Iberia: A-321 210kts at 3.8nms ......
Alpageur
I'm pleased to hear that you have such a close relationship with your colleagues on the flight deck but do you think that sort of behaviour is appropriate?
They thrust me, I thrust them
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alpagueur320
" No gusto, no panache, no nothing.... just scared of anything and everything!"
Oh yes I get scared alright. It is fear and respect for an aircraft (any aircraft) that has helped keep me alive during 40 years plus of professional aviation. Some of it, probably the most dangerous civilian flying on earth, if you let it be. I fear bad weather, the unexpected, people with attitudes such as yours anywhere near an airliner, etc., etc. If you have no fear I am unable to understand why you haven't got yourself into serious trouble before now.
Funny old world aint it?. These airlines put these guys through the hoops etc., in order to get the "best" candidates. Some pass with flying colors and yet display every personality defect known to man at a later date.
"A monkey can be taught to ride a bike (aircraft?) but you cant teach it to read road signs."
I rest my case.
" No gusto, no panache, no nothing.... just scared of anything and everything!"
Oh yes I get scared alright. It is fear and respect for an aircraft (any aircraft) that has helped keep me alive during 40 years plus of professional aviation. Some of it, probably the most dangerous civilian flying on earth, if you let it be. I fear bad weather, the unexpected, people with attitudes such as yours anywhere near an airliner, etc., etc. If you have no fear I am unable to understand why you haven't got yourself into serious trouble before now.
Funny old world aint it?. These airlines put these guys through the hoops etc., in order to get the "best" candidates. Some pass with flying colors and yet display every personality defect known to man at a later date.
"A monkey can be taught to ride a bike (aircraft?) but you cant teach it to read road signs."
I rest my case.
Last edited by doubleu-anker; 10th Sep 2013 at 09:07.
Alpagueur - you are evidently a sky god and my conservative "boring" approach to flying, along with being Anglo Saxon, warrants me to be a far less capable pilot than yourself, ho hum. Back to flying conservative, boring, stress free approaches for me.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Put out to graze
Age: 64
Posts: 1,046
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Alpagueur 8000, is that all? Yet you preach (a load of bull) as if you have 80000!
Believe you me, you have a lot to learn about flying and people.
Believe you me, you have a lot to learn about flying and people.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alp - I didn't say you were Dutch, I simply asked if you'd been to the KLM Academy as you appear to share some traits with the their graduates which are well known in my company. What I did say is you don't have that many hours. 8000, and the biggest hardware is what, a 737 NG? In my company 8000 hours is less than a decades experience, and anyone who implies they've mastered flying and don't need to learn anymore after such a short time would be looked upon with scepticism. Experience improves judgement. Good judgement means you're not forced to use your good skills. Stay out of trouble, not get out of trouble. If you really are the ace of the base with outstanding hand flying skills I'd be very careful about where your FOs are in the operation. I've heard that claim before, always from Captains, and almost always from the ones who do their own thing and leave their colleague either out of the loop, out of their comfort zone or second guessing what their magnificent captain is going to do next. Fortunately they've mostly retired now. I fly with some guys I'd regard as genuinely outstanding pilots, yet not one of them have claimed to be such. Perhaps thats a British thing.
If you want to fly a high speed, low power approach and bring the throttles off the stops at 510' then go ahead, your choice. Personally I don't think the extra 10 seconds it saves is worthwhile.
If you want to fly a high speed, low power approach and bring the throttles off the stops at 510' then go ahead, your choice. Personally I don't think the extra 10 seconds it saves is worthwhile.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
?...I might give them a different interpretation than some others, but that doesn't make the others more right then me...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Age: 77
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sigh! Met lots of people the likes of Alpagueur320 during my time in South East Asia, Taiwan and Korea. A number of them came to grief and quite a few had close calls which certainly trimmed their feathers! You wouldn't believe the hot air from those upstarts who flooded the SEA market after the big Ozzie bloopie of '89
I think there's been a major change in attitude from the majority of pilots that I know over the last 20 years.
When I first started, "slick" approaches were appreciated, manual flying was de-rigueur, the FDR was something that hit you on the back of the head when you flew into the side of a mountain and drinking yourself into insensibility on a 12hr slip was absolutely expected.
