Another FDX MD?
05-05-2009, 10:22 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2005
Posts: 170
There is definitely something wrong here at FDX. Can't quite put my finger on what it is. I bet it was all explained in the Enders Report, however. We do have a "culture identity" problem. The FedEx culture isn't cohesive. It is lots of sub-cultures made up from people's past lives, and none of these seem to be able to communicate or work together towards our current goal. Heck, many aren't quite sure what it is we are all supposed to be doing, because they do their jobs as if they are still in that past life.
05-05-2009, 10:26 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,199
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.
It's a tough business and I am consistantly impressed with the pilots I fly with and the folks who have trained me. FedEx does a good job selecting solid pilots from all walks of life. But at least in the MD-11, I'm not sure any of them are operating at the proficiency levels required to safely accomplish what they are expected to accomplish. I'm not sure if you fix that with training, schedulling or both.
05-05-2009, 10:40 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: missionary
Posts: 320
05-05-2009, 11:16 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Retired
Posts: 3,717
Nicely done. The above becomes even more significant when you take into account that many junior MD-11 FOs run into the 3 landings within 90 days window on a regular basis (at least ANC and LAX FOs). One landing a month (or more typically, 3 in one month followed by none in two months) is not enough to remain proficient. In fact, proficiency is never really attained.
Toss in the fact that most of those landings are made at foreign airports, on the backside of the clock, working with controllers that would scare you more if you could actually understand what they say, and it is a wonder our safety record is as good as it is.
It's a tough business and I am consistantly impressed with the pilots I fly with and the folks who have trained me. FedEx does a good job selecting solid pilots from all walks of life. But at least in the MD-11, I'm not sure any of them are operating at the proficiency levels required to safely accomplish what they are expected to accomplish. I'm not sure if you fix that with training, schedulling or both.
Toss in the fact that most of those landings are made at foreign airports, on the backside of the clock, working with controllers that would scare you more if you could actually understand what they say, and it is a wonder our safety record is as good as it is.
It's a tough business and I am consistantly impressed with the pilots I fly with and the folks who have trained me. FedEx does a good job selecting solid pilots from all walks of life. But at least in the MD-11, I'm not sure any of them are operating at the proficiency levels required to safely accomplish what they are expected to accomplish. I'm not sure if you fix that with training, schedulling or both.
I took the liberty to separate your post into 3 paragraphs, because I see your statements as 2 different issues (Para 1 & Para 3, and then Para 2.)
I agree with your first and third paragraphs in that it's always been difficult for the junior-most guys, especially on the Mad Dog, to get enough stick and rudder time to become and then remain proficient. I don't know how to fix that, so I won't talk any more about it.
However, it's with your second paragraph that I strongly disagree. If you look back at our history, without exception, none of the accidents have happened above 5 feet AGL. By that I mean to say that regardless of where you're landing, be it, Paris, Subic, Hong Kong, Beijing, Almaty, Oakland, New York City (JFK, LGA, or EWR), or Memphis, once you roll out and are established, wings level, on final, below 500 feet, every runway is mostly the same. So the controllers, airport idiosyncrasies, time of day of the landing, etc, etc, play a very minor part in our accidents. No, our accidents have been caused, in my opinion, by a combination of poor computer software (in the case of the MD-11), poor aerodynamic design (again the MD-11), lack of attention to detail, and poor airmanship, caused by any number of reasons, from "get-home-itis", to "I've gotta get the freight there, no matter what", to crewmembers not having the nerve to speak up, when they know they should.
Personally I wish I had some answers, because I believe we have a great crew force, but the amount of accidents we've had has to speak for itself. Something's rotten in Denmark, and I truly hope that a fix can be found. Fly safe out there.
JJ
05-05-2009, 11:27 AM
#45
On Reserve
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 24
Rock,
I took the liberty to separate your post into 3 paragraphs, because I see your statements as 2 different issues (Para 1 & Para 3, and then Para 2.)
I agree with your first and third paragraphs in that it's always been difficult for the junior-most guys, especially on the Mad Dog, to get enough stick and rudder time to become and then remain proficient. I don't know how to fix that, so I won't talk any more about it.
