easyjet
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: East Yorkshire
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knee Trembler
I think it is all about money.
I reckon the TP Fleet manager and other TP captains in the said company would be quite happy sat in the right hand seat of a jet as long as they are paid on the captains pay scale. All to get experience as NSF says.
But I also believe that Jet Captains or FO's who come the other way down to TP's think that they are superior to TP guys with experience on type, which is wrong, unless of course they have gone up from TP to jet and back down again
I think it is all about money.
I reckon the TP Fleet manager and other TP captains in the said company would be quite happy sat in the right hand seat of a jet as long as they are paid on the captains pay scale. All to get experience as NSF says.
But I also believe that Jet Captains or FO's who come the other way down to TP's think that they are superior to TP guys with experience on type, which is wrong, unless of course they have gone up from TP to jet and back down again
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NSF, I think you have hit the nail on the head, and anyone taking offence has the proverbial french fry on the shoulder. 
The net-jets example is the clue here folks, it may be smaller /slower or whatever, but what matters is . . . . . it is a different set of circumstances to wot you is used to guv
The net-jets example is the clue here folks, it may be smaller /slower or whatever, but what matters is . . . . . it is a different set of circumstances to wot you is used to guv
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: in my country
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bull****, sorry, but in Italy in every company you start with 1 or 2 stripes, some dont even give you 3 stripes, you go from 2 to 4.
In france you get 2 stripes and the same for spain and other countries.
The only country I know so far were you have only 3 and 4 stripes is germany.
Only FA and Pursers get 1 or 2 stripes there.
In france you get 2 stripes and the same for spain and other countries.
The only country I know so far were you have only 3 and 4 stripes is germany.
Only FA and Pursers get 1 or 2 stripes there.
I am spanish, I know what I am talking about. In spain there are 3 stripes and 4 stripes, in every companies. Fulstop.
I have a friend in CCM airlines, and 2 in transavia france, all of them told me in every french airlines, you start with 3 stripes and 4 once promoted captain.
...and the third stripe is important - its worth £10k a year
english style to make the company saving £10k a year on the new FO. In other words, this is not a pay increase, this is a worse pay in the biggining and normal pay afterwards, for the same job... We don't have that in latin countries 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NSF,
I certainly hope that by taking an alternative view to you, I am not automatically engaging in a 'slanging match'. As I was at pains to point out, I respect your experience and right to put forward an opinion. I simply expect the same of you in return.
The example I was citing relates to the move from Q400, to the Emb 195. The latter has a MTOW of a fraction under 50t and whilst I am sure someone will feel the need to point out that this is less than a 319 I don't feel the difference is significant enough to dismiss as a 'small jet'.
I also take absolutely no offence at your comments (the same cannot necessarily be said of the former colleagues at Air Berlin, some of whom also moved from TPs to 738 / A320). Anyone who knows me will also confirm that I am in no way an Alpha Male and have personally little to prove.
For the little that it is worth, I had the choice of taking an unstable job as captain on a 737-700 or a more secure job on the Q400. I opted for the latter and now enjoy a relatively secure job (the most important thing of all, upon which I hope we all agree) with Ts&Cs that most pilots would kill for (albeit at the cost of some salary).
Again, as anyone who knows me will confirm, I am the archetypal average pilot. I found the 738 neither easy nor difficult to fly in comparrison to the F100 of which I have considerable experience. The Q400, on the other hand, with its absence of auto-thrust, lower (i.e. more ice prone) cruising levels and diabolical master caution panel (setting the park brake triggers a caution warning!) demands a level of flying ability I was last required to demonstrate on the Fokker 27!
I think we have both made our point, so let's agree to differ and perhaps pursue this over a beer should we ever meet
.
KT
I certainly hope that by taking an alternative view to you, I am not automatically engaging in a 'slanging match'. As I was at pains to point out, I respect your experience and right to put forward an opinion. I simply expect the same of you in return.
The example I was citing relates to the move from Q400, to the Emb 195. The latter has a MTOW of a fraction under 50t and whilst I am sure someone will feel the need to point out that this is less than a 319 I don't feel the difference is significant enough to dismiss as a 'small jet'.
