Of Passing interest.
A referred topic from the UP relating to the DAPS. I grew up using DAP and, FWIW, have always preferred using them. But, Jepps and the Aerad have served their turn, and after a while, they become as familiar as the DAP. There is some sound advice offered on thread, the OP moans of 'confusion' – best answer came from Dr Pixie - “
“Find the new index(s) of pages, and build yourself a new DAP containing those pages”.
Simple enough solution from the old school, which was quite capable of helping itself, QED. Done it myself, (twice) tedious but only for a coffee (or two). Then, the EFB question came up. Personalty, I have no quarrel with a 'built in' system, hard wired, great kit, once you have worked out how to use them (properly). A definite improvement. Not so certain about having a thing like an 'I-pad' floating about the cockpit (sans proper certified fitting). For mine, too twitchy – fiddly and difficult to secure in a position where the 'glare' is removed from the business end of the panel, difficult to adjust in the bumps, one touch, in the wrong place at the wrong time – game over. But that's just IMHO.
Duck Pilot weighed into the discussion, - HERE - raising some points worthy of 'genteel' discussion, for instance:-
“Probably because CASA don’t allow candidates to use EFBs in the exam.”
If not, why not? Perhaps this could be 'optional' – lots of the younger troops can use these things at lightning speed; no fumbles and they are within their 'comfort zone' of a familiar data source. It could be argued that if all else fails, then a nodding familiarity with the 'paper work' version could be an asset. Of course, there is always the spectre of 'cheating' to consider; perhaps that underscores the prohibition – who knows.
“Why are they still using the 727 in the exam?”
Why not? Among the toughest exams the Brits have is a tricky confection known as 'Performance A'. I can still see the book sat on my shelves. Tough course and difficult exam (negative marked); but the benefits produced outweigh the effort. There exists a real life 'need' for an understanding of legal pitfalls, performance limitations and operational advantages; irrespective of the air frame presented; the 727 serves this purpose very well indeed. The traps for the uneducated apply across the base principles, every day.
“CASA are grossly disconnected from the industry that it’s now beyond the joke.”
Trooo Dat -
“Pure academic exam that has absolutely no bearing on assessing the candidates or aviation safety.”
That is a notion which, if debated, would end up 50/50 Yeah and Nay. Many of the 'complexities' of flight planning have been removed, particularly for longer range flights; time and potential error removed. Computers do a terrific job; provided the 'right' ' information is punched in; a standard plan modulated to the expected conditions is a very efficient tool – but, (had to be one) – IMO the PIC needs to have the ability and 'savvy' to call for amendment – step around some weather or 'bumps' or whatever, within the bounds of sanity. That extra ton or two of motion lotion – to be sure, to be sure. I do wonder though, if an additional module in computer 'logic' would be worth the trouble; the thing can't 'think' or 'feel' for itself; and, for the humble pagan to understand 'what's it doing' and why' could be of assistance – don't know, just saying.....
“Same can be said for the MCC rubbish. Initial Part 121 type rating should satisfy the MCC requirements, but what would we know??”
Gee whiz! The ultimate in Pandora's box technology – the human being.
“Pandora's box is a metaphor for something that brings about great troubles or misfortune, but also holds hope. In Greek mythology, Pandora's box was a gift from the gods to Pandora, the first woman on Earth. It contained all the evils of the world, which were released when Pandora opened the box.”
Operating two crew with the right folk is priceless, I've flown with guys and girls who were exactly that; and, the other sort. They come in all flavors, but the right 'stuff' – not the corporate (HR) version, which is firmly at the bottom of my top ten list, is terrific.. HR know sweet sod all about operating an aircraft when the 'what's-it' hits the windmill. And, IMO its there, in that moment, that the differences manifest. What I have noted is the 'differences' – only when it matters – once, perhaps twice in a career; it is going to tell the tale; and no one knows, not until that point, whether or not the Capt or FO is or is not worthy of the title. A formal course – v 121 type rating? May/ perhaps tick some of the 'requirement' boxes, but at the end, IMO it all depends on how 'plugged – in' the other player is to the game at hand. Jury out on that one.
“More like a money making exercise for a select few who have their noses in the trough. Corporate conflict of interest comes to mind…. “
More and more of this we see, almost on a daily basis. Look no further than the DAS and her used car salesman; any Estimates session will do. Aviation managed by a bunch, the majority of which would;d hardly know which end the smoke comes out of. Until CASA is restored to 'design function' and crewed by professionals; then the likes of AMROBA and other 'professional bodies' will continue to be ignored while the industry continues to decline; slowly sinking into the mud, blood and shit of a bureaucracy Hell bent on money, control and power, carefully discarding any and all semblance of 'operational common or garden sense. We could probably do without those who shamelessly pander and accept the rubbish dished out as 'making us safer'. BOLLOCKS.~!
