Nantonaku

A simulated crossing in a simulator is good for training emergency maneuvers but is horrible for teaching the nuisances that happen in real life. It does not replace real on the line training. Doing several simulated crossings in a simulator would be a huge waste of time.

Gooner

An interesting solution would be an expiring Theater Qual. If it goes away every so many years it could work in our favor.

TOE is most about learning the ropes in a more formal educational environment. Similar to a TQ. CPDLC and Sat comm has made many of the hazards of learning a crossing less onerous so I don’t feel that going to a TQ would degrade the safety of learning about ocean crossings.

But, it is a change that won’t be undone and we need to do better than what came from switching to a private computer lesson versus real instruction, contract wise.

gloopy

Mostly agreed. I also miss the ground school, but not because of the insane and inane "I'm a little molecule of air..." pledge week hazing. The 200's while good over all IMO overemphasizes the radial intercept stuff (it becomes to the 200's what the V1 cut/windshear/etc is to the 300's) to the detriment of empowering pilots to say "unable" while nurturing an over reliance on "signing the contract" reflexive read back mentality that transcends the exercise itself and can lead to all kinds of issues from crossing restrictions that can't be made to superhero "stepping off the perch" max perf visuals and all that but I digress.

The real issue with the "systems" portion isn't the lack of the build me an airplane oral but rather that its expected to be done in as little as a week or two and frequently while one is still flying one's current plane. Sometimes even when someone has recurrent for one plane followed immediately by "class" aka the test in another. But but but guard and reserves have to know 2 planes. OK so now they have to know 3. And for what? To save a week or two of blocked schedule study time?

Buck Rogers

Do you fly international? If yes...crossing the Atlantic and you don't send for clearance, what happens? Crossing the Pacific....., How hard can it be?...your clearance is incorporated into your clearance on the ground. A pilot could fly 10 international legs with an instructor and it would be a yawn fest.

Nuances(as you call them) do occur sometimes but are handled regardless if you had a TOE or not. Might you have to make a radio call that is noob sounding? ....possibly....dangerous or unsafe?...not even close.

At least that has been my experience.

OOfff

The change isn’t getting rid of all overwater training, nor changing the content of that training, it’s changing how it has to be accomplished. Where’s the safety issue with that?

JamesBond

It could be contractual that an LCP would be required. This is after going to require an LOA.

For ERFlyer: The Atlantic required a TOE primarily due to the NAT structure, and not really divert availability. Airport 'knowledge' is not really all that different than systems knowledge or company policy knowledge... it is available with a couple of swipes on your iPad. One could learn how to fly in the tracks the same way, but back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and we had to do position reports via HF every 10 degrees... and plotting charts... and... it was much more involved. With ADS-B/CPDLC, they KNOW where we are, and what we are doing. (That btw was one of the original definitions of the old Class II airspace) We can be reliably fixed pretty much continuously now. IMHO, HF calls are only required now as a job protection mechanism for Oceanic ATC. So really, is flying in the Atlantic all that different than a transcon? If you still feel that it is unsafe, how do you feel about flying in the Pacific theater? You can (and I have) be over eastern Russia, within visual sight of an "ETP" airport, and have the real choice of a diversion back to FAI or continue on to Beijing. The reason I bring this up is that a Pacific qual is satisfied with an Atlantic qual.

I yield my time.

GogglesPisano

If only those pilots had access to a Volume 2, and could learn as much about the airplane as they wanted.

JamesBond

Yeah well the Vol 2 and FCOMs are POS documents for the most part. I'm not really disagreeing with you, but it ain't the same.

AlphaBeta

This request is about money and flexibility. They don’t want to have crews sitting around unable to fly because of the TOE requirement. Lets see what they offer, probably nothing worth voting yes for. If it even makes it to us.

Buck Rogers

Delta management has another alternative . If the training is too excessive, or pilots will be awaiting TOE and therefore sitting idle......they could choose to not to spool back up as quickly as possible. That might make it more difficult to reclaim "our" customers if we lose them to our competitors, but they might save money in the short term. Kinda like not buying a stock...if you don't buy a stock you may not make a gain if it goes up, but you aren't gonna lose any money by sitting on your hands.

DALPA can't force the company to bring back pilots if the company can't make a buck with having them on property immediately. I trust the union has better insight and as long as it comes to memrat...all is good.