Phantom Mark:
Quite frankly mate the reason the standard has slipped so low is because every man and his dog has a HGV licence now, where before it was blokes/ladies that had a passion for the job, and that brought pride and professionalism with it, ie dole’ies with free licences given to them, a mass of people from other parts of the work force retrained when they got made redundant, foreign nationals, and general slipping of driving standards over the years has all brought the job into disrepute, my comment is a very broad generalisation of course but some valid reasons mentioned.
I find myself cursing just as many HGV drivers these days as cars to be honest, just ignore the knobs and stay clear of them and crack on with it mate
No one pays 2k for a licence, all the hassle, zero social life, lack of family life, abuse, crap pay, long hours disgust and filth just because its a JOB. No chance.
IMO it comes down to pressure more than anything.
That’s the point, not everyone pays for it
No filth in my job, home every day, relatively OK’ish money, no pressure, you clearly have a job which is just highlighting the worst aspects of the job mate.
That was only for a short period in one part of the country was it not? Bradford iirc? Might be wrong
All the training is still a lot of hassle just to get a job. Not a 9 - 5 either. If your hearts not in it no way would the average ‘‘just a job’’ lot stick it out.
Big Roy:
But this still makes no sense, I passed the same test as everyone else and have been driving for 7 accident free years, Phantom Mark is saying “the reason the standard has slipped so low” is due to re training, now surely every driver on the road has re trained to gain their licence, so because I have come into the game via a different route it makes me a “lower standard” unbelievable
As he said it was a stereotypical view,which won’t always be fair in all cases,but the fact is the issue needs to be viewed in that way.The job is being progressively undervalued and seen as an increasingly unskilled one when it should actually be viewed as one of the most skilled occupations out there certainly on the same level as train driving.You don’t see opportunities for ‘retraining etc’ at the job centre,which would put someone who’s spent 10-20 years working as a building labourer or in a factory or a warehose etc etc,behind the wheel of a Eurostar,let alone an aircraft,even though driving a loaded 44 tonne truck properly probably needs more judgement and human input.Dumbing the job down with synchro boxes,speed limiters,and automatic tailgating devices,to allow employers to put a trained gorilla behind the wheel of a 44 tonner,won’t make the slightest difference in stopping the idiot eventually finding a way of crashing the thing.
In aviation they keep out the idiots by expecting pilots to pass a series of 14 written ATPL (Airline Transport Pilot’s Licence) exams, none of which are particularly easy…
it puts off all but the most determined…I had an instructor that called the ATPL exams the IF exams (‘Idiot Filter’ ) alot of the content is non-essential to safely fly but it does the I F job beautifully…
You can learn to driver a truck (pass a test at least) in a week…
This is not possible in things like aviation…
Truck driving needs care, courtesy and a semi-skilled ability. If it were hard though it would take far longer than a week to pass an LGV test…
Respect for drivers is poor, but a lot is down to drivers themselves. Look at taxi drivers…they drive far more miles than the average motorist yet are widely known for being reckless idiots…mostly because a high percentage of them are!
commonrail:
although,even then…human error can and has been the cause of aviation disasters(air france concorde for example)
The Concorde accident was a a maintenance issue causing the loss of a foreign object from another aircraft which the Concorde then ran into it wasn’t pilot error.
The difference with road transport is that there’s no one else in the cab to give a second opinion and there’s no road traffic control telling the driver where to put the thing.It’s all in the hands of the driver it’s then just a case of wether that driver is as good as the flight engineer was on the KLM plane that ran into the Pan Am one.
Or wether that driver is as bad as it’s pilot was.
had the correct actions been taken by the flight crew there was no reason concorde should have crashed…for a start they were transfering fuel from the rear tank to the wing tanks during take off which pressurized them…making them more prone to rupture.
and then they shut the engine down,when in actual fact there was nothing wrong with it.had they just carried on the flames would have blown out and the problem could have been dealt with once in the air
there was a time that the government didn’t get involved.
you would become an apprentice/drivers mate. this would be with someone with about 30/40 years experience and ready to jack in.
you were taught everything about the job at the age of 15 or 16.
then when they thought you was ready to get your own truck, you got it. you didn’t have a piece of paper, you had experience.
commonrail:
had the correct actions been taken by the flight crew there was no reason concorde should have crashed…for a start they were transfering fuel from the rear tank to the wing tanks during take off which pressurized them…making them more prone to rupture.
and then they shut the engine down,when in actual fact there was nothing wrong with it.had they just carried on the flames would have blown out and the problem could have been dealt with once in the air
Shutting down the engine in the case of a fire warning was correct procedure and it wasn’t the loss of the engines on the left hand wing that caused the loss of lift it was the fact that the fire was actually fierce enough to destroy the wing and it’s control surfaces and certainly couldn’t have been ‘blown out’ by the air flow.
not according to my friend who worked for rolls royce at the time,and was involved in the accident investigations of all planes using rolls engines.
and as for blowing out flames…ww2 pilots were taught to dive in the advent of a fuel tank fire in order to achieve this
commonrail:
not according to my friend who worked for rolls royce at the time,and was involved in the accident investigations of all planes using rolls engines.
and as for blowing out flames…ww2 pilots were taught to dive in the advent of a fuel tank fire in order to achieve this
The only chance might have been abort the take off and accept the results and hope the thing stayed together enough as it came to a halt and the fire service got to where it came to rest,after overshooting the end of the runway,in time for there at least to still be someone left to save.
In this case it’s just a reasonable amount of knowledge of how much heat a large amount of kerosene puts out when it’s burning (a lot) (and the fact that a pilot knows that too) to know that the Concorde that went in in Paris didn’t have much chance from the moment it left the ground and probably the pilot might have taken the option of aborting the take off at all costs if he’d realised just how big the fire,that he was actually facing was,when he decided to take off.
i have actually silenced carryfast…has this ever been done before either that or he is feverishly researching every fact he can find regarding the matter…in order to prove me wrong.
calm before the storm i wonder
You tube is running slow today, he’ll be along soon don’t worry
I wonder which direction the next tangent will take, we’ve gone from the M5 to Charles de Gaulle airport, lorries to planes. I think it’s about time we introduced submarines to the thread
