MISUNDERSTOOD
 

no aviator wishes harm or incident on a fellow aviator, and certainly not on the company that provides the job. but in this case stubbornness is the root cause on the part of the company.

my argument was the fundamental/base of training at SIA is flawed. you take F/O with a total of 200(we all started at this level) no sectors/handling for the fellas, then you impose limitations for their landings and then expect them to have the required experience when they become captains.

a checked out green horn should be able to land the aircraft in CAT1 min weather of 550m. trust me many of them cannot do this and keep looking at you when it is their sector.

as i mentioned earlier the command course is 9-12 months shows the poor standard of the training program and the candidate.

so all this BS about LOC/GS bending and duff is not an issue if these lads have the confidence to disconnect the AP and fly her manually or even GA.

if LVP conditions had prevailed then the airport would have had LVP procedures in effect and protections in place.

however if there was a CAT1 minimum weathe rprevailing, and the crew opted to do an autoland which is no issue,however the crew should have be aware that the protections will NOT be in place and that the LOC/GS bending and all interference could be expected and AP disconnection at some stage should have been expected.

in the absence of a report at this early stage of time it appears that the autoland was attempted(as informed by the company) and interference took place and the crew sat on it fat dum and happy, and the aircraft just followed the signals.
when she wobbled down the runway the crew disconnected the AP and over corrected and the end result was on the green.

these are the facts that will haunt SIA training.

make sure on your watch basics prevail.............

Miss-understanding.
 

Dear CargoJock.

Misunderstanding can lead to more senseless arguments.

Please share with everyone here, your words of wisdom so that
no other fare passengers have to endure such harrowing experience.

Be it that SQ training can be weak is certain places, every big and old
organisation has this problem.

Let us all learn from each other, just like the good old days of aviation,
Over a nice bottle of Scotch.

Cargojock:
Then help the FO out rather than feel disgust for him. What's wrong with you?

Flap 10

It was an old story but what I want to illustrate here is that it happens to every airline and not a competition to see who has less or more mishaps.

Five green..

You're totally wrong. You can slander anyone/airlines all you want. Again, my point was just to highlight that we can all make mistakes, even Chuck Yeager.

NO IDEA
 

"in the absence of a report at this early stage of time it appears that the autoland was attempted(as informed by the company) and interference took place and the crew sat on it fat dum and happy, and the aircraft just followed the signals.
when she wobbled down the runway the crew disconnected the AP and over corrected and the end result was on the green."



Cargo Jock- YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALIKING ABOUT.

The Crew is a very experienced and capable Intsructor. He has had years of Flying and for you to pre judge them is un professional and childish.
Obviously flying all the boxes and horses around have not done much for your EQ and character development.

view from a different angle .....
 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3646159/2964...3657854810.jpg
http://avherald.com/img/singapore_b7...111103_map.jpg


images taken from imageshack and avherald

YOU GET THE IDEA
 

rain5, i guess you get the idea now, after seeing freightdogs photo from above.
quite a sharp turn, and experienced too that is SIA experience, stubborn AH with SIA.

the picture sums it all.

rest my case........

What is it thats lying on the runway, almost on the centre line, in between the skid marks?

It's a car.

Oh..thanks

Sad to see, and sad to read people knocking SQ, they were a good outfit when I flew for them and I've no reason to think otherwise now, If I had to start again I know which airline I'd work for considering the way my previous "Legacy Flag Carrier" is now treating their 'oldies'. SQ made us feel part of the team - might have been BS - but it worked ! ( They still do, just read the latest Staff magazine that they still send me, over dinner - my previous airline now want me to pay for theirs, Fat Chance )

SQ were not too proud to appoint some of us Ex-pats to their training section, but nevertheless one of my colleagues remarked that the wheel had turned full circle, do you remember, he said, when we started, some of the old WWII Captains that we flew with couldn't fly a decent instrument let-down to save their lives, but pop out of cloud too high, not lined up, not configured, and say - the runways' over there, Sir ( never forgetting the Sir ) and they would straighten up and fly an immaculate visual approach to a perfect touchdown, whereas now the young guys we are training, brought up on a diet of Space Invaders and Flight Sim. can fly a let-down to minima far better than we ever could, or will, but break out and have to connect the real aeroplane to the real earth and they have problems.

Not a new scenario and getting worse in todays' automated world regardless of the logo. on the tail. I always thought that handling the auto-land was much harder than flying the beast ! Flying the thing was the easy bit.

Commiserations to all concerned, I hope that any action towards the crew is not just 'pour encourager les autres' and everyone can learn from it.

Best of luck.

can you tell the experience level from the sharp turn? :rolleyes:

So true ...

Question: What is the Company procedure in case of a NO ROLL OUT?

C-J is just another typical SQ basher while working for very same outfit that he loves to bad-mouth about. Why dont they just --- L E A V E Singapore altogether. Undesirable Employee.

Yes, in the airlines where I've flown from the Gulf to India and SE Asia, I have seen FOs with "low" training standards, knowing the book by heart be barely able to fly or to have good airmanship; however at 3000 hrs they are sure they can be captain! In these airlines the number of incidents is huge! Due to poor training and lack of serioussness in the state oversight; :(

However for the 777 in MUC I don't know, let's see...

wannabe
 

Yes from the comments made by CJ- he fits into the "Wannabe" mainline Cargo boys-.
If you think so lowly of the Airline that pays you- please leave. I am sure you dont need the Job, being the "ACE" that you are.

Pretty good parallel parking :ok:

I must say I'm thoroughly astounded by some things I read here.

Any F/O MUST be able to manually fly a stabilized ILS approach down to CAT I minimum in any wind conditions the airplane is certified for. Otherwise he/she has no business sitting in a cockpit at all! :=

Just my 2cents,
DL

DL, I agree 100%! And I can assure you that in some countries, some percentage of FOs CAN'T; yes, they shouldn't be in that cockpit!

It's not a surprise if these countries have a high rate of incidents and accidents.:ouch:

FBW 390

rain5-I'm sure Cargo Jock is big enough and old enough to support himself, but your remark that he is "flying boxes and horses" gives away your own arrogance and contempt (how about your own EQ?).

My own experience at SIA, flying with both mainline and Cargo pilots, was that the LVP training was scant in demonstrating "gotchas" -like the one discussed here (whether or not it is found to be the case that the AP has caused this incident). Previous airlines have been far more thorough in my experience and on the line pilots in other airlines were always expecting that the AP may not perform as expected.

O'Neill