Merpati & Garuda pilots flying with MAS?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Merpati & Garuda pilots flying with MAS?
Heard a rumour that 7 Merpati pilots are now flying with MAS on the twin otters.
Also heard that Garuda will sub-contract 744 and A330 pilots to MAS.
Any truth in all this? Is this an example of MAS cost cutting?
Also heard that Garuda will sub-contract 744 and A330 pilots to MAS.
Any truth in all this? Is this an example of MAS cost cutting?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Selamat pagi semua Bapak Bapak..
We were in a position to minimise the expat community in MAS, but no, through the incompetence of our manpower planning and deployment, an opportunity arose for the poor brothers from the neighbouring country.
This opportunity affords them better home security (absence of riots, normal day to day acrivity in JKT) and off course better pay (ringgit = millions of rupiahs). BTW is MAS paying them in USD (USD = billions of rupiahs!!) ?
The Merpati & Garuda boys should seize the opportunity, come over, make money and be happy for themselves and their family. No more maids and constructions for us Indons, we're into piloting, we got class now. Now, they'll be just like our boys who are in KAL and CAL (Asiana even). I have yet to meet those blokes without a grin on their faces and bulges in their pockets.
This is not a cost cutting measure, it's a desperate measure. Good luck MAS. Selamat Sorey Pak.
We were in a position to minimise the expat community in MAS, but no, through the incompetence of our manpower planning and deployment, an opportunity arose for the poor brothers from the neighbouring country.
This opportunity affords them better home security (absence of riots, normal day to day acrivity in JKT) and off course better pay (ringgit = millions of rupiahs). BTW is MAS paying them in USD (USD = billions of rupiahs!!) ?
The Merpati & Garuda boys should seize the opportunity, come over, make money and be happy for themselves and their family. No more maids and constructions for us Indons, we're into piloting, we got class now. Now, they'll be just like our boys who are in KAL and CAL (Asiana even). I have yet to meet those blokes without a grin on their faces and bulges in their pockets.
This is not a cost cutting measure, it's a desperate measure. Good luck MAS. Selamat Sorey Pak.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Selamat pagi pak Shintaro9,
Thanks for the news. Yes, good luck to all and an extra huge good luck to the pax as well. Indonesia's air safety record speaks for itself. .. I need not elaborate.
Yes, they will get bulges in their pockets and bulges in their pants when they see how well (comparatively speaking) the aircraft are maintained outside of Indonesia.
Apparently, it is rumoured that Garuda gets a cut of about 10% for sub-contracting their pilots to other airlines. There is a glut of experienced jet drivers in Indon at the moment and the company is encouraging them to look for greener pastures. This suits them well, since when it's time to return to browner pastures, they will be current on type.
Pity all the new Malaysian drivers however, who obtained their CPL/IR privately, looking for their first break with the Twotters. What other avenues do they have?
Cheers
Thanks for the news. Yes, good luck to all and an extra huge good luck to the pax as well. Indonesia's air safety record speaks for itself. .. I need not elaborate.
Yes, they will get bulges in their pockets and bulges in their pants when they see how well (comparatively speaking) the aircraft are maintained outside of Indonesia.
Apparently, it is rumoured that Garuda gets a cut of about 10% for sub-contracting their pilots to other airlines. There is a glut of experienced jet drivers in Indon at the moment and the company is encouraging them to look for greener pastures. This suits them well, since when it's time to return to browner pastures, they will be current on type.
Pity all the new Malaysian drivers however, who obtained their CPL/IR privately, looking for their first break with the Twotters. What other avenues do they have?
Cheers
Guest
Posts: n/a
We had a stack of Indo 737 pilots suddenley raid our Co a couple of years ago looking for work. We didnt need pilots then but we thought wed keep them on file just in case. So we gave them a quick sim check. The company prefers single (unmarried) pilots due to the nature of the work rosters so we chose a batch of 20.
Not one of them passed! Yeh they were rated and current 737.
Same surprising reasons for failure:
* Almost all didnt conduct a proper and logical brief for engine out to cover the during and after takeoff. No consideration for 3rd and 4th segment obstacles
* 10 crashed after an engine-cut at V1
* 12 crashed into mountains while being radar vectored downwind in IMC. A radio failure was given. It was not picked up. Reason? "we were waiting for ATC to tell us to turn base!"
