Dangerous Flights- Discovery Channel

Veloce

Anybody been watching this? Single engined North Atlantic crossings via Canada / Greenland / Iceland / Northern Scotland :eek:

EchoIndia

Hyped up no end and the MD of the company comes across as a jerk - which may of course be unfair to him, as he sems to have sound and experienced ferry crew working for him. There is probably ten minutes of good material per episode.

LeftBase

EchoIndia wrote: »

Hyped up no end and the MD of the company comes across as a jerk - which may of course be unfair to him, as he sems to have sound and experienced ferry crew working for him. There is probably ten minutes of good material per episode.

"Cory and Brad arrive at this isolated airport. They're low on fuel and still shaken from the fright they got when we milked the Transponder interrogation light flashing and the alt alert sounding. But things are about to get much worse as they discover this airport has no chocolate biscuits. They're going to have to make do with rich tea and hope they can make it to their next stop"

It's total sensationalist BS! And a lot of the pilots come across as arrogant dickheads. The pure ignorance they show sometimes is shocking. An example being the 2 muppets in that UN Dornier over Africa. They were denied a direct route through military airspace and complained about it endlessly. The ridiculous thing was they were attempting a leg their aircraft barely had the endurance to complete!

They also have some great shots of "isolated and alone aircraft" from their chase planes....

The owner is not a pilot. He's a class example of the clueless fools the FAA hand ratings out to like sweets!

Storm 10

One thing I noticed about the UN flight was the lightning looked very fake, its a total rubbish programme tbh.

EI-DOR

Why would the lighting be fake? Unless they recorded the whole thing in a Simulator.

Last nights episode showed two numpties ferrying a Phenom from Australia to Vegas. Why in gods name would they put a Pilot in the other seat who has no experience of using Glass Cockpits. They got themselves into a right pickle at one stage. Stalled the aircraft and thankfully got out of it.

The chap who owns the Company is a right pillock. No regard for safety what so ever. Ridiculous show!

Irish Steve

Have just caught up on the episodes that were recorded while I was away.

Way too much sensationalism, and some pretty poor continuity, wrong engine sounds, wrong runways, all sorts of things that are annoying to people who have any reasonable aviation experience.

I suspect the Phenom can be flown single crewed, but there have been so many changes to these regulations now, its hard to know what's going on.

The owner pushes too hard, and is in danger of becoming an accident statistic if he's not careful.

Smaller types like King Air and Bonanza's don't require a type rating in the way that an Airbus or Boeing etc do, but if you don't have detailed knowledge of the type, you're an accident waiting to happen, as we saw with the Phenom when the pressurisation issue happened. The other aspect is that I was amazed how long it took for someone to get on to Oxygen, unless they were still at lower level, and also amazed that they didn't declare a PAN call so that ATC had a better idea of why they were no longer flying according to their plan, getting "in the way" of a 330 is not a good idea, so telling ATC what's going on is not a bad idea.

The Bonanza having to overfly because they didn't have the night landing clearance! Thst's the sort of mistale that a student makes, and learns from, and a professional pilot that doesn't read the AIC for the destination and find out about those sorts of restrictions and limitations is missing the plot somewhere. OK, the commercial world of airlines has a flight operations department that does all that sort of work on behalf of the crews, so they are in many respects spoon fed from the time they enter the flight deck to the time they leave, and I suppose that highlights the lack of GA experience of so many people, way too many pilots haven't had to deal with in depth long distance flight planning, which is more than just working out the fuel and going, it's also about all the other peripheral things that are essential to making sure that the flight does get where it's supposed to, and safely, and that there's a Plan B for the time when Plan A goes pear shaped.

I just hope this series isn't giving some of the low hours CPL holders who desperately need hours to get to their frozen ATPL's ideas that they shouldn't get, this program is so shallow in so many areas, it is in danger of glamourising what is probably one of the most dangerous flying jobs that's out there.

There are some reasonable bits, but way too much has been tweaked to make it palatable for short attention span TV viewing.

EI-DOR

Couldn't agree more Steve. Their first stop of the trip in Indonesia near landed them in prison over lack of papers. Anybody flying into that part of the world with no papers deserves to be locked up. It's not hard to have the correct documents on board the ac. Then again it's probably a nightmare sorting the paper work out for some countries.

The other aspect is that I was amazed how long it took for someone to get on to Oxygen

What was the craic with just one of them putting the Oxygen Mask on?

EchoIndia

LeftBase wrote: »

the pure ignorance they show sometimes is shocking. An example being the 2 muppets in that UN Dornier over Africa. They were denied a direct route through military airspace and complained about it endlessly. The ridiculous thing was they were attempting a leg their aircraft barely had the endurance to complete!

Of course, while the programme suggested that they barely had enough fuel to make their destination, this was never really explained. Wouldn't they have had to have holding plus diversion fuel as per legal requirements? It was never actually said that they were at risk of the tanks running dry before they got there, and the crew's "fuel critical" references might have been partly to add "spice" for TV.

el tel

It's all a big load of hammed up horse****. Or to be less critical, it's purely for entertainment. Most of the 'situations' are contrived. For each trip you could probably cobble together an entire programe's worth of narrative in a 20 minute flight.

Pilotdude5

I may not be an experienced pilot but I too think it's a load of bollix. The programming on Discovery and Nat Geo has become atrocious in the last 5 years if you ask me.

What ever happened to proper documentaries?

notreal

Finding some of the comments here interesting. Watched some of the programmes and thought how it managed to convey just how hairy flying a light single IFR into a strange airfield with very iffy weather can be.

The Phenom near stall incident did remind me of one or two moments.

Can't help feeling there are some really confident really low time pilots on this forum.

Good luck boys, hope the real world doesn't bite your arse! Ha ha.