I also take absolutely no offence at your comments (the same cannot necessarily be said of the former colleagues at Air Berlin, some of whom also moved from TPs to 738 / A320). Anyone who knows me will also confirm that I am in no way an Alpha Male and have personally little to prove.
For the little that it is worth, I had the choice of taking an unstable job as captain on a 737-700 or a more secure job on the Q400. I opted for the latter and now enjoy a relatively secure job (the most important thing of all, upon which I hope we all agree) with Ts&Cs that most pilots would kill for (albeit at the cost of some salary).
Again, as anyone who knows me will confirm, I am the archetypal average pilot. I found the 738 neither easy nor difficult to fly in comparrison to the F100 of which I have considerable experience. The Q400, on the other hand, with its absence of auto-thrust, lower (i.e. more ice prone) cruising levels and diabolical master caution panel (setting the park brake triggers a caution warning!) demands a level of flying ability I was last required to demonstrate on the Fokker 27!
I think we have both made our point, so let's agree to differ and perhaps pursue this over a beer should we ever meet
.KT
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: in my country
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KT, excellent post, nothing to add
I am also an ex TP pilot, now on a jet, and I reckon that TP makes you more busy at take off and landing, and in cruse where you are always in icing conditions, which is not the case above FL250.
I love both planes.
I am also an ex TP pilot, now on a jet, and I reckon that TP makes you more busy at take off and landing, and in cruse where you are always in icing conditions, which is not the case above FL250.
I love both planes.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knee Trembler,
I am with NSF on this one . . . . . but , I can also tell you that if I had to give up a shiny 737 for some ratty ol F27 (hell even a shiny new ATR/Dash ) I would probably feel damn uncomfortable with the LACK of surplus performance/ability to avoid icing etc. So, as per the netjets philosophy it is the difference that makes the difference.
I have seen guys come off LHS TP onto LHS 737 and survive, equally I have seen a few more that all too evidently did not have a lot of spare capacity for the first 6months or so.
And that, is not IMHO a good thing.
I am with NSF on this one . . . . . but , I can also tell you that if I had to give up a shiny 737 for some ratty ol F27 (hell even a shiny new ATR/Dash ) I would probably feel damn uncomfortable with the LACK of surplus performance/ability to avoid icing etc. So, as per the netjets philosophy it is the difference that makes the difference.
I have seen guys come off LHS TP onto LHS 737 and survive, equally I have seen a few more that all too evidently did not have a lot of spare capacity for the first 6months or so.
And that, is not IMHO a good thing.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt P
I thoroughly agree with you. Indeed I understabnd Ryan now expect all non-rated captains to complete a season in the right seat, and as I say I would be the last to take issue with this.
Nevertheless, the question I would pose to NSF and yourself, is whether according to the same logic, you would expect to fly six months in the right seat if forced to take a TP job?
The question is not academic. At my sim test for Flybe, three of the four candidates were medium jet captains. The recession is forcing many people to take jobs that traditionally appear 'beneath' them and, as I have previously said, I was surprised at how difficult the transition in the opposite direction has been.
I guess it was the whiff of superiority in NSF's original post (not yours) that I found objectionable. I can certainly live with your quote that the "difference makes the difference".
KT
So, as per the netjets philosophy it is the difference that makes the difference.
Nevertheless, the question I would pose to NSF and yourself, is whether according to the same logic, you would expect to fly six months in the right seat if forced to take a TP job?
The question is not academic. At my sim test for Flybe, three of the four candidates were medium jet captains. The recession is forcing many people to take jobs that traditionally appear 'beneath' them and, as I have previously said, I was surprised at how difficult the transition in the opposite direction has been.
I guess it was the whiff of superiority in NSF's original post (not yours) that I found objectionable. I can certainly live with your quote that the "difference makes the difference".
KT
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knee Trembler - the 'tone of superiority' you refer to was never intended. Nonetheless, I stand by my view that, taken as a whole, being a captain on a medium jet (andl larger) is significantly more involved that that of a turboprop. I have done both and am in a position to make that judgement. Unfortunately, it has proven virtually impossible to have a rational discussion on the subject due to offence being taken at some imagined slight. Talk of the need for experience to do the job properly has been incorrectly taken as a suggestion that turboprop captains are less talented than jet captains. That is never what was said.