* Little or no knowledge of ICAO IFR procedure and aplication. THIS was woeful!
* Manipulative skill generaly was ok until something went wrong
* Only 1 or 2 could fly accurately without FD and AP engine-out. Only 1 made it through safely.
* QRH was followed, but blindly. The all important Notes were skipped over and never read. 15 opened the APU bleed valve when the #1 engine was still burning
* Every applicant had to be repositioned on final engine-out raw data because they all cocked it up first go. Only 2 at the end had any semblence of standard.
* Jammed elevator landing (yes I agree it isnt easy) resulted in only 2 making it anywhere near the airport. The rest all went in.
And yes they were all captains, and yes they were all recent on type!
Engineering knowledge and limitations of the aircraft overall was quite good though.
Not one of them passed! Yeh they were rated and current 737.
Same surprising reasons for failure:
* Almost all didnt conduct a proper and logical brief for engine out to cover the during and after takeoff. No consideration for 3rd and 4th segment obstacles
* 10 crashed after an engine-cut at V1
* 12 crashed into mountains while being radar vectored downwind in IMC. A radio failure was given. It was not picked up. Reason? "we were waiting for ATC to tell us to turn base!"
* Little or no knowledge of ICAO IFR procedure and aplication. THIS was woeful!
* Manipulative skill generaly was ok until something went wrong
* Only 1 or 2 could fly accurately without FD and AP engine-out. Only 1 made it through safely.
* QRH was followed, but blindly. The all important Notes were skipped over and never read. 15 opened the APU bleed valve when the #1 engine was still burning
* Every applicant had to be repositioned on final engine-out raw data because they all cocked it up first go. Only 2 at the end had any semblence of standard.
* Jammed elevator landing (yes I agree it isnt easy) resulted in only 2 making it anywhere near the airport. The rest all went in.
And yes they were all captains, and yes they were all recent on type!
Engineering knowledge and limitations of the aircraft overall was quite good though.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Slasher,
Please don't make assumptions that all Garuda pilots are below standard!
I know a fellow coursemate who is a 744 F/O and who is really competent. He could any time be a 744 Captain on SQ or in any major airlines.
So please Slasher, there are exceptions. Don't look down on GA pilots! They are good pilots and comparatively above world standards.
Please don't make assumptions that all Garuda pilots are below standard!
I know a fellow coursemate who is a 744 F/O and who is really competent. He could any time be a 744 Captain on SQ or in any major airlines.
So please Slasher, there are exceptions. Don't look down on GA pilots! They are good pilots and comparatively above world standards.
Guest
Posts: n/a
With respect Lee,
I think Slasher was merely stating the facts with his company. What you make of it, is entirely up to you.
Smiling monkey does have a point, though ... Indonesia's accident/incident rate is one of the highest in the region.
Cheers and safe flying!
I think Slasher was merely stating the facts with his company. What you make of it, is entirely up to you.
Smiling monkey does have a point, though ... Indonesia's accident/incident rate is one of the highest in the region.
Cheers and safe flying!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Why make this personal LEE ??
Slasher was just saying what happened at his place. It is not an attack on ALL Indon pilots.
Likewise there are so really good 'white' pilots and there are some really ****ty wannabes from aussieland.
That's the way it goes...
Slasher was just saying what happened at his place. It is not an attack on ALL Indon pilots.
Likewise there are so really good 'white' pilots and there are some really ****ty wannabes from aussieland.
That's the way it goes...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Slasher,
Lee wind your neck in... whether or not you agree with Slashers post DO NOT ATTACK ANYONE PERSONALLY. If you cannot engage the argument, do not engage at all, particularly in pointless insult.
I've deleted this post, and do not want to see this thread head down the path it looks like taking. That applies to all of you. Understand?
Sick Squid
Far East Forum Moderator
[This message has been edited by Sick Squid (edited 01 July 2001).]
Lee wind your neck in... whether or not you agree with Slashers post DO NOT ATTACK ANYONE PERSONALLY. If you cannot engage the argument, do not engage at all, particularly in pointless insult.
I've deleted this post, and do not want to see this thread head down the path it looks like taking. That applies to all of you. Understand?