Oh sure it's all a bit hyped. TV always is. But look carefully. It's clear that the Captains in this series know their job. You can only wish you ever get to that level of experience.

basill

It's clear that the Captains in this series know their job. You can only wish you ever get to that level of experience.

You think so? I think it highlights a big weakness in the FAA system whereby someone without a type rating nor IR can operate in the RHS effectively piggy backing off the guy in the LHS. The "alleged" near stall of the phenom showed that a guy with high hours on pistons but NONE on a glass cockpit could have potentially had a CFIT if it wasn't for the captain taking control. He had never flown a jet, not read the manuals, had no type rating and I am not sure if he even has an instrument rating. Had the captain been incapacitated at all during the flight then it is unclear if there would have been a successful outcome.

During the "alleged" pressurisation problem the time of useful consciousness would have been well exceeded. Thankfully we can only assume since they landed afterwards that they weren't above 14,000ft at all so presumably it was all madey uppey. I am sure that even a shoddy operator would have a memory drill requiring oxygen masks to be worn at the first inkling of the aircraft depressurising soon followed by an emergency descent if deemed necessary.

Anyway if it was all true then I am sure the FAA would have been all over them and closed down the ferry business.

Irish Steve

Those weaknesses are not just in the FAA system, but we'll stick with that for the momemt, as that's the focus of the discussion.

A number of years ago, I went over to California to do a SE & ME CPL and IR, to add to the existing licences I already had from the UK. Arrived in, having sent all the information of time, types etc to the FTO, and was put with an instructor, and off we went. We flew together once, I came back from the first flight to a discussion with the owner of the FTO, and made it very clear that I was not prepared to fly with that instructor again, he'd been sh1tting himself for most of the flight, the reason being very simple, while he was indeed an instructor, his total ME time was somewhere in the very low double digits, and at that time, I had close on 600 Hrs in my log book, with most of it on ME aircraft similar to the one I was flying for the CPL, so I was naturally and comfortably doing things in the Seneca that the instructor hadn't a clue about, and as a result, he was way out of his comfort zone, and way out of his experience zone as well. Result was a rapid change of instructor, and that solved the problem, as the new guy had lots of experience flying as part of their other operations, so when we got together, he was able to see that I too had been doing a lot of solo flying in a twin, so we got on very well, and it all worked out, but it was very clear to me that the original instructor would have been in trouble with some of the scenarios that were completely comfortable for me.

We have similar issues here in Europe, the Manx crash at Cork is a case in point, the First Officer didn't have a lot of experience of that type of aircraft, and the Captain was a new command, so while he had time on type, his command experience was limited. That's the way that the beancounters have the industry screwed up now, another example is the AF 330 crash in the Atlantic, where a flyable aircraft was stalled into the sea killing all on board, because the crew didn't have enough experience in dealing with unreliable airspeed. That's basic IFR training, and for a crew on a large heavy aircraft to not have the skills to deal with that level of problem is fundamentally worrying.

OK, we've drifted some from the original thread, but what I'm mentioning here is just another manifestation of the way that the industry has changed in ways that are ( in my view) detrimental to the good of the industry. The race to the bottom that has spawned things like self funded type ratings, and many other similar "cost cuttings" are having a detrimental effect on the long term safety of the industry, and it's not just the low cost carriers that are suffering the bad effects.

LeftBase

basill wrote: »

You think so? I think it highlights a big weakness in the FAA system whereby someone without a type rating nor IR can operate in the RHS effectively piggy backing off the guy in the LHS. The "alleged" near stall of the phenom showed that a guy with high hours on pistons but NONE on a glass cockpit could have potentially had a CFIT if it wasn't for the captain taking control. He had never flown a jet, not read the manuals, had no type rating and I am not sure if he even has an instrument rating. Had the captain been incapacitated at all during the flight then it is unclear if there would have been a successful outcome.

During the "alleged" pressurisation problem the time of useful consciousness would have been well exceeded. Thankfully we can only assume since they landed afterwards that they weren't above 14,000ft at all so presumably it was all madey uppey. I am sure that even a shoddy operator would have a memory drill requiring oxygen masks to be worn at the first inkling of the aircraft depressurising soon followed by an emergency descent if deemed necessary.

Anyway if it was all true then I am sure the FAA would have been all over them and closed down the ferry business.

The point basill highlights also occurred very much to me.

On an awful lot of these ferry flights you have an experienced PIC and then a bag of bones on the RHS. If the PIC on any of the flights was to have any issues with health I would not be confident in the co-pilots to take command of the situation and land the aircraft safely.
Also an awful lot of the flying is done when the pilots are very fatigued it seems and so the normal safety net of a co-pilot is removed. It seems like these co-pilots are not trained to the standard a commercial co-pilot would be and in truth that renders the PICs experience useless in a MC aircraft.

The 1st episode with that boobie prize Cessna with the metal fragments floating in the engine highlighted this very much so. The PIC was very experienced and knew what he was about, however your one beside him seemed totally useless despite her hours. If they were crossing the Atlantic and he was incapacitated I would have zero faith in her to get the aircraft to safety.
Many of the co-pilots have a very "yes sir, no sir, 3 bags full sir" attitude toward the commander. When they had a fuel leak and he said "I think we should divert to the nearest airport" she just replied "Ok". That is not the response a first officer should give. It should be more along the lines of "I agree" and thus validating the commander's decision. That is what multi-crew ops is about. A co-pilot is there to validate a commander's decisions or to offer a different perspective if he/she believes it is needed. When I did my MCC and my TR we were told that if we did not agree with the commander or did not understand the reasoning behind a decision that we should question it or offer an opinion or make sure we understood the full reasoning. The 2 reasons for this were 1) The commander may be wrong or the FO may have a better plan of action/suggestion than the commander and 2) It promotes command thinking in FOs which can only be good for their future career development(discounting pissing off a Senior Captain;)). It's an almost unwritten company SOP that you never just go along with the Captain, you actively back and give your approval to his/her decision.

