Jump to content

b757captain

LSP_Members
  • Posts

    504
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by b757captain

  1. Since I spent the last quite a few years of my career outside the US I can't specifically say, other than through anecdotal stories from friends in the US, much about the skill levels or degradation of skills for US pilots. As a rule the US has always held a slight advantage by having a large pool of very qualified pilots for the airlines to choose from. While the incoming European pilot will average about 300 to 400 hours and will have attended an ab initio training program, the average for the US majors is still averaging 4000 to 6000 hours. I flew with a bunch of European-trained pilots and saw that they were very professional and had very little difference in skill level vs. US pilots with one exception: the US pilots, on average, were more comfortable with the automation off. There's a lot to be said for hands-on-stick time. That advantage diminished as the EU pilots gained stick time. Automation does absolutely degrade one's skills. It's tough to say at the the end of a long duty day "I'm going to hand-fly this sucker all the way from top of decent to a minimums approach". And that pilot absolutely should NOT do that, in that circumstance! But that can become the norm and coupled with many airlines' "strong suggestion" or in one specific ME airline's written policy of using the automation all the time, hand flying skills and airmanship suffers. The Asiana crash really isn't a stellar example because there were so may other factors involved, including manufacturer/aircraft type differences causing confusion for the Captain (in training) to some pretty severe cultural issues that caused that cockpit to literally be an accident waiting to happen. I like to point to Air France 447 and the Emirates (can't remember the flight #) crash in Dubai where they stuffed up the go-around as perfect examples of the failures of modern training and pilot skills. As well as both of the Max crashes. Think of a pilot's skill set as an insurance policy - if that skill set deteriorates the margin of safety deteriorates as well. And that skill set both US and worldwide pilots has deteriorated in some ways but has increase in others. In my opinion, making better "system managers" will not save the day when a guy needs to reach into his bag-o-tricks and pull out a win, and that is the skill set that is suffering. Overall I think that while the US (and world) safety record can't statistically get much better, for years we have been seeing an increase in incidents that, barring one or two last second saves (or miracles) would have been crashes with massive loss of life. This is going to continue to increase to the point that we will eventually see more accidents. And a bunch of them will have, as a contributing factor, the lack of basic airmanship as a big part. As a way to look to the future, think of it this way: when I aspired to make flying a career (back in the Stone Age of the early 80s) flying as a career was attractive, and the carrot on the end of the stick is that it could be very lucrative as well. The profession could and did attract some of "the best and the brightest", people who could choose between lots of lucrative careers. Nowadays an airline career had declined to the point that it is, to be blunt, a pretty crappy lifestyle and many young people are bypassing it for other careers. I don't see that changing any time soon, if ever. One positive sign I see is in demographics. As the BB generation retires, the pilot shortages (that are happening now) will only increase. There's a chance that airline execs will come to their senses and figure out that they need to make the career attractive again. Unfortunately I am at heart a realist and think they will try every other option before coming to this conclusion and it will be too little, too late. MarkP, I'm with you, brother! I walked away just before the whole Covid mess started so I missed that debacle, thank goodness. A ton of my (age equivalent) compadres did the same and retired early which has just exacerbated the problem we're seeing now. I haven't set foot on an airplane since and don't miss it at all. Cheers, Mark
  2. Three statements here - first one, agree, though word is finally coming out that B was not singularly responsible for this, a large 737-centric US airline had a big hand in it as well. Second statement, sorry, no truth to this. Multiple (not just US pilots but many from other parts of the world) recreated the crash scenarios in the sim, almost all recovered. Granted, they had fore-knowledge of the situation by then. Final statement, violently disagree, based on personal experience. Here's my disclaimer - 33 years in the cockpit of 737s (200 thru 800 - no, I did not fly the Max), 757s (my favorite airplane) and 767s. The last 12 years of my career was spent outside the US. I flew for several middle eastern carriers, flew for a Chinese airline, and finished my last three years in Japan. Importantly for this diatribe, I also flew for Ethiopian. I spent enough time outside the US training system (I was a line and sim check airman on the 757/767 for the last two airlines I worked for) that I learned the insides/outsides of the EASA training system (TRI at several airlines), the Chinese system, and "the Japanese way" where I finished up my career as a "checker". In my opinion (yes, I have one until it's banned!) Ethiopian had the absolute worst training program I was ever involved in. I saw blatant, in your face attempted and actual violations of industry norms, all ignored or papered over by the airline and the Ethiopian regulator. I saw physical abuse directed at the Ethiopian pilots - in the sim by the instructor though there were stories that it happened occasionally in the cockpit as well. My personal experience with this came to an