Ask The Pilot

[Sprucegoose]

Worldwide, management are merrily trying to lower the status (and so pay) of pilots. The advent of cadets, and paying for an airline seat, is really just the thin edge of the wedge. This goes along with a belief that less qualified pilots are all that is needed in today's, more or less, crash proof jets. This is pushed quite hard by Airbus as a selling point. The reality is that modern jets are every bit as easy to crash as were the older ones. When the automatics fail, which they do quite readily in the Airbus, the aircraft are actually quite a bit more difficult to operate than the old stuff. Plus, because the automatics are almost always engaged (manual flying is actually banned by some airlines), the pilots won't even have recent practice to fall back on. Eventually the lowering of standards will come back to bite, most likely with an increase in worldwide accidents. But, the management will have taken their bonus and nicked off by then, so why would they care.It is not a job that can be done by anyone. The air force used to take 1 percent of applicants, and then fail half of them. Cadet schemes that boast a 95% pass rate, are really boasting about their mediocre standards.

Similarly education in general has been dumbed down, and they are loathe to fail anyone as they are so dependent on the overseas student for revenue. This malaise has also evidently leached into the aviation sector which is a concern.

 

[NM]

I agree whole heartedly.

Well I just I was in a position to declare my career over

Retirement is a lifetime goal of mine ... then I could get on with enjoying life.

 

[flyingaway]

The reality is that modern jets are every bit as easy to crash as were the older ones. When the automatics fail, which they do quite readily in the Airbus, the aircraft are actually quite a bit more difficult to operate than the old stuff. Plus, because the automatics are almost always engaged (manual flying is actually banned by some airlines), the pilots won't even have recent practice to fall back on. Eventually the lowering of standards will come back to bite, most likely with an increase in worldwide accidents.

Wow, not the best advertisement for flying being safe, nor for Airbus aircraft...Sounds like instead of air travel getting safer you're expecting it to get worse - scary thought.

 

[JohnM]

There doesn't sem to be much that hasn't been dumbed down these days. I'm retired from scientific research and my colleagues still there say I got out at the right time. I think that says it all.

But, back on topic, dumbing down of those people in row zero is not what I want to happen.

 

[serfty]

...

Varies depending upon what the boys feel like. Nice day...perhaps up to 10,000 feet or so, but most likely to leave the a/p engaged at the other end until around 3000 feet. I brought a flight that had diverted to Sydney down to Melbourne the other day...autopilot was engaged at about 150 feet, and disconnected at around 70 knots at Melbourne.

Some years ago I was on an AA 752 flight from DFW to ANC.

Took off and climbed Ok, but shortly thereafter the Captain announced "problems with the autopilot" and they may have to return to DFW. We were to descend to below 20000' to burn some fuel in the mean time.

The aircraft did indeed descend to lower heights for a short while but then began to climb again.

The captain came back on the PA and announced we were to proceed on to SEA. He than explained the aircraft had "three autopilots", but one had been reported as faulty on a previous flight and the engineers at DFW had been asked to "disconnect" it. For some reason they disconnected all three.:shock: An engineer would be reconnecting them at SEA; this process would take about "5 minutes".

About 15 minutes later they announced plans had changed again and they were going to fly on to ANC without diverting - which we did, arriving only a little late.

As we de-planed both flight crew were standing at the door, greeting PAX. They both had grins from "ear to ear".

 

[jb747]

Loss of the autopilots in the older aircraft wasn't really much of an event. They were stable, and you could trim them out, so that they did not need constant inputs. Losing the autopilots in an Airbus will be the result of loss of various other systems, which will invariably mean loss of autothrust, and flight directors, as well as reversion to one of the degraded flight laws. The aircraft do not have aileron trim, so it's just as likely that you won't be able to trim out the forces, and so will need to have a constant load applied to the control column (try holding a couple of pounds of lateral force for a few hours, and see how you feel). My point in all this though is not to say the Airbus is unsafe, because that's not the case at all. But rather to put to rest the outright lie that is pedalled by some vested interests, which says that these aircraft can be flown by your milkman.

 

[harvyk]

How often does a commercial pilot arrive to a "cold and dark" aircraft, say for instance a long haul aircraft (such as a B747 or A380) which arrived that morning, but was then parked at the airport all day? (eg an LAX flight which arrived at 7:00, but the aircraft isn't scheduled to be used again until 23:00 that night)

How well do previous pilots shut an aircraft down when it will be many hours before the aircraft is used again? (eg do they leave any systems going because it would be more trouble than it's worth to restart them that night)

Also on certain aircraft are there any systems that the cabin crew can start (I remember hearing once that the cabin crew of a B747 can start things like cabin power from door L2, I believe I even heard they could start the APU if required, this could be done without anyone in the coughpit)

 

[jb747]

How often does a commercial pilot arrive to a "cold and dark" aircraft, say for instance a long haul aircraft (such as a B747 or A380) which arrived that morning, but was then parked at the airport all day? (eg an LAX flight which arrived at 7:00, but the aircraft isn't scheduled to be used again until 23:00 that night)

Extremely rarely. To be completely shut down, the aircraft will need to have quite a few circuit breakers pulled, otherwise systems powered by batteries will come on line. Normally, when we come on board, the APU will already be running, but if it isn't the aircraft will be on ground power. The engineers will do their inspections before we get there, and basic power up is part of that.

