Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Regional (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/)
-   -   Overall Job Outlook (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/24755-overall-job-outlook.html)

ExperimentalAB 04-08-2008 08:43 AM


Originally Posted by BEEFF (Post 358296)
Ask the FO in my Avatar... She had a whopping 300hrsTT before she took the reigns of an A320. She failed miserably at attempting a basic flying technique. Watch the video. She had been flying for Lufthansa for a year. She was just learning to walk, then a computer and a CA started doing the running for her. Push came to shove and a skill that was barely mastered in 300 hours quickly faded behind the automation she operated everyday.

The foundation of her flying abilities was just setting then an A320 was placed on top. The structure looked fantastic... till... the foundation cracked badly.

The CA made a very poor choice of not attempting the much more favorable runway, let alone letting her attempt a x-wind landing at the A/C's limit, let alone failing to call for a go around earlier in the debacle. Since she's low time and never been exposed to her limits she didn't even have enough experience to make the judgments that the CA should've made. Since the CA failed, and the automation can't help; a very weak pilot, who never had time to truly master the basics, almost drove it into the ground.

Instructing and additional flying b/n being a student and becoming an FO would've created a much stronger flying foundation, thus avoiding a near disaster.

It's not only the lack of technique, it's the lack of overall experience that lead to a decision to even attempt such a landing when it was completely avoidable in the first place.

BTW, they are hailed as being hero's over there. They posed for pictures and everything.

What a joke! You're absolutely correct - hero's my tail...!

I see so much lousy flying everyday it makes me wonder. We'll be taking off in a x-wind and the Captain doesn't bother to put in any wind-correction - or very little - and ends up skipping across the runway the last few feet prior to becoming airborne, and I watch in shock as he lets the centerline drift past the wingtip before the gear even cycles up :eek:

Automation will continue to mask our Piloting deficiencies, and it will never get any better...

FlyJSH 04-08-2008 08:49 AM


Originally Posted by SkyHigh (Post 357688)
It seems to me that the job description for a First Officer is to serve as apprentice to a captain. The FO is there to learn and build experience while under the eye of the more experienced pilot. The origional intent was not to have two captain qualified and experienced pilots up front.

SkyHigh

ap·pren·tice (ə-prĕn'tĭs)
n.
One bound by legal agreement to work for another for a specific amount of time in return for instruction in a trade, art, or business.
One who is learning a trade or occupation, especially as a member of a labor union.
A beginner; a learner

okay, an FO is an apprentice captain. But he/she is also an FO: a required crew member whose responsibilities include assisting in decision making and challenging a captain's mistake. For example, the release comes with poor weather at the destination and no alternate. The captain is busy trying to clear an mel as the pax are boarding. A decent FO could call the captain's attention to the need for an alternate. A good FO will say, "we need an alternate and it looks like XXX will work." A bad, or ill prepared, FO can't help to check the legality of the release (he/she might not even think to look at the release).

577nitro 04-08-2008 09:01 AM


Originally Posted by BEEFF (Post 358296)
Ask the FO in my Avatar... She had a whopping 300hrsTT before she took the reigns of an A320. She failed miserably at attempting a basic flying technique. Watch the video. She had been flying for Lufthansa for a year. She was just learning to walk,

Yikes! Wheres the video?

BEEFF 04-08-2008 09:37 AM


Originally Posted by 577nitro (Post 358327)
Yikes! Wheres the video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYQgxqd6Omk

577nitro 04-08-2008 10:14 AM

:confused:

577nitro 04-08-2008 10:18 AM

Da boot
 

Originally Posted by BEEFF (Post 358296)
It's not only the poor execution of the technique that's scary, it's the lack of overall experience that lead to a decision to even attempt such a landing when it was completely avoidable in the first place.

BTW, they are hailed as being hero's over there. They posed for pictures and everything.

If what you have said is true, why didn't you guys just fail her out? If she can't fly, give her the boot, before she kills somebody.

SkyHigh 04-08-2008 11:35 AM

250 Hours
 

Originally Posted by FlyJSH (Post 358315)
ap·pren·tice (ə-prĕn'tĭs)
n.
One bound by legal agreement to work for another for a specific amount of time in return for instruction in a trade, art, or business.
One who is learning a trade or occupation, especially as a member of a labor union.
A beginner; a learner

okay, an FO is an apprentice captain. But he/she is also an FO: a required crew member whose responsibilities include assisting in decision making and challenging a captain's mistake. For example, the release comes with poor weather at the destination and no alternate. The captain is busy trying to clear an mel as the pax are boarding. A decent FO could call the captain's attention to the need for an alternate. A good FO will say, "we need an alternate and it looks like XXX will work." A bad, or ill prepared, FO can't help to check the legality of the release (he/she might not even think to look at the release).

250 hours and passing a part 121 ground and flight school should be plenty to satisfy the requirements of an FO.

There are poor 3000 hour FO's and stars at 300.

SkyHigh

TurboFan 04-08-2008 12:40 PM


Originally Posted by BEEFF (Post 358296)
Since she's low time and never been exposed to her limits (and never even been given a chance to explore them) she didn't even have enough experience to make the judgments that the CA should've. Since the CA failed, and the automation can't help; a very weak pilot, who never had time to truly master the basics, almost drove it into the ground.

I still just don't buy into this 800 hrs in a 172 watching other student pilots land the plane increases your jet skills theory. I do agree that seasoned CFI's are probably less prone to make a bad judgment call, but they are certainly not immune, and it also doesn't mean that a non-CFI will make the bad decision. If all you stated in your post is true (I haven't heard most of those details), than it was a bad judgment call on behalf of the Captain, F/O and controller. Three people had to make mistakes, that's a whole lot of combined experience, which you seem to think solves most all problems.

Landing a 172 in a strong crosswind is a skill, but landing an RJ in a strong crosswind is a totally separate skill. In a 172 chances are your establishing a sideslip 500 feet or so above the runway. Most RJ pilots maintain a crab until just before touchdown as it requires less aileron and rudder input and is more comfortable on the passengers. Also, you have much more bank to play with in a high-wing aircraft such as a Cessna than you do in an RJ (especially a CRJ200). It's just not the same thing at all.

The fact of the matter is that you're instantly putting blame on the F/O and I can't stand when people do this. Until I see a factual report stating that the F/O suggested to the Captain that they use the runway with the higher x-wind component I will reserve judgment. We don't know yet what went on inside of that cockpit and any number of factors may have played a part.

ExperimentalAB 04-08-2008 12:46 PM

TurboFan - Generally I agree with you here, but I have to say that I believe Piloting skill is transferrable to and from any Aircraft. A great stick in a 172 will be better flying a Jet than his not-so-great counterpart. I promise you. Also, just have to slip it in there, any tailwheel Pilot will be better than one who has only flown with training wheels :D

SharkAir 04-08-2008 12:48 PM

Well, Experimental beat me to it. Probably because he sits on here all day hitting F5.

But I was going to basically say the same thing. An airplane is an airplane.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:32 PM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands