Tartan Monkey

Yeah, given the suddenness of it, you wouldn't have heard much except perhaps the explosion. It doesn't really add much to the investigation. Again the flight data recorder wouldn't tell them much. Incidentally I was flying an hour ahead of the Malaysian that was shot down on exactly the same route. Had a LARGE whisky when I got home that night. Not nice at all.

In all honesty I don't know. The airlines I worked for post 9-11 doors, always had 2 people in the cockpit when one of the pilots went out. It was left up to the airline to do as the please. I guess that will change now, it will become mandatory.

Yes. That is the PPL syllabus, which most of us did before embarking on professional training. Anyway, back to your point. Comparing difficulty level of building aeroplanes (I assume you mean designing) and flying one is like saying it's harder to design a formula 1 car than to drive one. It's a different set of skills. You are not comparing apples with apples, but I will agree to say, yes they are both difficult. By the way you can buy kit planes and build one in your garage, I know several people who have. As for the multi choice exam. The UK CAA didn't alway provide the correct answer, they sometimes provided 4 incorrect answers, it was up to us to determine which one was the most correct. Also many of the questions had triple negatives, so working out that they were asking was a challange. Every question that had an equation to work out always has the correct (or most correct) answer and the 3 answers with the most common mistakes to lead you there. Also they used to be negatively marked, so everyone you got wrong got marks off. You didn't dare guess. Anyway. Thanks for the discussion. If nothing else you now have googled all the info on getting a PPL, so get out there and take some flying lessons...... You might enjoy it!

Agreed. It was the first Boeing that embraced CAD. After the first few airframes were built they went on a rigorous flight test schedule flown by the test pilots and flight test engineers. So it's a collaborative process. I don't think anyone said that engineers didn't design aeroplanes.

Yes I can imagine life without TCAS, I flew before we had it. No, we can't do the job of 4 people, 2 pilots now do the job of 3 (we have no flight engineer). Again though an increase in technology brings its own problems. Of course it has made things safer in general, but we now fly aeroplanes that can fly for 17-18hrs non stop, so imagine what that does to the body. In the 1980s that didn't happen. We do not have thermal imaging on commercial aeroplanes. Technology is great when it works. Ever heard of the Qantas A380 that had the uncontained engine failure out of Singapore? The computer designed systems failed, fed the pilots a lot of bad information, locked them out of certain controls and had it not been for the pilots on the flight deck everyone would have died.

Like I said..... Mutual respect.

My point is that not many people get a PPL with 45 hrs. Regardless I believe you are comparing the ability required to attain a recreational flying licence with the requirements for a professional flying licence. It's like comparing someone that owns a sail boat to the captain of the QM2. It's similar in basics only. Not really sure what the significance of the multiple choice question papers are. Have you ever seen them? They are by no means easy. The pass mark is 75% per paper, of which there were 15 exams. these are taken in 2 blocks over 3 days. You must pass all exams at 75% to pass the ground school subjects. There are then 5 flying tests to pass in the aircraft (not including simulator). Then once you get a licence you need to get a job, which can take years, I was very lucky. You then do an intensive ground school course on the actual aircraft you will be flying (737/A320 whatever). Once you pass that you must undertake simulator training on the specific aircraft. Once that is done you will move onto all the safety and security courses, first aid, human factors, legal training and company procedures. Then you get to fly the aeroplane, but only under training which is very intense and to a high standard. Once the training is finished you are released "to the line" to commence passenger operations. Every 6 months you spend 2 days in the classroom and 2 days in the simulator under assessment. If you don't perform your job is on the line. Also you must pass your medical a flying "line check" every year. The cost of the training to get you the to that first job is around £100,000 - 150,000, which you need to find and pay. So I'm not sure why you are intent on making out like it's easy and that we do nothing.

I think you should stay away from playing flight sim on the computer and watching the movies. What makes you think that the core skills are not as high? What era are you comparing today with? Also how do you know if piloting is "far easier"? What technology are you referring to?

