It’s more the nuances with each center. They all have their own quirks that are different from the others. Once you do it a few times it’s like riding a bike. I don’t know why they have always made the Atlantic so much more complicated than anywhere else but they have. The pacific is just like flying domestic just with quiet radios.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The NATs work fine until they don’t. If the plan stays valid for the 6ish hours you’re out there, no problem. As soon as you have to change that plan you are on your own under penalty of gross navigational error. Turn your lights on and weave between the lines is not a solution. It will get better but I hope we get closer to real time control before we get any closer physically by adding traffic or shrinking the lanes again.

CPDLC and ADS-C already make the NATs much less stressful (along with SELCAL HF! ).

I have been told the NATs were about to go VHF control all the way across, then the Rona hit. Apparently they’re just waiting to flip the switch on the new system. Anyone have more in-depth info?

No TOE/TQ on the WATRS routes. A freshly minted CA and a freshly minted FO might fly a WATRS trip right out of OE (low-time pairing limitations notwithstanding.) -- with no LCP or LVP.

And oddly enough no rash of GNE's.

The only difference between the two is ETOPS. The QRC makes things simple.

I've down both NATS and WATRS for many years.

But can you avoid weather at will, or change altitudes for turbulence, or divert/descend for emergencies with confidence you are still adequately separated in a timely manner? STNDBY...

Being done for "many years" isn't an excuse to not improve the airspace as we grow the traffic. Big sky theory works too, until it doesn't.

Just called sched's and dropped my international trip for tomorrow. Now that you all have enlightened me as to how dangerous it is , I don't feel comfortable. Sched's asked me the general nature of the trip drop and I told them, " It's not safe with so many variables to manage, I am not a professional pilot, and I can't do what my 24 yo aircraft commander kid does in the AF" Sched's told me to call in well when I grew a hair.
Do I have a case against sched's for a hostile work place environment?

You'd make a great train conductor. Throttle and brake solves all and you're already safely on the ground. ;)

LOA to change TOE’s
 

I think you don’t know how old your kid is. He would’ve had to have graduate college at an old 20 or young 21, then go to UPT about a week after graduation, then somehow complete a copilot course, get mission-ready, and get 1000ish hours, complete AC upgrade and get MR again in 3 years.

Also, the Air Force is not the best yardstick by which to measure skill when crossing the NATs.

Edit to add: if your son is a pointy-nose type, then he knows about as much about the NATs as my dog.

Oh...good one...you got me(maybe)...He might have been 25 not 24....And yea, I did it 35 years ago with about 1200 total time, 27 years old dragging a 4 ship. Ahh, the good ole days....when we didn't wake up in moms house, quaking in our boots.

Son, you are a professional pilot...act like one;):D

Charley Lindbergh got nuttin' on me. :cool: I just prefer to sleep when I'm supposed to be resting instead of bouncing out of my lie flat seat. The most courageous thing we are ever asked to do is call scheduling and tell them we are fatigued. The airspace limitations are real. Nobody said it wasn't safe, just that it can and will be improved and that the timeline is in question.

BTW, I wish I could "grow a hair." Male pattern baldness is the bane of my of my self esteem.

The truth is probably somewhere in between. The NATs can be funky and there is some variance in how it’s done based on flight path. As someone mentioned coasting out with Gander is different than coasting out with New York. Coming back over BIRD can be different than Shanwick.

Overall, however, there’s more than a little “see one, do one, teach one” to the whole thing and I imagine our LVPs would do just fine. Funny there’s no Africa TQ though, that sh1t is the Wild West.

Classic double-down, Buck! And your story about doing it at 27 with 1200 hours isn’t a tale of days gone by, that’s pretty normal.

The rules for Nonsurveillance Airpsace are the same. Look at the QRC.

Yes they are. In the age of CPDLC, ADS-C, satcom and GPS the old train tracks need to go.

2000 airplanes use the airspace everyday. Easier said than done. But your idea would save a ton of fuel.

Not now... if ever there was a chance to effect change, now would be a good time. Just like LPV and RF approach legs, its coming.

It's called free flight, and the wheels of government bureaucracy turn slowly.

Maybe somewhere in between. There are a lot of things that need to be taught, by a human person imho. Especially when it comes to navigation degradation protocols pre and post oceanic entry, medical events and divert suitability, foreign airspace complexities, theater constraints, fuel planning, and the like. The simulator is a great template to build some foundation, and useful indeed. But the entire training experience must encompass real world stuff. This is only an opinion and I have no empirical data to back up my claim.

It's all spelled out for you. The instruction in TOE doesn't cover ALL the possibilities/scenarios one might encounter.

I think the NATs are cake. We have excellent tools and procedures at our finger tips. The centers do have some quirks, but you figure it out on your second crossing.