In these flights as far as I can see it is a pilot carrying a passenger who on occasion flies a bit if the leg.

aob9

I am a major fan of aviation TV shows but this load of cr@p is a serious letdown. Blatant sensationalism at it's worst. The limits of my real world experience extend to 20 hrs training in a C172 to date. I have learned in this short period that you DO NOT fly fuel critical, you DO carry correct documentation at all times and you DON'T test fly a plane without checking out systems on the ground first. Seriously, the issue with the trim tab should have been identified in the ground, not in the air. I switched it off half way through tonight, utter rubbish.

tankbarry

Im not a pilot and I find it unbelievable. I even know you don'f fly with fuel critical or even if you think its going to be critical. And for your man to be such an experienced pilot and not check everything on the ground is unbelievable.

Johnny901

I think some of the bits we are seeing are made up for the camera, turning up to file a flight plan and discovering the destination is closed (thats happened before), critical on fuel and looking for priority from ATC, almost stalling that exe jet etc etc. The boss ringing and asking them to land in a airfileld in South America with no customs. He couldn't be that stupid, could he ?

LeftBase

Johnny901 wrote: »

. He couldn't be that stupid, could he ?

I think he may just be....

STEVE35

The Boss is an accident waiting to happen, every week just seems to be a serious lack of planning. Looks like they never heard of Notams, Metars or Taf's!

donvito99

If the boss was so worried about deadlines and cash etc., why were two of his pilots pissing about in some sort civilian ex-jet fighter?

basill

Because their clapped out old twin was broken. Well that was what the producers and editors would lead us to believe. They were probably on days off when the jet stuff was filmed.

boboldpilot

I have to say this thread has given me a few laughs. Let's see:

The limits of my real world experience extend to 20 hrs training in a C172 to date.

Good man

Im not a pilot and I find it unbelievable.

The boss ringing and asking them to land in a airfileld in South America with no customs. He couldn't be that stupid, could he ?

The Boss is an accident waiting to happen, every week just seems to be a serious lack of planning. Looks like they never heard of Notams, Metars or Taf's!

It's interesting that most of the real pilots who occasionally contribute to this forum have refrained from posting. Laughing too much I assume. Clearly few of you have no clue about how things operate in the real world. Flight school aces and flight sim experts.

Basill, I have to say came closest to reality but even he missed the point.

It's easy to see that we have a new generation of pilots and fantasists who think they know it all. Many of them came straight of the womb of flight school into a flight department where everything is done for them, yes you Leftbase. God help you if you every had to face the reality of a ferry flight somewhere without some an over staffed operations department to work out the Hotac and all the other boring stuff.

Seriously you are making fools of yourselves, kids.

Yeah the programme is over egged. But those pilots you see are better than you'll ever be.

Keep it up though. I enjoy the laugh!

LeftBase

boboldpilot wrote: »

I have to say this thread has given me a few laughs. Let's see: Good man

It's interesting that most of the real pilots who occasionally contribute to this forum have refrained from posting. Laughing too much I assume. Clearly few of you have no clue about how things operate in the real world. Flight school aces and flight sim experts.

Basill, I have to say came closest to reality but even he missed the point.

It's easy to see that we have a new generation of pilots and fantasists who think they know it all. Many of them came straight of the womb of flight school into a flight department where everything is done for them, yes you Leftbase. God help you if you every had to face the reality of a ferry flight somewhere without some an over staffed operations department to work out the Hotac and all the other boring stuff.

Seriously you are making fools of yourselves, kids.

Yeah the programme is over egged. But those pilots you see are better than you'll ever be.

Keep it up though. I enjoy the laugh!

Your name wouldn't be Randy by any chance would it?:rolleyes:

It doesnt matter if you have a flight ops department or not. Simple pilot sense says "do not fly into bad weather...check notams...know your destination airfield regulations....know your alternate...do basic check on aircraft before take off....know your aircraft a little bit even...the list goes on"

...and basic common sense says : Trip fuel + reserves/contingency etc = < fuel required = duhhhh

What sort of hours/ratings do you bring to the table? And those conducted through distance learning with Rod Marcharo or whatever his name is dont count!

aob9

boboldpilot wrote: »

I have to say this thread has given me a few laughs. Let's see: Good man

It's interesting that most of the real pilots who occasionally contribute to this forum have refrained from posting. Laughing too much I assume. Clearly few of you have no clue about how things operate in the real world. Flight school aces and flight sim experts.

Basill, I have to say came closest to reality but even he missed the point.

It's easy to see that we have a new generation of pilots and fantasists who think they know it all. Many of them came straight of the womb of flight school into a flight department where everything is done for them, yes you Leftbase. God help you if you every had to face the reality of a ferry flight somewhere without some an over staffed operations department to work out the Hotac and all the other boring stuff.

Seriously you are making fools of yourselves, kids.

Yeah the programme is over egged. But those pilots you see are better than you'll ever be.

Keep it up though. I enjoy the laugh!

As far as I can tell nobody has criticised the pilots on this thread, at least I didn't. What I believe is the producers of this programme are leading us to believe that professional pilots take crazy risks. I stand by my statement that this show is completely sensationalistic in order to grab the attention of viewers with a low boredom threshold. A sad day for documentary channels that once offered high quality viewing. You don't need to be a real world pilot to notice that.

sellerbarry

FWIW, I love the show and have no piloting experience...............

LeftBase

sellerbarry wrote: »

FWIW, I love the show and have no piloting experience...............

Thats fair enough. If people enjoy it that's great. I enjoyed the LOTR and the matrix.