abrupt halt when I intervened as the instructor was hitting the FO. As a side note, this also happened in Japan in my presence once. There the airline took action to make sure that type of behavior never happened again. At Ethiopian they almost fired me because I didn't understand "their" culture. Sorry, but that type of behavior is NEVER acceptable in any professional environment, or any environment outside of the WWF. Ok, back to Ethiopian training. I will admit that my experience is dated by a few years and "maybe" things have improved, though I doubt it for reasons I will expand upon in the next paragraph. Frankly their training was awful. So many things were substandard I can't name them all. Their line training was pretty good and the flying itself was fun mostly, though every other aspect of working there was dreadful. The worst though, which made for an easy decision not to extend beyond the basic contract, was that I was there as the first of the MPL pilots were hitting the line, and (I was on the 737 fleet there) by the time I left almost all the 737 FOs were MPL. Frankly they couldn't fly an airplane. Sure, they had a few hundred hours of sim time but very little actual hands-on stick time and it showed. Now, why do I think their training has not improved? Because (again, my opinion here, as long as I'm allowed to have one) across the board, worldwide, training and training standards have degraded. My answer to why is easy - sort of: 1. The airplanes have become much easier to fly, but the environment has become much more complicated. Training these days consists of more regulatory compliance and less flying skill. Another result of easier-to-fly airplanes is that pilots are less "connected" to their airplanes than previously. In the old days (I bet everybody hates that phrase!) of steam gauge airplanes we spent much more of our cockpit prep time using maps, charts, etc. setting up the panel which was an important step in "connecting" with the airplane. Nowadays you jump in, the FO loads the box, the captain sets his altimeter and it's off into the wild blue yonder. This has created a new phrase in the lexicon. "Startle Factor". That is the new buzz phrase when things go pear-shaped. It's because the crews see so few failures that any one of significance catches them by surprise and their reactions are delayed while brains struggle to catch up. I hate that phrase. 2. Using modern airplane systems as a tool, not a crutch. Disclaimer: I am a transitional old fart. I spent the first 10 years of my airline career on steam gauge airplanes and the rest on modern EFIS platforms, and I love EFIS, as long as it is used as a tool, not a crutch. Way too much of that currently. I was taught by crusty old farts and most of the lessons learned from them stayed in the front of my pea brain over the years, to which I attribute much of the success of a long accident/incident/violation-free and mostly trouble-free career. But guys like me are dinosaurs and airlines don't want us training the new guys anymore. And that includes US airlines and training programs, just so you don't think I think things are great here but the rest of the world sucks. 3. Airlines as an actual profitable business: The airline business is a weird one, no doubt. On the face, I can't see how any of them actually make money (long term few actually do) and to an airline exec, excess training dollars are wasted dollars so they generally spend as little as they can get away with. Until it bites them in the ass. We have seen over the years a massive improvement in safety which has many reasons, but when we do see a crash, more and more the outcome boils down to whether the flight crew can remember basic flying skills. And more and more they don't have them to begin with. How does all this relate to the 737Max? Yes, B screwed the pooch, and yes, they continue to screw the pooch for reasons already stated in other posts. Would I fly the Max today? Yes. Would I have flown the Max after the crashes? Probably, though as more information came out about what really went on behind the scenes at B, maybe not. Unlike what the majority of the internet and social media crowd would tell you, the crews on both Max crashes failed to do three basic things: they did not perform the memory items for unreliable airspeed; due to this the problem escalated then they did not do the memory items for runaway trim (yes, this was MCAS but it's still a runaway trim); and they didn't apply basic airmanship as things continued to deteriorate. And yes, they were products of their respective (and the industry "new normal") training programs. Ok, I've run out of steam - time to go enjoy retirement. Cheers, Mark
  3. I went there quite often when I lived in Japan. Nice store, three levels if I remember, ground floor was kits and accessories, basement was R/C and second floor was a racetrack and building area where they had mentoring and tutoring sessions.. They carry everything Tamiya currently produces, so unfortunately no F-16 Thunderbirds while I was there. And lots of superb display models. Good prices too, I think I picked up a Corsair and P-51 for about $20 or $25 off anywhere else.
  4. Love this airplane! As an interesting side note and (somewhat) personal connection to the XB-70, my first flight instructor was the project officer for the program! Here's a short bio: http://thetartanterror.blogspot.com/2010/03/lt-col-john-carlson.html Fascinating guy, forgot more about flying than I'll ever know. The last time I saw him before he passed he had just returned from Edwards where he attended a reunion for test pilots. Amazing that any of those guys from the 50s and 60s were still around. Cheers, Mark
  5. I've built them both, my preference hands down is the ZM kit. Even mostly closed up, the fine detail that can be seen in the cockpit, wheel wells and bomb bay in the ZM kit puts HK to shame.
