Ask The Pilot

[mikenz]

Flight hours are recorded from brakes release at the gate, until the first door opens.

Are flight hours logged in HH:MM or rounded up/down?

 

[mjt57]

I don't recall ever seeing any form of disc. There were three sims, all bought at different times, and so quite different generations of the technology. The general consensus was the the 767-200 sim actually simulated a totally different aircraft. The -300s were very good.

Might have been from a different manufacturer. Era of this particular simulator goes back to early 80s, perhaps earlier.

The glass disks were handled by these contraptions with hooks and a handle and were quite heavy.

As for the -200 thing that sounds like our current simulator, piece of cough that it is...

 

[jb747]

Are flight hours logged in HH:MM or rounded up/down?

Hours:minutes. In the military, we logged in decimal, but only to one place.

 

[Quickstatus]

Hi Jb747,

Interested to know what pilots put in their logbook

What are the columns in yours

Are pilots logbook audited by the respective regulatory authority perhaps randomly?

 

[jb747]

Hi Jb747,

Interested to know what pilots put in their logbook

What are the columns in yours

Are pilots logbook audited by the respective regulatory authority perhaps randomly?

My log colums:
date, registration, captain, FO, sector, instrument time, single engine day/night/total, multi day/night/total, command day/night/total.

Obviously some columns haven't been used in quite a while. It's an Excel spreadsheet. Some people still have paper logs, and there are applications dedicated to the purpose. There's no form of audit. Who would pay for that? And against what?

 

[clazman]

My log colums:
date, registration, captain, FO, sector, instrument time, single engine day/night/total, multi day/night/total, command day/night/total.

Obviously some columns haven't been used in quite a while. It's an Excel spreadsheet. Some people still have paper logs, and there are applications dedicated to the purpose. There's no form of audit. Who would pay for that? And against what?

Are you required to produce this for authorities / company in any instance?

 

[jb747]

The company has records online, so unless you fly privately, there is very little reason to run a log. You need it when applying for job.

 

[thelittlechef]

JB,
Is there a speed limit for taxiing?. If so can you be pinged for going too fast?

A few months ago I was in the back of a medical retrieval plane (B200) with a patient who had arrested just before landing in Darwin at about 400ft. The pilot, while landing, managed to get the tower to plot us a quick route to our hangar. I'm told our taxi was just below take-off speed with a little bit of "stick forward".

Patient survived.

 

[Quickstatus]

hi JB747

what would you consider to be a low hour pilot?. I suppose with anything an accurate picture require drilling down into the data available, but do you have a ball park figure?.. I understand that in general an "x" hour bush pilot flying manual most of the time would have more flying skills than equivalent "x" hour pilot flying sims , autopilots and smart "i-planes"?

 

[jb747]

what would you consider to be a low hour pilot?. I suppose with anything an accurate picture require drilling down into the data available, but do you have a ball park figure?.. I understand that in general an "x" hour bush pilot flying manual most of the time would have more flying skills than equivalent "x" hour pilot flying sims , autopilots and smart "i-planes"?

It's rather too flexible to be able to pin down with one number. A thousand hours of military or GA (but not in the Bankstown circuit) is probably a good start. For cadets who do sim courses followed by flying an electric jet, I'm not sure that they'd ever have enough hours to be considered other than low experience. I think the US figure of 1,000 hours before you can get into any form of airliner is probably a realistic starting point....

 

[Quickstatus]

Hi JB747,

what is the function of those small fins on top of the 380 and other aircraft?

 

[jb747]

Hi JB747,

what is the function of those small fins on top of the 380 and other aircraft?

On the centre of the fuselage? Aerials.

 

[clazman]

Airline cadet programs, would this differ the number of hours required to get into airline?

Watched a couple of youtube videos on CP flight training in Adelaide, it would appear that they are no where near 1000's hours before, I am hoping this is just the start of their training.

 

[jb747]

Airline cadet programs, would this differ the number of hours required to get into airline?

Watched a couple of youtube videos on CP flight training in Adelaide, it would appear that they are no where near 1000's hours before, I am hoping this is just the start of their training.

They are the classic example of minimal hours into the right seat of an airliner.

 

[Rabs97]

Airline cadet programs, would this differ the number of hours required to get into airline?


Watched a couple of youtube videos on CP flight training in Adelaide, it would appear that they are no where near 1000's hours before, I am hoping this is just the start of their training.

The regime of training and placement of cadet pilots into airlines is differs from airline to airline. Some will take ab-initio pilots with low hours and train them fully up to sit in the right seat of a A320/737 sized jet or a turboprop, others will take newly licensed pilots with no work experience and put them through a "finishing school" so to speak to get them up to airline standards, others will mandate a period of time in a cruise relief or Second Officer role before they get to a window seat. It just depends. In Cathay's case they will put a candidate through a training course in Adelaide from anywhere between 5-55 weeks depending on how much prior experience they have. And then upon employment in Cathay a number of years in a cruise relief role in the backseat.