Good entertainment....but if you are a pilot it is a little head in hands.

boboldpilot

As far as I can tell nobody has criticised the pilots on this thread,

Let's see

The Boss is an accident waiting to happen, every week just seems to be a serious lack of planning. Looks like they never heard of Notams, Metars or Taf's!

The boss ringing and asking them to land in a airfileld in South America with no customs. He couldn't be that stupid, could he ?

I have learned in this short period that you DO NOT fly fuel critical, you DO carry correct documentation at all times and you DON'T test fly a plane without checking out systems on the ground first. Seriously, the issue with the trim tab should have been identified in the ground, not in the air.

Need I go on?

Your judgement of the actions of these pilots is coloured by your lack of experience. That's very clear. If you care to look past the drama you should be able to see that very real pressures involved in commerical aviation away from the cosseted world of flight schools and the highly regulated airline business.

You guys are making a hell of a lot of assumptions about the pilots in the programme. Why don't you have a look at the website and check out their bios. Pete Zaccagnino, 15,000 hours, aerobatic pilot, race pilot, test pilot, Instructor etc etc. Dave Matheson, 15,000 hours.

http://www.dangerousflights.ca/pilots.aspx

Maybe when you reach those kind of hours and have that kind of experience you will be fit to criticise their actions. Particularly you non pilots.

You have a lot to learn. People with little experience don't realise how little they know.

And Leftbase I've no idea what you're on about. But I suspect I have a few more hours than you. It's really that obvious.

aob9

@boboldpilot . I bow to your superior knowledge. Once gain, I NEVER intended to criticize the pilots but I do criticize the way in which they are portrayed. Much of what is portrayed on this is staged for the camera.

All the shots of them struggling with the trim were obvious recreations, as the props were in Feather and the fuel levers were in shutoff... If that were in flight, I think the trim would have been the least of their concerns!

I stand by my opinion ( of which I am perfectly entitled to make) , the show is crap.

LeftBase

Right where to start with you.....

boboldpilot wrote: »

Your judgement of the actions of these pilots is coloured by your lack of experience. That's very clear. If you care to look past the drama you should be able to see that very real pressures involved in commerical aviation away from the cosseted world of flight schools and the highly regulated airline business.

This is commercial aviation. They are ferry pilots flying as part of a business which delivers aircraft to new owners in exchange for money...
The actions of these pilots such as taking off into known thunderstorm conditions, flying with less fuel than their plan says they need, failure to check notams, failure to know the regulations and procedures at their destination airfield, failure to know the regulations and procedures at their alternate airfield, failure to comply and understand ATC procedures, failure to observe the immigration/customs laws of other countries, seeming failure to do a basic walk around check/ground run up check to ensure systems are working, failure to understand the aircraft they are flying, failure to operate a multi-pilot aircraft with 2 pilots who know what they are doing, are all basic considerations for anybody who is flying any aircraft anywhere!

[1]You guys are making a hell of a lot of assumptions about the pilots in the programme. [2]Why don't you have a look at the website and check out their bios. Pete Zaccagnino, 15,000 hours, aerobatic pilot, race pilot, test pilot, Instructor etc etc. Dave Matheson, 15,000 hours.

http://www.dangerousflights.ca/pilots.aspx

In this you really blow your own argument and credibility out of the water. I split it into 2 parts to deal with it easier:

[1] - No assumptions made. Just stating the glaring basic errors they make or are portrayed to make in the show

[2](this where you damage yourself most) - "aerobatic and test pilot" Most airlines do not regard that as countable time towards what they require because it is a world away from what the actual flying you do there and the flying they do in this show. If an F1 driver rocked up to Dublin Bus tomorrow and said he wanted a job and used his F1 experience as currency you could excuse Dublin Bus for wondering what exactly speeding around a track at 200mph had to do with negotiating the tight streets and stop start traffic of Dublin. The same principle applies here. Test pilots and aerobatic pilots may be good handlers but for cross country flying you need much much more experience than that. You may have 1000 hours as a military test pilot, but the guy with 100h and a PPL may be more experienced when it comes to cross country flying.
It's not the amount of flying it's the type!
This is a point FSX Captains usually miss.

Maybe when you reach those kind of hours and have that kind of experience you will be fit to criticise their actions. Particularly you non pilots.

You have a lot to learn. People with little experience don't realise how little they know.

And Leftbase I've no idea what you're on about. But I suspect I have a few more hours than you. It's really that obvious.

I'll bet you dont!:rolleyes:

And like I said 1000 hours on FSX does not count!

boboldpilot

Nevertheless there is plenty of criticism of the pilots in this thread. Unwarranted criticism.

As for the show itself, of course events are re-enacted for the camera. That's normal in any TV programme. No pilots would appreciate a cameraman shoving his camera into their faces during a crisis. Even live sports on TV has sound effects added at times.

You may not like the production values but as a 20 hour student, I suggest you watch it for the real pilot stuff. You might learn something.

boboldpilot

Oh now I see Mr left base, it was a PC flight simmer reference. I get it. I'm outed.:D

Well you made laugh out loud now! This is the line that set me off.

Test pilots and aerobatic pilots may be good handlers but for cross country flying you need much much more experience than that. You may have 1000 hours as a military test pilot, but the guy with 100h and a PPL may be more experienced when it comes to cross country flying.

You cannot be serious, just exactly how do you think anyone becomes a military test pilot? I'm pretty sure the military has cross country flying well covered, sometimes at night a hundred feet off the ground. I'm amazed any 'pilot' would make a statement like that.

Then there's this

The actions of these pilots such as rant, rant, rant etc.

Again you make assumptions about the pilot's actions based on the narrow view of a TV show. I directed you to their bios on the website. Do you honestly think they managed to log multiple thousands of hours while ignoring the basic rules of airmanship? Again I'm surprised a 'pilot' would assume that.

