of development to come and it will demand and require fewer and fewer traditional skills. As for standards, only us white chaps can do it Heh!! Don't be silly.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Unwiseowl -
Was that really necessary? I thought we had seen the back of that moron Carruthers for a while!
Carruthers -
You're quite entitled to your opinions of course, even if they are utter bilge not fit for exposure to the light of day.
Who charges £300 to go to Paris these days? Well, depends who you book with and when. Book early with BA and you can go as cheap as if you book at the same time with easyJet. Book on the day of travel and you'll be stung for a lot more, whichever airline. Just because the LoCos introduce a new business model doesn't mean that the traditional carriers will stand still. In fact BA have dropped their prices on routes where they compete with easyJet; if it makes a loss then they can support it with profits from their long haul, first and business class revenue. That's something the LoCos can't do. Their busess model is vulnerable to competition from airlines with other sources of revenue. This includes the traditional carriers and the charters. The former have premium traffic to boost revenue and the charters have a low cost base and their charter work. So don't bank on the LoCos being around for ever, particularly if Jo Public gets fed up with being told "What part of no refund don't you understand" and being given poor service, even if it is for only pennies. Of course, some will survive, but all of them now springing up out of the woodwork - I don't think so.
Pilots are cheap and plentiful? They certainly aren't cheap. Whilst they may well be paying for their own courses while employment prospects are thin, they are paying up to £100k for the privilege. Of course, airline managements are smiling because this cost does not fall on their airline. However, easyJet have signed a very large contract for pilot training recently, so they don't think that the supply of trained pilots is oversubscribed. Mind you, with 120 A319's on order thay will soak up a lot of trained pilots. They maight even start offering £30k golden hellos for type rated pilots as they did for the B737-300 a while ago. The cheap and plentiful air travel introduced by the LoCos is driving growth in the industry which will soak up a lot of pilots, particularly as the LoCos are acquiring larger numbers of smaller airliners. You may crow at the thought of pilots facing poor employment prospects and reduced terms and conditions, but remember that the market forces you fondly talk about have always been present in our industry and the demand for pilots is very cyclical. How will you control your apoplexy when pilots are getting £50k golden hellos and salaries of £150k+ for a junior LoCo Captain?
But then, you could try to fly on an automated aircraft that you rave about so much. Trouble is, they won't appear until long after you and I are dead. Why? You are right when you say it is relatively simple to set up a commercial flight profile. After all we arrogant, redundant pilots use computers to do it all the time. The problem comes when you try to fly the profile. How many lines of computer code would a fully automatic aircraft require to cope with all the unforseen events that occur in flight? It may not matter if an AGM-109B goes off course and crashes away from its intended target, but I don't think the same can be said of a passenger carrying aircraft.
And you think that managers can cope with irate pax etc. etc. What, you mean like Michael O'Leary? And how would desk-bound management cope with terrorists on board, or a SAM attack? They simply have to leave the flight deck for a while? What planet are you on! September the 11th. mean anything to you at all?
The vast majority of pilots who have passengers in their care take pride in getting them home safely and punctually. In the face of increasing demands and threats, skilled pilots are needed more than ever. And they're worth paying for. If you don't think so, then you need a check up from the neck up!
Was that really necessary? I thought we had seen the back of that moron Carruthers for a while!
Carruthers -
You're quite entitled to your opinions of course, even if they are utter bilge not fit for exposure to the light of day.
Who charges £300 to go to Paris these days? Well, depends who you book with and when. Book early with BA and you can go as cheap as if you book at the same time with easyJet. Book on the day of travel and you'll be stung for a lot more, whichever airline. Just because the LoCos introduce a new business model doesn't mean that the traditional carriers will stand still. In fact BA have dropped their prices on routes where they compete with easyJet; if it makes a loss then they can support it with profits from their long haul, first and business class revenue. That's something the LoCos can't do. Their busess model is vulnerable to competition from airlines with other sources of revenue. This includes the traditional carriers and the charters. The former have premium traffic to boost revenue and the charters have a low cost base and their charter work. So don't bank on the LoCos being around for ever, particularly if Jo Public gets fed up with being told "What part of no refund don't you understand" and being given poor service, even if it is for only pennies. Of course, some will survive, but all of them now springing up out of the woodwork - I don't think so.
