I have two small observations.

1.To function effectively as a manager you need to have a fair idea of the "managee's" job. Applies to systems just like people.
2. Many emergencies do not happen "according to the book".

The automation flies "by the book".
When it is not a "book" situation, you are on your own. This would be a good time to have some old fashioned thinking/handling skills.

I DO NOT AGREE WITH " A TO C" interpretation of Oxford and cabair Modus operandi.

the truth is that Airlines are NOT interested in modular students so they ask for Integrated students.

Why do they prefer integrated??.....because they went through a selection before joining the school, because they average MUCH higher grades in the ATPL subjects and in flight tests. This is a FACT. (if you dont believe me go and check it out at the CAA).

Airlines prefer Integrated students because they know EXACTLY where these people have trained and that all of their training was under a very RELIABLE and HIGH STANDARD organization such as Oxford or Cabair.

toomuchradiations,

Its actually quite common for prospective employers to remove "unknown" risk when considering candidates, and the route through Cabair and Oxford may indeed just do that, it's no guarantee from the employee performance point of view , however it removes the risk of employing a non-starter.

All the investment banks do this, however they are smart enought to not confine themselves to just one or two uni's

I use the work "unknown" because until you have the pudding on you're spoon, its all conjecture, the best candidate on paper may turn out to be a no-hoper, and the worst candidate may often thrive, that said, the method of going in using the two schools you mentioned is pretty solid based on historical requirements.

I don't speak from aviation experience in this respect, however in the commercial business world, there is a significant amount of bias towards the top-end Universities, and who can blame the employers, although I have to add one point, the graduates/candidates only "shine" *after* they have been exposed to the work in anger, and not before - it's the same in any industry, with one or two execptions. Indeed some of the best on paper turn out to be incapable of "dealing" with people and adverse to teamwork, and the middle level candidates (all rounders - no genuis, but very comfortable) seem to be the best at making the runs, I have seen more than enough MBA grads come through and "read it like a book" and they all fail to a man, you can't learn this stuff in a classroom, it just does not cut it, yes learn the basics and get through and remove the "intellectual-capability-risk" but after that, when you start "work" its a whole different ball game.........


RMC,

I don't see why you can't sideslip a swept 75/76/73 gently enough to see how it works, and keeping the Vmin or (stall) margin high enough and within weights, I can't see how it can cause problems (anhyedral excepted). ?


edit: changed "perceived" to "unknown" - late night, kids driving me crazy, brain muddle...

How about taking the chance of blanking some of the airflow into the jet engines at low altitude/airspeed ?? Cough ...spit ....sputter Oh my look at that EGT !

toomuchradiations
 

It's all about money The training set ups are all making far more money from the integrated students so that they can afford to offer a deal that compensates the airline if the pilot that they have sent is not up to the job after six sim details.

The deal is simple the training companys only take the people that they think will be a low training risk , charge them a bit over the top to cover the odd one who fails the airline sim. Add to this some sort of tax deal that the airlines get (I've not got to the bottom of that one yet) it all adds up to a money thing.

I should think that the integrated students would do better at the exams as to cut down on the risk to the traininng companys they are in a full time training enviroment the modular student has to balance his training with a job that is paying for the training.

On the whole the modular student has a much harder time getting the CPL/IR and tend to be more commited.

As the company that I work for has just gone down the "integrated" recrutment path it will be interesting to see if we get people who have some hand flying skill or a magenta line kindergarden and I will do my best to keep an open mind untill this is proven one way or the other but I would much rather the FO sitting next to me had done 700 hours instructing or glider tugging before setting out for an airline job.

I have flown MD11's for two US carriers now, and was also contract trained by a third carrier and MD in Long Beach.

The MD11 has undergone an interesting evolution in this area, from a strong "do not touch it" philosophy that sprang from the manufacturer, to today's environment where proficiency in ALL levels of automation is required.

At my last employer, I was known for clicking off the autothrottles any time I hand flew an approach. A junior FO turned me in to the head of standards, who emailed me to stop doing this.

I wrote him back that if he would put a letter in my file stating that I was not responsible for flying with A/T deferred, I would stop practicing for such a scenario. I never heard back from him.

One of the most thought provoking experiences that I have ever witnessed was in a Boeing 737-200 simulator where I was conducting type rating training on a highly experienced SE Asia born airline captain.

He was asked to intercept a VOR radial while climbing at 250 knots on a departure. He was on autopilot. The first officer had only 300 hours total time. Both pilots displayed some lack of familiarity with RMI interpretation.

Asked to now hand fly and level out at 8000 ft, the captain showed lack of familiarity with basic cross-reference skills. Without warning his ADI failed (became frozen) during a level turn but neither he or his F/O noticed this until the captain was asked to take up a new heading.

Despite a comparitor light showing , the captain steadily wound on ever increasing angle of bank (ADI was "frozen) while attempting to turn to the new heading. The standby ADI and the F/O ADI were operating normally. The simulator was set on night IMC scene.

With the "frozen" ADI still not responding to his roll input, the aircraft became inverted due to the captain's continued roll inputs.
The nose dropped and at this stage the captain looked puzzled as he felt that obviously something was not quite right.