Sick Squid
Far East Forum Moderator
[This message has been edited by Sick Squid (edited 01 July 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks Squid. Mr Lee I shant waste any more of my time with you, but as Anito and Casio tried to correctley point out it was data I gave that is of some interest, and also could possibly stimulate further discussion. There were no racial overtones. Further, if you cannot demonstrate clear thinking and comprehension then I will simply not respond seriousley to anything you post.
[This message has been edited by Slasher (edited 01 July 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Slasher (edited 01 July 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Slasher,
Thanks for the interesting post. One would hope that the airing of such info would only help to improve air safety in the region. Where I come from, air accident and incident reports are very accessible. Many pilots read these religously, not so that they can undermine the operator or the pilot(s) involved, but to learn from the experience of others.
Lee, please don't see this as being critical of Indon pilots. I know some of them too, and yes, some are more than capable, given the type of equipment and ATC environment they have to work with.
One of the senarios mentioned by Slasher resembled an actual CFIT accident in Sumatra in 1997 where an A300 was radar vectored into terrain. ATC was probably to be blamed for this one, but one would have hoped that as a result of this, SOPs would be reviewed for checking of LSALT under radar control. It appears though, that nothing has been learnt from this accident.
[This message has been edited by smiling monkey (edited 02 July 2001).]
Thanks for the interesting post. One would hope that the airing of such info would only help to improve air safety in the region. Where I come from, air accident and incident reports are very accessible. Many pilots read these religously, not so that they can undermine the operator or the pilot(s) involved, but to learn from the experience of others.
Lee, please don't see this as being critical of Indon pilots. I know some of them too, and yes, some are more than capable, given the type of equipment and ATC environment they have to work with.
One of the senarios mentioned by Slasher resembled an actual CFIT accident in Sumatra in 1997 where an A300 was radar vectored into terrain. ATC was probably to be blamed for this one, but one would have hoped that as a result of this, SOPs would be reviewed for checking of LSALT under radar control. It appears though, that nothing has been learnt from this accident.
[This message has been edited by smiling monkey (edited 02 July 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sick Squid,
In the first place, Slasher's post was off topic. The post was supposed to be about Merpati and Garuda pilots joing MAS.
Now, what has his posting about the Indons from his company got to do with this posting. He was in fact making an attack on Indo pilots.
Sick Squid, you got to be impartial, if not just quit the job as Moderator. If, you can't do it, just quit.
Lee, your first post on this topic was fine, why do you feel you have to reduce yourself to personal attack to make your point? That is why you were censured. When you can engage the argument in a mature and rational manner rather than the immature and confrontational stance you took in the removed post, your posts will stand, 100% How much more even-handed can I be?
And, as every one else here has noticed, Slashers post is related to the topic and adds value, therefore allowing the thread to evolve. When I feel it has evolved too far in the wrong direction, then I step in. It hasn't reached that yet, but had you had your way with that post it would have got there very quickly.
No intention of quitting, mate. Just getting my feet under the table now....
Sick Squid
Far East Forum Moderator
[This message has been edited by Sick Squid (edited 02 July 2001).]
In the first place, Slasher's post was off topic. The post was supposed to be about Merpati and Garuda pilots joing MAS.
Now, what has his posting about the Indons from his company got to do with this posting. He was in fact making an attack on Indo pilots.
Sick Squid, you got to be impartial, if not just quit the job as Moderator. If, you can't do it, just quit.
Lee, your first post on this topic was fine, why do you feel you have to reduce yourself to personal attack to make your point? That is why you were censured. When you can engage the argument in a mature and rational manner rather than the immature and confrontational stance you took in the removed post, your posts will stand, 100% How much more even-handed can I be?
And, as every one else here has noticed, Slashers post is related to the topic and adds value, therefore allowing the thread to evolve. When I feel it has evolved too far in the wrong direction, then I step in. It hasn't reached that yet, but had you had your way with that post it would have got there very quickly.
No intention of quitting, mate. Just getting my feet under the table now....
Sick Squid
Far East Forum Moderator
[This message has been edited by Sick Squid (edited 02 July 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lee, did you have similar problems at school? Just wondering.
Smiling Monkeys review of the A300 accident in '97, was a classic case in point. A disaster, that shouldn't have happened with multiple systemic failures, of which, it appeared, the highest being the human factor.
Take this into consideration with what one observer has said, namely Slasher, about observed actual performance of candidates that may, or may not have come from the same Company, but the same country, then review other incident or accidents as well, and it possibly demonstrates a standard that is not acceptable anywhere else.
