Pay-to-fly wannabee damages Thomas Cook Airbus

[bearfoil]

Sorry, I'll have two pilots, please. And the way things are goin', an intermittent klaxon on the FD after each merger.

[DozyWannabe]

Conf - I don't know if I'm misreading you or if you're misreading the report, but I don't think by "sidestick movement" they mean sidesticks with force-feedback... I think they mean proper monitoring of sidestick movement by the trainee during training.

Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Clandestino]

Way I read it, CAA is worried about sticks not being interconnected, so there is no way for one pilot to find out what the other is doing with the sidestick. Including the other crewmember's sidestick into scan? That's not "ideal" that's "dementedly optimistic".

Originally Posted by CONF iture

Finally someone to acknowledge the absurdity of the concept !

Yup! Airbus must be shaking with fear, after all certifications of all their FBW models might be reviewed in the light of this CAA finding. I'm afraid they'll get away with "A321 is passenger transport aeroplane, it is not trainer so teaching the basics of how to land in it might be inappropriate" kind of response.

[A37575]

IMHO a major point has been overlooked. Hands up now, how many of you have ever had a Training Captain or other Instructor actually demonstrate a landing in the Sim? Damn few, I'll be bound. All most of them do is criticise mistakes after the event.
"Demonstrate; direct; monitor." What happened to that basic training dictum

Agree wholeheartedly. Having been in the airline instructing business for many years, it is a rare instructor that hops into the seat and gives a polished and pattered demonstration of handling in an airline simulator. The main reason is the simulator instructor's lack of confidence in his own handling skills and fear of stuffing up in front of the student. Crosswind landings and engine failure after V1 is where many students have difficulty - yet a good demonstration is worth its weight in gold but it doesn't happen. Time constraints are often cited as the reason. Where is the priority?

[parabellum]

In most cases a demonstration of a landing technique should be unecessary, it should be second nature, from previous experience, should it not? Just minor variations from type to type.

[aguadalte]

What previous experience?
Cessna 152?

[Pugilistic Animus]

Wow you guys, unreal.

Ab initio training is one thing; this crap described is another---how come airline don't fund ab initio training far different from MPL or part 141 these pay fro training schemes are

I wont travel on that airline ever [amonsgt several others world wide

PA

[Nigel Molesworth]

Training Doctors ?

I train doctors (to teach other doctors). Almost everything you say about the problems of "hours" and experience they are saying also.
The question is, doctors have to learn to do operations; how do you feel about a junior doctor "learning" on you?

Regards to all.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

What makes a successful airline pilot? May I be so bold as to suggest that it is a combination of 5 qualities - aptitude, training, knowledge, skill and experience. The first of those qualities is aptitude and without some of that the rest will not safely come. This poor guy was taken on without proper selection and lacked the basic skills required to do the job. Why was that? Sadly it was because his basic aptitude was insufficient to assimilate the training that would increase the knowldege to hone the skills required to land a commercial jet aircraft whilst simultaneously building experience. Sure, the trainer could have intervened earlier and maybe should have flown the particular sector himself. In all honesty, no Training Captain can give a cast-iron certainty that the same fate would not have befallen them. Nonetheless, the fact remains that a very below-average First Officer was trying his very best in training - but that was just not good enough to operate at the minimum standard that is required to fly a commercial jet airliner with paying passengers on board. He was simply put in a position that his basic lack of aptitude made him ill-equipped to face. That was because of a commercial decision to take on 'pay-to-fly' pilots rather than recruit them in the traditional manner using recognised aptitude testing. Thomas Cook is by no means the only airline to have done it, but it is worth noting that both easyJet and Thomas Cook have abandoned the practice - from which you can draw your own conclusions.

[CONF iture]

Originally Posted by CAA

Awareness - Trainers operating FBW types with sidestick controls (i.e. no traditional control yoke) should understand that flight deck cues of a trainee pilot’s handling/mishandling are less than in conventional types. The absence of a traditional ‘yoke’ makes assessment of the flare manoeuvre particularly difficult. Trainers should develop a modified scan that should include changes to attitude, idle power selection and, ideally, sidestick movement.

DozyWannabe
You’ve been one of the most vehement to counteract my argumentation regarding the Airbus sidestick philosophy, just to realize that you have never been involved in multi crew flight deck duty …
The CAA acknowledges that a PNF should be aware of the control inputs made by a PF especially if the PNF acts as a trainer … but 'properly monitoring' the other sidestick is just "dementedly optimistic" as Clandestino nicely put it.

Clandestino
Apparently you have changed your mind with time on that very subject … is it the influence of this official authority notice ?