Gucci, to your Buck comment, who approves the plan for dragging the fighters over the big blue? It's not the tanker guys. It's the lead of the fighter package you are servicing.

Fighters have other concerns. Just shut up and give us our gas :p

Again, I found the NATs easy peesy. No voodoo required

Training caters to the lowest denominator. I am the lowest denominator. Enjoy your TOEs everybody.

They gone.

Theater quals for all my friends

TOE change to TQ, probably not a big deal. But more importantly, what are we going to get for allowing the change? If we could address RR and 23k, I’d be ecstatic.

Company sure keeps good track of TQ’s.....🙄

Years ago on the 7ER I’ve been down to GRU any number of times.... Cimpany has no record of it so I’m not South American qualified....

Denny

The company records are always right. Since you dreamed all those trips, we need to get you a psychiatric exam. Meanwhile, we are taking you off the flight line.

The question is, why does the company want this? Furthermore, is this change a positive one for the pilot group?

In my experience if the company wants something there is always a reason for it, and it's never from the goodness of their hearts. The scope violations are many and the company has done very little if anything to comply. Why should we help them out when they blatantly break our contract? Let's not reward bad behavior.

they want to save money and improve efficiency.

Not trying to defend the kompany at all here. Just trying to see a point of view that perhaps the TOE is outmoded and no longer required. From my own experience of coming off domestic NB to WB a few years ago, I thought doing the 2 TOE's was overkill. Overwater flying is easy peesy.

I kinda recon it with what we did on the waypoint verification drill for the tracks. That procedure was required when you where flying over in an L-1011 who's "FMS" could only hold 4 way points at a time. That procedure they developed for that plane was required.

Fast forward to the big bus/boeings and we don't need it because they can hold 100's of waypoints. Finally someone saw the light and they finally changed that procedure.

Same goes with the TOE. Finally someone sees the light and we can finally be rid of it. TQ is plenty. I look forward to the change.

cue pilots aghast that someone moved their cheese

It has nothing to do with "moving cheese". It has to do with the company perpetually wanting changes to the contract when they benefit the company. Perhaps you're ok with ongoing Scope violations? I'm not. If the company wants something we should demand contract compliance. Then we'll talk.

I like the part where you just invent a strawman opinion that I don’t hold.

And what would that be?

The part where you suggested I excused contract violations.

My TOE experience was very rough. I flew with a LCA who was very knowledgeable about the Atlantic and as such, expected me to be single pilot on leg 4 of TOE. Needless to say, after flying true back side of the clock, operating in an environment I had never operated in before my TOE, learning the nuances of an airplane I had 15 hours on, and an intimidating instructor, I was skittish about going back across the pond.

Luckily, I flew with some great CAs and relief pilots for my next few crossings, and we had a great time. Furthermore, my confidence was boosted in what is still a complicated airspace.

Here's the reality about the tracks. They're fine and dandy when things are normal. If you mentally think about the next step (when do I contact Gandah, what's the procedure for deviating around WX if I can't get a clearance), it's easy. When you aren't mentally prepared for that med emergency that requires quick thinking, it's tough.

I think replacing TOE with a theater qual might be appropriate in this situation. BUT! I think the instructors need to focus on the pure operation of the NAT Tracks and not so much on stupid trivia that really don't matter in the real world. And for the love of all that's holy, let your students use their aero docs when they have a question.

Just trying to understand your thinking for changing our contract with this LOA? If you want to give the company something they need, that's fine. Just remember, when you need something, more than likely they will not reciprocate.

We as a pilot group cannot for the life of us figure out how to get the company to comply with our contract. In my opinion, granting them LOAs isn't going to change their behavior.

As always, I'm open to reading the LOA with an open mind and weighing the pros vs. the cons.

Have you ever heard of a rhetorical question?

I’m not in disagreement. The company should follow the contract. That has little or nothing to do with whether this change should or should not be acceptable, especially as procedural changes make overwater flying less opaque and nuanced

“Hey, the company is trying to save money, maybe we should entertain a proposal and use the leverage”


”oh yeah I bet you don’t mind them violating our contract, huh?”

I believe you believe that question was relevant.

Have you ever heard of Irony?

Pretty simple really. If it is in the training 'plan' as a TQ, then once a pilot finishes the domestic IOE they are fully qualified and can go out and fly revenue flights. Then, when they get a trip that requires a TQ (North Atlantic, etc etc) they put on a seeing eye dog to get the qual. The elephant in the room is whether or not ALPA will allow NAT TQs to be done by LVPs or not. Regardless, the company wants it... I wonder what they are willing to pay for it.

Better be lots considering the recent management bonuses. If they’re willing to make it rain cash on the fourth floor like a two-bit (insert metaphor for house of ill-repute here), all while burning billions of taxpayer money then they can afford to pay us for dropping TOEs. ALPA better knock this one out of the park.