It is important to have this information out in the open, not to denegrate any individual or country, but identify problems, and address them accordingly. As SM said, you need to learn from others mistakes, and not to take it personally.
ICAO, through the Annexes adopted by contracting States, should acheive this minimum standard, unfortunately ICAO requirement allows all member states to use the base of assessment for other countries to be the private license, irrespective of the qualifications and experience held. Is it any wonder then, that some States find it hard to recognise the standards of other states and thus take the pains to establish those standards first hand. Think about it.
Smiling Monkeys review of the A300 accident in '97, was a classic case in point. A disaster, that shouldn't have happened with multiple systemic failures, of which, it appeared, the highest being the human factor.
Take this into consideration with what one observer has said, namely Slasher, about observed actual performance of candidates that may, or may not have come from the same Company, but the same country, then review other incident or accidents as well, and it possibly demonstrates a standard that is not acceptable anywhere else.
It is important to have this information out in the open, not to denegrate any individual or country, but identify problems, and address them accordingly. As SM said, you need to learn from others mistakes, and not to take it personally.
ICAO, through the Annexes adopted by contracting States, should acheive this minimum standard, unfortunately ICAO requirement allows all member states to use the base of assessment for other countries to be the private license, irrespective of the qualifications and experience held. Is it any wonder then, that some States find it hard to recognise the standards of other states and thus take the pains to establish those standards first hand. Think about it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good points Iso. But the performance of twenty pilots out of hundreds or thousands certainley cannot be claimed to be representative of any one group as a whole. The sample error of course could be very high. The 20 came from various carriers within the Indonesian republic.
But assuming for the moment the twenty were a reasonable cross-section, and given Indonesias air safety record, what then could be the cause? I suggest 3 possible ones:
a) Racial culture
b) Religious fatalism
c) Training culture
Racial culture I dont think is an issue. We have seen the Indonesians ability to assert themselves in the recent political crises. The Asian value of respect for authority was present in the sim evaluations but not to the same degree as say KAL, where culture plays a major componant of detriment to Korean air safety. I might go as far to say that Indonesian culture, from what we saw, actualy improved CRM by handling emergencys without any yelling or rude insistances between pilots. Stress was well coped with.
Religious fatalism I must admit was expected after reading the Indonesian report on Silkair 185 from Professer (Ive forgotten his name. Was it Darian?) who stated in part "....religous fatalism plays a large part of our culture" (forgive me if the actual wording is not accurate). But we found absolutley none of this during the sim exercises. However it could be argued religous fatalism explains why everything was handled in a calm manner ("itll be Gods will whatever we do"). But take other States with similar religious cultures such as the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. There we see a very reasonable standard of flight crew if statistics are anything to go on. So in this case I dont see this kind of fatalism as being the blame. It might very well be down there, but we didnt see it here.
Training culture I believe is the problem. Every pilot is only as good as his training. Bad training means a bad pilot. If the standard of a pilot is considered high in a country whos standards are low ICAO-wise, then its only normal that that pilots perception of his own standard will be a false one.
From the feedback we obtained from the guys at post-brief, it appears the standard of training and the standard required itself are quite low. No one had ever had V1 or Vmcg cuts. Normal endorsement and sim check cuts are at Vr or gear up selection. Raw data is never flown as sim rides at home always included the FD on, and never off. They believed this therefore to be the world norm, and were quite surprised that the exercises required them to have the FD remain off from engine start to shutdown. A jammed elevator is only given as a cruise exercise only. As long as the QRH is read thats all thats required. Again I state this was direct feedback from the pilots themselves.
Wether corruptive practices plays a part in Indon standards I do not know nor will I comment on, due to my lack of any RELIABLE evidence.
One good point noted was that each and every candidate demonstrated a very high knowledge of the 737 aircraft and its systems when tested in this area. It was quite good indeed. However this knowledge just didnt seem to exist when applying QRH procedure.
But assuming for the moment the twenty were a reasonable cross-section, and given Indonesias air safety record, what then could be the cause? I suggest 3 possible ones:
a) Racial culture
b) Religious fatalism
c) Training culture
Racial culture I dont think is an issue. We have seen the Indonesians ability to assert themselves in the recent political crises. The Asian value of respect for authority was present in the sim evaluations but not to the same degree as say KAL, where culture plays a major componant of detriment to Korean air safety. I might go as far to say that Indonesian culture, from what we saw, actualy improved CRM by handling emergencys without any yelling or rude insistances between pilots. Stress was well coped with.