  6. Thanks guys! Display options are kinda slim so for now it's hanging from the ceiling. After I found a few large meathooks, just in case!
  7. If you mean this car? I didn't want to take anything away from the Lanc! Thanks Frederrick! The battery pack for the lights won't fit in the bomb and I just wasn't in to making a custom setup. Sometimes you just have to hit the easy button
  8. Thanks! Not so sure about putting magnets next to a battery pack though. I think some electrical tape will do just fine Thanks Mozart! Thanks Craig! I did enhance it just a bit with the instrument panel but you can't even see it! Thanks Jack!
  9. Thanks Steve! You're right, the tires are a little too gray - I used Mr. Color Tire Black, which seems to me to be closer to Gunship Gray but I haven't found a suitable alternative yet, at least without mixing my own. Thanks Nick! The exhaust staining was a random light airbrushing of overlapping whites, grays and black until it looked right to my eye. No special secrets there. As to the weaponry, I have a tendency to rush through the bombs and things and just forgot the seam Thanks Dennis! Thanks Mike!
  10. Thanks Rick! Thanks Ron! It's a nice fairly relaxed build - you'll enjoy it. Thanks Reuben! Thanks Mike!
  11. More pics: Gotta touch up the gun barrels Cockpit with mood lighting on! Kit detail in the wheel wells is pretty nice. I hid the battery pack for the lights here in the bomb bay so I can access the switch and can change batteries when needed. I do need to find some black tape though! Cheers, Mark
  12. Hi guys, The Lancaster is finished - sort of - more on that later. So, in the quest to reduce the large pile of kit boxes in my stash, I decided to open the largest of the boxes and out popped a Lancaster! Built mostly from the box except for the Eduard Zoom instrument panel and some LED lights from Amazon. I figured that though I wasn't going to do any super-detailing in the interior, a little mood lighting would help show off what is there. The kit mostly fell together, good engineering from HKM except for a weird fit issue sliding the inner nacelles into the wing. In retrospect I did deviate from the instructions slightly during wing construction so that was probably the cause. Dang that old operator error thing! Painting this massive beast was a chore and challenge (see me recent thread on MRP clear coats). I ran out of British Interior Green in my fave MM so I mixed up a substitute from a test order from True North. I will not be ordering any more paint from them - nuff said. Exterior colors are MRP, first time using them and I like the base colors. I did have an issue with the clear coating where it has been theorized I had an episode of blushing due to high temps/humidity when I sprayed the final flat coat. Managed to fix that (mostly) and except for a few areas it actually enhanced the weathering effects (to my eyes anyway). I do have a few spots to touch up but I'm putting this in the done column until I can muster the courage to do the fixes. Here she is: The sheer size of this thing makes photographing difficult! You can see a little of the blushing below the cockpit that I wasn't quite able to rescue. More pics coming. Thanks for looking! Cheers, Mark
  13. I generally do a full gloss clear before decaling for two reasons - one, for better decal adhesion and less silvering, and two, it gives me better control over washes and weathering. I'm always open to better techniques though, Definitely no paint drying before hitting the model in this case. My technique is to usually lay a mist coat followed (after flashing) immediately with a medium wet coat and if necessary a medium to heavy wet coat for depth and color opacity. Been painting cars, boats, airplanes, models (plus probably a few other things) for years - the techniques cross over. I suspect that a blood toxicology report on me would turn up so many solvents and bad things absorbed over the years would make anybody faint .
  14. This makes sense considering the heat wave we have had this summer. My garage a/c (15,000 BTU) normally can make the garage comfortable almost all days but lately it won't even make a dent. We had multiple days where the humidity drove the heat index up to and over 115 (that's F, though it sure felt like C!) Reminded me of my years living in Dubai! I did manage to fix most of the Lancaster and combined with the washes and weathering I applied it turned out mostly ok. There's a few spots I'm going to fix - and since this thing is so massive a few spots I'm still finding! I have decided not to go whole-hog on MRP paints (insert crowd boos and hisses here ) for the same reason you stated - I like the ability to adjust and control the thinner and viscosity myself - I thought MRP was too thin from the bottle and didn't give me options. Mark
  15. The whole problem started with the MRP Gloss - it's just too thin to fill over a flat base coat. I blew through 3 bottles in no time flat and didn't feel like spending another $30 to keep going with the MRP gloss. Maybe there was a reaction with the Mr. Color gloss but if so it's the first paint I've seen that does. Mr. Color to me seems to be impervious and tough as nails. This may be more likely but I've never had humidity issues with other paints like this, and the MRP base colors went on with no problem. This summer has been brutal heat and humidity-wise. I do have an air conditioner in the garage/paint booth but this summer it's been largely innefective. I don't think so - if it was a smallish area possibly but the entire model had the chalking. And it's a honking big model!
