Captain guards the yoke...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Given that the object of flying airplanes is to safely fly from A to B, not impress other pilots (even check airmen), I think I'll withhold judgment on the competence of US aviators until the statistics even marginally support the idea that they are inferior to any other nationality. Do you have any of those, or just your particular anecdotal experiences?
 
This is really getting ridiculous. EK has been a tiny little insignificant airline for virtually all of its existence until the past few years. They were operating less than two dozen airplanes for most of the '90s, for f's sake. Delta was operating 400. Of course EK doesn't have a significant accident history. They'd have to fly for a few hundred years to experience the same number of cycles that Delta does in a single year.

Look, the data is all publicly available. Foreign carriers don't even come close to approaching the safety record of the US carriers. Making pilots sit through BS ground school for 6 months before letting them fly a trip doesn't make them better, safer pilots. It just makes a bunch of arrogant dimwits in management and the training department happy.
 
Gonzo said:
3210 left about an hour late and had somebody by your name on the jumpseat. :)

Ron isn't a ADP, I believe he only does ground schools. Also I looked again and the FO is a 2011 hire but was at Comair before Eagle and has about 4,000k in type.

It is really scary the amount of information an average employee can get from our system.
Click to expand...
I was always amazed at what you could get with someone's employee number and a thorough knowledge of DECS. I actually liked that level of transparency. If you wanted to look up writeups, you could; time in type? sure. And so on.

Boris Badenov said:
Given that the object of flying airplanes is to safely fly from A to B, not impress other pilots (even check airmen), I think I'll withhold judgment on the competence of US aviators until the statistics even marginally support the idea that they are inferior to any other nationality. Do you have any of those, or just your particular anecdotal experiences?
Click to expand...
I thought that the objective was to use superior judgment to avoid requiring superior skills, but I concur on that one.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Given that the object of flying airplanes is to safely fly from A to B, not impress other pilots (even check airmen), I think I'll withhold judgment on the competence of US aviators until the statistics even marginally support the idea that they are inferior to any other nationality. Do you have any of those, or just your particular anecdotal experiences?
Click to expand...


I said:

Actually statistics would say that only about 70-80% of US airline pilots can hold their own against the standards of some foreign carriers.
Click to expand...

That is not saying, "they are inferior", it is saying that the standards are higher elsewhere and that the statistics do indicate that that 20-30% have an issue with meeting those higher standards.


TP
 
ATN_Pilot said:
This is really getting ridiculous. EK has been a tiny little insignificant airline for virtually all of its existence until the past few years. They were operating less than two dozen airplanes for most of the '90s, for f's sake. Delta was operating 400. Of course EK doesn't have a significant accident history. They'd have to fly for a few hundred years to experience the same number of cycles that Delta does in a single year.

Look, the data is all publicly available. Foreign carriers don't even come close to approaching the safety record of the US carriers. Making pilots sit through BS ground school for 6 months before letting them fly a trip doesn't make them better, safer pilots. It just makes a bunch of arrogant dimwits in management and the training department happy.
Click to expand...


We can take it out to Lufthansa, British Airways, and Qantas then if you like. They are also in the top ten in safety.

Not sure what the 6 month ground school comment is about though.



TP
 
I had a reply typed up to @typhoonpilot, but @ATN_Pilot knocked it out of the park.

US carriers can and do terminate pilots for proficiency problems, but our carriers are much more willing to learn from our mistakes rather than hang the crew. For example: An unnamed US airline has had some somewhat public issues recently (no bent metal, though), and for each of those, the crews involved are still employed after significant retraining. More importantly, changes have been made in procedure and cockpit culture to help prevent a recurrence. Mistakes happen; we learn from them, retrain the crews to bring them back up to the standard (if possible... occasionally pilots are terminated for failing to retrain to the standard), and we move forward.
 
typhoonpilot said:
No doubt U.S. carriers rank high in safety statistics. It is not just statistics that we are looking at though. Marginally competent pilots can safely fly from A to B most of the time. Knock wood, but EK has a zero fatality rate in 25 years of operation. That's pretty safe, wouldn't you agree?

What is one of the themes that seems to occur in a number of the U.S. incidents and accidents? The recent SWA landing incident in LGA. Known marginally competent captain, right? The USAir 737 accident in LGA, also a known marginally competent captain. Is it good that in the U.S. airlines known marginally competent captains are able to slip through the cracks?

I think this goes a little towards the pussification of America. Kids in school getting a ribbon for 29th place. That's just telling them that mediocrity is okay, no need to strive to be better. Mediocre pilots passing their training and thinking they are really good because they fly for a major U.S. airline with a good safety record, when in reality they are not that good. No incentive to strive to be better, just resting on their laurels and thinking they are great. Something happens and they change venues only to find out they aren't that great after t
Typhoonpilot
Click to expand...

