Max return and pilot training.. et al
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: USVI
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max return and pilot training.. et al
Well starting a new thread ....
Speaking of pilot training, or lack thereof...Havent the NG's been flying around the World, with alleged inexperienced pilots, without incident?
Speaking of pilot training, or lack thereof...Havent the NG's been flying around the World, with alleged inexperienced pilots, without incident?
The alleged inexperienced pilots seem to be using natural instinct, first by pulling back on the elevators and the secondary (delayed) action was to use the trim switch to lighten that load.
In the NG, if you pull back on the control column (elevators) the switches at the base of the column cut the power to the trim motor - a safety feature!
In the MAX this feature was silently disabled so MCAS could work.
The NG does not require MCAS.
A very small change can have a very big impact - remove the H from H2O for example.
Well not really, just that the aircraft are reliable enough that the accidents are at an acceptable level, plus they occur typically beyond most westerners' concern horizon.
A 737 is pretty easy to fly except when its not. I imagine that the eventual approved procedures on the Max will be an NG with one added memory item.
A 737 is pretty easy to fly except when its not. I imagine that the eventual approved procedures on the Max will be an NG with one added memory item.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: USVI
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough, but I was just pondering the whole "200 hours" issue...chastising pilots and programs...(even though the LionAir pilots both had experience)
meanwhile, other aircraft around the world, including the NG, fly everyday with said pilots.
meanwhile, other aircraft around the world, including the NG, fly everyday with said pilots.
Well not really, just that the aircraft are reliable enough that the accidents are at an acceptable level, plus they occur typically beyond most westerners' concern horizon.
A 737 is pretty easy to fly except when its not. I imagine that the eventual approved procedures on the Max will be an NG with one added memory item.
A 737 is pretty easy to fly except when its not. I imagine that the eventual approved procedures on the Max will be an NG with one added memory item.
What, I do wonder, was the supposed source of the expected trim runaway? There must be a known flaw and expected to occur if there is a procedure to counter it.
Perhaps we should be looking more at the experience levels of the Captains rather than the copilots ? Low experience first officers have always been around and always will be. Many countries don't have a huge general aviation sector or military from which seasoned pilots can be sourced and end up putting someone straight from flight school into the right hand seat.
Wide body aircraft are generally flown by more experienced pilots but the overall operation is easier. A B777 Captain will usually have an experienced F/O with him and be flying to major airports with radar control, ILS and a long runway. A B737 Captain will often have a 200 hour F/O in the right seat and be flying to a secondary airport with no radar control, a non precision approach and a short runway. Of course there are exceptions to this, I'm speaking in general terms.
Obviously the insurance risk is higher in the event of a heavy jet accident but the chances of having one are lower due to the above and the fact that they perform far fewer flight cycles, ten hours for one take off and landing vs ten hours for ten take offs and landings.
The narrow body Captain works harder, faces greater demands on his skill but gets paid less. Perhaps the initial command should be on a wide body in a relatively easy operation with promotion to narrow body a few years later when some command experience has been gained and the Captain is better equipped to fly into more demanding airports with brand new copilots. Unfortunately this wouldn't be possible with single type airlines such as Ryanair or Southwest Air and would be difficult given the pilot shortage and expansion in air travel.
Generally the risk of a low experience copilot can be mitigated by pairing him with a very experienced Captain who can cope with the extra workload which can be placed on him when the F/O is out of his depth.
Wide body aircraft are generally flown by more experienced pilots but the overall operation is easier. A B777 Captain will usually have an experienced F/O with him and be flying to major airports with radar control, ILS and a long runway. A B737 Captain will often have a 200 hour F/O in the right seat and be flying to a secondary airport with no radar control, a non precision approach and a short runway. Of course there are exceptions to this, I'm speaking in general terms.
Obviously the insurance risk is higher in the event of a heavy jet accident but the chances of having one are lower due to the above and the fact that they perform far fewer flight cycles, ten hours for one take off and landing vs ten hours for ten take offs and landings.
