Interesting. Fair enough. The figures are not what I thought they were.

The fact remains though that an architect makes an investment (albeit it a smaller one) for the purpose of gaining employment. Reasonably around 30,000 for a degree these days. He/she is then paid a terrible salary of just 15-17,000. I understand this can last for around 3 years, before they gain final qualification. 3 years after that (so almost 10 years after they started their training degree) their average salary is just 33,000.

If you ask me, that is as bad a deal as it gets. The average salary of an integrated student 10 years after commencement of training is considerably more. Many are even loco captains.

The fact still remains that many other professions (architects included) make a financial investment in order to pursue their chosen career.

No but I am suggesting that people with your inability to assimilate information should not be allowed to be a pilot. For the record it IS my opinion that the modular route is woefully inferior. And I have experienced modular training as well before going to CTC. Just because something was 'the way back then' doesn't mean it's the way now. Things change, improve and adapt. It's a shame for you that you can't.

Alycidon I'm still waiting for your response with regards to aileron in to wind on the Airbus. Even more so specifically with respect to FOs not doing it given their crosswind limitations.

The Airbus did require a SMALL amount of into wind aileron on take off in order to prevent the up wind wing from flying up during the T/O initial rotation. The amount, I seem to recall, was only the length of one of the arms of the control position indicator. So a pitiful amount even in very strong crosswinds!

On approach Airbus always pushed the 'Guide the path' mentality and the use of into wind aileron on a roll rate demand system was, indeed, discouraged. I was never too sure about the Airbus advice of not to pick up the roll in turbulence but let the FBW system do it, always scared the willies out of me! (LHR 27R strong southlies over the hangars!)

So, in this case, perhaps the speed calling FO would be correct.

Now, if we were discussing the Boeing .........

Yeah wirbelstrum, aileron is used to maintain centreline when decrabbed and maintain wings level but it isn't a die hard rule willy nilly. And there is less than no need up to 25kts crosswind to use aileron into wind on T/O from my experience - and that is what we are trained on airbus. Anything more than 1/3 side stick gives spoiler deployment and then you are defeating the point. Power against brakes is a fundamental no no. You clearly have far more experience than me as does alycidon and I'm not trying to be a cocky **** but with a lower experience the rules and SOPs are the safety net. And they work. As an FO we can't play with our train set, it's the captains and so we need to be predictable to keep a happy atmosphere!

No accusations intended, just wanted to point out that there was a requirement for take off, although rarely used, and a stupid system on approach of trusting a laggy FBW system to haul your wing drop!

Nice plane to jaunt around Europe in though and I do miss my table! :{

black & brown
 

Risking going off topic, here's the Boeing version:

(from the FCTM)

You will note that in my post I used the word "control wheel", this would tend to refer to aircraft fitted with a control wheel, ie not an Airbus, the advantage of the control wheel is that it can be used, by the pilot, to fly the aircraft!

Another advantage of a control wheel is that when the other pilot is flying the aircraft, you can see where he (or she) is pointing it.

Without wishing to compare apples with oranges, you'll see from this that I fly the Boeing, not the Airbus but in response to your post where, if I may quote

I am relying here on over thirty years and many thousands of hours of flying, gliding, SE instructing, and as a LTC, TRI and TRE and I am sure therefore that every aircraft I've flown that is fitted with a tailfin will weathercock and lift the into wind wing on a crosswind takeoff until messrs Airbus and easyjet et al. change the laws of physics.

Your post about the Airbus was very enlightening and I thank you, although not applicable to my post which was referring to the Boeing but if I can point out:

a. you didn't read my post fully

b. that the manual is only right if you are on the right page in the right manual

thank you for your time

Ok I didn't realise we still had 737s, I thought they were all gone. On the airbus we use full stick forward to 60, reducing to half stick to 80 and neutral by 100. This helps keep directional control on the ground by keeping more of the weight on the nose for longer. This works because there is a logic where by steering (achieved by movement of the rudder pedals) blends from nose wheel steering ( no yaw and thus no secondary roll effect) to rudder at around 130 kts I.e fully aerodynamic directional control. It's a different concept. Sorry for my assumption.

There are no boeings left, followed the final one out of LTN about 6 months ago

The CTC type arrangement does seem to be a necessary action in order to maintain pilot demand. One assumes that a proper safety case has been prepared...

Exactly, so, DO you fly the Boeing for easy or DID you fly the Boeing for easy? If you are now on the Airbus, let the Boeing **** go - there is nothing worse than people carrying things over. They are two different philosophies as you can see from this case. Given your qualifications I'm not trying to be insubordinate or to teach my granny to suck eggs.

I'm not quite sure what cross-wind take-off and landing technique has to do with CTC killing the industry but it's an interesting discussion nonetheless and illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding that exists among many A320 pilots. The misunderstanding is that into-wind side-stick inputs are not required on take-off or landing in a cross-wind, even a moderate one. Here are the quotes provided in an earlier post:

Note that none of them say do not use into wind aileron. The expressions used are "routine use is not required" and "minimise". Furthermore it says that small lateral stick inputs may be made to keep wings level if necessary. To read that as "do not use" is incorrect. The meaning is that during the take-off ground roll, into-wind aileron is not used and this is the essential difference between the recommended Airbus technique and then recommended Boeing technique.

