Captain of an 70-ton jet with 400 landings, what do you think?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vega Constellation
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain of an 70-ton jet with 400 landings, what do you think?
In the shop I am in for a year now (China), when FO's come for upgrade, they are required 2700h total time to apply as a captain, about 3000h by the time they pass the simulator, and about 3200h after completing line training on the left seat.
This sounds all well, if not a bit low time, to get flying a B737 or A320 as a captain... BUT: many of these FO's have to wait a few weeks or months because they need 400 (manual) landings under their belt, meaning 400 landings on type since they finished flight school...
The fact is that in some Chinese airlines, FO's are not allowed to handle the aircraft during take off and landings, unless they fly with a training captain. There comes to show what flight hours REALLY mean if you just push buttons, it's not worth much.
This sounds an incredible low number of landings to me. And due to punishing policies based on QAR/FDM events -not necessarily real deviations or exceedances- most hand flying is performed with ATHR ON, FD ON, and it's always an ILS, and the autopilot disconnected when fully configured at 3NM on finals.
After more than a year here, I have only seen 2 FO's who disconnected the ATHR and try to fly the aircraft the way an aircraft is meant to be flown.
My point here is, as probably overdone in other threads, I have a feeling that the coming generation of captains in this part of the world are becoming lobotomized, but what will happen when things go wrong?
The automation has done it's wonders, and 99% of the pilots I fly with here don't even bother looking at the thrust changes when the aircraft levels off or leaves an altitude, many of them have instruments scans close to non existent, but man, they can fly those FD bars!
Now, after 400 landings on type, (mind you, not the type of landing when you have bare minimums, rain, crosswinds, and the like. No, the landings given to them on clear day or night to make sure they can do it, and blank off any insecurities the trainers may have) they will be ready to get their command and take to the skies with your families behind.
Can anyone here give a comparison factor to what 400 landings represent from their own experience? How many landings before pilots in other countries get their first command of an airliner?
From memory, I had about 1500 landings before my first command on a 20T turboprop, and 2900 landings for the first command on jet aircaft. And yet I felt there was a lot to learn before being really comfortable (I mean feeling on top of the game) when faced with challenging weather conditions.
As people say, practice makes perfect...right? Or there is some other magic trick I haven't learned in my early years to get instant valuable experience brain transfer...
Would I have taken a job as a captain on an airliner with 400 landings total since I left flight school? Would you?
This sounds all well, if not a bit low time, to get flying a B737 or A320 as a captain... BUT: many of these FO's have to wait a few weeks or months because they need 400 (manual) landings under their belt, meaning 400 landings on type since they finished flight school...
The fact is that in some Chinese airlines, FO's are not allowed to handle the aircraft during take off and landings, unless they fly with a training captain. There comes to show what flight hours REALLY mean if you just push buttons, it's not worth much.
This sounds an incredible low number of landings to me. And due to punishing policies based on QAR/FDM events -not necessarily real deviations or exceedances- most hand flying is performed with ATHR ON, FD ON, and it's always an ILS, and the autopilot disconnected when fully configured at 3NM on finals.
After more than a year here, I have only seen 2 FO's who disconnected the ATHR and try to fly the aircraft the way an aircraft is meant to be flown.
My point here is, as probably overdone in other threads, I have a feeling that the coming generation of captains in this part of the world are becoming lobotomized, but what will happen when things go wrong?
The automation has done it's wonders, and 99% of the pilots I fly with here don't even bother looking at the thrust changes when the aircraft levels off or leaves an altitude, many of them have instruments scans close to non existent, but man, they can fly those FD bars!
Now, after 400 landings on type, (mind you, not the type of landing when you have bare minimums, rain, crosswinds, and the like. No, the landings given to them on clear day or night to make sure they can do it, and blank off any insecurities the trainers may have) they will be ready to get their command and take to the skies with your families behind.
Can anyone here give a comparison factor to what 400 landings represent from their own experience? How many landings before pilots in other countries get their first command of an airliner?
From memory, I had about 1500 landings before my first command on a 20T turboprop, and 2900 landings for the first command on jet aircaft. And yet I felt there was a lot to learn before being really comfortable (I mean feeling on top of the game) when faced with challenging weather conditions.
As people say, practice makes perfect...right? Or there is some other magic trick I haven't learned in my early years to get instant valuable experience brain transfer...