Since then, we've moved on and the job of the professional pilot today is to get the aircraft from A to B with the minimum exposure to risk and in the most efficient manner. This doesn't have to make it boring or unchallenging, just that the reward is less adrenaline-fuelled and more cerebral.
SAC are there for very good reasons. I remember a quote of something like 40% of landing accidents were preceded by an unstable approach. That is a remarkable number and lead to the conclusion that if we got rid of those kind of approaches, we'd get a big improvement in safety for precious little outlay.
Flying all over the world, day and night, I've grown to like having at least the last 1,000' with the aircraft in a stable configuration because it frees up capacity to monitor the weather, other aircraft and the other pilot. I can project ahead to the landing roll or the possibility of a G/A or rejected landing. Yes, I'm quite capable of flying a "run and break", top ruddered turn and sideslip onto the numbers but it's not what I'm paid for and no matter how good I think I am, it adds risk to the operation.
When I first started, "slick" approaches were appreciated, manual flying was de-rigueur, the FDR was something that hit you on the back of the head when you flew into the side of a mountain and drinking yourself into insensibility on a 12hr slip was absolutely expected.
Since then, we've moved on and the job of the professional pilot today is to get the aircraft from A to B with the minimum exposure to risk and in the most efficient manner. This doesn't have to make it boring or unchallenging, just that the reward is less adrenaline-fuelled and more cerebral.
SAC are there for very good reasons. I remember a quote of something like 40% of landing accidents were preceded by an unstable approach. That is a remarkable number and lead to the conclusion that if we got rid of those kind of approaches, we'd get a big improvement in safety for precious little outlay.
Flying all over the world, day and night, I've grown to like having at least the last 1,000' with the aircraft in a stable configuration because it frees up capacity to monitor the weather, other aircraft and the other pilot. I can project ahead to the landing roll or the possibility of a G/A or rejected landing. Yes, I'm quite capable of flying a "run and break", top ruddered turn and sideslip onto the numbers but it's not what I'm paid for and no matter how good I think I am, it adds risk to the operation.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I honestly don't think I will be better with 10000hours more on my logbook... I proved my case in an earlier post.
In the US Navy, they land on aircraft carriers with 300 hours total or less... Can you do that with your 300000 hours crossing the Atlantic? I very much doubt so...
on the heavy metal, seen it plenty. Riding a jet ski to driving a supertanker.
One of my ex-colleagues Cpt 737 (a good friend) left a while ago and joined a 747 outfit as FO... Although he said the Captains had a lot (!) of hours, the level was weak. Very low actually. So don't come and tell me you need a new set of skill to fly what is just another Boeing....!!!! Airplanes are all the same in the end... But only if you understand the dynamics of flying, can you accept that fact! If you fly just by SOP's however....
So before I was reckless to do something like that, but now it's fine????
Im leaving this forum now. I'm wasting my time anyway as it is only crowed with people who do not share my core values and ideals.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FullWings
to get the aircraft from A to B with the minimum exposure to risk and in the most efficient manner. This doesn't have to make it boring or unchallenging, just that the reward is less adrenaline-fuelled and more cerebral.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drivez: For me 500ft is my target, and I do it well consistently. And guess what: the ground is at 0ft, not at 499ft. If you need to aim at 1000ft to be stable at 500ft on a routine basis, I seriously doubt your ability to control the aircraft you are in charge of... I know WAY BEFORE the 500ft gate if I'm gonna be stable or not. And I always act accordingly. My guess is you never handfly... Let me tell you one thing: when I fly, the safety of the aircraft, the passengers and the crew come first. But I'm a professional, and I'm honing my skills daily. A concept most airline pilots are not familiar with I'm afraid (one of the main reasons of degrading skills)...If you think 3000ft stable is safer than 500ft, you are fooling yourself. Its not less safe, but not more safe either!
Thanks for the insight in to my professional flying ability. I also know well before 500 feet whether I am likely to be stable or not, that was not my point. My point was that 500' is a limit for being stable not a point to consistently aim as making it at. I have no doubt (or at least like to think) the safety of your passengers come first but you miss an important point here when claiming your bravado style of flying is a way of testing your skills and not becoming a child of the magenta line.