On take-off in a cross-wind, the aircraft will weather-cock into wind (they all do) so rudder out of wind will be required to keep straight. As the main wheels unstick, the down-wind wing will drop unless an into-wind lateral input is made. This is due not to the wind per se but to the secondary effect of the rudder input - roll. Maintaining wings level should be the aim. This input should not be excessive to avoid spoiler deflection and to do that only a gentle lateral pressure on the side-stick is required. As an earlier poster wrote, it is equivalent to about the width of the control position indicator (the cross) which is on the PFD in ground mode. Although the cross can still be seen on the PFD for a brief period after unstick it should not be the focus of the pilot's attention. The input should be made by feel as the aircraft rotates after having observed and felt on the ground how much stick input will raise the spoilers by reference to the F/CTL SD on the ECAM. The net effect is that the aircraft gets airborne with the controls slightly crossed. Once airborne smoothly centralising the controls in a co-ordinated manner while keeping the wings level will maintain the aircraft on the runway track.

On landing in a cross-wind, during the flare the drift should be removed with rudder (align the aircraft with the runway centreline) while keeping the wings level. This means lateral side-stick input into wind (which counteracts the secondary effect of rudder). The net effect is a touchdown slightly cross controlled. It is not good technique to touch down with drift on because it will reduce tyre life, increase gear leg fatigue and in extremis can lead to lateral excursions across the width of the runway. The reference in the FCTM to touching down with a partial de-crab and some bank applied is in relation to strong cross-winds alone.

As you are an instructor you'll have access to the following too - A320 instructors support manual issued by Airbus:

I have never had any need to put aileron into wind. Ultimately you clearly know what you are doing, I know how the aircraft has felt to me and I know what I have been trained consistently and positively to do. The edge of the Maltese cross on the edge of the pitch dot gives max aileron into wind without spoiler deflection. That is what I believe airbus mean with their 'if necessary' advice.

For landing I always attempt to decrab. Note the word attempt!

The relevance of all this to the thread is that if one is going to talk down CTC cadets then at least make it for something they specifically have done wrong. We all have misunderstanding/ much to learn.

I am an ex CTC cadet and now SFO so you trump me on experience and qualifications!

Hello B&B,

Indeed. That refers to the take-off roll, not the rotate and lift-off. If you haven't ever used into-wind aileron, how did you prevent the wing-drop on lift-off in a cross-wind and keep the aircraft on the runway track? I suspect you may be doing it automatically and sub-consciously. Your interpretation of the position of the Maltese cross is basically what I wrote.

Yes as I said earlier when the aircraft unsticks I do whatever is necessary to maintain wings level. But I thought that what was being discussed was the take off roll. When the aircraft is airborne I fly it and the spoilers are roll augmenting not ground spoiling. The weight needs to be off the main gear or else it could be tailscrape territory. You clearly do it right and we mean the same thing.

black & brown
 

If I can quote you once more:


Read the thread title once more, slowly, then once more.

The thread is not about the airbus! It is not even about easyjet, it is about CTC and what they are doing to the industry, perhaps in terms of deskilling the pilot community in order that the airlines can drive down Ts and Cs.

Your testy response would tend to undermine your previous claim, I quote:

My point is that while CTC cadets appear to be very well trained and are good with the manuals and SOPs, they are not necessarily picking up the basics, during initial qualification, eg. purely by way of example, crosswind takeoff techniques, but I could also give other examples, eg lookout in turns, or ndb tracking, or flying a holding pattern without the fmc and calculating drift outbound....

My initial post referred to a discussion about crosswind takeoff technique which I had with a CTC graduate during the cruise to liven up a 3hr sector, my colleague was advocating the use of left aileron when experiencing a crosswind from the right in order to counter the secondary effect of yaw.

Since I thought he was winding me up, I left it there, but it certainly made me think.

As he had spent an absolute fortune training to be a pilot I was expecting a little more.

Ok well my CTC colleague was almost certainly suffering from confusion in their own mind - not stupidity or a lack of experience and I'm sure if you had told thm why they'd have realised their error. My fault for the assumption re you flying for easyjet and on the Airbus. And the other inadequacies you point out are not limited to CTC cadets, the Airbus (clearly as you're on the Boeing!) or easyJet.

I'm going to stick to religion, politics and football in future.

A cut above the ............ ?
 

"No but I am suggesting that people with your inability to assimilate information should not be allowed to be a pilot. For the record it IS my opinion that the modular route is woefully inferior. And I have experienced modular training as well before going to CTC. Just because something was 'the way back then' doesn't mean it's the way now. Things change, improve and adapt. It's a shame for you that you can't."

So you are both Modular and Integrated? Must have cost serious $$$$

"I am an ex CTC cadet and now SFO so you trump me on experience and qualifications!"

............. maybe GEJ does too!

By the way this is a good read:

http://aerosociety.com/Assets/Docs/P..._a_Captain.pdf

Yes and I paid for/ am repaying the money to the bank all on my own. I did a PPL and then CTC. What's your point? Not a socialist are you?

As for the rest of your view it shows you clearly miss the point. Experience doesn't = technical understanding. And no technical know how throws your experience out of the window. It could be a monumental distractor in the wrong situation. If one wants to build their tower nice and tall they need to start with good, solid foundations.