Another FDX MD?
05-04-2009, 10:16 PM
#31
On Reserve
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: ULCC
Posts: 24
Quick Question
I don't work for you guys, and I kind of agree, but...assuming we are all pilots, could it hurt anything at all to share factual info? To my small mind, it seems like mostly a good thing. Obviously we accept that the more we understand about what we and others do wrong, the better off we all might be.
YF
[quote=FedExBusBoy;605608]
YF
[quote=FedExBusBoy;605608]
05-05-2009, 05:56 AM
#35
On Reserve
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 24
OK, I know this is going to sound harsh, and maybe it's meant to be that way, but would guys PLEASE, please, take better care of that damn equipment. I need the company to remain viable, at least for the next 20 years or so.
There's got to be something wrong with the training at FedEx.
Either that or we've got the market cornered on lousy landing pilots.
We never seem to have trouble with takeoffs. Maybe we should identify those pilots with above average landing skills and only let them land the jet, while at the same time identifying those who have superior takeoff skills and only let them do that. Now that would cause some major grief with scheduling. It would make the over 60/under 60 international scheduling issue seem like a walk in the park.
JJ
There's got to be something wrong with the training at FedEx. Either that or we've got the market cornered on lousy landing pilots. We never seem to have trouble with takeoffs. Maybe we should identify those pilots with above average landing skills and only let them land the jet, while at the same time identifying those who have superior takeoff skills and only let them do that. Now that would cause some major grief with scheduling. It would make the over 60/under 60 international scheduling issue seem like a walk in the park.JJ
Last edited by yeah right; 05-05-2009 at 06:06 AM. Reason: typo
05-05-2009, 06:23 AM
#36
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
On the previous page there was a discussion about spoiler deployment on the 757. YES, spoiler deployment causes a pitch up. Deploying the spoilers manually makes the effect MUCH WORSE. The auto system stages the deployment, while the handle does exactly what it says it does without restraint. With the mains on the ground, the deck angle and swept wings, the spoiler panels are way aft and act just like a fully defected up elevator.
Autobrakes 2 helps pull the nose over, as does immediate selection of reverse. Then the nose needs to be flown softly to the tarmac with no delay. Holding the nose wheel off causes several problems:
Autobrakes 2 helps pull the nose over, as does immediate selection of reverse. Then the nose needs to be flown softly to the tarmac with no delay. Holding the nose wheel off causes several problems:
- Tail stops flying at around 100. If the nose is 30 feet in the air something's going to go KABAAM and possibly bend.
- The brakes look at deck angle before going to their max application to avoid the airplane causing #1. If landing on slippery / wet runways, you will not get full application of the brakes until the nose is down.
05-05-2009, 06:30 AM
#37
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
For example, a V1 cut is a rudder maneuver. When a guy would execute a V1 cut with 50% ailerons the instructor would snap him back and make him do V1 cuts over and over with his hands on the culumn and not the yoke. It taught him what his feet were for. ....
The MD11, A300, B757, MD10, and B727 do not fly like an F18
The MD11, A300, B757, MD10, and B727 do not fly like an F18
The 757 is a very pilot friendly airplane.
05-05-2009, 08:58 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,235
05-05-2009, 09:22 AM
#39
On Reserve
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 24
Unfortunately, its bred into our culture. It seems to me that when someone is hired who excelled in their previous life they get a near immediate invitation into the training department. They continue up the training daisy chain and end up running a program. Unfortunately, they never took time out to go out there, fly the line and get any real experience. They have never taken the time to learn transport category fundemental airmanship. Its not the same as a fighter and its not the same as a King Air. Then someone comes along who also lacks fundemental transport category airmanship and they get taught how to land a simulator and not how to land a large aircraft. It gets them through the checkride. How can you teach fundementals that you don't possess yourself? When I came along at other airlines we had airline experienced pilots teaching real fundementals. For example, a V1 cut is a rudder maneuver. When a guy would execute a V1 cut with 50% ailerons the instructor would snap him back and make him do V1 cuts over and over with his hands on the culumn and not the yoke. It taught him what his feet were for. That quality instruction is rare here. Partly because we try to cram a dump truck's worth of material into a brown paper bag sim session and partly because we don't teach fundemental airmanship. I have brought this up in training and get the deer in the headlights "we aren't here to teach people to fly" response. Bull$hit. The MD11, A300, B757, MD10, and B727 do not fly like an F18 and you cannot crank the airport around into the wind. Instructors....You are here to teach people to fly. Accept it. Incidently, ever wonder why when we get another aircraft type our training department representatives have trouble getting through a program outside of our company? My apologies to PB and JH. We could use a lot more of those two guys.
05-05-2009, 09:50 AM
#40
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: MD11 Left
Posts: 62
Unfortunately, its bred into our culture. It seems to me that when someone is hired who excelled in their previous life they get a near immediate invitation into the training department. They continue up the training daisy chain and end up running a program. Unfortunately, they never took time out to go out there, fly the line and get any real experience. They have never taken the time to learn transport category fundemental airmanship. Its not the same as a fighter and its not the same as a King Air. Then someone comes along who also lacks fundemental transport category airmanship and they get taught how to land a simulator and not how to land a large aircraft. It gets them through the checkride. How can you teach fundementals that you don't possess yourself? When I came along at other airlines we had airline experienced pilots teaching real fundementals. For example, a V1 cut is a rudder maneuver. When a guy would execute a V1 cut with 50% ailerons the instructor would snap him back and make him do V1 cuts over and over with his hands on the culumn and not the yoke. It taught him what his feet were for. That quality instruction is rare here. Partly because we try to cram a dump truck's worth of material into a brown paper bag sim session and partly because we don't teach fundemental airmanship. I have brought this up in training and get the deer in the headlights "we aren't here to teach people to fly" response. Bull$hit. The MD11, A300, B757, MD10, and B727 do not fly like an F18 and you cannot crank the airport around into the wind. Instructors....You are here to teach people to fly. Accept it. Incidently, ever wonder why when we get another aircraft type our training department representatives have trouble getting through a program outside of our company? My apologies to PB and JH. We could use a lot more of those two guys.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