A referred topic from the UP relating to the DAPS. I grew up using DAP and, FWIW, have always preferred using them. But, Jepps and the Aerad have served their turn, and after a while, they become as familiar as the DAP. There is some sound advice offered on thread, the OP moans of 'confusion' – best answer came from Dr Pixie - “
“Find the new index(s) of pages, and build yourself a new DAP containing those pages”.
Simple enough solution from the old school, which was quite capable of helping itself, QED. Done it myself, (twice) tedious but only for a coffee (or two). Then, the EFB question came up. Personalty, I have no quarrel with a 'built in' system, hard wired, great kit, once you have worked out how to use them (properly). A definite improvement. Not so certain about having a thing like an 'I-pad' floating about the cockpit (sans proper certified fitting). For mine, too twitchy – fiddly and difficult to secure in a position where the 'glare' is removed from the business end of the panel, difficult to adjust in the bumps, one touch, in the wrong place at the wrong time – game over. But that's just IMHO.
Duck Pilot weighed into the discussion, - HERE - raising some points worthy of 'genteel' discussion, for instance:-
“Probably because CASA don’t allow candidates to use EFBs in the exam.”
If not, why not? Perhaps this could be 'optional' – lots of the younger troops can use these things at lightning speed; no fumbles and they are within their 'comfort zone' of a familiar data source. It could be argued that if all else fails, then a nodding familiarity with the 'paper work' version could be an asset. Of course, there is always the spectre of 'cheating' to consider; perhaps that underscores the prohibition – who knows.
“Why are they still using the 727 in the exam?”
Why not? Among the toughest exams the Brits have is a tricky confection known as 'Performance A'. I can still see the book sat on my shelves. Tough course and difficult exam (negative marked); but the benefits produced outweigh the effort. There exists a real life 'need' for an understanding of legal pitfalls, performance limitations and operational advantages; irrespective of the air frame presented; the 727 serves this purpose very well indeed. The traps for the uneducated apply across the base principles, every day.
“CASA are grossly disconnected from the industry that it’s now beyond the joke.”
Trooo Dat -
“Pure academic exam that has absolutely no bearing on assessing the candidates or aviation safety.”
That is a notion which, if debated, would end up 50/50 Yeah and Nay. Many of the 'complexities' of flight planning have been removed, particularly for longer range flights; time and potential error removed. Computers do a terrific job; provided the 'right' ' information is punched in; a standard plan modulated to the expected conditions is a very efficient tool – but, (had to be one) – IMO the PIC needs to have the ability and 'savvy' to call for amendment – step around some weather or 'bumps' or whatever, within the bounds of sanity. That extra ton or two of motion lotion – to be sure, to be sure. I do wonder though, if an additional module in computer 'logic' would be worth the trouble; the thing can't 'think' or 'feel' for itself; and, for the humble pagan to understand 'what's it doing' and why' could be of assistance – don't know, just saying.....
“Same can be said for the MCC rubbish. Initial Part 121 type rating should satisfy the MCC requirements, but what would we know??”
Gee whiz! The ultimate in Pandora's box technology – the human being.
“Pandora's box is a metaphor for something that brings about great troubles or misfortune, but also holds hope. In Greek mythology, Pandora's box was a gift from the gods to Pandora, the first woman on Earth. It contained all the evils of the world, which were released when Pandora opened the box.”
Operating two crew with the right folk is priceless, I've flown with guys and girls who were exactly that; and, the other sort. They come in all flavors, but the right 'stuff' – not the corporate (HR) version, which is firmly at the bottom of my top ten list, is terrific.. HR know sweet sod all about operating an aircraft when the 'what's-it' hits the windmill. And, IMO its there, in that moment, that the differences manifest. What I have noted is the 'differences' – only when it matters – once, perhaps twice in a career; it is going to tell the tale; and no one knows, not until that point, whether or not the Capt or FO is or is not worthy of the title. A formal course – v 121 type rating? May/ perhaps tick some of the 'requirement' boxes, but at the end, IMO it all depends on how 'plugged – in' the other player is to the game at hand. Jury out on that one.
“More like a money making exercise for a select few who have their noses in the trough. Corporate conflict of interest comes to mind…. “
More and more of this we see, almost on a daily basis. Look no further than the DAS and her used car salesman; any Estimates session will do. Aviation managed by a bunch, the majority of which would;d hardly know which end the smoke comes out of. Until CASA is restored to 'design function' and crewed by professionals; then the likes of AMROBA and other 'professional bodies' will continue to be ignored while the industry continues to decline; slowly sinking into the mud, blood and shit of a bureaucracy Hell bent on money, control and power, carefully discarding any and all semblance of 'operational common or garden sense. We could probably do without those who shamelessly pander and accept the rubbish dished out as 'making us safer'. BOLLOCKS.~!