Pilots are cheap and plentiful? They certainly aren't cheap. Whilst they may well be paying for their own courses while employment prospects are thin, they are paying up to £100k for the privilege. Of course, airline managements are smiling because this cost does not fall on their airline. However, easyJet have signed a very large contract for pilot training recently, so they don't think that the supply of trained pilots is oversubscribed. Mind you, with 120 A319's on order thay will soak up a lot of trained pilots. They maight even start offering £30k golden hellos for type rated pilots as they did for the B737-300 a while ago. The cheap and plentiful air travel introduced by the LoCos is driving growth in the industry which will soak up a lot of pilots, particularly as the LoCos are acquiring larger numbers of smaller airliners. You may crow at the thought of pilots facing poor employment prospects and reduced terms and conditions, but remember that the market forces you fondly talk about have always been present in our industry and the demand for pilots is very cyclical. How will you control your apoplexy when pilots are getting £50k golden hellos and salaries of £150k+ for a junior LoCo Captain?
But then, you could try to fly on an automated aircraft that you rave about so much. Trouble is, they won't appear until long after you and I are dead. Why? You are right when you say it is relatively simple to set up a commercial flight profile. After all we arrogant, redundant pilots use computers to do it all the time. The problem comes when you try to fly the profile. How many lines of computer code would a fully automatic aircraft require to cope with all the unforseen events that occur in flight? It may not matter if an AGM-109B goes off course and crashes away from its intended target, but I don't think the same can be said of a passenger carrying aircraft.
And you think that managers can cope with irate pax etc. etc. What, you mean like Michael O'Leary? And how would desk-bound management cope with terrorists on board, or a SAM attack? They simply have to leave the flight deck for a while? What planet are you on! September the 11th. mean anything to you at all?
The vast majority of pilots who have passengers in their care take pride in getting them home safely and punctually. In the face of increasing demands and threats, skilled pilots are needed more than ever. And they're worth paying for. If you don't think so, then you need a check up from the neck up!
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bucking Bronco
Without wishing to be pointlessly pedantic, the standard is exactly the same, although the application of the standard my vary- this is something that the system should (eventually) sort out, but of course I take your point.
It's difficult to comment on specific incidents like this. It could be that your friend had higher standards than the minimum laid down by the JAA- this often happens and conflict is then inevitable. The question is, could your friend point to a clear failure to meet the minimum standard laid down by law? If so, he was right. If, on the other hand, he felt that the new hires didn't meet his somewhat higher standards (or those of the company), that is a different matter.
I have seen many a young, relatively inexperienced trainer raise the bar in an attempt to improve standards, and end up in conflict with management. It all comes down to your company training philosophy- do you accept the legal minimum, or do you insist on a higher standard?
I doubt that would ever fly unless the CAA suspected wholesale deceit on the part of the trainers in a particular company. Part of being a TRTO is the element of trust that goes with it. Besides, it would cost the CAA a lot of money to implement, they would pass that on to to the airlines who would object.
I once worked for a small regional UK carrier where abuse was common, for example two IRE/TREs signing each other off in the pub without actually flying. The CAA spotted it quickly and very nearly shut the company down (perhaps they should have).
That doesn't follow- it implies that the government would direct the CAA to lower standards for political reasons. Not likely, methinks.
That doesn't follow either. Irrespective of the amount of money one has, you still have to pass the exams/flight tests etc. Airlines are more than happy to reduce their costs by not spending money on type ratings, but it doesn't follow that they deliberately compromise safety by hiring wealthy incompetents.
Perhaps I put that badly. I have flown 8 air transport types, plus a WWII bomber and some high performance single engine types. They were great fun, in the main, but some were simply more fun than others. I have flown an A321 (on a ferry flight, not in this country), and found it sterile and unresponsive, and not particularly well harmonised. YMMV of course.
Which is what I meant by "Enjoy you flying for as long as you can." I still believe that the commander of an aircraft should be allowed to get on with it, use his judgement skill as he sees fit, as long as it is all safe and SOP. All Big Brother does is erode the exercise of good judgement as it removes the need to exercise it as often. If all that is necessary is a set of clearly defined standard manouevers, you are well on the way to completely automated flight using systems managers instead of pilots. Great until it all goes wrong.
If that is where we are headed, I think I need a new career. However, I don't think it is- I don't believe for a minute we will see pilotless airliners. I, for one, wouldn't get on one. You simply cannot replace (completely) a wise, skilled and innovative human to help the computers out when they need to think "outside the box". The recent pock-marked Easy aircraft found elsewhere on these pages being a shining example.