No I do not need to aim for 1000 to be stable by 500 although my airline does encourage this, as it makes the flight below 1000' less busy, far more controlled, and capacity far greater rather than fighting to get stable.
I regularly hand fly the aircraft, RD ILS (no I don't keep the FD) etc. and the other day I disconnected shortly after leaving the cruise and flew the aircraft in. On every occasion I do this though there is something in common, the weather is reasonably good, traffic conditions are light, and I consider my colleague, brief them thoroughly, and only do it when I consider me practicing my hand flying skill is not going to place undue strain on my colleague. In other words ensuring none of those pesky Swiss cheese holes have even the slightest chance of lining up before I even slightly lower my capacity.
My guess is FO's hate flying with you because every approach as they approach 6-700 feet they are tensing wondering if you'll make it stable this time. On that note I would love to know which airline you fly for, so I can avoid it.
My other guess though, we're feeding a troll.
Thanks for the insight in to my professional flying ability. I also know well before 500 feet whether I am likely to be stable or not, that was not my point. My point was that 500' is a limit for being stable not a point to consistently aim as making it at. I have no doubt (or at least like to think) the safety of your passengers come first but you miss an important point here when claiming your bravado style of flying is a way of testing your skills and not becoming a child of the magenta line.
No I do not need to aim for 1000 to be stable by 500 although my airline does encourage this, as it makes the flight below 1000' less busy, far more controlled, and capacity far greater rather than fighting to get stable.
I regularly hand fly the aircraft, RD ILS (no I don't keep the FD) etc. and the other day I disconnected shortly after leaving the cruise and flew the aircraft in. On every occasion I do this though there is something in common, the weather is reasonably good, traffic conditions are light, and I consider my colleague, brief them thoroughly, and only do it when I consider me practicing my hand flying skill is not going to place undue strain on my colleague. In other words ensuring none of those pesky Swiss cheese holes have even the slightest chance of lining up before I even slightly lower my capacity.
My guess is FO's hate flying with you because every approach as they approach 6-700 feet they are tensing wondering if you'll make it stable this time. On that note I would love to know which airline you fly for, so I can avoid it.
My other guess though, we're feeding a troll.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed SOPs are just they way that the Manufacturer of the aircraft and the company that operates the aircraft mandates that you fly them. Much discussion here about being stable at 500 feet, yet who decided that was the appropriate gate? Was it the SOP? Why not 600 feet or 400 feet? Those busy vilifying those who stick to SOPs, what other information do you think is merely for the guidance of wise men and the adherence of fools? There are very few test pilots amongst us, yet the test pilots I have flown with we're very much by the book, using SOPs to stay out of trouble. The really gifted aviators seldom need to demonstrate their gifts to others just because they can.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asperger320 wrote:
And thank Christ they don't!
You are a REAL oddball, who wouldn't last 6 months in any decent airline. Which I guess explains why you are where you are!
Im leaving this forum now. I'm wasting my time anyway as it is only crowed with people who do not share my core values and ideals.
You are a REAL oddball, who wouldn't last 6 months in any decent airline. Which I guess explains why you are where you are!
Last edited by 4468; 10th Sep 2013 at 15:46.
Well said pug...
What amazes me that in this Day and age the profession have more than their fair share of bullies, and as always, ignorant ones too...
What some are saying is that instead of IGS approach at HKG they should have closed the airfield, likewise with GIB when smokey Joe was moored off the rock as well as Zurich with the cloud break 16 followed by LH circling for 28...and cloudbase below 1000ft.
Then NDB approaches should be banned....
And on my first flight to Tirana we should have gone to Bari and let the pax take a ferry accross...
On descent FMS Nav dropped out...8/8ths with embedded CBs...no Albanian radar, mountains and of course a beacon approach....so we used the wx radar in mapping as well as CB avoidance...comparing the coast line with our paper charts...1992... Obviously beyond the capabilities of some of you...
And I suppose that the space shuttle landings were illegal as well...
No wonder some of you lot are paid peanuts ....
What amazes me that in this Day and age the profession have more than their fair share of bullies, and as always, ignorant ones too...
What some are saying is that instead of IGS approach at HKG they should have closed the airfield, likewise with GIB when smokey Joe was moored off the rock as well as Zurich with the cloud break 16 followed by LH circling for 28...and cloudbase below 1000ft.
