Stewardess demoted to First Officer
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Where I'm pointing...
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are three parts to this thread, all with simple answers, why the need to be contentious is beyond me. (MNSHO is that the "questions" being answered are not clear in several of the answers/posts)... Nothing wrong with good old fashioned debate or even a question about what you would or should do in this situation, just be clear.
1. Is it appropriate for a pilot decide to land a 2 crew commercial jet on their own?
2. In this occurence, did the PIC (in this case the captain) make an appropriate decision to have a "third party" (non cockpit crew) assist him to safely land the aircraft?
3. Was the thread title appropriate?
Suggested answers below (and I don't think my non-ATPL status should affect your appreciation of my answers - see below), only logic should, which is not the sole purview of commercial pilots (and neither are the tenants of CRM))
1. Dave Sanders, Captain of Fedex Flight 705 managed to land the aircraft after he had his head bashed in with a hammer; I think this (as well a lot of the other posts in this thread) proves that this is viable, leading us to question 2.
2. The aircraft landed safely, without incident (the conversations on this thread, and the co-pilots situation aside).
In all the CRM discussions being banded about on this thread, PIC gets to decide what is an emergency situations (he/she will no doubt need to back it up later on the ground), and once in such situation what calls to make to ensure the safety of aircraft, crew, passengers, cargo, daisy the cow minding her own business on the ground, and anyone/thing else left out at risk in no particular order).
In this case, it was decided to use the assistance of a CPL qualified crew member, which hopefully we can all agree worked out well, with the exception of the panic it caused PPRune pilots who's sensitivities were injured in the ensuing aftermath of 20/20 hindsight.
3. My summation is that it was an attempt at humor, with an aim of provoking attention. By the amount of responses and views one would argue it was a succesful attempt. (I personally quite appreciated it!
)
Now I trust we could get back to some good old fashioned gossip^H^H^H^Hrumours and news (and a bit of humorous banter in between)
And for those upset by my (and other posters in this thread) none ATPL status, I didn't realize that Rumours and News or posting on pprune were certification categories in the ATPL exams.
1. Is it appropriate for a pilot decide to land a 2 crew commercial jet on their own?
2. In this occurence, did the PIC (in this case the captain) make an appropriate decision to have a "third party" (non cockpit crew) assist him to safely land the aircraft?
3. Was the thread title appropriate?
Suggested answers below (and I don't think my non-ATPL status should affect your appreciation of my answers - see below), only logic should, which is not the sole purview of commercial pilots (and neither are the tenants of CRM))
1. Dave Sanders, Captain of Fedex Flight 705 managed to land the aircraft after he had his head bashed in with a hammer; I think this (as well a lot of the other posts in this thread) proves that this is viable, leading us to question 2.
2. The aircraft landed safely, without incident (the conversations on this thread, and the co-pilots situation aside).
In all the CRM discussions being banded about on this thread, PIC gets to decide what is an emergency situations (he/she will no doubt need to back it up later on the ground), and once in such situation what calls to make to ensure the safety of aircraft, crew, passengers, cargo, daisy the cow minding her own business on the ground, and anyone/thing else left out at risk in no particular order).
In this case, it was decided to use the assistance of a CPL qualified crew member, which hopefully we can all agree worked out well, with the exception of the panic it caused PPRune pilots who's sensitivities were injured in the ensuing aftermath of 20/20 hindsight.
3. My summation is that it was an attempt at humor, with an aim of provoking attention. By the amount of responses and views one would argue it was a succesful attempt. (I personally quite appreciated it!
)Now I trust we could get back to some good old fashioned gossip^H^H^H^Hrumours and news (and a bit of humorous banter in between)
And for those upset by my (and other posters in this thread) none ATPL status, I didn't realize that Rumours and News or posting on pprune were certification categories in the ATPL exams.
Last edited by birrddog; 30th Nov 2008 at 01:02. Reason: tried to add a point to my point
Great post, birddog;
From a captain's pov, if I may respond:
1. Is it appropriate for a pilot decide to land a 2 crew commercial jet on their own?
The captain is the final authority on the flight s/he can decide and do as s/he needs to conduct the flight with the maximum of safety under the circumstances. S/he has the unbridled right to command whatever resources are required, the right to expect that orders will be followed and the right to defend those decisions when the emergency is over. In direct answer to your question, Yes, it is entirely appropriate and I would have done the same.