[2](this where you damage yourself most) - "aerobatic and test pilot" Most airlines do not regard that as countable time towards what they require because it is a world away from what the actual flying you do there and the flying they do in this show.

This is funny too. Comedy gold in fact. Just imagine the scene at an airline interview, Captain Flasheart is being disappointed by the airline interviewer. 'I'm sorry Captain, your 10,000 hours is no good to us at Mega airlines. So what if you were leader of the Red Arrows, won the world aerobatic championship three times and chief test pilot on the Eurofighter. We don't need your sort here. No our preferred candidate is a 350 hour hotshot just back from Florida where he was hour building in a clapped out Cessna.':p

Airlines may or may not have any preferences for aerobatic or test pilots. But I'm sure they all would prefer a pilot who knows enough about basic flying not to pull back on the sidestick with the stall warning blaring away and wonder why it isn't climbing.

Well I'm back to my flight sim, I'm about to aerobat an Airbus A380.

aob9

boboldpilot wrote: »

Well I'm back to my flight sim, I'm about to aerobat an Airbus A380.

Like this???

http://youtu.be/en7QTZ5DPnY

LeftBase

boboldpilot wrote: »

Well you made laugh out loud now! This is the line that set me off. You cannot be serious, just exactly how do you think anyone becomes a military test pilot? I'm pretty sure the military has cross country flying well covered, sometimes at night a hundred feet off the ground. I'm amazed any 'pilot' would make a statement like that.

Ah with every post you score an own goal my friend. The best way to spot a pretender is to look out for their literal interpretation of posts and facts/references. Thats the only way to stretch a little knowledge a long way. You show a lack of in depth around the place knowledge in how you both read and then respond to what I am saying.
I am not making a literal point in what I am saying. I am pointing out that you can have 1000s of hours of flying but be useless still if those hours are all one type of flying. You could have 10,000 hours in the Eurofighter but if you sit into the cockpit of an A320 the guy with 250h just off the type rating course is gonna be much better able to operate it than you are!
Again your hours are just a number unless they are related to the flying you are doing!

Then there's thisAgain you make assumptions about the pilot's actions based on the narrow view of a TV show. I directed you to their bios on the website. Do you honestly think they managed to log multiple thousands of hours while ignoring the basic rules of airmanship? Again I'm surprised a 'pilot' would assume that.

Firstly if you had ever flown in America you would know the answer to that is yes! Go fly in North Florida/Georgia/Louisiana and see if they even know what the word airmanship means!

Now this is where you get me wrong. I did not judge the pilots as people, or their experience. I pointed out how stupid the decisions and scenarios depicted in the show were. I have no doubt Discovery have edited the crap out of it to make it look exciting. Watching that show the pilots appear negligent in the extreme, but that is not to say that in reality they were!

It's a stupid concept in the end.

This is funny too. Comedy gold in fact. Just imagine the scene at an airline interview, Captain Flasheart is being disappointed by the airline interviewer. 'I'm sorry Captain, your 10,000 hours is no good to us at Mega airlines. So what if you were leader of the Red Arrows, won the world aerobatic championship three times and chief test pilot on the Eurofighter. We don't need your sort here. No our preferred candidate is a 350 hour hotshot just back from Florida where he was hour building in a clapped out Cessna.':p

Airlines may or may not have any preferences for aerobatic or test pilots. But I'm sure they all would prefer a pilot who knows enough about basic flying not to pull back on the sidestick with the stall warning blaring away and wonder why it isn't climbing.

This bit interests me. If you go through an airline interview process(at least the one I went through and the guys and girls I know did)the scenario you paint there is actually reality. Very few airlines are very keen anymore on hotshots from the military. It is seen mostly in the states but a little bit around Europe too. In the past obviously Air Force to National Carrier was a well beaten path, however in recent decades with the whole CRM system it's been found that many military pilots integrate poorly into the airline environment. In my company there are a few. Only one is ex-RAF fast jet. There are a couple of ex-rotary and the rest are all ex-military transport pilots. I was surprised when they suggested that ex RAF guys were having a tough time getting into the airline game as I thought as you do that having a few 1000 Eurofighter hours would be a ticket in, but they said as I said earlier "different type of flying".
A test pilot and aerobatic pilots are used to taking risks and used to having many more back ups when those risks do not come off(such as an ejector seat). They also tend to fall back on their handling skills and believe they will see them through. This leads to over confidence and poor overall decision making on their part.
To be an aerobatic pilot or race pilot you have to be negligent. It's a personality trait required to be good at it. Like BASE jumpers. You have to be a little nuts. Unfortunately commercial operations prefer people who are a little more straight laced and fearful.
To address your last point about the side-stick and stall directly. A low hour hero from a big flight school will have had the fear of stall bet into him from day one. Once he sees the speed get close to stall speed he things "ah stall better keep on top of that". However one of these former test pilots thinks "hmmm stall speed is getting close...ah well...I'll be grand I'll stay above it"....(few seconds) *STALL WARNING*.
Being experienced is very attractive to an airline....however being experienced at doing stuff they'd rather you didnt do while flying with them....not so much.

boboldpilot

My God, you've a lot to learn my friend. To be fair you do seem to have the traits of a good old line pilot. A bit dull and predictable. You're no fighter pilot that's for sure. Turning an aeroplane upside down is an anathema to you. There are lots of pilots like you, pilots who've never quite grasped the three dimensional aspect of their chosen profession. By the way you're seriously wrong in your assessment of test pilots and years out of date. The modern test pilot is no steely eyed, hair on fire type ready to push the edge of the envelope and beyond. Chuck Yeager would never have got that job these days. For one he's an arrogant SOB and for another he's no Engineer. Test pilots are Engineers first, pilots second. They don't take unneccessary risks anymore. Everything is pre-planned and worked out in advance. Being a test pilot is more closely akin to being a systems operator than a pilot.