The F/O's eyes were staring at his own ADI and he seemed frozen in fear as the IVSI went off the clock. He sat on his hands and said nothing because he simply was out of his depth.

Passing through around 120 degrees angle of bank and 20 degrees nose down, the captain suddenly looked at the standby ADI (correct) indication, and disbelievingly called out "Standby ADI failure!" He then proceeded to reach over and pull the standby ADI caging knob. The no doubt astonished standby ADI did what it was told and showed "level" flight under the influence of the pulled caging knob. After several thousand feet of altitude had been carved off it was clear that the plot was lost, so the instructor froze the simulator in order to knock off for morning tea and a little chat.

Automatics complacency can do those things to some pilots.

Hand flying
 

Our current base check syllabus for the Captain is dual AC fail after t/o RW16 on ALBIX 1R SID at LSZH.
Vis 400m.
Dont U pax guys worry. No matter how rusty we get we can still hand fly wide body twins.
Shame on companies quoted to encourage autolands and auto approaches.
As to d previous post... I never used to position on a Vietnam Airlines flight with no expat on the crew...
Hear dese days sit is d same dere...
So choose carefully whom U fly with...
Unfortunately I know one of the badly injured pax on AF358... as well. She will only be able to walk after one year wit an artificial kneecap...
So even d Gods make mistakes...
:mad:
P.S. So let us enjoy the money that can buy us nice yachts and fast cars or else we will have more "feed the computer Dude, and stay away from the controls" pilots' CRASHES

I retired from airline flying a year and a half ago, and have been worried about falling hand flying standards for a few years. A fact that has not been mentioned is that companies that strongly discourage hand flying and raw data flying can promote an F/O that has only been in the airline environment then expect him to fly low level circuits in poor Wx around the bottom of an Alpine valley (or any class C field) after only six months in the seat.

There must be a sim. check coming up...
 

And how do we know? Lot's of manual flying to, wait for it... practice for the sim. IMHO, this is not how it's meant to be. The sim should be used as a learning tool, not as a chopping and trapping tool. Unfortunately we too (as an industry) have gone along with the "tick the box to cover ourselves and then blame the pilot if it looks like it will get the laywers of the company's back" route. Lawyers and Human Remains... don't get me started!

Going slightly off topic, sorry: Am I not sideslipping when I do a wing-down crosswind landing in a jet?

sideslipping
 

mbcxharm.

If you are doing it right, with wing down into wind and a little opposite rudder you are still tracking straight down the runway centreline.

If you were sidesipping you would be tracking forwards and in the direction of the lower wing i.e diagonally.

God, are there any stick and rudder guys out there anymore or is it just the fly by numbers products of these flying school factories that mummy and daddy pay a fortune to so as to be able to tell their dinner guests that the fruit of their loins is an Airline Pilot?!


Blackwatergoblin

"If you were sidesipping you woud be tracking forwards and in the direction of the lower wing i.e diagonally."

Ehhh..... that is exactly what you are doing, relative to the wind.

splitting hairs here maybe , but any wingdown opp rudder is a slip, in heavies perhaps its not so as evident ?

gotta love the "kinetic" push at the end of the slip tho, anyone want to explain that in plain english to a dumbo ?

oic:

That's my point exactly...

Piltdown Man - how true you speak!

The JAR FCL LPC is an almost totally "testing" routine - I, and several of my colleagues have been chewed-off by the Training Inspectorate for 'instructing on a test'. I LOATHE the principle that I now have sit there with my mouth shut. Make cock-up? - Fail, tick the box. Every trainer used to know precisely when to apply discretion - not any more, you can lose your TRI/TRE in minutes with one particular Inspector (who, rumour has it, has never worked in the industry as an actual airline pilot.) Hate it - it's gone back 40 years.

High standards are maintained by continuation training not continuation testing.

oic

"Ehhh..... that is exactly what you are doing, relative to the wind"

Ehhh....Splitting Hairs, relative airflow!

I always used the sideslip as a maneuvre to lose height without gaining airspeed just before a spray run in my more basic but happier days, it had nothing to do with the wind or it's direction at all.

Maybe I just got it wrong for a whole lot of years!

BWG

blackwatergoblin
 

I can assure you that I am a sick and rudder luddite and I am alive and well but I suspect that I am on EASA's hit list !

Piltdown Man

Good point

I seem to remember an incident report that’s pertinent to your post, FO has a sim check coming up so flys the approach into LGW with auto-thrust off in marginal conditions and bumps the tail.

O dear I was suggesting hand flying is a good thing, perhaps I just shot myself in the foot :{ :ouch:

On second thoughts no, if he had been in practice it probably would not have happened. :E

7GCBC

Dai Davies (ARB Chief Test Pilot) view from "Handling the Big Jets"
"It is wrong in princple to allow a swept wing a/c to suffer significant angles of sideslip"

The difference in apparent airflow between leading and trailing wings can cause a spin at low speeds.

Large sideslip angles via abrupt inputs can also cause engine surge/stall.

A couple of degrees in ground effect is not a major issue.