Would I have taken a job as a captain on an airliner with 400 landings total since I left flight school? Would you?
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After more than a year here, I have only seen 2 FO's who disconnected the ATHR and try to fly the aircraft the way an aircraft is meant to be flown.
Don't keep slamming on about the orientals .. I flew for one of the best European carriers and first officers were NOT allowed to taxi, takeoff, fly the clean up or use the brakes until the 1990s... A quick command course and I'm in the LHS.
Their loco was still doing the same in the late 90s.
Their loco was still doing the same in the late 90s.
FLEXPWR
It all depends on the standard of training and operating ethos.
I have a friend who is Capt of a 200+ ton jet with about 2000hrs total and less than half those landings.
Safely carries 200 + pax in sometimes demanding circumstances.
I have a friend who is Capt of a 200+ ton jet with about 2000hrs total and less than half those landings.
Safely carries 200 + pax in sometimes demanding circumstances.
Swissair and loco was crossair...
But the pay,equipment and maintenance was without doubt the best in Europe.
Not forgetting the training and handling abilities which made my first airline look like a bunch of ...
You pay your money and ..... But in this case they paid me the money and lots of it....
But the pay,equipment and maintenance was without doubt the best in Europe.
Not forgetting the training and handling abilities which made my first airline look like a bunch of ...
You pay your money and ..... But in this case they paid me the money and lots of it....
Low hours and landings
In the 'late '70s and early '80s Big Airways Overseas Division potential captains were allowed to count their 'base' landings whilst on the command course, (either an a/c conversion and/or at Reykjavik completing the 35kt crosswind landing element of the course) towards the 150 minimum before the could be cleared as captains. Many went straight from 2 stripes to 4 as the airline expanded and the retirements began to bite, gaining a command in 6 years or so. Unheard of at the time.
This was in the days when landing cards were still in operation. To start with you were cleared on the line with a car that said 'day only-training captains only' and this progressed to unrestricted after about 3-4 years. Over at European Division copilots were I believe, unrestricted from the off.
This was in the days when landing cards were still in operation. To start with you were cleared on the line with a car that said 'day only-training captains only' and this progressed to unrestricted after about 3-4 years. Over at European Division copilots were I believe, unrestricted from the off.
Last edited by Sygyzy; 26th Sep 2012 at 10:55.
European division unrestricted?
In theory but many of the guys would fight you on the controls if they didn't use the excuse of the aircraft needing a practice auto land...
Wasn't until the short service commission guys and the hamsters got their commands that things improved... Although there was some excellent WW2 pilots many couldn't fly the Trident and as for the training and management!
Very rarely did I actually do a P1us sector and when I went onto the iron duck still remember the incredulous look I got when I asked if I could take the A/P out.
In theory but many of the guys would fight you on the controls if they didn't use the excuse of the aircraft needing a practice auto land...
Wasn't until the short service commission guys and the hamsters got their commands that things improved... Although there was some excellent WW2 pilots many couldn't fly the Trident and as for the training and management!
Very rarely did I actually do a P1us sector and when I went onto the iron duck still remember the incredulous look I got when I asked if I could take the A/P out.
FLEXPWR
I couldn't agree more. The lack of hours in the cockpit, let alone in the left seat where it really matters, is a really worrying trend downwards. Having said that, the issue is not a straightforward one because in my opinion having a wealth of hours in the logbook is not always indicative of superior airmanship.
You give a case in point. Imagine having 2500 hrs on type after flight school and still struggling to tot up 400 landings, the vast majority of which are using the automatics until fully configured 900 ft above the threshold!? Exactly how much varied experience do these pilots have under their belts?
Then again, there are a vast number of very well trained legacy airline pilots who fly medium or long-haul and have amassed thousands of hours crosscrossing the globe, but only fly into major airports with an ILS. They are probably bound to use the automatics for most of the time. Are they truly experienced?
Consider now the loco pilot who has 2500 hrs on type. He or she has performed 1500 revenue flights into a mixed bag of, say, 100+ different airports across Europe using NDB, VOR, circling and ILS approaches, each culminating in a manual landing. This pilot has landed the aircraft over 800 times in a variety of weather conditions.
I'm not for one minute suggesting that the loco pilot is without a doubt experienced enough or possesses sufficient airmanship for command. My point is simply that it's the quality not the quantity of the experience that is important, but even that is only part of the story.