I completely agreee with catplaystation that were I to swap my fancy Airbus for an F27, it would give me much to consider. I once used to fly a Herald with Channel Express - in a 6-month period I had 3 engine fires! As a low-houred First Officer I got to do a genuine single-engine landing. All of that is virtually unthinkable for today's 200-hour cadet on an Airbus/737. First of all, it is highly unlikely he will get a real engine failure and secondly if he did the Captain would do the landing. Any F27 pilot will tell you the nightmare of trying to handle an EFATO in the Maastricht sim - a jet is much easier to handle single-engine and has so much more power available. However, a turboprop is slower, less complex overall, does not travel as far afield and operates at much lower levels. Also, you have to really try hard on a turboprop to be 'hot and high' - energy management on a jet is a whole different world, as any honest ex-turboprop pilot will tell you. It is incredibly easy to find yourself up the creek without a paddle with an unstable approach on a jet - in a turboprop you just close the throttles and the 2 huge eggs whisks are the best speed brakes ever invented. The issue of range is also very critical - in a typical week a jet captain can find operating in the snow of Helsinki or the sun of Marrakech, Gibraltar or Funchal. Operations to these breadth of destinations tends to be a jet feature due to the longer ranges they are capable of. Each one of those destinations require signficant knowledge and experience to be able to safely operate there. Also the huge range of weather types you experience in these widespread operations (even more so on a transcontinental jet like a 747 or A340) simply require experience in order to be able to deal with them correctly. Some turboprops do not even have passenger oxygen on board because they operate at lower levels (or can get down to 10,000' quickly in the case of the Q400). When I was on turboprops, there was little talk of drift down as I never went anywhere with high enough mountains to worry about! Even the ATC was more of a problem on jets due to the fact that it took time to adjust to the wide variety of accents you heard day-to-day on the radio as you travelled to more places! I was a turboprop captain with 1800 hours total time - not uncommon in those days and I felt able to handle the role. The thought of being an Airbus captain with that level of experience is frankly alarming. As I said in a previous post, you would be incredibly vulnerable to something going wrong. It does not mean you cannot pass the course - it does mean you lack the breadth of experience necessary to deal with the enormous range of events that can occur in jet operations for the reasons I have given (range, weather, heights, speeds, complexity, handling characteristics, ATC variations).
The phrase I used previously that sent a couple of frail souls over the edge was when I suggested that to go from a turboprop to medium jet captain in one hit was a 'recipe for disaster'. I stand totally by that view - it has proven to be an enormous jump for many people to go straight from the left seat of even of an Embraer 145 or BAe 146 to that of an Airbus or 737. It would undoubtedly have been too much for me, as I freely admit. A number of people have done so successfully - but a significant number have not managed it well. It is also worth mentioning that the fact that medium jet captains are trying to get turboprop jobs does not mean anything other than the fact they are unemployed and need a job. The fact they are being considered at all tells its own story - there is a long and successful history of ex-jet captains finishing off their flying careers on turboprops.
So in answer to Knee Trembler's question, would 6 month's be appropriate in the RHS for ex-jet captains? For the reasons I have given, the answer is No. I genuinely believe that despite the clear difficulties of going in either direction, the route from turboprop to jet overall requires significantly more adjustment than going the other way. For those that feel offended by that view, I am sorry, but there you have it.
And by the way - I think the Embraer 190 is a fine-looking beast. I would be delighted to fly one myself, but it does not look like easyJet will be getting any soon!