Neo
You patently do NOT fly it just like any other aircraft, that's the whole point. From the sidestick to the software, it's very different, as many have found out for themselves. I seem to recall somebody saying that almost all of the "whats it doing now" incidents are a result of pilots not understanding the systems they are using.
Final point on airline selection. We have recently lost quite few folk to a certain low-cost operator. Some of those they took were real problem children- glad to see the back of a few of them- some had real problems with their flying. They were employed anyway by the Low Cost operator, and some have subsequently failed their conversions of line training. Tells you a lot about the efficacy of their selection methods!!!
Would you say that standards are exactly the same across the whole of the EU/JAA? I would say that they vary from examiner to examiner in this country, we had 2 CAA IR examiners at the airfield I trained at, one was like Capt Christmas the other was like Capt Scrooge.
In my company in our past we had another airline integrated into ours, a friend of mine is a trainer and was responsible for converting some of the new arrivals onto one of our types. Although there were many capable pilots brought into the company he found the general standards of flying and airmanship to be well below par and began failing people. He was called into the office to explain himself and when he stated he wasn't prepared to sign some of these guys off, he was withdrawn from training and checking the new guys. This illustrates how company management can apply pressure to trainers to "get the lads through."
I have seen many a young, relatively inexperienced trainer raise the bar in an attempt to improve standards, and end up in conflict with management. It all comes down to your company training philosophy- do you accept the legal minimum, or do you insist on a higher standard?
My idea of CAA examiners/instructors conducting checks on pilots within a company would ensure that the standards are being applied to anyone within the company - not just a selected few.
I once worked for a small regional UK carrier where abuse was common, for example two IRE/TREs signing each other off in the pub without actually flying. The CAA spotted it quickly and very nearly shut the company down (perhaps they should have).
That is the CAA are answerable to the Government, the Government are answerable to the people, people want cheap flights, low cost operators will provide cheap flights by cutting corners - one of these being pilots.
My point about the heart surgeon was supposed to ask the question, "If someone hasn't got the skills and attributes to get hired by a number of companies and has to pay to fly for an operator - should he get the job?" You set a dangerous precedent whereby people with money (or those willing to get into further debt) are the ones taken on by airlines, rather than the guys with the right stuff.
I don't know about handling a 146 but last count I've flown 11 different types of aircraft from little Chipmunks to 400 tonne 747-400 and all of them reward accurate hand flying.
I'd prefer it wasn't there but at the end of the day safety is the priority, not me having fun.
If that is where we are headed, I think I need a new career. However, I don't think it is- I don't believe for a minute we will see pilotless airliners. I, for one, wouldn't get on one. You simply cannot replace (completely) a wise, skilled and innovative human to help the computers out when they need to think "outside the box". The recent pock-marked Easy aircraft found elsewhere on these pages being a shining example.
Neo
Not suprisingly you fly it just like any other aircraft.
Final point on airline selection. We have recently lost quite few folk to a certain low-cost operator. Some of those they took were real problem children- glad to see the back of a few of them- some had real problems with their flying. They were employed anyway by the Low Cost operator, and some have subsequently failed their conversions of line training. Tells you a lot about the efficacy of their selection methods!!!
stilljustanothernumber
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the night sky
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Neo, but I was just trying to confirm what a review of previous posts by Carruthers has already revealed - He is not a pilot i.e. he has only superficial knowledge of our industry. Nor is he a manager. Managers tend to be able to spell. Draw your own conclusions!
Those changing conditions must include many differences from the US industry, yet there seem to be many similarities.
And if so, now pilots over there see what the US has gone through since about 1982. Pilots abroad might now understand why the names Frank Lorenzo and Carl Icahn are still so infamous over here, except among many of our younger civilian pilots who are still ignorant of the recent past, or among those younger guys/gals who are still flying in the military, who also never read about the blood, sweat and tears during the 80s and early 90s. Unemployment checks here are apparently tiny when compared with what people receive in the socialized countries.
After all these many years, sadly, some of the appalling changes are happening in Britain and Europe. As I told a passenger at the gate a few weeks ago, after signing the flight release, "it is not a service industry anymore, it is a commodity business".
And if so, now pilots over there see what the US has gone through since about 1982. Pilots abroad might now understand why the names Frank Lorenzo and Carl Icahn are still so infamous over here, except among many of our younger civilian pilots who are still ignorant of the recent past, or among those younger guys/gals who are still flying in the military, who also never read about the blood, sweat and tears during the 80s and early 90s. Unemployment checks here are apparently tiny when compared with what people receive in the socialized countries.