2. In this occurence, did the PIC (in this case the captain) make an appropriate decision to have a "third party" (non cockpit crew) assist him to safely land the aircraft?
See above. Yes, the decision was appropriate. I have done it in a similar circumstance but in my case the "third party" was the Relief Pilot on duty. They are not licensed to land the aircraft or sit in the front seats below cruise altitude but in the circumstances I faced, there was no one better qualified. It was a non-event. Failing that good luck, I would have conducted the balance of the flight precisely as this captain did. It was text-book and should be an example for all crews on how it's done in such an emergency.
3. Was the thread title appropriate?
Odd question given the first two - it deals with industrial relations matters, not flight safety matters and the two should never mix. Nevertheless it deserves at least a clarifying answer:
Although veterans in their own right, new First Officers hired on these days with major carriers will earn approximately $35,000 year if they're fortunate. "New" captains promoted on a major carrier's junior equipment, (sometimes they're promoted right at hiring - they're still veterans!), are paid about $65k/year.
Comparatively speaking, graduate nurses with no experience can expect a starting wage of between $45k and $65k/year as can teachers in some regions.
Think about two things when you climb on board a commuter jet next time: The guys up front combined, aren't earning enough to live in many of the large cities crews are based in, and raise a family - not even today - without going into debt. The spouse has to work. Second, the guys probably have short layovers, (9 hours off-duty (10.5hrs from in-to-out) is common) and would probably be flying at least a four-leg, 13hr day, almost always through the same weather fronts. East coast work is challenging to say the least.
If you sense that there is more to this than an "industrial approach" you're right - it's flight safety work as it relates to "who will come for $35000 bucks a year", and what drives the beancounters mad - duty days and crew fatigue. Both these points are controversial, the first more than the second, and do require in-depth, patient and knowledgable discussion. Please be aware that I have put these issues in pithy terms intentionally because they are industry hot-buttons within, and without.
Hope this helps!
PJ2
From a captain's pov, if I may respond:
1. Is it appropriate for a pilot decide to land a 2 crew commercial jet on their own?
The captain is the final authority on the flight s/he can decide and do as s/he needs to conduct the flight with the maximum of safety under the circumstances. S/he has the unbridled right to command whatever resources are required, the right to expect that orders will be followed and the right to defend those decisions when the emergency is over. In direct answer to your question, Yes, it is entirely appropriate and I would have done the same.
2. In this occurence, did the PIC (in this case the captain) make an appropriate decision to have a "third party" (non cockpit crew) assist him to safely land the aircraft?
See above. Yes, the decision was appropriate. I have done it in a similar circumstance but in my case the "third party" was the Relief Pilot on duty. They are not licensed to land the aircraft or sit in the front seats below cruise altitude but in the circumstances I faced, there was no one better qualified. It was a non-event. Failing that good luck, I would have conducted the balance of the flight precisely as this captain did. It was text-book and should be an example for all crews on how it's done in such an emergency.
3. Was the thread title appropriate?
Odd question given the first two - it deals with industrial relations matters, not flight safety matters and the two should never mix. Nevertheless it deserves at least a clarifying answer:
Although veterans in their own right, new First Officers hired on these days with major carriers will earn approximately $35,000 year if they're fortunate. "New" captains promoted on a major carrier's junior equipment, (sometimes they're promoted right at hiring - they're still veterans!), are paid about $65k/year.
Comparatively speaking, graduate nurses with no experience can expect a starting wage of between $45k and $65k/year as can teachers in some regions.
Think about two things when you climb on board a commuter jet next time: The guys up front combined, aren't earning enough to live in many of the large cities crews are based in, and raise a family - not even today - without going into debt. The spouse has to work. Second, the guys probably have short layovers, (9 hours off-duty (10.5hrs from in-to-out) is common) and would probably be flying at least a four-leg, 13hr day, almost always through the same weather fronts. East coast work is challenging to say the least.