Religious fatalism I must admit was expected after reading the Indonesian report on Silkair 185 from Professer (Ive forgotten his name. Was it Darian?) who stated in part "....religous fatalism plays a large part of our culture" (forgive me if the actual wording is not accurate). But we found absolutley none of this during the sim exercises. However it could be argued religous fatalism explains why everything was handled in a calm manner ("itll be Gods will whatever we do"). But take other States with similar religious cultures such as the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. There we see a very reasonable standard of flight crew if statistics are anything to go on. So in this case I dont see this kind of fatalism as being the blame. It might very well be down there, but we didnt see it here.
Training culture I believe is the problem. Every pilot is only as good as his training. Bad training means a bad pilot. If the standard of a pilot is considered high in a country whos standards are low ICAO-wise, then its only normal that that pilots perception of his own standard will be a false one.
From the feedback we obtained from the guys at post-brief, it appears the standard of training and the standard required itself are quite low. No one had ever had V1 or Vmcg cuts. Normal endorsement and sim check cuts are at Vr or gear up selection. Raw data is never flown as sim rides at home always included the FD on, and never off. They believed this therefore to be the world norm, and were quite surprised that the exercises required them to have the FD remain off from engine start to shutdown. A jammed elevator is only given as a cruise exercise only. As long as the QRH is read thats all thats required. Again I state this was direct feedback from the pilots themselves.
Wether corruptive practices plays a part in Indon standards I do not know nor will I comment on, due to my lack of any RELIABLE evidence.
One good point noted was that each and every candidate demonstrated a very high knowledge of the 737 aircraft and its systems when tested in this area. It was quite good indeed. However this knowledge just didnt seem to exist when applying QRH procedure.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Slasher, very interesting your point of view however I think you aren't entirely right. I have many examples that competence (or lack of it) isn't an atribute of just some people. Some years ago I was sent to the USA to bring two B737-300 leased to my airline. First I had to make 2 flight tests and the lessor contracted 3 experienced American B737 captains for those flights. They were from a large B737 operator. During the flights, for my surprise, I realized that they didn't know how to operate some basic automatic pilot and auto-throttles features, were confused with some operating limitations and use of the QRH or apprehensive when I requested to make an autolanding using max auto brakes (it was funny because the airplane stopped completely on the runway and initially they didn't know how to react to avoid that silly situation and the tower was requesting to speed up the taxi). These are some small parts of a long journey. Weren't they good pilots? No, absolutely not. Why? Because some operations weren't in their SOP but they were routine for me.
In my opinion the best way (and more honest approach) to check anyone is to give first a preparation for the procedures that you want to see, even basic ones, than later give a "verdict" that they are prepared or not for the job. As you wrote, those guys had good qualities in certain aspects and a lot of things to learn, but it insn't only an Indo pilots special quality.
Regards.
In my opinion the best way (and more honest approach) to check anyone is to give first a preparation for the procedures that you want to see, even basic ones, than later give a "verdict" that they are prepared or not for the job. As you wrote, those guys had good qualities in certain aspects and a lot of things to learn, but it insn't only an Indo pilots special quality.
Regards.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Boko for the check a full brief was given the day before although particular individual exercises of course were not nominated. First session for each was to be a basic IFR exercise Surabaya to Bali with the group told to expect non-normals (remaining on 2 engines throughout), followed by a straightforward engine-out or engine-fire exercise Bali to Surabaya. We asked them to follow their own Company procedures, and all sessions to be flown FD and AP off. I think it was fair we gave them sectors from their own backyard and not somewhere exoticaly new or complicated (future line-training would take care of that). All enroute and let-down charts were given. All this was provided and all questions answered the day before the exercise. As with any initial check anywhere, it was to find out if an pilot can fly a 737 safely and acurately or not. Nobody was after aces.
Your mention of the 3 American 73 drivers basicaly backs up my previous statement about sample error. Those 3 you mentioned cannot be taken as being indicative of all USA pilots can they?
Your mention of the 3 American 73 drivers basicaly backs up my previous statement about sample error. Those 3 you mentioned cannot be taken as being indicative of all USA pilots can they?