I've met and flown with lots of pilots who have been given command because they have the requisite hours and have passed the upgrade course, but who seem to be lacking in the airmanship that truly matters.
I couldn't agree more. The lack of hours in the cockpit, let alone in the left seat where it really matters, is a really worrying trend downwards. Having said that, the issue is not a straightforward one because in my opinion having a wealth of hours in the logbook is not always indicative of superior airmanship.
You give a case in point. Imagine having 2500 hrs on type after flight school and still struggling to tot up 400 landings, the vast majority of which are using the automatics until fully configured 900 ft above the threshold!? Exactly how much varied experience do these pilots have under their belts?
Then again, there are a vast number of very well trained legacy airline pilots who fly medium or long-haul and have amassed thousands of hours crosscrossing the globe, but only fly into major airports with an ILS. They are probably bound to use the automatics for most of the time. Are they truly experienced?
Consider now the loco pilot who has 2500 hrs on type. He or she has performed 1500 revenue flights into a mixed bag of, say, 100+ different airports across Europe using NDB, VOR, circling and ILS approaches, each culminating in a manual landing. This pilot has landed the aircraft over 800 times in a variety of weather conditions.
I'm not for one minute suggesting that the loco pilot is without a doubt experienced enough or possesses sufficient airmanship for command. My point is simply that it's the quality not the quantity of the experience that is important, but even that is only part of the story.
I've met and flown with lots of pilots who have been given command because they have the requisite hours and have passed the upgrade course, but who seem to be lacking in the airmanship that truly matters.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vega Constellation
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MikeHotel,
My point exactly. As in my first post, I was refering to the specifics of some airlines in China, with the background knowledge of how the training is performed here and what to expect from a pilot fresh out of school. (Plenty of other threads available on this subject...)
Indeed, there are talented people everywhere, and many European or American flight schools have high standard when it comes to deliver quality training. Even pilot coming from poor standards schools sometimes achieve very high standards because they will take any chance after getting their license, to continue learning and try to better themselves. The easy example is the FAA theoretical exams. Anybody can do it, get the Gleim or other training book, study the questions for a couple of weeks, and you're bound to score above the 90 mark. This is far from sufficient to make a proficient pilot.
The long haul as you mentioned has also its effects, flying 1 or 2 approaches a month, many pilots get more landings in the sim than in the real aircraft. But usually (except a few lucky ones), captains on this type of operations have spent a considerable amount of time on other types and gained their experience prior to being the keys of a medium/large jet.
My point here is not to criticize the training standards or pilot's skills and judgement quality (altough good judgement often comes from past mistakes
) , but to question in general terms, knowing the weak background and little experience in this country, if it makes good sense to get a left seat position with such little amount of handling.
It occurred more than once here that an FO just does not want to perform an approach because it is not an ILS. Fine by me, at their age and level of experience, I would have jumped at the opportunity to fly NPA's and fly in crosswind conditions or other. I felt it was the perfect time to practice and learn from the captain next to me who, most of the time, could give some advice on how to do it. But it does not seem to be the case here.
In the end, the picture could be very different between flying an ILS to land straight-in in good weather, and flying an NPA with 15 or 20 degrees offset with crosswind.
My point exactly. As in my first post, I was refering to the specifics of some airlines in China, with the background knowledge of how the training is performed here and what to expect from a pilot fresh out of school. (Plenty of other threads available on this subject...)
Indeed, there are talented people everywhere, and many European or American flight schools have high standard when it comes to deliver quality training. Even pilot coming from poor standards schools sometimes achieve very high standards because they will take any chance after getting their license, to continue learning and try to better themselves. The easy example is the FAA theoretical exams. Anybody can do it, get the Gleim or other training book, study the questions for a couple of weeks, and you're bound to score above the 90 mark. This is far from sufficient to make a proficient pilot.
The long haul as you mentioned has also its effects, flying 1 or 2 approaches a month, many pilots get more landings in the sim than in the real aircraft. But usually (except a few lucky ones), captains on this type of operations have spent a considerable amount of time on other types and gained their experience prior to being the keys of a medium/large jet.
