Spirit of NKS, Part II
10-31-2015 | 01:24 PM
#604
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
From: Switch, Lever & Light Specialist
I have often wondered they value of not sending F/O's for the PT at the 6 month mark with the Captains. Sending everyone every 6 months for training might solve some of these issues.
As far as the "warm up" I think it should be changed. We should get a practice oral and do the actual PC the day before the actual PC. At the conclusion of the "warm up" we should either get a sign off for the PC or get additional training. After the PC then we should get the Bogota sim witch should be just training.
This would drive up the training costs but would solve many of these issues. Simply telling the pilots it is all their fault isn't a solution. There is value with training and we have some of the best training instructors I have ever worked with.
As far as the "warm up" I think it should be changed. We should get a practice oral and do the actual PC the day before the actual PC. At the conclusion of the "warm up" we should either get a sign off for the PC or get additional training. After the PC then we should get the Bogota sim witch should be just training.
This would drive up the training costs but would solve many of these issues. Simply telling the pilots it is all their fault isn't a solution. There is value with training and we have some of the best training instructors I have ever worked with.
Right there is your answer!
It would seem to be the same reason we teach ourselves systems, same reason we're crammed through initial/ recurrent in as little time as possible. It also appears, despite what the company says, safety is not their number one goal (until there's a smoking hole anyway)...it's doing business as cheaply as possible, regardless of what is best for training purposes.
10-31-2015 | 01:41 PM
#605
Banned
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,929
Likes: 0
From: A-320
Right there is your answer!
It would seem to be the same reason we teach ourselves systems, same reason we're crammed through initial/ recurrent in as little time as possible. It also appears, despite what the company says, safety is not their number one goal (until there's a smoking hole anyway)...it's doing business as cheaply as possible, regardless of what is best for training purposes.
It would seem to be the same reason we teach ourselves systems, same reason we're crammed through initial/ recurrent in as little time as possible. It also appears, despite what the company says, safety is not their number one goal (until there's a smoking hole anyway)...it's doing business as cheaply as possible, regardless of what is best for training purposes.
Well, let's be serious, if "Safety" was the main goal, airplanes would never T/O
In other News, ISIS has taken responsibility for downing the MetroJet A-321. if that's true, Putin will wipe them off the face of the earth unlike our ball-less President
10-31-2015 | 02:04 PM
#606
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
From: The Yellow Bus
What should come as an insult, is the fact that they actually needed to write a letter telling some to actually study for a PC? Now that is embarrassing! What level of pilot would prepare for a PC like this? Who goes in to a PC not being prepared?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
10-31-2015 | 03:33 PM
#607
Banned
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Right there is your answer!
It would seem to be the same reason we teach ourselves systems, same reason we're crammed through initial/ recurrent in as little time as possible. It also appears, despite what the company says, safety is not their number one goal (until there's a smoking hole anyway)...it's doing business as cheaply as possible, regardless of what is best for training purposes.
It would seem to be the same reason we teach ourselves systems, same reason we're crammed through initial/ recurrent in as little time as possible. It also appears, despite what the company says, safety is not their number one goal (until there's a smoking hole anyway)...it's doing business as cheaply as possible, regardless of what is best for training purposes.
Yup
10-31-2015 | 06:28 PM
#608
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Right there is your answer!
It would seem to be the same reason we teach ourselves systems, same reason we're crammed through initial/ recurrent in as little time as possible. It also appears, despite what the company says, safety is not their number one goal (until there's a smoking hole anyway)...it's doing business as cheaply as possible, regardless of what is best for training purposes.
It would seem to be the same reason we teach ourselves systems, same reason we're crammed through initial/ recurrent in as little time as possible. It also appears, despite what the company says, safety is not their number one goal (until there's a smoking hole anyway)...it's doing business as cheaply as possible, regardless of what is best for training purposes.
Not that there is an excuse for not knowing memory items etc but shoot the training is pretty much box checking
10-31-2015 | 07:18 PM
#609
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
From: Airbus
Actually I just talked to three check airmen at different times in the last month and the majority of the failure they have seen are captains who should know better. Yes some of the individuals have been FOs but many are captains with attitude problems
Last edited by PikeAV8R; 10-31-2015 at 07:23 PM. Reason: Spelling
10-31-2015 | 11:30 PM
#610
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
From: Switch, Lever & Light Specialist
Agreed, but then let's end the facade about safety being the industry's number one priority...because it's not.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
downinthegroove
Regional
2
06-03-2008 05:55 PM