I have flown in America, haven't we all? I have to say I've met some of the finest pilots I've ever had the privilege to fly with and I've met some who really should have chosen an alternative career. But they don't end up with 15,000 hours in their pile of logbooks unless they are good at what they do.

You're very hard on the American system, but it works and it works better than the overly bureaucratic EASA system we have to deal with.

It's no secret that some fast jet pilots have difficulty integrating into the airline system. All too often it's not the experience but personality. Not everyone is cut out to be an airline pilot. Nevertheless there are many who made the transition. But your comparison of a test pilot versus a 100 hour PPL is plainly ridiculous and funny.

To be an aerobatic pilot or race pilot you have to be negligent. It's a personality trait required to be good at it. Like BASE jumpers. You have to be a little nuts. Unfortunately commercial operations prefer people who are a little more straight laced and fearful.

I don't like fearful pilots, they're scary and dangerous and have no place in the cockpit. I flew with one once, he made me nervous with his attitude. Unsurprisingly it turned out he had faked some of his hours and experience. No wonder he was fearful. You're also completly wrong in assessing aerobatic and race pilots as 'negligent'. A good friend of mine, is both and a former fighter pilot. I'd gladly let my kids fly with him. Funnily enough he's a ferry pilot too. If there's a better pilot out there I haven't met him. If you're fearful of flying that isn't straight and level then I hope you never get into an unusual attitude or suffer from spatial disorientation.

One thing you appear to have in common with fighter pilots is the ego thing. Do you have a big watch too?

LeftBase

boboldpilot wrote: »

My God, you've a lot to learn my friend. To be fair you do seem to have the traits of a good old line pilot. A bit dull and predictable. You're no fighter pilot that's for sure. Turning an aeroplane upside down is an anathema to you. There are lots of pilots like you, pilots who've never quite grasped the three dimensional aspect of their chosen profession. By the way you're seriously wrong in your assessment of test pilots and years out of date. The modern test pilot is no steely eyed, hair on fire type ready to push the edge of the envelope and beyond. Chuck Yeager would never have got that job these days. For one he's an arrogant SOB and for another he's no Engineer. Test pilots are Engineers first, pilots second. They don't take unneccessary risks anymore. Everything is pre-planned and worked out in advance. Being a test pilot is more closely akin to being a systems operator than a pilot.

Again as you just said your self it is a totally different type of flying and so not considered toward commercial cross country or international transport flying. Thus rendering the experience of lesser use when it comes to transport flying.
Actually I've been in flying from a reasonably young age and flown many different types. I've been upside down, round and round and in and out. I'm never too keen to reveal any great detail about myself here. But I've flown SEP/MEP Land in Ireland and SEP/MEP Land/Sea and gliders in the US along with A320s in Europe(granted that's a newer venture). I can tell you your attitude sticks out like a sore thumb as far as someone outside the industry looking in romantically. Nobody in any serious position in aviation has this "yeeh ha...back country flying boy!!" attitude you see on tv. Flying in general but especially in a place like Ireland is so small a community and other pilots will not tolerate negligent practice from people. Several people(and we all may know some) are blacklisted by flying clubs. They may be brilliant pilots and have great skills but they are dangerous.

I have flown in America, haven't we all? I have to say I've met some of the finest pilots I've ever had the privilege to fly with and I've met some who really should have chosen an alternative career. But they don't end up with 15,000 hours in their pile of logbooks unless they are good at what they do.

You're very hard on the American system, but it works and it works better than the overly bureaucratic EASA system we have to deal with.

I'm not saying there are not some very fine pilots there. I flew with and around some very good pilots there. However there are many many pilots there who are a danger to themselves and others and have a cowboy attitude that is not tolerated in Europe. There are far too many pilots in the remoter parts of the South and South East of America who fly out of small strips and have 1000s of hours on their own aircraft. Some of them are unlicensed, but some of them would not inspire confidence on the US system of flight testing at all!
The EASA system is far better than the FAA's from a not being killed or killing point of view!

It's no secret that some fast jet pilots have difficulty integrating into the airline system. All too often it's not the experience but personality. Not everyone is cut out to be an airline pilot. Nevertheless there are many who made the transition. But your comparison of a test pilot versus a 100 hour PPL is plainly ridiculous and funny. I don't like fearful pilots, they're scary and dangerous and have no place in the cockpit. I flew with one once, he made me nervous with his attitude. Unsurprisingly it turned out he had faked some of his hours and experience. No wonder he was fearful. You're also completly wrong in assessing aerobatic and race pilots as 'negligent'. A good friend of mine, is both and a former fighter pilot. I'd gladly let my kids fly with him. Funnily enough he's a ferry pilot too. If there's a better pilot out there I haven't met him. If you're fearful of flying that isn't straight and level then I hope you never get into an unusual attitude or suffer from spatial disorientation.

