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

NSF, I think you have hit the nail on the head, and anyone taking offence has the proverbial french fry on the shoulder. :rolleyes:
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 :=

once again this is not important,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, thousands of stripes, who cares?
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.


this is the :mad: 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 :cool::ok:

For someone who really doesn't care about the number of stripes we all wear you don't half keep banging on about it!

I just care about the accuracy of what I am writting, and also, what I am reading.;)

end of story.

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

KT, excellent post, nothing to add :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok::ok:

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.

Sea, sex, sun, why are you swearing so much?

:confused:

Anyway, if they ask you, just tell them you don't know :)

Latin temperament! :}

Whitout strips i can fly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but easy gave us a new strip......in the a...:D:D:D:Dt

Holdingpool .....RIP:(:(:(:(

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.

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

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!

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.

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

That's funny Clara, thought you were still in nappies when Gill were operating. :p

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....

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

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.

Longhitter wrote about NSF:

First of all: you sound like an arrogant and pompous g*t.



Whereas as Longhitter writes this sort of thing to people interested in joining his little air operation:

http://www.pprune.org/2649277-post5.html



Did you not pen this on the 12th June 20o6 at 11.05 GMT?




How's it going these days in ****ty jet?

Good?



I note this week 01st March 2009 08:51 you chose to write;

About the ATC Officers controlling Paris Charles de Gaulle airport. Interesting.





If you have a box, strongly consider getting back in it. Ta.


WWW

WWW

So I have strong opinions about stuff, sound familiar? I will say things as I feel them since we live in a part of the world where freedom of speech is (still, for the moment) a basic human right.

No, I will not go back in any box.

Any relevant things to add except digging up my prune history?

I do not disagree with SNF in the experience department, I just disagree with his disdain for turboprop experience and the way he described his view on what a FO should and can(not) do. I too think that going from a left seat in a prop to the left seat in a jet is not a good idea, better get some hours in the right seat to get a feel for the handling. Decision making and airmanship, however, grow just as fast (maybe even faster) operating a small jet or turboprop.

I am not the only one who felt a sense of arrogance in his point of view, hence the reaction.

A disdain only your inferred.

And I'm sure you were.

But that's fine now.



WWW


ps How is life in ****tyjet?

That was 3 years ago! Wouldn't know, therefore.

Ah, no friends in previous job. I see.

WWW

That's not it, I'm just not into writing stuff here that is second-hand info. Ask them directly.

Longhitter,

Don't take it all so personally, dear!

Really? Is he really saying that?? The answer is, of course, no.

Lovely! Can't wait to meet you in the Flight Deck. Silence between 'Set Standard' and 'Set QNH' no doubt.

As WWW says, back in the box.....

NSF:

Your defensive posts are getting longer and longer. The phrase "he doth protest too much" springs to mind.

The fact is that you are coming over as a bit of a pompous chappy.

I usually enjoy and agree with most of your posts but I think you have upset quite a few people with your fixed ideas (no doubt all based on your own experience).

I came to jets from 16 years of turboprops (10 years of Argosy and 6 years of Belfast). I was in the right seat of the DC-10 for just one year when I got my command and went on to cruise around the globe in one without an ounce of trouble for six years including a couple of years of line training on it.

I found it a very easy transition.

Perhaps my perspective on the problem is a little bit different from yours since flying round the world (literally) with turboprops is a little bit different to Channex doing early morning papers to Jersey and Guernsey and then fetching flowers back to Bournemouth?

(That is assuming that the aircraft wasn't broken in the process).

A good operator in a Turboprop will be a good operator on a jet.

Even good guys new on a type will need a while to get comfortable. IMO

Just ask many of the Britannia guys who went from 15 years on the 737-200 to the 767!! :eek:

'Can I fly it manually now.............PLEASE'

NSF said above FL100, being at FL250 or FL340 does not make any difference, the TAS/GS/MN high or low does not make any difference on straight lines between 2 waypoints (cruise are always flown in autopilot while we read the newspaper and we drink the coffee)..
Below FL100, speed is limited to 250 kts maximum, and this is always reached with an ATR or Dash8 in descent.
Approaching speed is more or less the same with a heavy TP or heavy jet.

Apparently WWW's dad is bigger than Longhitters's dad.

And he's got a black belt.

WWW

Thanks chaps for those that are supportive. To the Longhitters of the world, what can I say? Nothing at all.

My case is laid out, and for some it appears all too much to read. Actually Stan Woolley has said it all far better than I have in a sentence - "Even good guys new on a type will need a while to get comfortable. IMO". Much more succinct than me and absolutely correct. Anyway, that's it from me on this one - thanks for the discussion. Best of luck to those trying to get permanent jobs at easyJet, which is what this was all about in the first place.

Fully agree!

I came from a commuter size turbo prop and didn't have a problem, neither did any of the other people in my class with similar back grounds, nor the people in the class before and after me.

It's one of those typical old fashioned, out of touch, ideas that people who have flown props are no good. Perhaps it was like that in the 1950's when NSF got into aviation, but believe it or not, things have progressed considerably over the course of 5 decades... ;)

As seasexsun pointed out earlier, automation levels (EFIS, Cat III etc) are roughly the same and so are approach speeds. The only thing missing in general is autothrottle/thrust. Perhaps descent planning is a bit different because jets tend to be a bit more slippery than props, but that should be nothing that any average pilot can't fix. Just different numbers, like pitch and power...

