United Airlines pilots raise training concerns

Discussion in 'United Airlines | MileagePlus' started by gobluetwo, Nov 16, 2011.  |  Print Topic

  1. gobluetwo
    Original Member

    gobluetwo Silver Member

    Messages:
    806
    Likes Received:
    1,012
    Status Points:
    825
    http://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...nited-airlines-pilots-raise-training-concerns

    Snippets below:
    Now, I know nothing about any of this sort of stuff.
    1) How significant are the changes to the procedures? The article seems to suggest that they are very different from before, causing all sorts of distractions and mistakes.
    2) What type of training typically requires use of simulators? Are these changes drastic enough that classroom-based learning is insufficient?
    3) How much of this is posturing and how much of this is a realistic concern?

    EDIT: Ok, so looks like Seth blogged about it yesterday...
    http://boardingarea.com/blogs/thewanderingaramean/2011/11/dont-forget-the-landing-gear/
     
  2. Wandering Aramean
    Original Member

    Wandering Aramean Gold Member

    Messages:
    28,236
    Likes Received:
    61,785
    Status Points:
    20,020
    My post from yesterday was a bit dismissive of the pilot claims based on the examples they gave, but I have no idea just how significant the differences in the processes are. Still, any pilot who is claiming they are forgetting to put down the gear because of this sort of thing is suspect to me.

    I also do not believe that Congress is the appropriate avenue for such disputes. That said, the pilots already lost in court so they're going for whatever's next and they think this is it.
     
    LETTERBOY likes this.
  3. gobluetwo
    Original Member

    gobluetwo Silver Member

    Messages:
    806
    Likes Received:
    1,012
    Status Points:
    825
    I tend to agree with you that no matter major the changes in procedures, forgetting to put down the landing gear because of it just seems unbelievable. That's exactly why I asked the 3rd question - given the contract negotiations, it did initially strike me as posturing, but I know so little about it that I wasn't sure if it was common sense or my own presuppositions speaking.
     
  4. Flyer1976
    Original Member

    Flyer1976 Gold Member

    Messages:
    28,247
    Likes Received:
    33,912
    Status Points:
    20,020
    As someone who worked as a Flight Safety Analyst and is well versed with Training for a Part 121/135 Carrier, I do think the Union claims are valid but to what extent is it valid...

    This is for Recurrent Training that all Pilots are required to take every year to be kept current on their Type Rating, I personally do not think slideshows or PowerPoint entirely would cut it, Simulator Time is very important with Line Check Airmen and Training Staff as well as they can catch errors and mistakes right there instead of while on the line which is more risk-adverse.
     
  5. Fredd
    Original Member

    Fredd Gold Member

    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    3,181
    Status Points:
    1,970
    Mrs. Fredd pointed this out to me this morning in one of newspapers we had aboard (WSJ or USA Today) just before takeoff SEA-IAD on #916. Her timing, as always, is impeccable. :D

    Any time any union makes claims I don't automatically accept them at face value. However, from pilots; comments I've read on FT , I'd infer that UA pilots may well have a legitimate complaint.
     
    FriendlySkies and goalie like this.
  6. Wandering Aramean
    Original Member

    Wandering Aramean Gold Member

    Messages:
    28,236
    Likes Received:
    61,785
    Status Points:
    20,020
    How does that fence you're sitting on feel?? ;)


    I cannot imagine that it is anything more than posturing. Sure, they are concerned about training and safety. But I believe they are more concerned about their contract negotiations.
     
    gobluetwo and LETTERBOY like this.
  7. Flyer1976
    Original Member

    Flyer1976 Gold Member

    Messages:
    28,247
    Likes Received:
    33,912
    Status Points:
    20,020
    Think someone forgot to install barbed or razor wire for their amusement on teh fence. :p

    Still... it's all about posturing and contract negotiations... ALPA will not give a concession if they don't get something in return.
     
  8. Wandering Aramean
    Original Member

    Wandering Aramean Gold Member

    Messages:
    28,236
    Likes Received:
    61,785
    Status Points:
    20,020
    I think you're missing a word here. :confused:
     
  9. Flyer1976
    Original Member

    Flyer1976 Gold Member

    Messages:
    28,247
    Likes Received:
    33,912
    Status Points:
    20,020
    Good catch it's the bier typing... I've edited my post. I must have been thinking of the Qantas Pilot Group :rolleyes:...
     
  10. HeathrowGuy
    Original Member

    HeathrowGuy Gold Member

    Messages:
    7,131
    Likes Received:
    10,591
    Status Points:
    12,520
    The airline business often operates on the principle of "tombstone technology", so I wouldn't expect any legitimate concerns to get properly addressed regardless.
     
  11. Misplaced Texan
    Original Member

    Misplaced Texan Gold Member

    Messages:
    16,878
    Likes Received:
    26,177
    Status Points:
    20,020
    I don't have a clue about the legitimacy of the concerns, but having played on one side or the other of these kinds of deals before, here's how the information was almost certainly gathered...

    ALPA hired a consultant who distributed a "survey" (I say "survey" because these things are usually sent to everyone and response is usually left up to self-selection and not much else) to the pilots that contained incredibly leading questions along the nature of "Please give your best estimate of the number of times these new procedures have caused safety issues in flight or on or near an active runway." and "Please use this space to list any incidents where new procedures impeded your ability to operate the aircraft safely. Please provide as many details of the safety issue and possible consequences as possible."

    The consultant then tallies the number of reported "safety" incidents and re-codes the open-ended responses into categories to arrive at x number of issues on approach, y number of near-runway incursions, etc. They, of course, make no effort at all to validate the responses against FAA data or anything else.

    But they go further. They take the most salacious examples and quote them verbatim. If they don't get anything sexy enough, they may re-contact the most obviously disgruntled folks and try to get them to push the narrative even further.

    That's how you wind up with these great attention grabbers about "so distracted they didn't drop the landing gear until seconds before landing."

    I don't know enough to know whether there are real safety issues with the new training procedures. But I do know enough to know that this "report" is unlikely to contain anything like independently validated safety data.
     
  12. tom911
    Original Member

    tom911 Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,005
    Likes Received:
    3,183
    Status Points:
    2,070
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...nion-leaders-crossing-a-line-.html?cmpid=yhoo

    So much for working together.
     
    LETTERBOY likes this.

Share This Page