[olster]

I and my trainer colleagues recognised in 1994 that aircraft training on the A340 was more problematic than the equivalent on more traditional ie Boeing types.It was well documented at the time that the sidestick arrangement with lack of feedback and non movement of thrust levers when in autothrust mode could lead to misinterpretation and inability to 'catch' a deteriorating situation.It beggars belief that we are having these discussions 15 years later as though it were novel and also that regulatory bodies feel the need to push out 'advice'.

The pay to fly schemes are outrageous and scandalous.Would the medical profession allow students to 'pay to operate?'Rhetorical question and at least they are selected by virtue of very high academic attainment.As a trainer for nearly 17 years if any company had asked me to train an aspirant pilot,paying for line training I would have given up training.

[Clandestino]

Originally Posted by CONF iture

Clandestino
Apparently you have changed your mind with time on that very subject … is it the influence of this official authority notice ?

Sorry old chap, I was being sarcastic.

Now seriously: I do agree with you that it's better to have interconnected flight controls. The point on which we disagree is that you claim that it's safety critical and that FBW Airbi are inherently dangerous for lack of it. I still think that it's "nice to have", not "need to have" and aeroplanes with independent sticks can still be flown safely. However, prerequisite for safe flight is proper pilot selection and training. Urban legend has got it seriously wrong: Airbus FBW aeroplanes still require two competent pilots up front. Filling the seats with substandard individuals in hope that FBW will soak up bad piloting is merely invitation for a prang.

If you want to judge merits of classic vs. Airbus controls by referring to case studies, you might want to analyze FedEx landing accident at Newark. MD-11 does have interconnected yokes.

[parabellum]

What previous experience?
Cessna 152?

No, see my previous post. 1500 hours on charter type twins, from the Aztec type to the King Air will certainly give the young, inexperienced pilot a lot of landing experience, including, stabilised approach, thrust reduction and, when appropriate, flare, this guy obviously missed out on all of that.

I believe he should never have been allowed to get that far down the programme, based on what has been written here. He didn't have the required aptitude and you can't learn aptitude.

[DCDriver]

Having read much of this thread I would like to point out, at the risk of attracting much opprobium, that while "Thomas Cook" is getting a bad press in many of the above posts, the incident happened to My Travel Airways! Thos Cook had not merged with MYT at that time. Their training culture was completely different to that in the "old" TCX.

Secondly, comparing MD11 landing accidents with Airbus FBW landing incidents is comparing chalk & cheese - most of the 11's landing accidents can be put down to agricultural, ham-fisted techniques on the handlebars and a reluctance to go around after messing it up close to the ground. While the '11 might not have been the nicest jet from the great Donald Douglas's stable, it was still a thoroughbred in the proper hands.

[CONF iture]

Clandestino
Your sarcasm did not make it through this time …

I do agree with you that it's better to have interconnected flight controls

FULL STOP - I effectively acknowledge these words.

The point on which we disagree is that you claim that it's safety critical and that FBW Airbi are inherently dangerous for lack of it

But these ones belong to you. Do not attribute them to me. Please. You would be well advised to quote me !

Originally Posted by olster

It beggars belief that we are having these discussions 15 years later as though it were novel and also that regulatory bodies feel the need to push out 'advice'.

As you mention, this issue has been largely discussed in the early years, see here

But officially speaking, I must say it’s a First, even if it should have been mentioned more than once by different investigation bodies, but trough the years these institutions have been very hesitant not to say reluctant to further elaborate on this issue.
I have also a doubt David Learmount or Flightglobal will report on this notice … ?

[DozyWannabe]

Conf, the A320 series is an advanced jet design - if someone's going into the right seat without sufficient knowledge of flare technique from previous experience I'd be worried.

[charlies angel]

DCDRIVER
Didn't one of "your" mini buses need a total rebuild from Airbus after an argument with Bristols hard runway just before the merger.
Presumably "TCX" (inferred) superior training culture then should have prevented such an unfortunate occurence!!!
How not so?

[DCDriver]

Yeah, ok Charlie!! Good spot!
(In reality though this wasn't a training flt and the wx conditions were later shown to have been a bit demanding)

[Perwazee]

IMHO a major point has been overlooked. Hands up now, how many of you have ever had a Training Captain or other Instructor actually demonstrate a landing in the Sim? Damn few, I'll be bound. All most of them do is criticise mistakes after the event.
"Demonstrate; direct; monitor." What happened to that basic training dictum? Not even a few extra circuits in the sim would be required; in most cases, merely a 'freeze' at 500 feet on finals and several subsequent landings to get the techniques nailed would be enough. One problem is that the trainers are reluctant to demonstrate, in fear of making a mistake. No sweat, analyse the mistake and make it a training point. The student will respect you for that.
The answer to the low-time F/O is not more hours, it is more honest training.

Good Point. In all my sim training the instructor would always criticize, but would never jump in the left seat and demonstrate how it's done. NEVER!

[olster]

I did -often