I completely agreee with catplaystation that were I to swap my fancy Airbus for an F27, it would give me much to consider. I once used to fly a Herald with Channel Express - in a 6-month period I had 3 engine fires! As a low-houred First Officer I got to do a genuine single-engine landing. All of that is virtually unthinkable for today's 200-hour cadet on an Airbus/737. First of all, it is highly unlikely he will get a real engine failure and secondly if he did the Captain would do the landing. Any F27 pilot will tell you the nightmare of trying to handle an EFATO in the Maastricht sim - a jet is much easier to handle single-engine and has so much more power available. However, a turboprop is slower, less complex overall, does not travel as far afield and operates at much lower levels. Also, you have to really try hard on a turboprop to be 'hot and high' - energy management on a jet is a whole different world, as any honest ex-turboprop pilot will tell you. It is incredibly easy to find yourself up the creek without a paddle with an unstable approach on a jet - in a turboprop you just close the throttles and the 2 huge eggs whisks are the best speed brakes ever invented. The issue of range is also very critical - in a typical week a jet captain can find operating in the snow of Helsinki or the sun of Marrakech, Gibraltar or Funchal. Operations to these breadth of destinations tends to be a jet feature due to the longer ranges they are capable of. Each one of those destinations require signficant knowledge and experience to be able to safely operate there. Also the huge range of weather types you experience in these widespread operations (even more so on a transcontinental jet like a 747 or A340) simply require experience in order to be able to deal with them correctly. Some turboprops do not even have passenger oxygen on board because they operate at lower levels (or can get down to 10,000' quickly in the case of the Q400). When I was on turboprops, there was little talk of drift down as I never went anywhere with high enough mountains to worry about! Even the ATC was more of a problem on jets due to the fact that it took time to adjust to the wide variety of accents you heard day-to-day on the radio as you travelled to more places! I was a turboprop captain with 1800 hours total time - not uncommon in those days and I felt able to handle the role. The thought of being an Airbus captain with that level of experience is frankly alarming. As I said in a previous post, you would be incredibly vulnerable to something going wrong. It does not mean you cannot pass the course - it does mean you lack the breadth of experience necessary to deal with the enormous range of events that can occur in jet operations for the reasons I have given (range, weather, heights, speeds, complexity, handling characteristics, ATC variations).
The phrase I used previously that sent a couple of frail souls over the edge was when I suggested that to go from a turboprop to medium jet captain in one hit was a 'recipe for disaster'. I stand totally by that view - it has proven to be an enormous jump for many people to go straight from the left seat of even of an Embraer 145 or BAe 146 to that of an Airbus or 737. It would undoubtedly have been too much for me, as I freely admit. A number of people have done so successfully - but a significant number have not managed it well. It is also worth mentioning that the fact that medium jet captains are trying to get turboprop jobs does not mean anything other than the fact they are unemployed and need a job. The fact they are being considered at all tells its own story - there is a long and successful history of ex-jet captains finishing off their flying careers on turboprops.
So in answer to Knee Trembler's question, would 6 month's be appropriate in the RHS for ex-jet captains? For the reasons I have given, the answer is No. I genuinely believe that despite the clear difficulties of going in either direction, the route from turboprop to jet overall requires significantly more adjustment than going the other way. For those that feel offended by that view, I am sorry, but there you have it.
And by the way - I think the Embraer 190 is a fine-looking beast. I would be delighted to fly one myself, but it does not look like easyJet will be getting any soon!
Last edited by Norman Stanley Fletcher; 9th Mar 2009 at 03:31.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: kuwait
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NSF
You say that as a low hour F/O you got to do a single engine landing. The question has to be asked, as a truly experienced captain that you are, would you place a low hour F/O in such a predicament? If it had all gone wrong we all know what the subsequent question would have been. In turn this brings us to the question of a low jet houred captain, who would be best placed in handling say a 'Dual hydraulic loss'? We all know we can sit back and manage the situation but at some point we have to take responsibility for the final outcome, as I'm sure those sitting behind us would like.
I'm not taking anything away from the ability of the F/O, Easy has many who are overdue their command.
You say that as a low hour F/O you got to do a single engine landing. The question has to be asked, as a truly experienced captain that you are, would you place a low hour F/O in such a predicament? If it had all gone wrong we all know what the subsequent question would have been. In turn this brings us to the question of a low jet houred captain, who would be best placed in handling say a 'Dual hydraulic loss'? We all know we can sit back and manage the situation but at some point we have to take responsibility for the final outcome, as I'm sure those sitting behind us would like.
I'm not taking anything away from the ability of the F/O, Easy has many who are overdue their command.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NSF,
As I said, we've both made our point and that is that.