However, it's with your second paragraph that I strongly disagree. If you look back at our history, without exception, none of the accidents have happened above 5 feet AGL. By that I mean to say that regardless of where you're landing, be it, Paris, Subic, Hong Kong, Beijing, Almaty, Oakland, New York City (JFK, LGA, or EWR), or Memphis, once you roll out and are established, wings level, on final, below 500 feet, every runway is mostly the same. So the controllers, airport idiosyncrasies, time of day of the landing, etc, etc, play a very minor part in our accidents. No, our accidents have been caused, in my opinion, by a combination of poor computer software (in the case of the MD-11), poor aerodynamic design (again the MD-11), lack of attention to detail, and poor airmanship, caused by any number of reasons, from "get-home-itis", to "I've gotta get the freight there, no matter what", to crewmembers not having the nerve to speak up, when they know they should.
Personally I wish I had some answers, because I believe we have a great crew force, but the amount of accidents we've had has to speak for itself. Something's rotten in Denmark, and I truly hope that a fix can be found. Fly safe out there.
JJ
I took the liberty to separate your post into 3 paragraphs, because I see your statements as 2 different issues (Para 1 & Para 3, and then Para 2.)
I agree with your first and third paragraphs in that it's always been difficult for the junior-most guys, especially on the Mad Dog, to get enough stick and rudder time to become and then remain proficient. I don't know how to fix that, so I won't talk any more about it.
However, it's with your second paragraph that I strongly disagree. If you look back at our history, without exception, none of the accidents have happened above 5 feet AGL. By that I mean to say that regardless of where you're landing, be it, Paris, Subic, Hong Kong, Beijing, Almaty, Oakland, New York City (JFK, LGA, or EWR), or Memphis, once you roll out and are established, wings level, on final, below 500 feet, every runway is mostly the same. So the controllers, airport idiosyncrasies, time of day of the landing, etc, etc, play a very minor part in our accidents. No, our accidents have been caused, in my opinion, by a combination of poor computer software (in the case of the MD-11), poor aerodynamic design (again the MD-11), lack of attention to detail, and poor airmanship, caused by any number of reasons, from "get-home-itis", to "I've gotta get the freight there, no matter what", to crewmembers not having the nerve to speak up, when they know they should.
Personally I wish I had some answers, because I believe we have a great crew force, but the amount of accidents we've had has to speak for itself. Something's rotten in Denmark, and I truly hope that a fix can be found. Fly safe out there.
JJ
05-05-2009, 12:15 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,235
I have gotten the pitch up on a 76 after an autotland that has been discussed.
05-05-2009, 05:59 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: 777
Posts: 358
05-05-2009, 07:01 PM
#48
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 83
Rock,
However, it's with your second paragraph that I strongly disagree. If you look back at our history, without exception, none of the accidents have happened above 5 feet AGL. By that I mean to say that regardless of where you're landing, be it, Paris, Subic, Hong Kong, Beijing, Almaty, Oakland, New York City (JFK, LGA, or EWR), or Memphis, once you roll out and are established, wings level, on final, below 500 feet, every runway is mostly the same. So the controllers, airport idiosyncrasies, time of day of the landing, etc, etc, play a very minor part in our accidents. No, our accidents have been caused, in my opinion, by a combination of poor computer software (in the case of the MD-11), poor aerodynamic design (again the MD-11), lack of attention to detail, and poor airmanship, caused by any number of reasons, from "get-home-itis", to "I've gotta get the freight there, no matter what", to crewmembers not having the nerve to speak up, when they know they should.