Yet again like I said. You have the attitude of somebody who looks in at aviation and not somebody who had been in the air and experienced various things. Perhaps that is why you are the only one to take great issue with the assessment of the professional pilots on this thread
A real pilot understands that all flying, and hell even every flight is different. Flying an SEP/MEP aircraft in the circuit at an airfield you are thinking about speed and configuration and approach planning. SEP cross country you think about weather enroute, times etc, fuel usages and diversion plans if your destination is closed or unusable. You also look out every so often for a nice field to make an emergency landing if needs be. MEP cross country fields go out the window and you are now looking at the map to keep up to date with where the nearest airport is and keep the drill for a lost engine close to mind. If you have floats on you look out for water bodies big enough too and that changes the game again totally. Fly a glider and that's a whole new ball game.
If I'm flying a King and I loose an engine and i have 15000 hours 8000 of that may be SEP and 3000 may be SEP sea time and so my real experience here is at most 4000 hours. Suddenly my 15000 hours looks a little less impressive. That is why you always see in reports on accidents the "pilots had X amount of hours, X amount on type"
It's where the hours are earned that decide how good you are...not how many. Go ask a student how many hours he has. He may tell you "Oh 110"...you ask "How many P1?" "Oh ehhh....25"...is he as experienced as he 1st appeared?
The fact you cannot grasp that concept or just do not know that undermines both your argument and credibility.

boboldpilot

I'm kind of enjoying the debate and I've gone along with the joke that I'm really a computer geek but seriously I'm beginning to wonder about you. Some things don't add up.

If I'm flying a King and I loose an engine and i have 15000 hours 8000 of that may be SEP and 3000 may be SEP sea time and so my real experience here is at most 4000 hours. Suddenly my 15000 hours looks a little less impressive.

4000 hours on a King Air would be quite impressive by anyone's standards except yours. Apparently not even 15,000 hours impresses you.

I can tell you your attitude sticks out like a sore thumb as far as someone outside the industry looking in romantically.

After 35 years, let me assure you my romance with aviation is way past the flowers and chocolate stage. Unlike my marriage, which reminds me. Better get the good lady something nice today.

I have to say in all that time. I don't think I've met anyone with an attitude and viewpoint quite like yours, particularly so early in a career.

Yet again like I said. You have the attitude of somebody who looks in at aviation and not somebody who had been in the air and experienced various things. Perhaps that is why you are the only one to take great issue with the assessment of the professional pilots on this thread

In fact it's notable at the absence of comment on this thread from the self evident professional pilots who contribute occasionally. Just ill judged aspersions cast on the TV pilots from non pilots, PC pilots, PPLs and you.

You know that's why instead of lurking as I have done until now. I decided to register. I get offended when people criticise pilots or try to minimise what we do. I get annoyed when it's said to my face that 'Those things fly themselves'. I also notice lately that several contributors to this forum are happy to denigrate pilots for doing their job and then get all offended when they're told they don't know what they'r talking about.

Seeing as you refuse to acknowledge the pilots in the programme may actually be good at what they do. Let's abstract some of the bios:

Marco Lucchese, an umimpressive 10,000 hours, Airbus Captain with an American major and delivery pilot for King Airs and Phenoms.

Bob Raskey, 25,000 hours, flew for the military and the airlines.

Randy McGehee, airline pilot for a major, owns his own aviation company. Interesting quote from him: “It’s very tough to walk from a big plane to a Cessna. The physics is the same but the procedures, responsibilities and demands of each one are different. Flying for an airline is very regulated, there are procedures put in place for everything we do. In ferry flying you are relying on yourself to get it done. There’s very little room to screw up. You can’t fake this kind of flying.”

If we're to believe some of the contributions to this thread, they are all yee ha cowboy pilots who fake it all the time and are danger to themselves and everyone else.

I've known several pilots who died in accidents. Most were young and low time and frankly they thought they knew it all. Interesting that.

LeftBase

boboldpilot wrote: »

I'm kind of enjoying the debate and I've gone along with the joke that I'm really a computer geek but seriously I'm beginning to wonder about you. Some things don't add up.

4000 hours on a King Air would be quite impressive by anyone's standards except yours. Apparently not even 15,000 hours impresses you. After 35 years, let me assure you my romance with aviation is way past the flowers and chocolate stage. Unlike my marriage, which reminds me. Better get the good lady something nice today.

I have to say in all that time. I don't think I've met anyone with an attitude and viewpoint quite like yours, particularly so early in a career. In fact it's notable at the absence of comment on this thread from the self evident professional pilots who contribute occasionally. Just ill judged aspersions cast on the TV pilots from non pilots, PC pilots, PPLs and you.

You know that's why instead of lurking as I have done until now. I decided to register. I get offended when people criticise pilots or try to minimise what we do. I get annoyed when it's said to my face that 'Those things fly themselves'. I also notice lately that several contributors to this forum are happy to denigrate pilots for doing their job and then get all offended when they're told they don't know what they'r talking about.

Seeing as you refuse to acknowledge the pilots in the programme may actually be good at what they do. Let's abstract some of the bios:

Marco Lucchese, an umimpressive 10,000 hours, Airbus Captain with an American major and delivery pilot for King Airs and Phenoms.

Bob Raskey, 25,000 hours, flew for the military and the airlines.

Randy McGehee, airline pilot for a major, owns his own aviation company. Interesting quote from him: “It’s very tough to walk from a big plane to a Cessna. The physics is the same but the procedures, responsibilities and demands of each one are different. Flying for an airline is very regulated, there are procedures put in place for everything we do. In ferry flying you are relying on yourself to get it done. There’s very little room to screw up. You can’t fake this kind of flying.”

If we're to believe some of the contributions to this thread, they are all yee ha cowboy pilots who fake it all the time and are danger to themselves and everyone else.

I've known several pilots who died in accidents. Most were young and low time and frankly they thought they knew it all. Interesting that.

There is not much more for me to say really. It's clear this will go on a while as you cannot understand the points that are being made you to.
Several times in my last few posts I have left massive doors open for you to engage in the nuts and bolts of flying but you have missed them because you lack the knowledge to spot them.
It's a well known fact in aviation that no pilot quotes his overall hours for anything, because it is well known that a lot of the time somebody who does that is hiding something. A pilot will always quote the flight experience relevant to the question asked.
You seem to be tarring me as an integrated 200h wonder put into a fly by wire aircraft. Well let me tell you. I had 1300+ hours when I applied for my 1st airline job, a lot of it through summer work and some recreational flying with family in the states. When I arrived at the interview the very 1st thing the pilot on the panel said was "Oh 1300 hours?...how much P1 and what types have you flown?". They cared little for the number, more the quality. That is what you keep missing post after post!

