Enormous Cultural Gap.
03-19-2013 | 10:13 AM
#101
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 0
03-19-2013 | 10:20 AM
#102
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
From: B787 CA - SFO
I know CAL wanted to switch over to ext rwy centerline shortly after the last 737-300 was retired (2009) and the entire fleet was now EFIS, but other things got in the way. As usual.
03-19-2013 | 10:58 AM
#103
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Second, my reference to engine out procedures has nothing to do with review, it's about how CAL does them right now. Currently CAL flys runway heading regardless of winds. They could have a 100 knot crosswind at 50 feet and you train runway heading. UAL trains fly the runway centerline. Also UAL has special engine failure procedures for those airports where FAA TERPS may not provide adequate safety margins. CAL does not have this either, and both of these items were up for the chopping block when the AQP syllabus was "handed down" from management but our training committee fought hard to keep the training standards we had at UAL rather than those at CAL. That is what I meant by engine out procedures as an issue.
Research Joe, research.
03-19-2013 | 11:27 AM
#105
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Assuming for a moment that you are a CAL pilot then I would say you just added evidence to my general gut feeling because you are missing the point completely.
First, Sabre is a radical new way to flight plan and the company wanted to train us at home using online CBTs. Major corporations have tried CBT training and found the retention rate to be so low as to be counter productive. When the company wants to change how we do things the proper way to train pilots is in a classroom with real instructors and real testing. Not at home on my computer on my time. If you don't understand this issue then you are most definitely part of the problem and the culture of which I am afraid.
Second, my reference to engine out procedures has nothing to do with review, it's about how CAL does them right now. Currently CAL flys runway heading regardless of winds. They could have a 100 knot crosswind at 50 feet and you train runway heading. UAL trains fly the runway centerline. Also UAL has special engine failure procedures for those airports where FAA TERPS may not provide adequate safety margins. CAL does not have this either, and both of these items were up for the chopping block when the AQP syllabus was "handed down" from management but our training committee fought hard to keep the training standards we had at UAL rather than those at CAL. That is what I meant by engine out procedures as an issue.
First, Sabre is a radical new way to flight plan and the company wanted to train us at home using online CBTs. Major corporations have tried CBT training and found the retention rate to be so low as to be counter productive. When the company wants to change how we do things the proper way to train pilots is in a classroom with real instructors and real testing. Not at home on my computer on my time. If you don't understand this issue then you are most definitely part of the problem and the culture of which I am afraid.
Second, my reference to engine out procedures has nothing to do with review, it's about how CAL does them right now. Currently CAL flys runway heading regardless of winds. They could have a 100 knot crosswind at 50 feet and you train runway heading. UAL trains fly the runway centerline. Also UAL has special engine failure procedures for those airports where FAA TERPS may not provide adequate safety margins. CAL does not have this either, and both of these items were up for the chopping block when the AQP syllabus was "handed down" from management but our training committee fought hard to keep the training standards we had at UAL rather than those at CAL. That is what I meant by engine out procedures as an issue.
You are absolutely incorrect on both fronts regarding engine-out procedures. CAL trains centerline tracking on engine-out when a special engine out procedure does not exist. We have plenty of special engine out procedures and are now dumbing them down to mirror s-UA "t" procedures.....who told you this crap? Do some investigating before you make yourself look so ignorant next time.
On the Sabre topic I will say this. It is a radical new way to flight plan if you come from the Unimatic world. If you take away the overflight fee logic used in the optimization, Phoenix(CAL) is very similar. The biggest change for the CAL pilots will be the self service performance planning since we are used to Accuload data being pushed to both our printers and the FMC currently. That's okay, we will learn to punch more buttons to get what we used to just uplink. We can handle it.
Regards
03-19-2013 | 02:59 PM
#106
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,738
Likes: 5
From: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
We have plenty of special engine out procedures and are now dumbing them down to mirror s-UA "t" procedures.
Lets use SFO Rwy 28R for instance. The UAL EO-Proc is SFO 2 miles turn right hdg 310 intercept the SFO 296 outbound. Always has been even when it was called a T-Proc. Did CAL have a magical ferry dust wand that somehow did it better?
Please tell us unwashed masses how the true professionals did it in the glory days? While I know we are not worthy we beg your forbearance oh great one.
03-19-2013 | 03:22 PM
#107
Peace Love Understanding
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
From: Airbus
Please provide an example of a L-CAL EO proc that has been changed to mirror a "more dumber" UAl T-Proc.
Lets use SFO Rwy 28R for instance. The UAL EO-Proc is SFO 2 miles turn right hdg 310 intercept the SFO 296 outbound. Always has been even when it was called a T-Proc. Did CAL have a magical ferry dust wand that somehow did it better?
Please tell us unwashed masses how the true professionals did it in the glory days? While I know we are not worthy we beg your forbearance oh great one.
Lets use SFO Rwy 28R for instance. The UAL EO-Proc is SFO 2 miles turn right hdg 310 intercept the SFO 296 outbound. Always has been even when it was called a T-Proc. Did CAL have a magical ferry dust wand that somehow did it better?
Please tell us unwashed masses how the true professionals did it in the glory days? While I know we are not worthy we beg your forbearance oh great one.
I guess its just the stress over some change. There has been change on both sides. Its just part of the merger.
And its "Fairy" dust. LOL
03-19-2013 | 04:29 PM
#108
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 0
From: UAL retired
I was told this by a standards captain for whom I had much respect, but clearly they were mistaken or even perhaps lying to make their point. In any case, I apologize sincerely to all the CAL pilots for the misinformation. I am glad that it was corrected quickly.
Joe Peck
03-19-2013 | 04:33 PM
#109
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 0
From: UAL retired
Wait does this mean CAL changed in 2010? That was post merger and validates my point.
Also I was hired in '96 and we had centerline tracking on the 73-500 fleet as well as the 756 fleet at that time. If CAL got it in 2010 I think what I was told is 100% true. By 2000 we had 777,756,73, and Airbus fleets all on centerline procedures. By the way what is the CAL procedure for SFO because the issue is not that we all have procedures, the issue is which is safer.
And,
how about Oral Testing? UAL has a long history of an Oral Test prior to the LOFT, but now we have none. I was told this was the CAL way. True? If it is true then it's an example of "dumbing down" in the other direction.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