Karma is a bitch. Hope it doesn't find you.
 
typhoonpilot said:
No doubt U.S. carriers rank high in safety statistics. It is not just statistics that we are looking at though. Marginally competent pilots can safely fly from A to B most of the time. Knock wood, but EK has a zero fatality rate in 25 years of operation. That's pretty safe, wouldn't you agree?

What is one of the themes that seems to occur in a number of the U.S. incidents and accidents? The recent SWA landing incident in LGA. Known marginally competent captain, right? The USAir 737 accident in LGA, also a known marginally competent captain. Is it good that in the U.S. airlines known marginally competent captains are able to slip through the cracks?

I think this goes a little towards the pussification of America. Kids in school getting a ribbon for 29th place. That's just telling them that mediocrity is okay, no need to strive to be better. Mediocre pilots passing their training and thinking they are really good because they fly for a major U.S. airline with a good safety record, when in reality they are not that good. No incentive to strive to be better, just resting on their laurels and thinking they are great. Something happens and they change venues only to find out they aren't that great after all.


Typhoonpilot
Click to expand...


You don't have the luxury of having your National Flag define your skills, common sense and performance. There are people flying worldwide that shouldn't be flying and they are at every single airline, including yours. How many times during your brief to your FOs ( or cadets) do you say: "Hey, keep an eye on me and if you see anything that doesn't look right please speak up?" How many times do you think to yourself: I've got to keep an eye on junior over there and then fail to accept that you too are vulnerable to fatigue, distraction, not feeling well or any number of things that have an effect on how we perform. Do you ever self critique your own performance as you are taking notes on how your cadets are doing? The EK does have a good safety record but as you pointed out, you can "marginally" make every single flight over a period of time and have perfect statistics. The question really is: How far over the safety line are you? The pilots in the recent SFO Asiana crash had never had an accident (to my knowledge), but it's pretty obvious that they were far from safe pilots since they apparently didn't even know how to operate and manage the automation on their gee whiz 777. I guess they were just lucky, until that day. I've never had an accident or incident in my 25 year 121 career, so what does that mean about my skills vs yours? The answer is - who knows? Don't be ignorant enough to suggest that you are somehow better, more professional, know more or have higher standards than anybody else does because if you do, it simply verifies that your ego is running your mouth, not your brain. We all like to think that we are great pilots, but the truth is, none of us are probably as good as we think we are, including you.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
All union carriers with a just culture model. To compare EK to British Airways is a joke.
Click to expand...


Why? The Senior VP of Flight Ops is ex-BA, the VP of Flight ops is ex-BA, the Senior VP of training is from the UK, and the Senior VP of Safety is Irish so the culture tends towards the British one in many aspects. They try and try and try to re-train and retain guys. Giving them many chances, but some just can't make it. Just like Dasleben outlined. Not very different at all. I can only think of two notable exceptions to that and neither of them was in the group that I used for examples.

I think you've taken my examples out of context and applied your pre-conceived prejudices to them.


TP
 
typhoonpilot said:
Why? The Senior VP of Flight Ops is ex-BA, the VP of Flight ops is ex-BA, the Senior VP of training is from the UK, and the Senior VP of Safety is Irish so the culture tends towards the British one in many aspects.
Click to expand...

I don't care where the people came from. Take executives from UAL or DAL and put them in an environment with no labor laws and no unions and watch how dangerous things get.
 
CaptBill said:
You don't have the luxury of having your National Flag define your skills, common sense and performance. There are people flying worldwide that shouldn't be flying and they are at every single airline, including yours. How many times during your brief to your FOs ( or cadets) do you say: "Hey, keep an eye on me and if you see anything that doesn't look right please speak up?" How many times do you think to yourself: I've got to keep an eye on junior over there and then fail to accept that you too are vulnerable to fatigue, distraction, not feeling well or any number of things that have an effect on how we perform. Do you ever self critique your own performance as you are taking notes on how your cadets are doing? The EK does have a good safety record but as you pointed out, you can "marginally" make every single flight over a period of time and have perfect statistics. The question really is: How far over the safety line are you? The pilots in the recent SFO Asiana crash had never had an accident (to my knowledge), but it's pretty obvious that they were far from safe pilots since they apparently didn't even know how to operate and manage the automation on their gee whiz 777. I guess they were just lucky, until that day. I've never had an accident or incident in my 25 year 121 career, so what does that mean about my skills vs yours? The answer is - who knows? Don't be ignorant enough to suggest that you are somehow better, more professional, know more or have higher standards than anybody else does because if you do, it simply verifies that your ego is running your mouth, not your brain. We all like to think that we are great pilots, but the truth is, none of us are probably as good as we think we are, including you.
Click to expand...



You do know that I am American, right?