If you sense that there is more to this than an "industrial approach" you're right - it's flight safety work as it relates to "who will come for $35000 bucks a year", and what drives the beancounters mad - duty days and crew fatigue. Both these points are controversial, the first more than the second, and do require in-depth, patient and knowledgable discussion. Please be aware that I have put these issues in pithy terms intentionally because they are industry hot-buttons within, and without.
Hope this helps!
PJ2
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Age: 51
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ2....
Apologies to side step the topic
As SLF I was surprised at the figures you were quoting for first officer etc. I did a search and came up with Aviation Career Salary Ranges
Are CC really paid better than pilots - it makes no sense to me !
Sitting myself back on the shelf now...
As SLF I was surprised at the figures you were quoting for first officer etc. I did a search and came up with Aviation Career Salary Ranges
Are CC really paid better than pilots - it makes no sense to me !
Sitting myself back on the shelf now...
except for the first and last 500ft, it is mainly pushing buttons to command automatics these days !
After just 1 hour, he marked a component with a chalk 'X', and told them to replace that component. He also left an invoice which read:
"1 chalk 'X' £50,000"
They replaced the marked component and the computer sprang back into action, but nevertheless, they were outraged at the cost of having just one chalk 'X' put on a component. So they told the expert that the invoice was outrageous and that he'd have to modify the invoice where the chalk 'X' was only £500. He gladly agreed to do so for them. Next day, they received a new replacement invoice:
"1 chalk 'X' £500
Knowing where to put it £49,500"
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
luvly jubbly
Bet he didn't let her touch anything...... Just read the checklist
Yeah,just like the missus reading the street directory.
Jofm5;
The "Salary Ranges" list you found is pretty accurate in my experience. There are variations of course, according to collective agreements and so on. You can see that the potential for senior pilots is high but it takes a long time to get there. My own highest years were years 30 - 35. It took 20 years to break 100k/year.
My point is, not only are pilots paid far less for their work than other careers but the salary ranges will not attract "the best and brightest" who will have, (if they're that smart), looked at aviation-as-career and decided "no thanks" after taking a look at how pilots are treated. Mind you, healthcare workers and teachers are also being treated badly in terms of hours-in for pay-received..."more for less" is the mantra, but the starting salaries are higher.
Pilots are, in general, paid better than CC. There was a move afoot a while back at one airline in which F/A's were demanding equal pay with pilots because theirs was a "safety job" as well. A couple of responses were possible...one being the title of this thread, another was the usual comparison of training, standards etc. While the job is important and I have always had respect for those highly-trained people who are responsible for getting my passengers off an airplane in a hurry, it takes about six weeks from off-the-street to "qualified" for an F/A and often, in strikes, (non-F/A) management will step in with a few days' "training" to replace striking workers, in which case all slogans regarding safety-first go right out the window and become "safety first, except when....".
Enough thread drift. Cheers!
As SLF I was surprised at the figures you were quoting for first officer etc. I did a search and came up with Aviation Career Salary Ranges
Are CC really paid better than pilots - it makes no sense to me !
Are CC really paid better than pilots - it makes no sense to me !
My point is, not only are pilots paid far less for their work than other careers but the salary ranges will not attract "the best and brightest" who will have, (if they're that smart), looked at aviation-as-career and decided "no thanks" after taking a look at how pilots are treated. Mind you, healthcare workers and teachers are also being treated badly in terms of hours-in for pay-received..."more for less" is the mantra, but the starting salaries are higher.
Pilots are, in general, paid better than CC. There was a move afoot a while back at one airline in which F/A's were demanding equal pay with pilots because theirs was a "safety job" as well. A couple of responses were possible...one being the title of this thread, another was the usual comparison of training, standards etc. While the job is important and I have always had respect for those highly-trained people who are responsible for getting my passengers off an airplane in a hurry, it takes about six weeks from off-the-street to "qualified" for an F/A and often, in strikes, (non-F/A) management will step in with a few days' "training" to replace striking workers, in which case all slogans regarding safety-first go right out the window and become "safety first, except when....".
Enough thread drift. Cheers!
