Emirates near disaster on takeoff

If the plane was flying all pacific routes there may be no economic need to equip the plane for ADS-C, only mandatory in North Atlantic and some member states, (Australia), and then if the plane is older there may be exemptions to that requirement.
 
Richman said:
As Todd said, the ATP rule, which I will grant may have been rushed to passage, has inadvertently has worked out for MUCH better in a lot of different ways. The safety record has improved and the industrial side has improved as well.

The civilian pipeline worked for decades with pilots earning their hours up to 1,200-1,500 hours before moving up, and typical entry level commuter gigs didn't even really start until north of 1,500. Now, all of a sudden, working to get that time is a bad thing? Heck, even IFR 135 requires ATP-ish time (well, a little less).

Right now, the only people clamoring to change it are the same people who were opposed to it from the start: bottom dwelling management types with an RJ fixation and snake oil salesmen hucking "the dream" to wannabees who don't have the attention span to stick to a job for 1-2 years. That includes the universities.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the results but I've got issues with the application of the rule. Some of the exceptions to the 1500 hour rule make sense. At least one of them doesn't.
 
Skåning said:
Still weird they have no idea where that Malaysian 777 went
Click to expand...
We do know gravity won... I think?

1641259547844.png
 
Acrofox said:
There should be no exceptions.
Click to expand...

I think the military exception makes sense. I do not think the Restricted ATP options for University 141 programs make sense at all, especially since they can be taught by people who do not/did not actually qualify for the R-ATP because they didn't do a university program. Like you and me.
 
Acrofox said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Because the training standards are higher for military-trained pilots. They undergo a vetting/weeding out process that civilian-trained pilots do not go through.

This is a broad generalization on my part and perhaps if I knew more about military pilot training I might re-evaluate my stance. But the military-trained pilots I have worked with thus far (flight instructing - flight reviews, checkouts, that sort of thing) have generally been competent, professional and realistic about what we were doing. Those experiences have dovetailed with my general understanding of the reason for the exception.
 
killbilly said:
Because the training standards are higher for military-trained pilots.
Click to expand...

Are you sure this is true? I know we accept this on blind faith, but I’ve met and flown with more than one former military aviator whose understanding of aerodynamics was … below standard.

They undergo a vetting/weeding out process that civilian-trained pilots do not go through.
Click to expand...

As an outside observer, I feel like the burden of proof here lies with the assertion that military is better than civilian training. A lot of the military process appears to be conformance rather than performance, and while it can be argued that conformance can be a valuable airline skill, it’s not necessarily a great aviation skill. I’ve flown with military aviators who were totally on it. I’ve also flown with those who were not at all great. That dividing line doesn’t seem to fall on military/civilian lines, but generally attitudinal lines instead. I’ve flown with civilian trained pilots from “great schools” who were ass, and pilots from really sketchy places like Sheble that were actually solid. The difference that I’ve noticed has generally been experience, exposure, attitude, and perhaps aptitude.

This is a broad generalization on my part and perhaps if I knew more about military pilot training I might re-evaluate my stance. But the military-trained pilots I have worked with thus far (flight instructing - flight reviews, checkouts, that sort of thing) have generally been competent, professional and realistic about what we were doing. Those experiences have dovetailed with my general understanding of the reason for the exception.
Click to expand...

Instructing is an odd area, because you tend to see some of the warts very clearly, whereas others don’t stand out until someone is actually *doing* the thing. (The converse is also true) There are people who tank when being evaluated, but fly the line great… and people who manage to pass every evaluation but have no business on the line.

I’d submit that people who make it through military flight training are better at handling evaluation, but otherwise I’d need to see a more convincing argument.
 
Acrofox said:
Are you sure this is true? I know we accept this on blind faith, but I’ve met and flown with more than one former military aviator whose understanding of aerodynamics was … below standard.



As an outside observer, I feel like the burden of proof here lies with the assertion that military is better than civilian training. A lot of the military process appears to be conformance rather than performance, and while it can be argued that conformance can be a valuable airline skill, it’s not necessarily a great aviation skill. I’ve flown with military aviators who were totally on it. I’ve also flown with those who were not at all great. That dividing line doesn’t seem to fall on military/civilian lines, but generally attitudinal lines instead. I’ve flown with civilian trained pilots from “great schools” who were ass, and pilots from really sketchy places like Sheble that were actually solid. The difference that I’ve noticed has generally been experience, exposure, attitude, and perhaps aptitude.



Instructing is an odd area, because you tend to see some of the warts very clearly, whereas others don’t stand out until someone is actually *doing* the thing. (The converse is also true) There are people who tank when being evaluated, but fly the line great… and people who manage to pass every evaluation but have no business on the line.

I’d submit that people who make it through military flight training are better at handling evaluation, but otherwise I’d need to see a more convincing argument.
Click to expand...

Given that your experience and data set is broader than mine - do you think the traditional time building routes would benefit military-trained pilots?

You ask if I’m sure it’s true: it’s been true in my experience. Doesn’t make it empirical, but I haven’t had any experience that says otherwise.

As you said, instructing is different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
250 hrs? (Rolls-eyes)... Nothing to see here unless the airline is putting profit before safety. Funny minimums here in the States used to be at 250 hrs. After Colgan We all know what happened with 250hrs. It gravitated to 1500hrs making it more expensive to become a commercial pilot. Has government ever fixed anything? This crash caused the change but I noticed both pilots had more than 1500hrs so would it have made a difference?
 
Three Down and Locked said:
250 hrs? (Rolls-eyes)... Nothing to see here unless the airline is putting profit before safety. Funny minimums here in the States used to be at 250 hrs. After Colgan We all know what happened with 250hrs. It gravitated to 1500hrs making it more expensive to become a commercial pilot. Has government ever fixed anything? This crash caused the change but I noticed both pilots had more than 1500hrs so would it have made a difference?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t make it more expensive to become a pilot, it just takes a little longer. If you ever get your commercial and ATP you will appreciate the ATP requirement by way of compensation.
 
For the folks who take the regional route, assuming hours requirements are met for R-ATP, doesn't the company pay for you to get the it during initial training?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top