Trader Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 http://www.operationorange.org/Go to the second blog post. Wouldn't it be nice if they could pull it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
internet Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 How do you know there is a pilot at a party? They tell you...Someone tell me how a pilot is any different than the guy driving the CTrain in Calgary? You all have a product to sell-the ability to fly an airplane. And the airlines can get it cheaper from someone else... So why should they pay you? It's not 1930 and you're not a Clipper pilot. It's not 1970 and the government isn't artificially inflating your worth or pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Wow. Sounds almost like counselling insurrection! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Someone tell me how a pilot is any different than the guy driving the CTrain in Calgary? oooooohhhhh..You have opened the flood gates there. I won't even start to explain why there is a difference......but believe me, there is a difference....a very big difference However, having said that, I do agree to a point that the value, ($), of a pilot has decreased in the past few decades and I think that one of the primary factors is the advent of superb technology.....the actual mechanical skills and aquiring of extensive flight experience that were required a few decades ago are no longer required.Back I stand, watch I do, words will follow ...Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Someone tell me how a pilot is any different than the guy driving the CTrain in Calgary? .....the actual mechanical skills and aquiring of extensive flight experience that were required a few decades ago are no longer required.Back I stand, watch I do, words will follow ...Yoda Ya think? With all the CFIT, and with (in my opinion) a lot more to come, combined with Loss of Control accidents, I might beg to differ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Ya think? With all the CFIT, and with (in my opinion) a lot more to come, combined with Loss of Control accidents, I might beg to differ!I see your POV and understand your concern but unfortunately in many cases the person/company hiring the nu-guys does not take those attributes into consideration. Again, in many cases, extensive experience and proven skill are not part of the requirements. Remember when an airline wouldn't even look at you unless you had 5000hrs PIC and years of multimotor behind you?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Yes, the technology is superb, but it didn’t do anything for AF 447. Two rookies faced with a minor technology failure, quickly made the wrong decision and lost control of the ac.As we speak; our government is allowing wet leases from a third world operator. The ‘local’ crews will not step foot aboard one of these ac for all the reasons another pilot might expect. Apparently, as long as the ‘technology’ works, everything’s fine; when it doesn’t, things get real ugly in hurry.Nice toys, but when I place my sweet cheeks in a passenger seat on someone’s (the pilot) aircraft, I want to know that there’s something more substantial than ‘technology’ standing between me and disaster."Remember when an airline wouldn't even look at you unless you had 5000hrs PIC and years of multimotor behind you"What was wrong with that concept; it offered some promise the individual had 'seen' enough that he had some idea as to what he was doing, and an indicator that he would be 'upgradeable' when the time came without unlimited training and rides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Kip, re internet`s observation, "Someone tell me how a pilot is any different than the guy driving the CTrain in Calgary? ".One doesn't often see ignorance of what pilots do expressed with such clarity. Still, it's just a little bit of pot-stirring from the sidelines compared to what we, and indeed most salaried employees have had to deal with in a neoliberal political economy. One can say in the same vein, "Tell me the difference between a teacher and an Apple computer...", and, remarkably, get away with it!I think the "operationorange" blog is saying the same thing we've been saying here for years. That there is an edge to it and strong action is advocated is just a natural progression to things getting much, much worse. These notions were expressed by Captain Sullenberger in his February 2009 appearance before Congress. (Sully's pension was destroyed by US Airways management along with all his colleagues' pensions...but they'll take his skill and airmanship anyway...damn hypocrits).The FAA has acted, sort of. But hiring a professional pilot for a major western carrier for $35,000/year? Paying a pilot $9/hr for a third-tier operation in the north? You get what you pay for, of course.I agree with you (and wrote that long paper on the subject which I posted here a while back) that automation has enhanced safety and provides the bread-and-butter handling skills that pilots used to supply. The argument from those who don't (or can't) fly is that de-skilling deserves