The narrow body Captain works harder, faces greater demands on his skill but gets paid less. Perhaps the initial command should be on a wide body in a relatively easy operation with promotion to narrow body a few years later when some command experience has been gained and the Captain is better equipped to fly into more demanding airports with brand new copilots. Unfortunately this wouldn't be possible with single type airlines such as Ryanair or Southwest Air and would be difficult given the pilot shortage and expansion in air travel.
Generally the risk of a low experience copilot can be mitigated by pairing him with a very experienced Captain who can cope with the extra workload which can be placed on him when the F/O is out of his depth.
They also fly other types and brands with the same experience levels.
This level of experience is inline with ICAO requirements.
"The basic requirements to obtain the license and the privileges it confers are agreed internationally by International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), however the actual implementation varies quite widely from country to country. According to ICAO, to be eligible for a commercial pilot license, the applicant must be able to read, speak, write, and understand English: already hold a Private Pilot License, have received training in the areas of a commercial pilot, and successfully complete the relevant written exams. To proceed in obtaining a commercial pilot license, you must first obtain second-class medical certification. Upon completing those prerequisites the applicant will then receive an exam from the governing aviation body that consists of an Oral and Practical flight test from an Examiner."
So aircraft should be built to this standard and to regulatory requirements - it is a shame exclusions and exemptions are legal, based on cost and that cost being supplied by the applicant.
The US has had that single fatality in the last 10 years, but many foreign aircraft and crews fly to and from the US each day. That said across the world in the last decade there have been fewer (statistically) fatalities than the previous years. The 1,500 hr requirement implemented in the US is claimed as a large part of the US safety record over the last decade, but even with that 1,500 hr requirement - one bad day can end that. At that point I except the new line will be only one fatal crash over the last decade.
While having better pilots is good, there is a minimum standard currently and that has been used across the world and considered acceptable for well over a decade - Does this international standard need to be lifted?
Or is it easier, more practical, more consistent, faster and cheaper to build aircraft to the required standards with correct oversight and without exemptions and exclusions to regulatory requirements?
there is a minimum standard currently and that has been used across the world and considered acceptable for well over a decade - Does this international standard need to be lifted?
Or is that just a nice concept that some passengers and very few industry professionals believe?
Is the same standard required to check to line as a narrow body Captain in America/ Canada/ France/ Chad/ Brazil/ Fiji/ Russia/ New Zealand/ South Africa?
Or do the standards differ?
How about we have an ICAO/EASA/FAA combined sim centre in Honolulu where we all go every twelve months to demonstrate generic basic standards and our respective Airlines can do the intervening six month sessions. Surfboards mandatory.
ICAO has developed international licensing Standards for the following aviation activities:
Flight crew licences:
1. Licences and Ratings for Pilots (Annex 1, Chapter 2):
The Convention on International Civil Aviation, often called the Chicago Convention, provides for worldwide recognition of flight crew licences issued by any member State of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) provided that:
Flight crew licences:
1. Licences and Ratings for Pilots (Annex 1, Chapter 2):
- Private pilot (aeroplane, helicopter, powered-lift and airship);
- Commercial pilot (aeroplane, helicopter, powered-lift and airship);
- Multi-crew pilot (aeroplane);
- Airline transport pilot (aeroplane, helicopter and powered-lift);
- Glider pilot; and
- Free balloon pilot.
The Convention on International Civil Aviation, often called the Chicago Convention, provides for worldwide recognition of flight crew licences issued by any member State of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) provided that:
- the licence meets or exceeds the ICAO licensing Standards of Annex 1 – Personnel Licensing to the Convention on International Civil Aviation; and
- the licence is used on an aircraft which is registered in the State which has issued or validated the licence.
Some member states exceed the minimum ICAO standards for differing reasons.
https://www.icao.int/safety/airnavig....aspx#anchor02
Annex 1 here.
https://www.theairlinepilots.com/for...cao/annex1.pdf
Last edited by Bend alot; 29th Dec 2019 at 02:15. Reason: Add annex 1
Yeah but.........
Is the same standard required to check to line as a narrow body Captain in America/ Canada/ France/ Chad/ Brazil/ Fiji/ Russia/ New Zealand/ South Africa?
Or do the standards differ?
Or do the standards differ?
Previously answered.
"Some member states exceed the minimum ICAO standards for differing reasons."
