|
[QUOTE=ClarenceOver;1589939]
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1589868)
You're young (obviously). There is no such thing as "useless info" when it concerns your aircraft. There might not be anything you can necessarily do about a particular malfunction, but by having the level of systems knowledge that Captjns talks about, you can KNOW how your craft has been affected by the loss of a system or component. What you are alluding to is one of the things that are eroding the importance of our profession. Pilots are becoming button pushing monkeys. When all you have to do is read a checklist, and push the right button or throw the right switch, and live with the consequences of those actions; an intelligent thinking being at the controls is really not necessary. Couple that with dispatch making your divert decisions for you and what are we left with? Maybe you are comfortable with that. Frankly, I'm not. Over the North Atlantic in the middle of the night, as a passenger I would want to believe that there is a competent individual at the controls, not just someone that had a "crash course" in flying. Perhaps it is coming to that, and you as a "professional" feel that minimal knowledge about your aircraft is sufficient. If that is the case and that feeling is more rampant out there, it does not bode well for the future of this industry as a well paying one. Anybody that can read will do. As a matter of fact, they could put 1 "captain" onboard, and sell the FO seat to anybody that can read and is willing to sit up front for the entire flight...
How long is the escape rope on the crj200? Why are there v1 cuts on 13000 foot runways? What is the best way to use the symbol generator display? What is the tire pressure? How long are N1 blades? Ill try and think of some more stupid pointless questions while you answer these. And I really hope you go down the road of being paid a lot "just in case something bad happens"....... I'd love to have that discussion.... "These are the good old days". |
Originally Posted by Boomer
(Post 1590096)
I never understood the FAA's hydroplaning formula. It doesn't take into account the depth of contaminant, runway design, aircraft weight, tire width or distance between them on the gear assy, tire tread (or lack thereof)...
If TP is the only factor in hydroplaning, bald tires would be fine on your car as long as they're pumped up really good... :confused: How do I know my tire pressure anyways? I ran a corporate jet that had the tire pressure gauge on the main so you could read how they were doing. And in all honesty, I wanted to rip those things off. The tolerances are so dad-gum small that a normal fluctuation in temperature put you on the edge ;) of needing the tire replaced if someone spot checked you. |
My first airline Captain Checkout was a 727 part 121 ride. I left that ride knowing I had flown a thoroughly tough checkride. The first one was supposed to be rough according to the culture of my airline and so, it was. But I nailed it both giving me the confidence that I could excel and also giving the examiner confidence in his sign off.
So I do agree that our current system is much easier than those days. I do not have to learn every tiny nuance of the electrical system to pass a rigorous oral exam. Today my 100 question system exam takes the orals place. Economically better for the employer and easier on me. But, being reared by Grandpa Pettibone and the airline professionals that mentored me as a SO/FO, I still learn more than the minimum. I draw out a new airplane's electrical system (et al) to memorize it. Crazy I know. But learning more than the minimum is what makes and keeps me a professional. Those future Captains that don't get it make me sad for this awesome profession. Oh, to keep this on track thread wise; past experience on PA = tool. |
Originally Posted by CanoePilot
(Post 1590134)
I really fail to see how drawing out and memorizing the electrical schematic has any practicality.