After all these many years, sadly, some of the appalling changes are happening in Britain and Europe. As I told a passenger at the gate a few weeks ago, after signing the flight release, "it is not a service industry anymore, it is a commodity business".
Last edited by Ignition Override; 9th Sep 2003 at 12:10.
Guest
Posts: n/a
RawData -
Well, like Carruthers you're entitled to your opinion. Personally I find A320 and A321 a pleasure to operate. And YES you do fly it like any other aircraft. You push the stick forward and the cows get bigger, you pull it back they get smaller. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! If was too different from conventional handling aircraft then the authorities would not have certificated it.
Having a constant sidestick feel provided by springs and dampers may not be to everyone's taste, but I don't miss the Heath Robinson nature of the flight controls in the B737. Or the throttle stagger of not quite perfectly rigged throttles, or autothrottle clutch slip etc.etc.
Well, like Carruthers you're entitled to your opinion. Personally I find A320 and A321 a pleasure to operate. And YES you do fly it like any other aircraft. You push the stick forward and the cows get bigger, you pull it back they get smaller. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! If was too different from conventional handling aircraft then the authorities would not have certificated it.
Having a constant sidestick feel provided by springs and dampers may not be to everyone's taste, but I don't miss the Heath Robinson nature of the flight controls in the B737. Or the throttle stagger of not quite perfectly rigged throttles, or autothrottle clutch slip etc.etc.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30 tears in aviation Neo / Unwise owl and you're both wishing the past will stay, dream on. The Airbus 320 series is OLD technology. Look closely at the salaries in aviation now, the golden years have gone and that includes BA, they are also, as you have pointed out, low cost themselves now. Soon your services will be hired by the hour.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little simplistic there Neo . Yes, the controls operate in the same sense... but thats about it. Tell me, what happens in a 737 if you pull the control column back all the way and hold it there? Now what happens in a A3xx when you apply a rearward force to the sidestick and keep doing so? Two completely different things, of course.
The differences result in a different set of motor skills on the part of the pilot. They do, in effect, fly differently to a 737 pilot.
It's a bit like the old days, flying aircraft like the F27. you operate a Dart engine by pushing the power levers all the way forward and then using fuel trim. Try doing that with any modern engine that doesn't actually prevent you from doing so in software, and the result is a fried engine. You fly an F27 differently to a Dash 8 (for example).
The differences result in a different set of motor skills on the part of the pilot. They do, in effect, fly differently to a 737 pilot.
It's a bit like the old days, flying aircraft like the F27. you operate a Dart engine by pushing the power levers all the way forward and then using fuel trim. Try doing that with any modern engine that doesn't actually prevent you from doing so in software, and the result is a fried engine. You fly an F27 differently to a Dash 8 (for example).
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But why discuss the finer points of flying these things? If you want to do that go get an Extra 300. You don't need to 'fly' the current Airbus no matter the future ones. Automatic application of yaw etc, indeed on the occasions that the pilot has interfered things usually end in tears. Soon you will engage the automatics on the pre take off checks and disengage them after landing. Certainly when this is the case I will feel much safer as a passenger.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carruthers,
As you have obviously never flown an aircraft commercially and have no knowledge of what is required to obtain and maintain a commercial pilot's license, please take your uninformed opinions elsewhere.
As you have obviously never flown an aircraft commercially and have no knowledge of what is required to obtain and maintain a commercial pilot's license, please take your uninformed opinions elsewhere.
N4790P
Interestingly, every time the topic of automated/pilotless commercial aircraft pops up there is an assumption that this would achieved in a single step.
Surely before any such radical changes are even considered, a protracted period of single pilot operation would be required to validate the viability and safety of pilotless operation.
Whilst I am sure that even today’s technology could indeed support automated flight, aviation authority acceptance and more importantly passenger acceptance is a long, long way away.
Whether people such as Carruthers like it or not, thankfully pilots are here to stay for at least our lifetimes.
Surely before any such radical changes are even considered, a protracted period of single pilot operation would be required to validate the viability and safety of pilotless operation.
Whilst I am sure that even today’s technology could indeed support automated flight, aviation authority acceptance and more importantly passenger acceptance is a long, long way away.
Whether people such as Carruthers like it or not, thankfully pilots are here to stay for at least our lifetimes.