My point here is not to criticize the training standards or pilot's skills and judgement quality (altough good judgement often comes from past mistakes
) , but to question in general terms, knowing the weak background and little experience in this country, if it makes good sense to get a left seat position with such little amount of handling.It occurred more than once here that an FO just does not want to perform an approach because it is not an ILS. Fine by me, at their age and level of experience, I would have jumped at the opportunity to fly NPA's and fly in crosswind conditions or other. I felt it was the perfect time to practice and learn from the captain next to me who, most of the time, could give some advice on how to do it. But it does not seem to be the case here.
In the end, the picture could be very different between flying an ILS to land straight-in in good weather, and flying an NPA with 15 or 20 degrees offset with crosswind.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quality vs Quantity
I've done just about all my flying under the FAA system. I also have a few friends who fly for carriers in the ME, and as FO's they have landing restrictions.
For example, if the crosswind is too high, or the visibility is too low, or with a contaminated runway, the CA will always land. I find that philosophy to be a bit silly, as your first time performing a landing under difficult conditions will be as a CA, with a possibly inexperienced FO.
Am I missing something obvious here, or is the quality of FO experience being reduced?
For example, if the crosswind is too high, or the visibility is too low, or with a contaminated runway, the CA will always land. I find that philosophy to be a bit silly, as your first time performing a landing under difficult conditions will be as a CA, with a possibly inexperienced FO.
Am I missing something obvious here, or is the quality of FO experience being reduced?
Check airman
It was always so as the average line captain isn't an instructor and it's not the time nor place to train a FO.
My first real crosswind landing I nearly stuffed the wing tip into the Tarmac.
Many moons later I gave the aircraft to the captain when we were flying an approach over the max crosswind.... A mistake as he cocked it up but if he wanted to play test pilots it was up to him.
Similarly if it was my approach and the weather was on limits then I elected to do an autoland with him as handling pilot.
My first priority was my neck followed by passenger service.
It has always been the captains ultimate responsibility and decisions as made by 447 skipper on leaving the flight deck during the ITCZ crossing are foolish and unprofessional.
With a decent training program it isn't a problem to change seats.
As to manual flying that is a different kettle of fish.
It was always so as the average line captain isn't an instructor and it's not the time nor place to train a FO.
My first real crosswind landing I nearly stuffed the wing tip into the Tarmac.
Many moons later I gave the aircraft to the captain when we were flying an approach over the max crosswind.... A mistake as he cocked it up but if he wanted to play test pilots it was up to him.
Similarly if it was my approach and the weather was on limits then I elected to do an autoland with him as handling pilot.
My first priority was my neck followed by passenger service.
It has always been the captains ultimate responsibility and decisions as made by 447 skipper on leaving the flight deck during the ITCZ crossing are foolish and unprofessional.
With a decent training program it isn't a problem to change seats.
As to manual flying that is a different kettle of fish.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many landings on type for first command?
6!
In perspective this was a type conversion and command course at the same time. At the time I had about 700 landings on another type (both medium jets) and about 1000 on various smaller types. I wouldn't have felt confident with any less, but of course there's more to commanding an airliner than being able to grease it on....
In perspective this was a type conversion and command course at the same time. At the time I had about 700 landings on another type (both medium jets) and about 1000 on various smaller types. I wouldn't have felt confident with any less, but of course there's more to commanding an airliner than being able to grease it on....
Last edited by 16024; 28th Sep 2012 at 09:31.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Sandbox
Age: 37
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is very important to hand fly the aircraft every now and then. I fly in a part of the world (as a FO) where NPA's are more common than ILS's, and do those type of approaches on a daily basis. Luckily most of the captains in my company trust the first officers enough to let them be PF on these sectors.
And let me tell you that it is an awesome feeling to succesfully fly a manual (FD's off and A/T disconnected) visual circuit or NDB circling approach in a 70 ton jet on a 2000m RWY. Some approaches are performed more pretty than others, but when you f**k something up you know what NOT to do the next time. (provided it is being flown within limitations)
My point is the following; by doing this it REALLY boosts your self confidence/skills in the manual handling of the aircraft and knowing what it can and can not do. And if I would ever come across a non-normal situation where manual flying is the only option left you have this extra piece of luggage to bring the situation to a safe ending.
I wouldn't feel comfortable becoming a captain and only knowing how to fly an ILS in CAVOK conditions...