less pay. And, we both know that flying an airplane is not what pilots do. A modern automated airplane isn't smart, like a streetcar, it requires human intelligence and decision-making capacity.As an aside and to anticipate the next logical direction this silliness may take, those paying attention, (including the FAA) to the current dialogue on UAV's and smaller pilotless drones, may cite pilotless flight for regular passenger service as the new reality once they build something big enough and can fire all those expensive, whiny airborne street-car drivers. Perhaps the dreams of some managers and some shareholders alike will come true, but it isn't the problem of accurate, controllable flight that must be solved, it is the cognitive element which humans always bring to complex operations, but why let a bit of serious discussion about the realities of flight interfere with a good rhubarb?The fact that humans make mistakes is demonstrably no defence for the privileging of automated systems over human input. Some may claim that the cognitive element, (the notions of decidability, imagination, rapport with others, the possibility of fear, etc) can be designed, engineered and implemented in chips to replace pilots but I suspect that the accident rate would remain the same if not climb much higher in the initial experiment not because it can't be done, (it can), but because human factors is just moved upstream from the cockpit to the engineer's and, (god forbid even more of it) the beancounter's desk. And while the engineers have always enjoyed a reasonable relationship with those who fly their designs the same cannot be said of those who must balance cost and safety and who increasingly take the spectacular level of safety and risk in air transportation for granted, attributing it all to "automation". That kind of ignorance is serious.Speaking generally, (I know you know this), salary has nothing to do with making a pilot "safer". However, the profession today is widely, astonishingly unattractive to good people, who are choosing careers elsewhere and a kind of pedantic-ness, a joylessness has set in as it never has before when we went through these kinds of times. And I don't for a minute believe that it is any different on "the other side" where grinding out a meagre profit while keeping aviation's natural enemies, (ignorance, incompetence) at bay has to be a monumental challenge. Thus whoever "the best and brightest" are, with some wonderful exceptions that I am aware of, most aren't coming into aviation; - the pipeline isn't full. Is it any wonder? A beautifully automated airplane like the B787 and the older Airbus products will fly one into the ground with perfect precision - just take a look at the Afrikiyah A330 accident at Tripoli a few years back, or the A321 CFIT accident at Islamabad during a circling approach.And I include the 2009 Air France AF 447 accident in this category.These are NOT automation accidents. These are performance-based, (bluntly, competency), accidents. It is what you get when you fool yourself into do aviation on-the-cheap because "nothing happens" when deep cuts are made. This approach is variously called, "the normalization of deviance", or "fine-tuning the odds until something breaks". Because aviation is soooo safe, it takes a long time to destroy all the barriers which have been put in place to make it so.For a counter-example of the competency argument, take a look at QANTAS' A380 accident (QF32 engine explosion) or their A330 accident (QF72 sudden dive) or their B747 O2 bottle explosion. These were handled with professional calm, experience, knowledge and that elusive notion of "professionalism". Increasingly, we are seeing perfectly serviceable airplanes either fly into mountains or lose control because crews are not up to the task of flying an airplane or understanding the autoflight system.The professionalism and competency does not come from "paying more", it comes from an ethic which is under active, ignorant destruction which permits people who don't or can't fly to even consider the possibility of asking the question above. The price is human life - in the advancment of technology and the notion that the free-market can solve all such problems as described here, that is the price. How much are we willing to pay? It is a matter of time until the kinds of corporate actions permitted (and even encouraged) in the U.S. provides us with answers.Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Excellent Don! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Hi DEFCON;You will know this...it's not a "defence of the profession 'against' attacks". It is an "observation to the wise", (which for many reasons is today wasted breath so strong are the economic and political followings and hysterical hegemonies). The current very low levels of fatal accidents cannot be maintained at "outsourced" costs, without paying the additional "price". Perhaps the insurance companies are even willing to roll that dice, who knows? But aviation's truths are at risk of being buried in a sea of rhetoric even though many may actually recognize the seriousness of the fundamental issues. The sense that "everything is collapsing around us" is driven primarily by the instantaneous communications and social media which have no propensity whatsoever to judge the truth of what is being said. Pressures to control costs are driven by time and the legal requirement for quarterly reports rather than "the long line".I quite realize that the issues are not this simple. But these are the characteristics of the dialogue and they have material consequences for the unwary or the bold.Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 How do you know there is a pilot at a party? They tell you...Someone tell me how a pilot is any different than the guy driving the CTrain in Calgary? You all have a product to sell-the ability to fly an airplane. And the airlines can get it cheaper from someone else... So why should they pay you? It's not 1930 and you're not a Clipper pilot. It's not 1970 and the government isn't artificially inflating your worth or pay.What do you do for a living? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlazer Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Internet - I wonder if you had a family member onboard an aircraft with a very critical failure out say over the pacific whether you would rather have a pilot with years of training or experience at the helm or a C-Train Driver.What a *&% stirring ignorant comment. Its that sort of comment either through ignorance or pure arrogance that has caused the degradation of this industry.My guess - is given the chance you wouldn't even know how to start the engines on one of these birds.... that alone be aware of the thousands of decisions that are made on any given flight every single day.Take the Ctrain next time you plan to cross the country and see how that works for ya.SB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Why get bent out of shape? You know what you do. You don't have to explain the importance of that function to anyone be they ignorant or a "pot-stirrer".Trust me (heh! heh!)---lawyers deal with misinformation ALL the time!!And tolerate the abuse inflicted by the misinformed without much more than a sigh of sadness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Trust me (heh! heh!)---lawyers deal with misinformation ALL the time!!But certainly not on this forum, though, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Air scare... pilots of a Qantas plane carrying more than 100 passengers had difficulty landing the plane due to malprogramming.PILOTS flying a Qantas regional service with more than 100 passengers wrestled with shaking joysticks warning of an aerodynamic stall during two botched landing attempts at Kalgoorlie after they unwittingly programmed the flight computers with wrong data.A slip-up by the captain, unnoticed by the co-pilot entering the data, meant the plane's weight was calculated to be almost 9.5 tonnes lighter than it really was, investigators from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau found.That mistake meant the settings for landing angle and speed were wrong for the task, twice triggering automated ''stick shaker'' warnings to alert pilots to an impending aerodynamic stall - when the plane is no longer aerodynamically stable and in danger of dropping from the sky.The first stick shaker warnings triggered at 335 metres, and again during the second landing attempt at 106 metres, before pilots managed to land on a third attempt.But during the landing attempts the pilots had not identified the underlying reason why the plane was unstable, pitching and increasingly difficult to control - mistakenly attributing the shakes to air turbulence.''In response to the stick shaker activations, the flight crew did not follow the prescribed stall recovery procedure and did not perform an immediate go around [aborted landings],'' investigators found.Investigators examining the incident, which occurred on a Boeing 717 flight from Perth under the banner of QantasLink operated by Cobham Aviation Services on October 13, 2010, found a lack of standard cross-checking routines let the data mistake slip through.Although ''well rested'', the captain, who made the initial weight mistake, ''had been subject to numerous [roster] changes that had made it difficult to manage his level of fatigue,'' investigators said.Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/travel/pilots-were-warned-plane-could-drop-from-sky-20120209-1rx4j.html#ixzz1lttNk29k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Although ''well rested'', the captain, who made the initial weight mistake, ''had been subject to numerous [roster] changes that had made it difficult to manage his level of fatigue,'' investigators said.Whaaaaatt ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Although ''well rested'', the captain, who made the initial weight mistake, ''had been subject to numerous [roster] changes that had made it difficult to manage his level of fatigue,'' investigators said.Whaaaaatt ??? This means "he wasn't really rested but met the legal minimum legal requirements". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.