For my part, I am pleased that those tasked with running the concern that pays my wages have a less entrenched view and have seen fit to bestow the 737 Classic replacement with us (as well as other companies in the group). Whether that move will prove disastrous, time will tell. I personally will have no problems flying in the back of one of our own aircraft.
KT
As I said, we've both made our point and that is that.
For my part, I am pleased that those tasked with running the concern that pays my wages have a less entrenched view and have seen fit to bestow the 737 Classic replacement with us (as well as other companies in the group). Whether that move will prove disastrous, time will tell. I personally will have no problems flying in the back of one of our own aircraft.
KT
NSF
First of all: you sound like an arrogant and pompous g*t.
Yes, there are handling differences between jets and turboprops. Command potential, however, has close to nothing to do with that but mostly with experience. I work for an outfit where people are trained properly and even a junior FO is allowed & can be trusted to do a single engine approach. How is that for a comforting thought for the SLF? You're basically saying that you don't trust your young colleague with handling the aicraft in an emergency. That's sad, I hope your company has even stricter rules than the CAA on medicals and crew food because God forbid that you ever become incapacitated....
First of all: you sound like an arrogant and pompous g*t.
Yes, there are handling differences between jets and turboprops. Command potential, however, has close to nothing to do with that but mostly with experience. I work for an outfit where people are trained properly and even a junior FO is allowed & can be trusted to do a single engine approach. How is that for a comforting thought for the SLF? You're basically saying that you don't trust your young colleague with handling the aicraft in an emergency. That's sad, I hope your company has even stricter rules than the CAA on medicals and crew food because God forbid that you ever become incapacitated....
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NSF,
I respect your opinions and admittedly, I have never flown turboprops, However, for the first time ever, I tend to disagree with you. I have friends who started off in flying on the Shorts 360, an unpressurised aircraft with no autopilot. They spent their formative years unable to climb above the weather, hand flying every other sector. They never had any problems with transitioning to jets, In fact, I could argue that someone with 3000 hours doing this type of flying would have significantly more experience than someone with 3000 hours in one of our own aircraft, largely spent on autopilot. Granted energy managment is a whole different ball game, but that should be nothing that anyone who can do their three times table cannot deal with.
In reverse, I could certainly not go from my LHS A319 to the LHS of a turboprop - too many levers for one thing. Besides, the A319 must be easy - Even Clara managed to pass a line check ( Allegedly!!)
However, back to thread please (guilty as charged -I know) I cannot see this pairing optimiser working. I think our trainers are going to be very busy this summer!!! Here's hoping!
FPS
I respect your opinions and admittedly, I have never flown turboprops, However, for the first time ever, I tend to disagree with you. I have friends who started off in flying on the Shorts 360, an unpressurised aircraft with no autopilot. They spent their formative years unable to climb above the weather, hand flying every other sector. They never had any problems with transitioning to jets, In fact, I could argue that someone with 3000 hours doing this type of flying would have significantly more experience than someone with 3000 hours in one of our own aircraft, largely spent on autopilot. Granted energy managment is a whole different ball game, but that should be nothing that anyone who can do their three times table cannot deal with.
In reverse, I could certainly not go from my LHS A319 to the LHS of a turboprop - too many levers for one thing. Besides, the A319 must be easy - Even Clara managed to pass a line check ( Allegedly!!)
However, back to thread please (guilty as charged -I know) I cannot see this pairing optimiser working. I think our trainers are going to be very busy this summer!!! Here's hoping!
FPS
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Longhitter
Our company stipulates that in an abnormal situation, It is the captain who will be PF for the landing.
I think you are way off the mark with your comments about NSF, one of the biggest advocates for the professionalism of our F/Os and indeed, his comments here re-inforce his opinion of the quality of our F/Os and their suitability for command.
Anyway, he will defend himself much more eloquently than I could so I'm off now.
Our company stipulates that in an abnormal situation, It is the captain who will be PF for the landing.
I think you are way off the mark with your comments about NSF, one of the biggest advocates for the professionalism of our F/Os and indeed, his comments here re-inforce his opinion of the quality of our F/Os and their suitability for command.
Anyway, he will defend himself much more eloquently than I could so I'm off now.