DEFCON

If one side has 2000 Mosquitos and a target and the other is defending with 200 F 35's, I'd bet on the Mosquitos being the successful force.

Well, that 'sounds' a little better, the fix will be apparently easier than if the problem were with fuel tank insulation.

And they would have us believe the technology demonstrator is operationally ready' eh?

No argument Boestar, but there's a spoiler that comes with the purchase of the F-35; importing air forces aren't given the software etc. that makes the aircraft 'special', so it looks like we'd be agreeing to purchase pseudo F-35's that won't ever be capable of living up to the marketing hype.

The F - 35 will be a wonderful single engine aircraft ... someday, but for the foreseeable future, it'll remain a technology demonstrator and test bed. Many have addressed the obvious comparative weakness of Hornets and the European offerings should they ever have to go up against the F 35 when it becomes technologically reliable and fully operational, but unless the US and its allies become our enemies, were are not going to need to be all that stealthy if Canada is called upon to participate in an action. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's highly unlikely that Canada will ever come to prosecute a war on its own; I think we can expect to continue on as we do now In support roles. As such, we'll serve as a tiny adjunct within the larger collective, so why spend the extra money on technology we'll never need?

If escort coverage was necessary, we'd need fighters. Other than for that purpose, I can't imagine there'd be much of a measurable need for them.

I couldn't agree more, stop the loss; the aircraft will be rendered obsolete by a new emerging technology before it's ever operational. .

Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention to the details, but the report posted by Malcolm above was the first I've heard of the development commitments to the F 35 project previously made by Canada. It kind of surprised me to learn that Canada had gotten tangled up in the development of a fighter as complex as the F 35 knowing the aircraft was conceptualized as a single engine type from the get-go, a design consideration military experts had already rejected as fiscally impractical 35, or so years ago.

With all the emphasis on security I am amazed that aircraft tracking sights like 'Flight Aware' are allowed at all. Someone could wait until the aircraft is appropriately positioned over deep water and then make a phone call ... boom! FOX News is reporting that a message had been previously spray painted on this aircraft by person(s) unknown in Arabic, which advised that this particular aircraft would be taken down.

Just speculation based on the media commentary currently available. 1. Explosive event causes aircraft to roll sharply left. 2. Right wing is shed. 3. Aircraft rolls sharply right while continuing to fall vertically in tight spiral. .

I ask because airlines have from time to time over the years favoured candidates in possession of a degree, relevant to the field, or not. If the air carriers are facing a very long & dry spell where they can't find ATP's, is it wise to be sending a message to high school age kids that degrees are favoured in the present environment knowing the wannabe will waste 3 or 4 years pursuing B.Comm's and the like before they enter the proper stream?

Can anyone explain, or justify the supposed value, or relevance of a Bachelor of Commerce Degree for instance, to a potential employer, or even the individual pursuing a career as an air carrier pilot?

'Qualification' is a relative term that's based on a few parameters which include, a licence appropriate to the task, overall experience, time on a type, or similar and general time in rank. Regardless, excepting the licence, demand would seem to be the most influential factor when it comes to determining the relativity of an applicants 'qualifications' for a given position.

How long will it be before the 'pilot shortage' restricts air carriers from operating aircraft with anything with less than 150 seats?

Wolfhunter's story is a sad but true rendition of the present day reality. What was once possibly the greatest and most rewarding profession and career a guy could ever hope to realize has been reduced to some sort of McJob that fewer and fewer apparently see any point in pursuing.

Malcolm - In my opinion, experience develops as a product of exposure to all sorts of 'things' that arise over the long course of a pilot's career. It is not possible to 'earn' that kind of experience in a sim, or classroom. In most cases experience builds rapidly throughout the early years, but that's only because rookies face a steep learning curve and are therefore very prone to making mistakes. There is a fantastic amount of information that must be absorbed during the formative years, a good deal of which comes while operating a complex piece of machinery in a dynamic 3D environment in real time. While there are many wannabe air carrier pilots, few that set out to succeed prove capable of mastering the art, or at least that's the way it once was. In the so-called good old days, the industry got to have a fairly good look at you and your capability before you ever got near the right seat of a commercial airliner. Who will ever know for certain, but as a for instance; had the FO of the crashed GermanWings 320 followed the more traditional approach to the right seat, it's a good bet that his weakness would have been exposed long before he got there, but the cadet program allowed this guy to circumvent scrutiny and around 150 people died as a result. I feel the lack of 'experience' in today's cockpit is the unfortunate product of commercial need and the trend in that direction is increasing across the globe. Without said experience flight safety becomes almost entirely dependent on the machine remaining serviceable throughout the flight as was demonstrated on AF 442 and other mishap flights.

Sim time is not a substitute for real world experience of any kind that I can think of Malcolm.

I agree Boestar. The young guy pictured in front of the Cessna is completely absent the experience and skillset you describe. At his experience level even retractable gear is a new concept, never mid high performance, speed, altitude and instrument approaches, but the uniform does make it look like he's qualified. Malcolm's observation is spot on too and identifies another issue of competence the industry is unable to address.

Complacency is a killer as Boestar has indicated, but we shouldn't forget the example the lack of experience and basic airmanship skills demonstrated in the AF 447 crash and other fairly recent mishaps. I've listened to firsthand reports that tell a pretty damning story. For example, the FO should be competent enough to hand fly a visual approach without electronic assistance, or be experienced enough that they don't go to pieces when an engine quits in benign conditions, but that's not necessarily the reality out there. Training, SOP's and habit are no replacement for experience. If the individual in the left seat is experienced and competent, but taken out of action during a dynamic emergency leaving the management of the aircraft & situation to a Cadet, I can tell you with absolute certainty that I wouldn't ever want to find myself in the back in those circumstances.

Does anyone want to try and explain the form of managerial logic that first moves to retire hundreds of Captains five or more years prior to their normal retirement date by offering financial inducements, offers cruise relief positions to hundreds more that aren't quite ready to go yet at the parent carrier and then works to replace all that experience with cadets and potentially premature upgrades? Making this sort of move during a period when a shortage of qualified aviators exists seems like something of a questionable strategy on a number of fronts.

I, along with many others would agree Wolfhunter. For decades now many have 'quietly' lobbied for a plumber style form of unionism in which the pilot becomes his own business, a contractor if you will, but employable only through the association. Wawcon would be determined by the association and the individual could determine the type of type rating / position / term and location of employment he wanted. It would be great for pilots if they could escape service as a pawn within the competitive process.

"My concern is that there's been nary a whisper from the folks in charge of administering aviation medicals as to how the implications of an increasing pilot age range will affect medical assessments." Follow the money....

Most of us expected to instruct until we arrived at the next minimum required for advancement. Playing co-pilot for free on light commercial cargo hauling twins earned one invaluable experience along the path to the next level of the game too. Being granted access to airline operation with 250 hours was unheard of; that is a more recent phenomena.

JO I believe Japan just raised the max age for a commercial PIC to 71 for domestic operations. I've also 'heard' ICAO is considering an overall policy change in the same respect. It's funny how some things really matter, like the age of physical incompetence, until commercial interests decide they don't.