JJ
However, it's with your second paragraph that I strongly disagree. If you look back at our history, without exception, none of the accidents have happened above 5 feet AGL. By that I mean to say that regardless of where you're landing, be it, Paris, Subic, Hong Kong, Beijing, Almaty, Oakland, New York City (JFK, LGA, or EWR), or Memphis, once you roll out and are established, wings level, on final, below 500 feet, every runway is mostly the same. So the controllers, airport idiosyncrasies, time of day of the landing, etc, etc, play a very minor part in our accidents. No, our accidents have been caused, in my opinion, by a combination of poor computer software (in the case of the MD-11), poor aerodynamic design (again the MD-11), lack of attention to detail, and poor airmanship, caused by any number of reasons, from "get-home-itis", to "I've gotta get the freight there, no matter what", to crewmembers not having the nerve to speak up, when they know they should.
JJ
05-05-2009, 07:37 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 329
Ahhh, where to start? I guess at the top:
Wrong. There are no 'invitations' to join the training department, unless you call a posting, an application, recommendations, an interview and giving a presentation during the interview an 'invitation'. Sure sounds like sour grapes to me?
Wrong. With several hundred Flex Instructors and only five track managers, I don't think there's a lot of daisy chain climbing room. Your implication that they are somehow unqualified is also wrong.
I would love to borrow that extremely large brush you're using here to paint my house. Should be able to get the job done in only a couple of passes. I know all Flex Instructors would be ecstatic to have the CBA force the company to let us go to the line every other month, but it doesn't read that way. Also, you're again implying that Flex instructors don't know how to fly 'transport category' aircraft and that we all flew fighters up until the day before we started teaching. Hahahahahahahaha.... You kill me.
I haven't found a sim yet that isn't more squirrely than the aircraft it emulates. If you are trained well enough to pass a checkride in something harder to fly, you should then be able to fly the aircraft. Also, you're blurring the lines of responsibility between Flex Instructors and LCAs. We teach you procedures and emergency responses, LCAs are there to teach you how to fly the real airplane.
Offensive, inflammatory and incorrect statement. You suck at crosswind landings. No proof, but I just know it...
Hang on, I'm writing this down: "A V1 cut is a rudder maneuver..." Any more gems like that would be great and I'm sure we'd love to incorporate them in our training curriculum. Although the majority of posters here hate Flex Instructors, I don't think you'll get a lot of agreement that quality of instruction or instructors here is lacking. Again, sounds sort of sour grape-ish.
The job of a Flex Instructor is to teach you proficiency in procedures and maneuvers delineated by 121 App E or the applicable AQP syllabus. We will teach you to the best of our abilities to 'fly', but it's just the sim. The real 'flying' instruction is on the line. Again the confusion between Flex and LCA. Also, that rather enormous chip on your shoulder against military guys is showing just a teensy-weensy bit...
I know of one isolated incident. That's it. Never heard of any other Flex or LCA/SCAs having a lick of problems. Again, you suck at crosswind landings. Since I'm saying it, it must be true...
Offensive, inflammatory and incorrect statement. You suck at crosswind landings. No proof, but I just know it...
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.
I know of one isolated incident. That's it. Never heard of any other Flex or LCA/SCAs having a lick of problems. Again, you suck at crosswind landings. Since I'm saying it, it must be true...
05-05-2009, 09:49 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: 11 Capt
Posts: 509
Ahhh, where to start? I guess at the top:
I haven't found a sim yet that isn't more squirrely than the aircraft it emulates. If you are trained well enough to pass a checkride in something harder to fly, you should then be able to fly the aircraft. Also, you're blurring the lines of responsibility between Flex Instructors and LCAs. We teach you procedures and emergency responses, LCAs are there to teach you how to fly the real airplane.
I know of one isolated incident. That's it. Never heard of any other Flex or LCA/SCAs having a lick of problems. Again, you suck at crosswind landings. Since I'm saying it, it must be true...
I haven't found a sim yet that isn't more squirrely than the aircraft it emulates. If you are trained well enough to pass a checkride in something harder to fly, you should then be able to fly the aircraft. Also, you're blurring the lines of responsibility between Flex Instructors and LCAs. We teach you procedures and emergency responses, LCAs are there to teach you how to fly the real airplane.
I know of one isolated incident. That's it. Never heard of any other Flex or LCA/SCAs having a lick of problems. Again, you suck at crosswind landings. Since I'm saying it, it must be true...
IMHO anyway......
Past...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
