Peter wrote:
I don’t think so; crew training and procedures have a huge impact on safety.
Never claimed something else – actual training schedules have not been on my list. My point was more that it is easy to scandalize things from outside just because we don’t know the whole picture or were just to used to what we know.
One of the most obvious example where the entire industry seems to be blind:
When media scandalized the fact that part of the FAA task in certification of 737max were actually performed by Boeing employees, everyone was quickly shouting out “how dare you”.
When you ask a Lufthansa Pilot, how Lufthansa employees can seriously do check flights with other Lufthansa employees they are extremely quick to explain that even the question is stupid because only LH employees know the company procedures and no German CAA checker will ever be able to judge if a LH pilot is a good pilot.
It’s always a question of perception…
CAA inspectors can and do join sim sessions to oversee the airline employed pilot checker (acting as CAA designated examiner).
In the usa, FAA inspectors can ride jumpseat anytime.
While it’s not perfect, I wouldn’t worry too much about europe/usa concerning airline ops/training. It’s quite rigid.
Sorry, but FAA inspectors could have joined any Boeing design meeting and test anytime – overseeing any Boeing employed certification engineer (acting as FAA designated certification inspector). Question is not if they can but if they do (and how often).
It’s exactly the same thing! And all said “it’s quite rigid” as long as nothing happened. Before 737max happened, most people “wouldn’t have worried too much about Europe/usa concerning design certification”.
And most Pakistani politicians did not worry too much on pilot certification until something happened…
Many years ago but not too many, a retired pilot friend was tasked with delivering an old cargo jet to Africa poss early 737 type.
On arrival he was met by it’s new owner and his ‘team’.
Payment for the ferry flight became a bit vague, and there were some ‘heavies’ about with guns.
It was agreed that the ferry flight payment would be more forthcoming once the flipflop wearing ragged shirt and stinking, team had been trained to fly the aircraft.
We know he made it out alive, we know he wasn’t there too long, I can’t remember how much of the ferry money he got but I can remember in no uncertain terms that it was the 1st time the ‘team’ had seen the inside of a big jet.
Next time I see him, I’ll buy him some beers and write it all down properly. :-)
@malibuflyer
Many things succumb to corporate/profit pressure. All I want to say is that while I found many things imperfect over the years, I didn’t see any simulators with credit card slots ;) to pass a checkride.
I’m just watching this fairly interesting YouTube video, titled “Can a PA28 pilot land a 737?”
Interesting.
It is evident from some bits that this guy had some lot of time on a sim beforehand.
Interesting VOR LOCK enabled autoland, or something like that.
Interesting phraseology, saying “over” on VHF!
Yes that seemed simple enough. I think it is engaging both autopilots that seemed to make it autoland? The VOR LOC is like the NAV button on a GA autopilot and was a precursor to putting it into APP mode, although I believe he could have gone straight from HDG to APP.
The part they skipped over is that a level change from FL240 down to 3,000ft takes quite a while and probably needs a bit of energy management.
It looked like the instructor kicked out the autopilot but left the autothrottle engaged so he could have not fiddled with that until the flare. Also he seemed to play with the trim as soon as the A/P was kicked out, which was what sent his glidepath all over the place. Being stable on the approach would have been quite well trimmed already.
I think it is less having lots of sim time and more knowing where the buttons are and what they do, which is type-specific.
I can apparently land a Caravelle, or at least a resuscitated Caravelle simulator.