There has to be a first time for everything in life, all it comes down to is; good selection, good preparation, good training and the proper attitude.

It appeared the simple question I asked a few days ago has sparked quite the debate.

The reason I asked was that i've never had any wish to do long haul, and so easyjet with all its pros and cons seemed quite a good idea. The reason I was asking about a direct entry command was a purely financial one. I'm not sure my mortgage, car loan and multiple holidays a year would appreciate the £10 - 20,000 pay cut. Six months fine, but a few years.

As for the turboprop/ jet thing.

I'd like to make a few points.

We're not talking about going from a Q400 to a 747.

I'd like to think Q400 is fairly beasty. Its got lots of fun things like fadec and efis(makes my mate(a 757 chap) rather jelous on the efis front.).

As for its performance. if i take off after a BA shuttle, there usually isn't much in it after 10-15 mins. Granted once he gets into the cruise, they leave us for dead, And granted the best I can look forward to is a coffee and a nutrigrain bar, while they've got there sausages and egg. But thats another matter entirly.

On the approach. And take note here. If I get to FL150, and I'm sat 10nm behind a jet. I WILL have to slow down so as not to catch the jet up. its very frustrating. ATC will pop us behind on the theory that there faster. But there not. Especially below FL100.

Anyway. I was just asking.

just a wee point. I think that if I went from my Q400 to a EBM 145(which is smaller and not much faster than the 400 at any point). i could then go to the LHs of a A319. Which seems bizzare.

See ya'll later

Many aircraft have windscreen bird-strike limits of 250Knots below FL100 or 80, both jet and turboprop. If you have to slow down behind jets, it is not because the Q400 is faster, but that the jet chooses to slow down to 250knots or less due to company sops, atc, etc. Most turboprops can scream in towards an approach because they have better get of of jail cards than a jet for slowing down late. Like it or not, most companies will prefer to familiarise t/prop only pilots in the RS before moving them to LS, with the exception maybe of smaller jets like the EMB145.

Regards.

don't worry baby, tha's an old fashioned point of view, and mentalities are changing. Cargolux used to ask jet hours in order to apply, this is not anymore the case. And as mentioned in earlier posts, lots of famous europeen companies with a big fleet do hire turboprop captains on the left hand seat of a jet aircraft.
GSS has hired turboprop guys straight onto the jumbo, unfortunataly for you and your little friend NSF, those airplanes has not crashed yet.:hmm:

Spot on!

Jet vs prop will always be a chicken or the egg story, especially in the UK where most employees are gullible enough to believe every line from management. Other countries take a more pragmatic view, with an equally good safety record by the way.

Prop pilots are 'no good,' unless of course they pay 23K for a TRSS type rating, then all over sudden it's 'top notch.' :yuk:

Sorry to say so, but NSF is sounding more and more like a management lackey.

p.s. How anyone ever gets to fly jets when most people start off on props is beyond me. Did they all do their PPL on a 737? :confused:

Anyone who knows who NSF is in easyJet or on our BALPA forum will know him to be widely be one of the most respected, reasoned and professional operators that we have here. His reputation is faultless to many of the people in easy who have never even met him.

Whenever I read one of his posts they are always balanced but with his own opinions as a caveat and I believe he has the rare talent to see two sides of every argument.

If you have taken his post to be offensive or in some way pompous I suggest that is you taking offense to some form of inferiority complex that seems to be fuelled by take off weight and how high you sit from the ground on your aeroplane. Fact is we will all look out of the window and look down on people. That's just human nature and we here aren't going to change that. I am sure BA guys look out of their 319 at our Orange dayglow paint scheme with a certain amount of disdain. Maybe they do, maybe many don't..I don't know and to be honest I don't really care. I try to go to work, enjoy it for what it is and not get too wound up about what I fly.

Fact is easyJet in their inifinite wisdom have decided a MTOW for Direct Entry Captain at the time they needed them and for non TRSS Direct Entry FO's. It was all on supply and demand. They probably turned away many many great operators with their rules and barriers to entry. Then so have many other airlines, but fact is it's their trainset we have to remember that...Now times have changed and according to WWW we are all going to spiral into years of debt ridden doom ;)

All I know is my own experience, and whilst I might quite happily pass a sim, line training and line check on a new type LHS could I really honestly say I know it enough to command it? Yes maybe I could in my own mind and with confidence operate it safely....But am I being arrogant or confident or naive..I can't answer that and by not having an incident is that down to me primarily or the world that we live in now of automation and a strong safety culture... Standards, safety records and reliability are all far better then they have ever been (touch wood!) and the actual chances of an aircraft/crew related incident are very low.

Before you all start turning to NSF and saying he is being pompous have a little look inside yourselves and see the message he is conveying. Remember it is his opinion and you have yours and I guess the truth is somewhere in between. Where the truth is who knows, but that's above my pay grade for sure ;) ..Oh well, off to Lyon in the Kyriad again for me..! :ok:

Well said TRon. If people actually read the wise words that NSF has written instead of heading off on a rant with an agenda, we might be spared some of the inane comments...