As for the suitability of these programs? There are thousands of "cadets" selected and trained by the airlines themselves, who are now flying as Captains all over the world. Most european airlines (BA, Lufthansa, KLM and the LCC's) would recruit most of their pilots as cadets, and I don't see there being any significant safety issues.


Now before anyone replies with "well what about AF447, wasn't that cadet pilot who didn't know how to recover from a stall?", that case is a little different.


Those pilots were employed straight away into a long haul operation. If you take the average sector time of around two hours for a short haul flight and 8-12 for a long haul one, a pilot employed in short haul operations undertakes 4-6 times as many sectors as a long haul pilot. They might be flying 1 or 2 sectors a day as Pilot Flying as opposed to 1 or 2 month. That means for any given 1000hrs, short haul or regional pilots are exposed to up to 6 times as many, take offs, landings, departures, approaches, fuel decisions, mechanical decisions, weather avoidance issues and so on. The best way for a newly trained pilot to gain experience and operational decision making is to be exposed to as many sectors as possible. When Qantas were running their cadet program they decided to send their cadets out into regional airlines for a few years instead of straight into the to backseat of a jumbo for that very reason.

 

[jb747]

Interesting first post. Perhaps you'd like to declare your obvious interest in the subject.

I think you'll find that the AF FO that you mention had lots of time on the A320, in pretty well exactly the sequence that you suggest...but he still hadn't learnt to fly.

As for not seeing any obvious safety issues...nobody involved in selling these programs does. Four automated approaches a day is no substitute for actually flying an aircraft. Locking in to the number of fuel decisions to be made (and in all honesty, there is very little decision to be made in many operations) is missing the point. They are not making any decisions...the captains are. They see numerous automated approaches. That's better than seeing a few, but it still is not teaching how to fly.

And as for cadet captains...sure they're around. I think the guy on Asiana was one.

If you want to send cadets off to NT or PNG for a couple of years after their course, then we're talking actual experience (which was how the original QF cadets were trained). But they have no place in airliners, and the FAA has headed in the right direction.

 

[Rabs97]

Interesting first post. Perhaps you'd like to declare your obvious interest in the subject.

OK I will. I am not involved with marketing or promoting a cadet pilot program in any way. I am a graduate of an airline cadet program who is now currently flying in Australia. To be honest I am a little sick of the cadet bashing which seems to go on in some internet forums. The complexities and nuances of training and building up experiences as a cadet gets boiled down to an argument that we are a bunch of incompetent autopilot babysitters who couldn't save ourselves if the automation failed. Sure there are some "cadets" who get employed through nepotism, who are pushed through a "fly by night" training course and would have real trouble if the proverbial hit the fan. There are also some "cadets", like my colleagues who have conducted a comprehensive training course, and have built up experiences in the type of regional area flying I described in my previous post. Flying in turboprops in regional airlines in bad weather, around uncontrolled aerodromes and high terrain was one of the best preparations I could have had for a jet airline career.

I think you'll find that the AF FO that you mention had lots of time on the A320, in pretty well exactly the sequence that you suggest...but he still hadn't learnt to fly.

Well that's a sign that airlines need to improve their training in high altitude manual flight, unusual attitudes and stall recovery. And maybe give lower time pilots a bit of time flying light aircraft in their downtime for the first couple of years whilst flying airlines to build up their manual handling skills and confidence.

As for not seeing any obvious safety issues...nobody involved in selling these programs does. Four automated approaches a day is no substitute for actually flying an aircraft.

I've only seen about a dozen auto lands in about a decade of flying, most on longhaul aircraft. I've lost count of the amount of times that I've disconnected the automation and hand flown because the (relatively simple) automated system wasn't doing what I wanted. And even with the A/P in there is still a lot to think about when planning and undertaking an approach, it just takes away the problem of maintaining a flightpath.

Locking in to the number of fuel decisions to be made (and in all honesty, there is very little decision to be made in many operations) is missing the point. They are not making any decisions...the captains are.

Maybe there's not many decisions to be made in long haul operations, but come to a regional or a short haul carrier and you'll be making them everyday to keep the show on the road. And first officers are fully involved in fuel and operational decision making. The Captains make the final decision, but we collaboratively discuss each aspect which goes into a decision.

And as for cadet captains...sure they're around. I think the guy on Asiana was one.

Do you want me to list all the airliner crashes that have occurred from poor decisions and mistakes made by ex-military pilots? No one would ever suggest that the poor actions of these (extremely few) pilots would indicate that recruitment of former military pilots in airlines would be a bad idea, and nor should they. But to paint all "cadets" as being unable to fly a visual approach on a CAVOK day (we manually fly these everyday) isn't accurate.

But they have no place in airliners, and the FAA has headed in the right direction.

The 1500hr rule was bought in, in the US because of the Colgan Air 3407 disaster. Both pilots had experience in General Aviation before being employed with Colgan to fly the Q400, so this legislation would have not prevented that incident. They had issues with their recurrent training, and two severely fatigued pilots because of other issues like low starting pay.
Like I said, the safety record of some carriers speak for themselves. Lufthansa puts their cadets (all their pilots are recruited as ab-initio cadets) through an intensive 30 month program, and I don't see their planes crashing all over the globe?