The very direction your posts go and points you make undermine the points made themselves.

You're reading the thread from the point of view of somebody quick to jump to the defence of romantic heros...not as a pilot who has met and seen these 15,000 pilots and rolled his eyes to heaven at the carry on they get up to.
Highlighted in this thread are the glaring errors portrayed in the show that cannot be justified no matter how many hours you have! Taking off into a thunderstorm with no alternate and less fuel than you need cannot be justified by 15,000 hours in the book!

boboldpilot

Well despite my attempt to drag this thread back on topic, you persist in attacking my credentials or lack therof. Didn't know it was a requirement to post on this forum? In any case I would prefer not to spell out too much as I'm involved in a very interesting aviation project. Long overdue for this country and potentially good for new pilots. Sorry to be mysterious. I do know this will make me look even more of a fake. But this is a small country as you point out yourself. But there it is. If I was fake. I could easily make up some false credentials. Appoint myself Chief pilot or something.

It's a well known fact in aviation that no pilot quotes his overall hours for anything, because it is well known that a lot of the time somebody who does that is hiding something.

Really? That's not my experience. If someone asks I tell them the total. It's up to them to ask me to break it down for them. Unless it's an interview but then they'll have your CV in front of them. which makes this statement puzzling:

"Oh 1300 hours?...how much P1 and what types have you flown?".

Maybe he couldn't be bothered to read it. I usually try to read someone's CV before I chat to them. Funnily enough you sometimes spot pilots who 'exaggerate' their hours just by looking at their CV.

How's that Airbus job going btw, pay to fly obviously? Good luck with that hope it works for you. Not a good move professionally.

Hope you don't do this with your Captains:

not as a pilot who has met and seen these 15,000 pilots and rolled his eyes to heaven at the carry on they get up to.

They wouldn't like it. Like many young pilots you have quite a high opinion of yourself. Which isn't in itself a bad thing. Clearly though you have little enough experience working as a pilot which allows you to make a lot of pedantic statements about situations you've never been in.

Taking off into a thunderstorm with no alternate and less fuel than you need cannot be justified by 15,000 hours in the book!

Go, no go decisions are rarely as clear cut as you seem to think. I remember sitting on the ground once feeling the pressure with a very ambigious weather situation. One of the customers on board, a Russian wanted to get going, (Those crazy Russians!). I merely smiled at him but the pressure was enormous. Have you ever been in that situation? Then there was the time I was socked in an airfield surrounded by mountains, with an an angry owner on the phone to me demanding that I effectively kill myself by trying to get out. No pressure there. Easy to say you'd dispassionately make the right decision but in the real world it's different. I did on occasion give in to the pressure, mostly self inflicted I might add and did take off. I got away with it, just. Yes I was 'neglient'. So shoot me. Live and learn. The more experience you get the better able you are to make the right decision and sometimes push the edge a little. I for one would prefer to fly with one of those guys than you. No offence.

Anyway, clearly you're not for turning. I'll persist with my 'romantic' views. One day when I'm a 'real' pilot like you. I'll probably understand!:p

LeftBase

I agree we'll argue round in circles. So I wont engage you further however I'll just take this last one

boboldpilot wrote: »

.

How's that Airbus job going btw, pay to fly obviously? Good luck with that hope it works for you. Not a good move professionally.

The only people that generally come out with that are people with green eyes

XWB

LeftBase wrote: »

I agree we'll argue round in circles. So I wont engage you further however I'll just take this last one



The only people that generally come out with that are people with green eyes

Of a pay to fly pilot?

As I said, One day when I'm a 'real' pilot like you. I'll probably understand!:P

You have a lot to learn!

boboldpilot

LeftBase wrote: »

I agree we'll argue round in circles. So I wont engage you further however I'll just take this last one
The only people that generally come out with that are people with green eyes

That confirms it then. Sincerely I hope it works for you. But it's contributing to the downward trend in T&Cs for pilots.

No jealousy from me. I'm past all that aeroplane envy. Not really a fan of the Airbus either.

LeftBase

boboldpilot wrote: »

That confirms it then. Sincerely I hope it works for you. But it's contributing to the downward trend in T&Cs for pilots.

No jealousy from me. I'm past all that aeroplane envy. Not really a fan of the Airbus either.

Only jobs out there as a 1st rung most of the time.

I dont set the terms I just take them. My terms are not as bad as some however....could be better, but what could'nt!

boboldpilot

LeftBase wrote: »

Only jobs out there as a 1st rung most of the time.

I dont set the terms I just take them. My terms are not as bad as some however....could be better, but what could'nt!

It is tough out there, really tough. I know it. But some young friends of mine absolutely refused to go down that road, won't even go the Ryanair route. Fair play to them. But if I was in that situation and had the money? I'd have sold my soul to the devil when I was 25. But even the devil wasn't interested in me at the time.

Still isn't, but one of his black angels is!

Pilotdude5

http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/accidents/director-killed-crash-while-filming-dangerous-flights?cmpid=enews022713&spPodID=030&spMailingID=16568501&spUserID=NDc4NjIxOTM0OAS2&spJobID=212196127&spReportId=MjEyMTk2MTI3S0

Canadian TV director John Driftmier was killed on Sunday in an airplane crash while filming the second season of “Dangerous Flights,” a reality program for the Discovery Channel that follows fliers as they “risk their lives in the high-danger, high-stress business of aircraft delivery.”

Stinicker

Anybody know if the second series of this has aired or is airing on Sky?