TransAsia in the water?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue is that the solution is bigger than the problem.
Suppose the insurance companies insist on a minimum 1,000 hours flying experience for all First Officers, as they did when I started out.
All very well, but how on earth would you satisfy the demand for pilots if you had to wait several years for them to gain the shortfall in hours after leaving their Flight Academy with only minimal experience?
Where in the World would they work to gain all that experience?
The industry has evolved in a way which now makes it virtually impossible to bring back the old-style training/experience requirements.
The answer is that, for the foreseeable future, there is no answer.
Whereas at one time the issue was that the aircraft had to be certified as 'Perf A', it is now becoming a situation where it is the pilot who needs to be so qualified - as it is a given that modern aeroplanes have the performance required to comply with all that is asked of them by the regulators.
Suppose the insurance companies insist on a minimum 1,000 hours flying experience for all First Officers, as they did when I started out.
All very well, but how on earth would you satisfy the demand for pilots if you had to wait several years for them to gain the shortfall in hours after leaving their Flight Academy with only minimal experience?
Where in the World would they work to gain all that experience?
The industry has evolved in a way which now makes it virtually impossible to bring back the old-style training/experience requirements.
The answer is that, for the foreseeable future, there is no answer.
Whereas at one time the issue was that the aircraft had to be certified as 'Perf A', it is now becoming a situation where it is the pilot who needs to be so qualified - as it is a given that modern aeroplanes have the performance required to comply with all that is asked of them by the regulators.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Tree
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spanna
I'll give you a solution right here and now. Let people fly on until they are say 65. If they are fit and competent, why wash them out? Why get rid of your most experienced people. If they're "too old" for the line, get them training.
I don't know about Taiwan, I suspect it is the same mentality as mainland China you're toast at 55. What nonsense.
I'll give you a solution right here and now. Let people fly on until they are say 65. If they are fit and competent, why wash them out? Why get rid of your most experienced people. If they're "too old" for the line, get them training.
I don't know about Taiwan, I suspect it is the same mentality as mainland China you're toast at 55. What nonsense.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I ain't so sure about the 60-65 band.
Some are great, some not so. I have seen a couple that have gone down hill in a relatively short period ( ie under a month) reaction times drop off, mental processing speed etc etc.
Then they get a "bob was having a bad day, he knows what he is doing" from the TRE in the sim.
Then your into he only has a year left he will be fine territory.
Some are great, some not so. I have seen a couple that have gone down hill in a relatively short period ( ie under a month) reaction times drop off, mental processing speed etc etc.
Then they get a "bob was having a bad day, he knows what he is doing" from the TRE in the sim.
Then your into he only has a year left he will be fine territory.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Tree
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJ
I take your point but some deteriorate faster than others. I know some past it at 50 and others still sharp well into their 60's. Some, at any age who should have been never been allowed near an aircraft, ever.
Should there be such rigidity in the too old age? Just a thought.
I take your point but some deteriorate faster than others. I know some past it at 50 and others still sharp well into their 60's. Some, at any age who should have been never been allowed near an aircraft, ever.
Should there be such rigidity in the too old age? Just a thought.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair point I have only had issues with the 59-65's so far.
A reaction time test in the medical 55 plus would do the trick.
Agree it shouldn't be an age thing it should be a capability thing, unfortunately the LPC system isn't doing the job.
A reaction time test in the medical 55 plus would do the trick.
Agree it shouldn't be an age thing it should be a capability thing, unfortunately the LPC system isn't doing the job.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US will see how that works now that first officers have to have 1500 hours.
Fair point I have only had issues with the 59-65's so far.
Don't know what my reaction time is though - I suppose it's now a question of what's better a man who takes his time and presses the right button, or one who is young and inexperienced who jumps in and presses the wrong button!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
China Airlines pilot jobs news for airline pilots and aviation schools
China Airlines Captain new hire age limit 56 apparently.
China Airlines Captain new hire age limit 56 apparently.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies for the delay in replying, but my reactions aren't what they used to be...
After 40 years of aviation (not all of it airline flying) and 10 years of that instructing, I can't think of many accidents or sim/ line flying issues where split second decision-making (or lack of it) has been the problem.
In the vast majority of accidents and incidents, including those involving engine failure of a twin or multi, it is far more important to draw on experience or rule based, or skill based training to arrive at the correct decision, following from the correct diagnosis. Playing the video game with the "Do something, anything, NOW!" mindset causes more problems than it solves, and reacting sooner just gives the bad decision more time to have it's effect, particularly since the ensuing confirmation bias is not at all age related.
Just saying.