A single engine prop is not an "airliner", and no you cannot fly with passengers as that would be flying "for higher or reward" for wich you require a minimum of a commercial pilots licence. You are talking about a private pilots licence, and 45 hrs is a MINIMUM.

Aeroplanes can and do operate regularly without ATC, but ATC can't operate without pilots. We have a mutual respect, but the reality is that they are there because of us, not the other way round.

It very much depends on the airline you work for. Like every job, there are good employers and there are bad. However the pressures to save costs, and the amount of legislation is increasing every year. Pressure is certainly higher than 10 years ago.

No, an engineer couldn't pilot a public transport aircraft in a year. To get to that level of proficiency it takes the same amount of time, if not longer than it takes to become an engineer. It took me 13 and a half years to become a captain from my first flying lesson, 7 years from my first flight with an airline. To captain a wide body it has taken 20 years from first flying lesson which is 16 years from first airline flight. Pilots terms and conditions have been constantly degraded over the years. Pilots are by no means held in the same esteem as years gone by.

I'd be happy to give my opinion if you like. I'm an airline pilot, I have been for the past 16 years. I have flown regional turbo props around the Mainland UK and the Scottish Highlands ans Islands. I've flown Boeing 737,757,767 and I have flown as both first officer and captain. I current fly the Boeing 777 all over the world and I now live in the Middle East. I have over 9000hrs flying time and I started to learn to fly when I was still at school aged 16 (20 years ago). Now that you have my CV, let's have a chat about what pilots do and don't do........ First of all I'd like to say that this incident made me feel physically sick. Even now I cannot get my head around it. Many of my friends and colleagues feel the same. This guy obviously hid his illness very well, although it now turns out that the German aviation authorities knew about his illness and decided that he needed regular psychiatric evaluation. I find it shocking that he wasn't grounded. Let's rememebr pilots are human beings too. Work stress, divorce, lack of career opportunities, bereavement, financial strains all affect pilots the same way they affect everyone. Unfortunately our industry isn't so forgiving when it comes to this. One isn't seem to have "the right stuff" if one was to admit to problems. We are supposed to get on with things. Personally I hope that this incident raises the issue and allows those who suffer and can't cope, to get the help they need. The locked flight deck door came into our professional lives in the wake of 9-11. It's a necessary evil. We simply cannot achieve 100% security and 100% safety. It's not a line that the public want to hear, but we can't achieve it in every day life either. Since 1997 there have been 3 pilot murder/suicides that I am aware of (including Tuesday's). It's not a regular occurrence, but it sadly has happened in the past. I most certainly do not think that remotely flown aircraft is the answer. The technology simply is not there to support such a thing and I can't see it in my lifetime. There are a multitude of things that happen on flights everyday that require a pilot to deal with that a computer couldn't. Unmanned Aircraft crash on a regular basis, I know of one UAV designer who says he would never fly on a remotely flown airliner. Pilots are highly trained, highly dedecated people who take their profession very seriously. We do not sit and look out the window doing nothing. The aeroplane cannot take off on its own, we land the aeroplane whenever we can. We usually only use the autoland facility when the visibility dictates that we must, it isn't us being lazy, it isn't that we can't fly in fog, but regulations dictate that we must autoland when visibility is low. This allows us to monitor the systems and to obtain the legally required visual minimus at our decision height to safely land the aeroplane under these conditions. To get back to the point, I think that this is a very rare event, an absolute tragedy for everyone involved. It has shaken the entire industry, but as we do in this business we will learn from it. Things will change to reduce the likelihood of this happening again, and as I said hopefully those who need the help will get it. If there are any specific questions then fire away.

About flying an aeroplane? I doubt it.

UPROAR, what is your experience in the aviation industry? How long have you been flying? You seem to know what pilots do (or don't) so please tell all.

I used to fly those many moons ago, not for Loganair though...... and I never went off the side. I came fairly close once in Kirkwall one night. It was blowing a gale, pretty standard weather for Kirkwall.