I never said I was better than anyone, just stating what I have personally witnessed and experienced. The first year I was at EK I was totally blown away by how good the captains I flew with were. Far better than the average US major airline captain. When I upgraded I was lucky to have experienced first officers. Much more experienced in widebody operations than me and you bet I used their experience to stay out of trouble.

You seem to have gotten the wrong impression of me. Perhaps I am not clear in my writing. This website needs a little more counter point, which is why I write what I write from time to time. Sorry that it ruffles feathers, but isn't it better to hear the truth of the world outside of U.S. aviation from someone who has been there. The attitude of some Americans that they are somehow super great pilots because of their National Flag and airline's safety statistics gets them in trouble a lot when they go overseas. The Charlie Sargeant Korea episode is another great case in point.


TP
 
Last edited:
typhoonpilot said:
That is not saying, "they are inferior", it is saying that the standards are higher elsewhere and that the statistics do indicate that that 20-30% have an issue with meeting those higher standards.


TP
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how the standards are "higher". They're obviously different. I repeat, though, that as the object of flying airplanes is to safely transport passengers and things from one place to another, and US Carriers do that as well as anyone in the world (and better than most), by any meaningful, rational measure, the US standards are just as high as those of anyone else. Like, ipso facto. Do you follow me? Relying on subjective measures as to whether a pilot "flies well" is subject to all sorts of cant that isn't needed (including the assertions of the bad pilot himself). Stats don't lie, and the stats seem to indicate that US Carriers fly as safely as anyone else in the world. Explain to me how I'm misinterpreting?
 
Yeah, that seems a bit excessive. I don't have a dog in this fight, as I'm not a 121 pilot. It seems to me that people in "the rest of the world" often perceive Americans to be waaaaaaay too sensitive to criticism, and in a lot of cases, they're right. On this particular issue, though, I still don't see how, objectively, one can make the claim that pilots for US carriers (some of whom weren't born in the US, mind) are held to "lower standards". Different, yes, obviously. But if the end result is world-class safety...I dunno, I cannot see the logic, here.
 
Last edited:
typhoonpilot said:
You do know that I am American, right?

I never said I was better than anyone, just stating what I have personally witnessed and experienced. The first year I was at EK I was totally blown away by how good the captains I flew with were. Far better than the average US major airline captain. When I upgraded I was lucky to have experienced first officers. Much more experienced in widebody operations than me and you bet I used their experience to stay out of trouble.

You seem to have gotten the wrong impression of me. Perhaps I am not clear in my writing. This website needs a little more counter point, which is why I write what I write from time to time. Sorry that it ruffles feathers, but isn't it better to hear the truth of the world outside of U.S. aviation from someone who has been there. This attitude of Americans that they are somehow super great pilots because of their National Flag and airline's safety statistics gets them in trouble a lot when they go overseas. The Charlie Sargeant Korea episode is another great case in point.


TP
Click to expand...


No, I think I have a pretty clear impression of you. You know TP, I am as open minded as anybody and genuinely interested in learning and furthering my craft here on JC or anyplace else. Frankly, I don't really care if you're American or not - not interested in the slightest. I have never heard, not once, where one American Pilot has commented or even acted like he or she is a super great pilot solely because they fly in America - that's absurd. And by the way, it takes a lot more than someone like you to ruffle my feathers so please try not to lose any sleep over that one. And realize that your truth is just that, your truth - we tend to see what we want to see and believe what we want to believe. I would suggest to you that truth to the Palestinians varies quite a bit from the truth that Israel embraces. So who's right? I suppose it depends on if you are Palestinian or an Israeli - right?

What truly bothers me about your comments is your willingness to cast a very big net over a small group of people that shouldn't be flying in the first place. There are pilots that I have flown with at my airline that blow me away as well and I try very hard to emulate their professionalism and learn from their experience - that's not a concept that's patented by you or your airline. I'm glad you're happy where you are and I wish you success there. Just imagine being able to clone you into every airline seat in the world - No more accidents and no more mistakes. Now there's an idea eh? By the way, I think your TP moniker is perfect - I wouldn't change a thing.

I was going to ask why you ended up overseas in the first place - Were you unable to get hired by a sub-standard American carrier? But to be honest with you, I don't really care, so you can save the explanation.

It's time for a ride on the Harley and there's only room for one - sorry!
 
That's awesome!! You do not like the message so you want to discredit the messenger. The saying, the truth only hurts if it should, comes to mind.

Have fun on your Harley.


TP
 
I'm not interested in discrediting you, TP. I would, however, like to know what metric you're using to determine that the various training failures to which you allude are indicative of US pilots not meeting the "higher standards" of your company, vs. not meeting the standards of your company. To wit, how did you determine that those standards were higher? That seems like a fair question, do you not think?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top