After 40 years of aviation (not all of it airline flying) and 10 years of that instructing, I can't think of many accidents or sim/ line flying issues where split second decision-making (or lack of it) has been the problem.
In the vast majority of accidents and incidents, including those involving engine failure of a twin or multi, it is far more important to draw on experience or rule based, or skill based training to arrive at the correct decision, following from the correct diagnosis. Playing the video game with the "Do something, anything, NOW!" mindset causes more problems than it solves, and reacting sooner just gives the bad decision more time to have it's effect, particularly since the ensuing confirmation bias is not at all age related.
Just saying.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Florida / Bahamas
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please forgive a newbie ga pilot if this is a stupid question.
Given the data on the fdr and assuming no major unknowns, had the pilots done nothing more than use primary flight controls, would the plane remained under control?
In other words, was the auto feather and uptrim by itself enough to compensate for single engine flight?
Given the data on the fdr and assuming no major unknowns, had the pilots done nothing more than use primary flight controls, would the plane remained under control?
In other words, was the auto feather and uptrim by itself enough to compensate for single engine flight?
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Paso Robles
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Playing the video game with the "Do something, anything, NOW!" mindset causes more problems than it solves
Too quick actions and wrong actions - in this respect repeat of AF447.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suppose the insurance companies insist on a minimum 1,000 hours flying experience for all First Officers, as they did when I started out.
All very well, but how on earth would you satisfy the demand for pilots if you had to wait several years for them to gain the shortfall in hours after leaving their Flight Academy with only minimal experience
All very well, but how on earth would you satisfy the demand for pilots if you had to wait several years for them to gain the shortfall in hours after leaving their Flight Academy with only minimal experience
So that us lot with thousands of hours don't lose out to some punk who paid his way into a job
its not a career if you have paid for it, its a hobby....
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Tree
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Livesinafield
You're very right there. This is where I abhor corporate culture. Money, money, money. They have seemed to forgotten their most valuable asset, apart from their aircraft are their crews.
If aircraft keep flying into the ground or water on a regular basis the insurance companies will wake and do something even if the authorities don't.
They keep telling us safety is their first priority. BS its all about money. If they paid their crews what the're worth, with their experience taken into consideration I would believe them.
You're very right there. This is where I abhor corporate culture. Money, money, money. They have seemed to forgotten their most valuable asset, apart from their aircraft are their crews.
If aircraft keep flying into the ground or water on a regular basis the insurance companies will wake and do something even if the authorities don't.
They keep telling us safety is their first priority. BS its all about money. If they paid their crews what the're worth, with their experience taken into consideration I would believe them.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 54
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CNN scroll banner reporting problem with both engines...
It is possible there may be more to the issue than just securing the wrong engine. Previous posts have speculated the engine data does not add up...
Anyone heard anything new ?
Ignore...usual cow manure...
It is possible there may be more to the issue than just securing the wrong engine. Previous posts have speculated the engine data does not add up...
Anyone heard anything new ?
Ignore...usual cow manure...
Last edited by Golf_Seirra; 7th Feb 2015 at 19:22.
16024 puts it very well. I don't fly anymore, but now this has drifted into age and training I feel involved. Sop monkey is right that an instant solution is to let people continue flying until they start failing medicals or OPCs. I understand they do this in Oz.
Just as "speed is everything", so is experience everything. Not that experienced pilots don't screw up, but they do avoid the errors of inexperience - of which over hasty reaction is a major example. OTOH they become vulnerable to complacency and, possibly, arrogance. Check what I said: I didn't say they become complacent, etc. I said they become VULNERABLE to it. Difficult, isn't it? The recruitment and training problem is how to recruit pilots with enough experience to call on when the automation lets them down. Because once they are on an automated type, they will stagnate in terms of handling ability, SA and airmanship. This is not prejudice - I've been in the profession 50 yrs, I still spend three days a week in the back of a sim, and this is what I see. I acknowledge that automation has prevented more accidents than it has caused, but it has caused some. And if you can't detect yaw because some automatic compensation masks it - that suggests the test pilots aren't properly representing the pilots to the designers.
I wasn't aware of the US 1500 hr requirement, but I think it must be the right approach. Time will tell
So, my point is that training, recruitment and certification (legislation, too) ALL contribute to the problem of crew errors. Experience, in my view, is a major defence. But there is no simple solution.
