Last time I ran into chinese pilots at Boeing the trainer told me that they had interpreters as the chinese guys did not speak any english. I don't expect them to speak french either.

Utter nonsense, this article.
How did this MEP find out that the flight had "difficulties in landing"?
The cabin crew can't differentiate between a good landing and one "with difficulties". They just think a soft landing is a good one. And I'm sure they fly more than this MEP.

Aside from that, any linetraining is a training flight, right?

I know that russian pilots (who fly on B products in russia) study and subsequently perform all procedures in english because that's the way they were taught. Besides, isn't it the case that manuals for AC don't get translated to any other language just because english is the only language manuals were approved on? Since any translations may cause misunderstanding which can lead to some undesired events, B doesn't have other versions.
That was my understanding (misunderstanding perhaps).

But, from what is stated here I am not sure that my understanding is right. Could somebody clarify to me this issue? :hmm:

To me it is more a reflection on the common sense of a politician who is supposed to represent the interests of the population: i.e. one who opens their mouth and spouts forth without checking the facts. Oh, I forgot, that is what politicians often do. However, there might be more to this. Has a lurking unwanted trend been uncovered? Let's hear more of the facts.

A zero to hero hasn`t got a chance in hell of getting the aircraft on the ground single crew after 10 sectors if its there first job and 200 hours total time.

I don`t think of the extra FO as a safety feature more of a paper work instructor. Which to be honest they are alot better than me at. That is if we have spare one. If not I am on my jac jones with more work load than single crewing it. But still I get alot of job satisfaction from seeing them improve and develop.

My apologies regarding the landings comment from earlier. I think my ignorance of the practical aspect of airline operations vis-a-vis training new FOs showed. As stated no airline would accept multiple sectors for training in a non-pax / non-revenue environment. Regards to Mad and Torque.

No problem.

It really isn't as problematic as you might think. Training Captains tend to have an aversion to having to do incident reports and pretty much all paper work.

Yes the landings might not be as sweet as if the Captain did them but hey we have bad days as well and there is no one to sort our landings out.

And the only way to get things better is for the trainee to build their experience by doing approaches and landings. There really isn't a short cut to building experience.

seat 0A: The fact is that winds were calm on that day and the aircraft was only able to land at the third attempt. In its speech the captain attributed the go-arounds to tricky winds...

..and line training is not to train FO's ability to handle landing and take-offs on a particular aircraft, its to prepare them for the operational issues of different routes and environments. Two subsequent go-arounds make one think if that particular first officer was really prepared to handle a jet...and if it is correct to train pilot's basic skills with passengers on board.
One may argue that all regular airlines, at some point will have low hour pilots at the controls. But those companies don't do it for a living, so the risk is must less, once they will only do it when in need for new pilots. By opposition to that philosophy there are a number of companies who tend to explore the new business of pay-to-fly. Once they do it on a regular basis, they play with the odds...what shocks us, is to see AF doing that sort of flights. I don't believe their passengers have payed to to play the role of crash test dummies...

Dunno, all my peers and me did manage quite fine around the 6th to 8th sector on the line on our incapacitation check flights which had to be done before we could get a release for flight without a safety FO. Mind you, that was 15 years back, but it is still done and was nothing new back then.

It might be a problem with horribly below par training departments, and we all know there are more of them out there than is good for the industry. If they do not train their cadets it is not a surprise if those cadets can't cope with the situation.

So would there be some kind of announcement "today the landing will be performed by our guest Mr Chen [...]". If not, why not?

I can't see the problem. Most, if not all major European airlines are TRTOs. They are training organisations. Their trainees arrive for their line training with X hours, at least 6 landings (normally in the real thing, but not necessarily) and a type rating. For the more nervous companies, they might even stick an alleged Safety FO in the jump-seat. They then fly with fare paying passengers. Whether or not the trainee's salary is paid by that airline is irrelevant. Generally, the most difficult thing to manage with legacy airlines is the protocol whereby the person who is replaced has to be "ghosted." The training period may last until the end of line training or even for a six months or so. What is certain is that all parties gain out of this process and the passengers never lose.

Another socialist
 

Well there we are then. Another Social Democrat who's an expert on everything and knows f.uck all about anything. Looking for extra space in the cover of a Lisbon rag to make the grade again when next elections come. These guys should be altogether ignored. Unfortunately a mouth as big as his can cause surprising amount of damage and problems when they decide to go on a mission.

There really isn't a short cut to building experience.
 

Amen to that!

About the video of Air China in JFK: I don't think the controller speaks too fast. Maybe a bit...?
But the Air China pilot has huge problems with a simple taxy clearance!:ugh: Can he read a taxy chart? A map? :ugh:And we see his english is way below ICAO level 4:=! WHAT is he seriously doing in the cockpit of a 744 or 777 ? On intercontinental flights? You have to have a minimum standard or you are a danger to your passengers and other aircraft! On the ground and in the air!
For Air france: it looks the training has not improved; the unions run the show and decide! nothing moves; and this confirms that BA and LH are much safer than AF ( see the rates, the statistics...)

FBW 390