But I draw the line when it comes to "what gauge wire goes from the Turbo Encabulator to the Weenil Sprocket?" Or "How many Manesticaly-spaced grouting brushes are there in the Metapolar Refractive Pillometer?" Rockwelll transmission incabulator - YouTube |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1590145)
I can answer 3 of the 5. But like your compadre, you totally miss the point. It is your future that is being marginalized. You are the ones that are dumbing down the profession. If you really believe you deserve $300k for simply reading a checklist, you are incredibly naive. Compensation comes from having a skill or knowledge that is unique to individuals performing a given task or trade. Reading English is not unique. And I really hope you go down the road of being paid a lot "just in case something bad happens"....... I'd love to have that discussion.... "These are the good old days". |
Systems knowledge v button pushing
Exerpt from the Crew Survival Study published by NASA following the Columbia crash. A fitting epitaph for an aviator, rather than something like "QRH guidance was insufficient"
"It was a very short time," Hale said. "We know it was very disorienting motion that was going on. There were a number of alarms that went off simultaneously. And the crews, of course, are trained to maintain or regain control in a number of different ways and we have evidence from (recovered debris that they) were trying very hard to regain control. We're talking about a very brief time, in a crisis situation, and I'd hate to go any further than that." Said Melroy: "I'd just like to add we found that those actions really showed the crew was relying on their training in problem solving and problem resolution and that they were focused on attempting to recover the vehicle when they did detect there was something off nominal. They showed remarkable systems knowledge and problem resolution techniques. Unfortunately, of course, there was no way for them to know with the information they had that that was going to be impossible. But we were impressed with the training, certainly, and the crew." |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1590119)
No... what you are displaying is a high level of immaturity. I absolutely hated learning to draw the electrical schematic system on the 727. Hated it. Felt exactly the same way as you are now advocating as a matter of fact. Now... 20 years later, I see there was a purpose in it. You are a classic end user. As long as it works, you're good to go. If there's a problem, somebody (hopefully) has figured out what to do, and will tell you. That is quite sad actually... and someday you might understand. It has nothing to do with going back to the glory days of the 60s or anything like that. It has to do with knowing your airplane. We are losing that part of our professionalism. Reading a checklist might be fine for you, but I prefer knowing more about my craft. An FO can be replaced with a fresh out of a six week "crash course" on reading English if things continue down the road you seem to adore. Fine with me, YOU are gonna have to keep your eye on 'em so that they don't throw down the gear mid flight, or shut down an engine or two.... because , hey, "there's a checklist for restarting the engine.. I saw it in the sim"....
Oh, and I don't have any kids.... I enjoy learning the nuances of an airplane, I do, but I fully understand why that's being dropped. a) We fly, they fix. Knowing the guts of the jet doesn't help us fly the jet better and knowing the aircraft like a mechanic does you little good if you're not authorized to do maintenance. Write it up, let them deal with it and more importantly track it. b) If I get a message GEN OFF, I start the APU and run the QRH. The schematic doesn't matter much at that moment. I say stick to the procedures developed by the people who designed it and tested it, that's how I see it. You're not going to save the day because of your personal expert knowledge about the nuances of the aircraft; but your expert proficiency, discipline and experience would save the day. If I've got a big problem, I do as helicopter pilots do and get it on the ground. c) My only caveat to b is corporate aviation and international flying. In corporate aviation you don't have the maintenance support of an airline, you're on your own but even then it's not about learning how a molecule flows through the pneumatic system. It's about FAA compliance, warranties, TASKs, 8130s, compounding MEL items, etc. And flying the 767 over the Atlantic, okay, might want to review living with problems for a prolonged period of time. I will say a pilot should be better exposed to schematics and systems in a better manner then here's a book or a 700 power point slide, but not memorize it. I have thoroughly enjoyed having a simulator program for at home use on the 717. I think money should be invested in that kind of stuff. I also like seeing a computerized schematic of an airplane (like FlightSafety produces for some of their corporate aircraft). Something about seeing it work and manipulating it or throwing in failures really helps you understand the jet better than if you know what the elbow is connected to the T/R and so on. |
Originally Posted by CheapTrick
(Post 1590151)
But learning more than the minimum is what makes and keeps me a professional.
http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/imag...215-file-7.gif |
Originally Posted by CanoePilot
(Post 1590158)
"Dumbing down" because we don't want to learn pointless trivia about our airplane? We don't think we deserve 300k to fly an airplane because we know what blue juice is made out of. We deserve 300k because in this job we're stuck working crap hours and forced to stay in crappy hotels on weekends and holidays sometimes 5 day in a row per week.
You really need to examine your motives. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1590166)
b) If I get a message GEN OFF, I start the APU and run the QRH. The schematic doesn't matter much at that moment.
Tell that to the American 757 Crew a couple of years back who correctly followed the QRH during an electrical malfunction and placed the 'Standby Power' switch ON but didn't have the systems knowledge to realize that that meant the battery was running the show. The Battery (which I think was advertised as good for 45 minutes) lasted an amazing 1:40.....and then systems started rapidly dropping off line. The plane diverted to KORD and went off the side of the runway. I'm not saying we need to know how to build the airplane, but the level of systems knowledge we now get is pathetic. It's going to bite us in the butt one day. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:59 PM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands