Explosive NYT Story Lays Blame For Max
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
CBreezy,
Which fact I have written in this topic is inaccurate? People want the links and public information, which I have provided. Everything I have written is available on the Internet and is a fact.
Can you point to one comment I have written that is not a fact and backed up by a public source?
Which fact I have written in this topic is inaccurate? People want the links and public information, which I have provided. Everything I have written is available on the Internet and is a fact.
Can you point to one comment I have written that is not a fact and backed up by a public source?
#23
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2019
Posts: 20
Because ICAO has not announced an increase in mandatory retirement age like it did in November 2006, the FAA has not announced an increase in mandatory retirement age like it did in December 2006, NS EASA's own commissioned study in the topic last year recommended maintaining its current maximum age of 65?
The conclusions you are drawing from the "publicly available information" simply don't jive with, well, the publicly available information you cite.
The "drone pilot" nonsense is little more than a red herring.
You're connecting dots like a caller on Coast to Coast...
The conclusions you are drawing from the "publicly available information" simply don't jive with, well, the publicly available information you cite.
The "drone pilot" nonsense is little more than a red herring.
You're connecting dots like a caller on Coast to Coast...
Go to the link below and look at slide 3-, 31, & 32 on ICAO's website from the May 7, 2019 meeting/presentation.
https://www.icao.int/safety/aviation...%20Study_c.pdf
FACT - These slides specifically state:
FACT - A reduction of the maximum monthly/yearly FTL to 80% of the maximum allowed for pilots over 65 performing CAT multi pilot operations (see presentation).
FACT - Development of options based on the feedback from the Workshop and Medical Examiner Group (MEG), etc.
FACT - The parties will work closely with ICAO and the International Authorities on the future steps to (simultaneously) coordinate (worldwide) actions.
FACT - EASA high-level decision - Impact assessment will be consulted with EASA Advisory Bodies.
FACT - Further feedback from the advisory bodies on the way forward.
FACT - Regulatory activities (to increase the mandatory CAT multi engine age) in congruence with the (aeromedical) decision.
Drone pilots are coming. I guess you know more than the FAA, Boeing, and Airbus who have invested billions of dollars in this program, which begins testing this year.
#24
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2019
Posts: 20
The pilots being developed today do not have the real time in aircraft experience as those pilots trained 39-40 years ago. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.
Airlines cannot train any more pilots any faster. Their simulators are running 24/7 and they cannot contract more. It takes 2 years to build a simulator and that does not solve the problem.
International companies who want to fly into the United States are putting pilots in Boeing and Airbus aircraft with 300 hours total time.
The Lions Air and Ethiopian Airlines accidents was a wake up call.
The retirement age is changing and the bills have already been created for a change in the U.S., which is simply waiting for ICAO's final work.
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 269
Perhaps we should allow pilots to work over 65 as long as they are only in the left seat of a narrow body or even an RJ to help mentor all these new pilots! (Sarcasm is high)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,090
If you read the summary at the end, the author makes the case that aircraft should be designed to be more easily flown a la the Airbus model (or even easier than that).
A Boeing VP pretty much eluded to the same thing in an interview a year or so ago.
Basically, make flying easier via computer software like Airbus (but even more automated) and you won't have to worry so much about how skilled pilots are anymore. The key phrase is "reducing the cognitive load".
DARPA has spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars integrating software into commercial aircraft and helicopters to make them flyable with just a tablet and zero stick and rudder skills for example.
I realize this is a complete departure from how aircraft are designed and operated in the past and currently.
A Boeing VP pretty much eluded to the same thing in an interview a year or so ago.
Basically, make flying easier via computer software like Airbus (but even more automated) and you won't have to worry so much about how skilled pilots are anymore. The key phrase is "reducing the cognitive load".
DARPA has spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars integrating software into commercial aircraft and helicopters to make them flyable with just a tablet and zero stick and rudder skills for example.
I realize this is a complete departure from how aircraft are designed and operated in the past and currently.
The departure from the philosophy of designing airplanes to be flown by humans and to instead have computers fly them is what is causing the new wave of safety issues.
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,093
The problem with trying to making airplanes easier to fly is that it creates dumber pilots which then can't respond to basic system failures such as a trim runaway (MCAS issues) or frozen pitot tubes (AF 447).
The departure from the philosophy of designing airplanes to be flown by humans and to instead have computers fly them is what is causing the new wave of safety issues.
The departure from the philosophy of designing airplanes to be flown by humans and to instead have computers fly them is what is causing the new wave of safety issues.
There have been non fatal crashes recently caused by pilot error such as the 777 Asiana in SFO. Pilots make a ton of errors every day that the system captures either due to slop or technology. TCAS, GPWS, controllers noticing, etc.
#28
Statistics say we are much safer even with the occasional failure and crash.
There have been non fatal crashes recently caused by pilot error such as the 777 Asiana in SFO. Pilots make a ton of errors every day that the system captures either due to slop or technology. TCAS, GPWS, controllers noticing, etc.
There have been non fatal crashes recently caused by pilot error such as the 777 Asiana in SFO. Pilots make a ton of errors every day that the system captures either due to slop or technology. TCAS, GPWS, controllers noticing, etc.
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,090
Statistics say we are much safer even with the occasional failure and crash.
There have been non fatal crashes recently caused by pilot error such as the 777 Asiana in SFO. Pilots make a ton of errors every day that the system captures either due to slop or technology. TCAS, GPWS, controllers noticing, etc.
There have been non fatal crashes recently caused by pilot error such as the 777 Asiana in SFO. Pilots make a ton of errors every day that the system captures either due to slop or technology. TCAS, GPWS, controllers noticing, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_2
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post