Just as "speed is everything", so is experience everything. Not that experienced pilots don't screw up, but they do avoid the errors of inexperience - of which over hasty reaction is a major example. OTOH they become vulnerable to complacency and, possibly, arrogance. Check what I said: I didn't say they become complacent, etc. I said they become VULNERABLE to it. Difficult, isn't it? The recruitment and training problem is how to recruit pilots with enough experience to call on when the automation lets them down. Because once they are on an automated type, they will stagnate in terms of handling ability, SA and airmanship. This is not prejudice - I've been in the profession 50 yrs, I still spend three days a week in the back of a sim, and this is what I see. I acknowledge that automation has prevented more accidents than it has caused, but it has caused some. And if you can't detect yaw because some automatic compensation masks it - that suggests the test pilots aren't properly representing the pilots to the designers.
I wasn't aware of the US 1500 hr requirement, but I think it must be the right approach. Time will tell
So, my point is that training, recruitment and certification (legislation, too) ALL contribute to the problem of crew errors. Experience, in my view, is a major defence. But there is no simple solution.
de minimus non curat lex
It will be interesting to see whether the overall outcomes of these proficiency checks will be published, in the interest of openness & transparency?
Behind the scenes, a scrutiny of the training records of the previous performances with these latest "independent" results might well reveal some interesting "blips".
CRM issues will not be resolved as the culture is so ingrained.
Start with the management.............
Behind the scenes, a scrutiny of the training records of the previous performances with these latest "independent" results might well reveal some interesting "blips".
CRM issues will not be resolved as the culture is so ingrained.
Start with the management.............
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In the shadows
Age: 80
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a long time ago now - 14 January 1969 - since a BUA 1-11 crashed on departure from Milan Linate. The crew heard a bang from an engine immediately after take-off.
There was a third crew member in the cockpit - a Line Training Captain checking the co-pilot. The crew heard a bang from an engine immediately after take-off. This Line Training Captain misidentified the faulty engine and suggested to the Captain that he close the No.1 Engine throttle lever - which he did, and he then shut down the engine.
The aircraft was then force landed on snow covered ground, fortunately without loss of life or serious injury.
The accident investigators concluded that this accident was caused by the crew failing to recognise their mistake, which had resulted in them shutting down the wrong engine (No.1) in error following a compressor bang/surge in the No.2 engine. The crew also didn't realise the No.2 engine throttle lever had inadvertently also been partially closed.
Possibly a somewhat similar scenario to this TransAsia accident with a similar crew set-up of a senior line trainer on the jump seat?
There was a third crew member in the cockpit - a Line Training Captain checking the co-pilot. The crew heard a bang from an engine immediately after take-off. This Line Training Captain misidentified the faulty engine and suggested to the Captain that he close the No.1 Engine throttle lever - which he did, and he then shut down the engine.
The aircraft was then force landed on snow covered ground, fortunately without loss of life or serious injury.
The accident investigators concluded that this accident was caused by the crew failing to recognise their mistake, which had resulted in them shutting down the wrong engine (No.1) in error following a compressor bang/surge in the No.2 engine. The crew also didn't realise the No.2 engine throttle lever had inadvertently also been partially closed.
Possibly a somewhat similar scenario to this TransAsia accident with a similar crew set-up of a senior line trainer on the jump seat?
I normally only browse but I see this thread rapidly developing into P2F discussions, age and experience discussions with statements being made that make no sense and have no bearing on this crash.
Let's face it, there are guys with 10-20.000 hours that barely know how to fly or use basic CRM principles and there are guys with 200 hours that do know how to fly and have a proper head on them with the good mentality...
Instead of discussing what measure should be taken to keep the old guys and make it difficult/near impossible for the newer guys, the solution should be in the training and screening itself. Keep the crap out in the first place and KISS.
And then perhaps return on-topic
.
Let's face it, there are guys with 10-20.000 hours that barely know how to fly or use basic CRM principles and there are guys with 200 hours that do know how to fly and have a proper head on them with the good mentality...
Instead of discussing what measure should be taken to keep the old guys and make it difficult/near impossible for the newer guys, the solution should be in the training and screening itself. Keep the crap out in the first place and KISS.
And then perhaps return on-topic
.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I acknowledge that automation has prevented more accidents than it has caused
I'd be interested in examining that oft-claimed statement. Comparing the number of accidents & deaths caused by 'pilot error' on old-school aircraft with the number caused,or contributed to, by automation may yield interesting (and disturbing) results.
If we haven't reached parity yet, we will soon unless something is done about it...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a theory here, but have another look at the FDR trace, in particular around the time the #1 was slotted.
By pure happenstance, possibly because of where the #1 PL had been retarded to at this time, most of the engine instruments at this time would have been giving very similar readings, comparing left vs right.
Perhaps a contributing factor in misidentification?
By pure happenstance, possibly because of where the #1 PL had been retarded to at this time, most of the engine instruments at this time would have been giving very similar readings, comparing left vs right.
Perhaps a contributing factor in misidentification?