And let me tell you that it is an awesome feeling to succesfully fly a manual (FD's off and A/T disconnected) visual circuit or NDB circling approach in a 70 ton jet on a 2000m RWY. Some approaches are performed more pretty than others, but when you f**k something up you know what NOT to do the next time. (provided it is being flown within limitations)
My point is the following; by doing this it REALLY boosts your self confidence/skills in the manual handling of the aircraft and knowing what it can and can not do. And if I would ever come across a non-normal situation where manual flying is the only option left you have this extra piece of luggage to bring the situation to a safe ending.
I wouldn't feel comfortable becoming a captain and only knowing how to fly an ILS in CAVOK conditions...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vega Constellation
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another example is with gusty wind conditions on approach, some aircraft manuals recommend to disconnect ATHR, as it tends to make quite large fluctuations. Under these conditions, better not be the first time to have manual thrust...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check airman
It was always so as the average line captain isn't an instructor and it's not the time nor place to train a FO.
My first real crosswind landing I nearly stuffed the wing tip into the Tarmac.
It was always so as the average line captain isn't an instructor and it's not the time nor place to train a FO.
My first real crosswind landing I nearly stuffed the wing tip into the Tarmac.
You only have so much time with an instructor as a FO, and a similar amount of time when you upgrade to CA. The instructor can't expose you to everything. In the thousands of hours in-between, why not do some training/mentoring?
At my airline (US Regional), the FO is restricted for the first 100hr on type. Thereafter, both pilots operate to the same limits.
I've taken my aircraft to within a few knots of the demonstrated crosswind on multiple occasions, and I'm a more capable pilot after each experience.
Some CA's are better teachers than others, but your average line pilot is perfectly capable of providing instruction / guidance to new FO's.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
visual circuit or NDB circling approach in a 70 ton jet on a 2000m RWY
Love the Carribean!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of heroes and wonder boys on this thread. Strong ego's at work.
Oh, and also have a look at the temporary restrictions in force in Rio at the moment for Runway 28/10, 2000m.
It's not unusual to encounter these performance restrictions and NPA's around the world. We just have to deal with them.
Where are the heroes and wonder boys?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: United States of Europe
Age: 40
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree that it is good to keep your manual skills up to speed but if something was to go wrong while you were unnecessarily flying without the automatics then the first question asked to you by the investigation team would be, "why weren't the automatics engaged?"
This is not helped by people claiming that the first thing an investigation team would ask you would be ¨why weren´t the automatics engaged?´
I hear this last line so often that I am getting bored with it. There is no such infamous investigation team or board of enquiry that will ask you silly questions like these. In fact, if they ask anything at all, they are more likely to ask you why you didn´t take out the automatics earlier! And why you didn´t regard your manual flying skills as a personal skill which you are personally responsible for to maintain and improve.
I am amazed sometimes at the beliefs some people have. E.g. not taking the automatics out until visual/landing clearance received etc.
As professionals we should be equally proficient in each and every level of flight. This goes layered from fully automatic (AP/FD/A/THR) down to rawdata with autothrust off.
The autoflight system is a great tool. We all know it relieves workload therefore increases spare capacity. Which we might need in certain situations. However having this tool does not relieve us from having the necessary practice/skills to handle the aircraft in each level of automatic flight. It is not meant to replace us, it´s meant to be a tool which we can use. So don´t be lazy!
I encourage all my F/O´s to handfly as much as possible. If they´re not comfortable with it, the more reason to start practicing more. The autoflight can be peeled off in layers. So if not fully comfortable you can start by taking the first layer off i.e. (AP off/FD on/A/THR on) and then slowly taking more layers off. Ofcourse all within the confines of SOP and common-sense. In a very busy TMA/bad weather/fatigued one might want to have more spare capacity for situational awareness etc. again depending on ones comfort-zone.
As important as the ability to handfly is also the ability to know ones comfort-zone and limitations. There is no shame in re-engaging the automatics at any given time if the conditions dictate. After all we´re in a dynamic place where conditions do change.
Least but not all. Handflying is fun and gives more satisfaction. Oh yes: it also gives results. People who handfly on the line generally perform much better in the sim. (that place where you are forced to handfly sometimes!!
)I have written all this from the perspective of a shorthaul medium jet operation. In long haul exposure to handflying is even less, bringing different challenges on which I am not qualified to comment.