The US implemented a 1500 hour requirement after an accident, but failed to address the fatigue component of that same accident.
I can cherry pick countries of that have good/great safety records on narrow body aircraft, that comply to the minimum ICAO standards/requirements.
Several of the countries you list are pretty much minimum required.
Then there are countries that have higher requirements than the minimum, but the interesting thing is there are companies that have their own higher minimum requirements than the country's ICAO requirement standard.
There is no real "training to line standard" and each regulator sets it's own regulation for such training within the limits of ICAO requirements.
The old saying "there is more than one way to skin a xxt" is very true for pilots.
There are schools and cadet-ships that produce highly varying skilled pilots at 300 hrs, compare that skill level with most of the military pilots from around the world and it is mostly chalk and cheese.
The B737 And A320 have proven over a good period (greater than 10 years) pilot skill levels in general can be fairly low and still have a acceptable safety record, the MAX in 3 know flights and numerous simulator flights has proven not to be safety acceptable per skill level of the pilot pool around the world (US pilots included).
Should there be now an international change to training/licencing requirements at the ICAO level?
Keep in mind the MAX was a product of commercial pressures and a dubious certification under grandfather rights. If MCAS was fully declared even it it's original very poor design and hypothetically allowed certification with "proper" and correct training with no deception - There would most probably be no crashes and no MAX discussions on safety.
"Some member states exceed the minimum ICAO standards for differing reasons."
The US implemented a 1500 hour requirement after an accident, but failed to address the fatigue component of that same accident.
I can cherry pick countries of that have good/great safety records on narrow body aircraft, that comply to the minimum ICAO standards/requirements.
Several of the countries you list are pretty much minimum required.
Then there are countries that have higher requirements than the minimum, but the interesting thing is there are companies that have their own higher minimum requirements than the country's ICAO requirement standard.
There is no real "training to line standard" and each regulator sets it's own regulation for such training within the limits of ICAO requirements.
The old saying "there is more than one way to skin a xxt" is very true for pilots.
There are schools and cadet-ships that produce highly varying skilled pilots at 300 hrs, compare that skill level with most of the military pilots from around the world and it is mostly chalk and cheese.
The B737 And A320 have proven over a good period (greater than 10 years) pilot skill levels in general can be fairly low and still have a acceptable safety record, the MAX in 3 know flights and numerous simulator flights has proven not to be safety acceptable per skill level of the pilot pool around the world (US pilots included).
Should there be now an international change to training/licencing requirements at the ICAO level?
Keep in mind the MAX was a product of commercial pressures and a dubious certification under grandfather rights. If MCAS was fully declared even it it's original very poor design and hypothetically allowed certification with "proper" and correct training with no deception - There would most probably be no crashes and no MAX discussions on safety.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: everywhere
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is literally a 6 page thread on how a 6000hr FO smashed a perfectly good 767 into the ground in the USA. I'm not yet aware of any 200hr FO in Europe doing the same?
There are inexperienced safe pilots and experienced unsafe pilots. Any law suggesting otherwise is knee jerking as a response to tragedy or quite simply trying to make the job more inaccessible as a means to improve terms and conditions by reducing supply. The latter not being such a bad thing I must admit.
There are inexperienced safe pilots and experienced unsafe pilots. Any law suggesting otherwise is knee jerking as a response to tragedy or quite simply trying to make the job more inaccessible as a means to improve terms and conditions by reducing supply. The latter not being such a bad thing I must admit.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Orbit
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is literally a 6 page thread on how a 6000hr FO smashed a perfectly good 767 into the ground in the USA. I'm not yet aware of any 200hr FO in Europe doing the same?
There are inexperienced safe pilots and experienced unsafe pilots. Any law suggesting otherwise is knee jerking as a response to tragedy or quite simply trying to make the job more inaccessible as a means to improve terms and conditions by reducing supply. The latter not being such a bad thing I must admit.
There are inexperienced safe pilots and experienced unsafe pilots. Any law suggesting otherwise is knee jerking as a response to tragedy or quite simply trying to make the job more inaccessible as a means to improve terms and conditions by reducing supply. The latter not being such a bad thing I must admit.