 

[QF WP]

Great first and even better second post Rabs97 - we welcome your input to correct any misconceptions we may have with the training of pilots as well as other questions here.

 

[moa999]

I would also recommend the UK Ch4 program Worst Place to be a Pilot filmed in 2014, an episode of which showed on SBS on Monday night and is available on SBS iview

Shows a bunch of young British pilots flying for Susi Air in Indonesia - fleet is mostly Cessna Caravan's. They all seem to be very low hour graduates ultimately hoping for a jet job back in Europe.

Certainly looks like a learning experience.

 

[jb747]

OK I will. I am not involved with marketing or promoting a cadet pilot program in any way. I am a graduate of an airline cadet program who is now currently flying in Australia. To be honest I am a little sick of the cadet bashing which seems to go on in some internet forums. The complexities and nuances of training and building up experiences as a cadet gets boiled down to an argument that we are a bunch of incompetent autopilot babysitters who couldn't save ourselves if the automation failed. Sure there are some "cadets" who get employed through nepotism, who are pushed through a "fly by night" training course and would have real trouble if the proverbial hit the fan. There are also some "cadets", like my colleagues who have conducted a comprehensive training course, and have built up experiences in the type of regional area flying I described in my previous post. Flying in turboprops in regional airlines in bad weather, around uncontrolled aerodromes and high terrain was one of the best preparations I could have had for a jet airline career.

As a learning area, the regionals are excellent. Probably one of the best places to come from, for a later career in larger aircraft. Trouble is that isn't where all of the cadets go. Many start out in the right hand seat of an A320. In that seat they will never learn the lessons you will learn in the regional operation.

Well that's a sign that airlines need to improve their training in high altitude manual flight, unusual attitudes and stall recovery. And maybe give lower time pilots a bit of time flying light aircraft in their downtime for the first couple of years whilst flying airlines to build up their manual handling skills and confidence.

No, that's a sign that pilots need to actually know how to fly. Recovery from a stall at FL300 is not inherently different to doing so at lower levels.

I've only seen about a dozen auto lands in about a decade of flying, most on longhaul aircraft. I've lost count of the amount of times that I've disconnected the automation and hand flown because the (relatively simple) automated system wasn't doing what I wanted. And even with the A/P in there is still a lot to think about when planning and undertaking an approach, it just takes away the problem of maintaining a flightpath.

Given that Oz isn't overwhelmed with auto land capable runways, perhaps that's not a surprise. You'll note though, that I said automated approaches, not automatic landings. There is a difference.

As a generalisation (and not knowing just what aircraft you're talking about), most of the time when someone disconnects because the automation isn't doing what they want, it's actually because they a)don't know how to make it do what they want using the automatics, or b)simply select the wrong mode/switch/dial, and can't correct their mistake whilst keeping the system engaged. That applies pretty evenly across both Boeing and Airbus types.

Maybe there's not many decisions to be made in long haul operations, but come to a regional or a short haul carrier and you'll be making them everyday to keep the show on the road. And first officers are fully involved in fuel and operational decision making. The Captains make the final decision, but we collaboratively discuss each aspect which goes into a decision.

I have flown many thousands of hours of short haul jet operations. I know what decisions are made. In general there is more flying practice, and way less management. Long haul is the opposite.

Do you want me to list all the airliner crashes that have occurred from poor decisions and mistakes made by ex-military pilots? No one would ever suggest that the poor actions of these (extremely few) pilots would indicate that recruitment of former military pilots in airlines would be a bad idea, and nor should they. But to paint all "cadets" as being unable to fly a visual approach on a CAVOK day (we manually fly these everyday) isn't accurate.

Perhaps we should list the saves the ex military have made. It would be equally invalid. The upshot is that the military, and GA, have been the main sources of pilots for many years...they outnumber cadets (especially the modern version) by a very large percentage...so of course they also can be credited with plenty of screw ups.

The 1500hr rule was bought in, in the US because of the Colgan Air 3407 disaster. Both pilots had experience in General Aviation before being employed with Colgan to fly the Q400, so this legislation would have not prevented that incident. They had issues with their recurrent training, and two severely fatigued pilots because of other issues like low starting pay.

No, it probably wouldn't not have stopped it, but it was an attempt to make it less likely. Pay issues are endemic, and do nothing to help safety.

Like I said, the safety record of some carriers speak for themselves. Lufthansa puts their cadets (all their pilots are recruited as ab-initio cadets) through an intensive 30 month program, and I don't see their planes crashing all over the globe?

Lufthansa is about the best around, but I'd be rather surprised if they don't have an avenue to take ex Luftwaffe pilots. They certainly are not an LCC though, and that is where much of the angst starts...where minimally qualified cadets, work for very little to no money, and in so doing devalue the entire job.

I've said before that the best overall recruitment strategy for any airline will involve sourcing their pilots from all of the available avenues (military, other airline, GA, cadets). That provides a rounded group, and not one that feeds on self congratulation. The first three sources are disappearing....