How well do previous pilots shut an aircraft down when it will be many hours before the aircraft is used again? (eg do they leave any systems going because it would be more trouble than it's worth to restart them that night)

Not many things are actually turned off. Fuel pumps. APU will be shut down if external power is available, otherwise it will be left on. Screens are turned down, but the systems behind them remain running.

Also on certain aircraft are there any systems that the cabin crew can start (I remember hearing once that the cabin crew of a B747 can start things like cabin power from door L2, I believe I even heard they could start the APU if required, this could be done without anyone in the coughpit)

They can't start the APU. The are allowed to be left running because most of them have an automatic fire extinguishing and shutdown system, but not all...in which case the pilots or engineers have to be in attendance if it is running.

 

[jb747]

To add...one of the first checks that needs to be done, before you can start the APU, is a test of its fire detection system.

 

[Tortuga]

Have you ever had passengers clap after a landing and did it make you cringe? I swear bad weather follows me but I just got off a long haul Iberia flight from Madrid to Buenos Aires and we hit a big thunderstorm before the approach into EZE to land. I think the storm was between 36 and 20 thousand feet, because the pilot was saying he was trying to avoid it but it still hit us with some strength!! Its funny the babies are having a great time and the adults are all coughping their pants. Anyway I sat there trying to believe everything I read about turbulence and thunderstorms being harmless in the majority of occasions because of the elevation of the aircraft. Still got a bit hairy, for some reason I start picturing the back of the plane snapping off :evil:

Back to the point, after we landed the whole plane started clapping and saying congratulations in Spanish to the pilots as if they had just saved our lives (I was grateful to be back on land). Is this a South American custom and what do you think of it? The flight was on their A340-600, nice aircraft and the pilots did a good job from what I could tell with how they handled the storm we went through.

 

[mannej]

JB,

My next question relates to the 737NG plates. I don't know if you have read the thread http://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/community/travel-news/737h-doco-darker-side-you-29222.html relating to the "dodgy" manufacturing of 737 NG parts by AHF Ducommun.
Is this a concern of yours (in general), and if the FAA has dismissed the whistleblowers case, is that enough to give confidence that the NG's will not suffer a catastrophic failure as being suggested in the documentary.
If the FAA is protecting Boeing, is that not a dangerous path to follow especially considering the DC10 Cargo door issues back in the 70's.
Apologies for this being a bit loaded, and not really relevant to your line of fleet, but do you feel that these parts will affect any of the NG's in Australia, and do you know if there are fixes available?

 

[tuppaware]

Back to the point, after we landed the whole plane started clapping and saying congratulations in Spanish to the pilots as if they had just saved our lives (I was grateful to be back on land). Is this a South American custom and what do you think of it? The flight was on their A340-600, nice aircraft and the pilots did a good job from what I could tell with how they handled the storm we went through.

I've had this happen on lots of American Domestic Flights as well.

 

[jb747]

Have you ever had passengers clap after a landing and did it make you cringe?

Well, they're always pretty quick to tell you when they think you got it wrong..... I normally refrain from asking how their last landing was.

As far as I know the only time they've clapped, was in Manila; and I guess they had good reason to be glad they were on the ground.

 

[jb747]

Re the 737NG. I'd much rather fly in one of those than the alternative.

Poorly made parts are an industry wide problem, and always have been.

You are in much more danger from tired pilots than you are from structural issues.

 

[JohnM]

Well, they're always pretty quick to tell you when they think you got it wrong..... I normally refrain from asking how their last landing was.

As far as I know the only time they've clapped, was in Manila; and I guess they had good reason to be glad they were on the ground.

If I were on that bird, I'd be wanting kiss you jb747 - but then we'd both cringe .

 

[Awesom Andy]

Interesting how accountants got a mention in this thread. As an accountant myself, I took 2 of my juniors to an A320 (non-moving) simulator tonight. Needless to say, 3 virtual A320s were written off. I've had a few hours in a Cherokee, but definitly not enough to handle the poor visibility and tail/cross winds coming in at 45'...

Generally, I find that bean counters only understand the bottom line. It's a very silly idea to have get someone to manage the airline and/or HR activities if they haven't even been in to the coughpit.

 

[jb747]

I don't think management need to have been pilots, or even close to it. Realistically I have about as much idea of managing a company, as they have of aviation. But, you need the sort of people who realise that they don't and so then take appropriate direction from people who do have that knowledge. That does seem sadly lacking.

By the same token a CEO (or any level of management for that matter), cannot make an airline safe. That comes from the culture of the entity, and it does not come overnight. But, management can destroy safety systems that are in place, and they can kill off a safety culture, though that takes a bit longer. That's why I always find it amusing when new airlines are discussed, with CEOs invariably claiming that they are 'safe'...well, they've probably got new Airbus aircraft (the aircraft of choice), and they have a new batch of pilots with disparate backgrounds and levels of experience, with the only common denominator being a desire to fly said new aircraft, generally at poor pay levels, and sometimes even negative pay. But, they have no safety culture at all, and are unlikely to develop one.

 

[ermen]

But, they have no safety culture at all, and are unlikely to develop one.

Great thread and thanks to all who have contributed.Jb747, what are some examples of airlines not having a safety culture in this region? Surely there are certain rules that are mandatory to follow?

 

[Flying Fox]

Silly question from me.

Could an A380 or B747 perform a loop the loop and/or barrel roll?

 

[samiam]

Silly question from me.

Could an A380 or B747 perform a loop the loop and/or barrel roll?

... was that with or without pax on board?