  16. Ok, I'm still learning the ins n outs of the new format. 1. I don't see a way to edit a post after it publishes. What am I not seeing? 2. The reason of needing to edit is I can't remember the new method for posting images (from Imgur) and can't find a sticky explaining it. Help! Thanks, Mark
  17. Hi guys, In my ongoing attempts to replace my venerable go-to paints (Model Masters) I have tried a variety of alternatives. True North (horrible), Hakata (horrible, though I have been led to believe I might have gotten an early batch), Tamiya and Mr. Color (love both, though I hate mixing - Tamiya - and Mr. Color numbering system is mind-numbingly haphazard). So for my HK Lancaster I decided I'd try MRP paints. Heard lots of good things here about them. All seemed to go well, though the paint lays down really thin (!) and with some colors it's difficult to be sure of full coverage. Granted, the Lancaster is a large canvas to work with and might have added to that difficulty. Having said that the color coats all went down great. I do have some issues though with their clear coats. The gloss clear simply was too thin - I went through three bottles of gloss and barely made a dent. Except to my wallet . I had to switch to my stash of Mr. Color gloss clear to get a gloss coat for decals and weathering. With that done, all ready for final dull coat, I figured a coat or two of MRP flat to knock the shine off. This is where disaster strikes. The entire model looked pretty much like this! I had this happen to me years ago when I mistakenly applied flat base (not knowing that is an additive only) instead of flat clear coat. Maybe I got a bad batch of flat clear, but I don't think it was application error. I usually start with a light coat on one section at a time, wait for it to start flashing, then follow up with a wet coat for coverage and blending. The chalkiness didn't show up until after the wet coat dried. Hmm and other bad(der) words. Now what? Out with the old standby, Mr. Color gloss clear. I tested the worst areas: The MRP was still soft enough that the gloss overcoat absorbed the flat and blended things (mostly) back to acceptable. I then recoated with Mr. Color flat and called it done. There are still a few areas where the chalk is noticable, some look ok, some to my eye still suck. Rats. Any comments? Suggestions? I have pretty much decided on my replacement paints though - Tamiya and Mr. Color are consistently good. No more experiments! Look soon in the RFI section for the finished Lancaster. Cheers, Mark
  18. Thanks! Thanks! Thanks! A little more work than usual but still enjoyable. Mark
  19. Thanks! I thought about doing some extra wiring, etc., but in the end decided it wasn't going to show up well since the skins are semi-opaque. I was curious why ZM did this but after looking at how HK did there Lanc clear fuselage it makes sense to me. A super clear see-thru fuselage does allow for more internal detail but the reflectivity of the skin negates most of it - ZM with their semi-clear skins looks better even though it does blur finer detail. Cheers, Mark
  20. Hi fellas, I finally got around to building the ZM Ho-229! I bought the kit when it first came out and waffled for several years deciding what direction I wanted to go with it. I decided early on that it just didn't have much "curb appeal" finished with a full camo paint scheme. Additionally, there was just so much internal detail that begged to be shown off - I finally decided on half-an-half. I finished it straight from the box, paints were Model Masters throughout and as far as the build itself, standard ZM - fit was superb but there were some tricky areas! Definitely follow the instructions! Highly recommended! I can't remember what color I used to simulate the plywood skins (and the real version probably had painted inner skin surfaces anyway but the real one wasn't see-thru!) but it did seem to accentuate the insides: More pics to follow, thanks for looking! Cheers, Mark
  21. Hi fellas, I'm working on the HKM Lancaster and have run into a fit issue with both inboard nacelles. I'm only at the dry fit stage but both nacelles (assembled with the landing gear bay fitted) will not slot into the openings in the wings. In fact the wing opening seems to be too narrow by over 1/8th of an inch. I've tried swapping nacelles, both have the same fit problem. I figured I would ask before I start cutting plastic - I probably screwed something up! Thanks! Mark
  22. All you guys missed by a mile! F-111, all variants.
  23. Without going into shape details or discrepancies because I'm not an expert on the A-26/B-26 but one thing immediately struck my eye. The engines are 7 cylinders per row aka R-2600 - I am pretty sure the Invader had R-2800s, 9 cylinders per row. I'll still get one, fix all the problems and maybe even buy replacement engines. Good, bad or otherwise it's probably the only Invader we'll ever see in 1/32. Cheers, Mark
×
×
  • Create New...