Then NDB approaches should be banned....
And on my first flight to Tirana we should have gone to Bari and let the pax take a ferry accross...
On descent FMS Nav dropped out...8/8ths with embedded CBs...no Albanian radar, mountains and of course a beacon approach....so we used the wx radar in mapping as well as CB avoidance...comparing the coast line with our paper charts...1992... Obviously beyond the capabilities of some of you...
And I suppose that the space shuttle landings were illegal as well...
No wonder some of you lot are paid peanuts ....
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you forget to take your Alzheimers medication BP? Here's some news for you: people still fly into Gib, and do cloud breaks and VORs at ZRH, and 'super-scary-aren't-I-clever' approaches with close in terrain like Chambrey. We don't do NDBs (they've been almost retired don't you know, it's RNAV now), and the IGS at HKG has gone but it was no worse than the Canarsie at JFK anyway and there's plenty of those around. The difference today is that people don't go stooging around in high risk environments for kicks. If it has to be done it gets done, with a lot of briefing beforehand to avoid an unpleasant encounter with CumoloGranitus. If there's a safer way, people choose it.
We don't get paid (peanuts or otherwise) to act as Sky Gods who'll hand fly at any opportunity. We get paid to assess risk and act accordingly. Fools can fly. Autopilots can fly. Professionals make decisions. If I want to hand fly I'll choose a nice day at a known airport with a safe environment and tuck that practice away under my belt for the day I really do need to do a cloud break with a circle to land with an engine out at a mountainous airport in bad weather. My company and my passengers don't expect me to be upping the risk levels in tricky areas for fun just because I can, just like I don't expect my train driver or heart surgeon to push the limits. There's a whole lot of dead train passengers in Spain who wish their driver had played it safe.
We don't get paid (peanuts or otherwise) to act as Sky Gods who'll hand fly at any opportunity. We get paid to assess risk and act accordingly. Fools can fly. Autopilots can fly. Professionals make decisions. If I want to hand fly I'll choose a nice day at a known airport with a safe environment and tuck that practice away under my belt for the day I really do need to do a cloud break with a circle to land with an engine out at a mountainous airport in bad weather. My company and my passengers don't expect me to be upping the risk levels in tricky areas for fun just because I can, just like I don't expect my train driver or heart surgeon to push the limits. There's a whole lot of dead train passengers in Spain who wish their driver had played it safe.
Not at all yellow pen..I was making the point out that the 1000ft stabilised approach gate isn't always possible and if adequately trained there is nothing wrong with a lower altitude.
Just because one company has a 1000ft gate it doesn't mean that everyone else is unprofessional and dangerous.
It is about having the ability to step back, look at how others operate and decide whether you can learn from them.
Just because one company has a 1000ft gate it doesn't mean that everyone else is unprofessional and dangerous.
It is about having the ability to step back, look at how others operate and decide whether you can learn from them.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think anyone said a 500 foot gate was dangerous per se. BA had a 500 foot gate for ages and everyone grumbled when it went up to 1000 feet. Properly briefed and planned a lower gate is perfectly acceptable. In BA there are lower gates on certain approaches, but the exceptional nature of those approaches means that people are very focused as they fly them, energy management has been thoroughly planned and a missed approach is considered a high probability.
What has perhaps rankled people is the idea that the 500 foot gate is a target rather than a limit, and the implication that those who don't choose to push the limit are in some way inferior pilots. I'd suggest the idea of a slick approach to 500' being in some way impressive is the aviation equivalent of the boy racer trying to drag race you away from the traffic lights. The nob in the souped up Vauxhall Astra might think he's 'beaten' you away, but the reality is you don't care because it isn't a race (although if you did care and floored it you'd probably leave him for dust anyway).
What has perhaps rankled people is the idea that the 500 foot gate is a target rather than a limit, and the implication that those who don't choose to push the limit are in some way inferior pilots. I'd suggest the idea of a slick approach to 500' being in some way impressive is the aviation equivalent of the boy racer trying to drag race you away from the traffic lights. The nob in the souped up Vauxhall Astra might think he's 'beaten' you away, but the reality is you don't care because it isn't a race (although if you did care and floored it you'd probably leave him for dust anyway).