New technologies, reason for accidents...?

[BelArgUSA]

Gentlemen...
xxx
For the past few weeks, I have enjoyed reading the forums, and educated myself with the new generation pilots and airplanes they fly. Being now near retirement, I wonder if all that is good to the industry and flight safety...?
xxx
Some examples here -
xxx
Nowadays, with extremely accurate GPS precision navigation, and extremely accurate altitude control of RVSM airplanes, when we are "on track" and "at FL xxx", we are really there, not half-a-mile to the left and to the right of track, and not 50 feet above or below our assigned levels... But is precision a source of accidents, in terms of human lives...?
xxx
Months ago, I read with horror about the mid-air over Brazil, an airspace I know well, of the Embraer Legacy, and the Gol 737... The two planes were modern airplanes, equipped with GPS navigation system precision, and RVSM standards. Maybe if they would not have that precision, there would have been no mid-air, just a "near-miss" incident...
xxx
I will admit a voluntary airspace violation I did often in my life, back in the past when flying in some "nearly or completely uncontrolled" areas of the world, such as Africa, Asia or some parts of the South American continent or oceanic areas... My violation is/was to select 200/300 feet OFF the assigned FL, on the autopilot altitude hold selector... I know why I did such thing, as recently as 7 years ago, flying from Europe to South Africa, where ATC and radar is quasi inexistant...
xxx
Half of the pilots "would never do such a thing"... (the "Geeks", the "Nerds" and "Goody-two-shoes" types) and "half of us", (like myself) might have done that. Unknown to me, maybe, I avoided a few mid-airs, by missing other flights by 200 feet, above or below... Not my invention, I learned from the "old timers" I respected
xxx
Another example, about FADEC or equivalent power limiting systems for engines... In a recent thread, I questioned the inability of a well qualified and experienced test pilot of a A320, in France, who, making a low pass, gear down at an airshow, was unable to "overboost" his engines to recover from a low altitude and high drag situation, and ended his flight in the trees, with numerous victims. His FADEC system saved the engines from overhaul, but the victims could not be overhauled...
xxx
Finally, I am at awe, reading about these pilots "forced" or "induced" to use automatic landing system as SOP on all approaches they perform. Where do they acquire "airmanship"... Is it by depressing a few little buttons and moving switches...?
xxx
I appreciate the level of assistance I have in old (soon to be retired as well 747-200s) provided by triple channel Cat.II and Cat.IIIA capable autopilots, but I have tried to preserve my ability to fly an approach and landing manually, unless visibility/conditions did not permit, or if tired at the end of a very long day, or night...
xxx
So, new technologies, but I do not believe it does increase safety, and certainly does not contribute to promote or maintain airmanship. I am curious to read those who will oppose my pont of view... (or share it) -
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

[Gooneyone]

I have to agree with you. While talking about Dash 8 operation only, I remember the days before FMS / GPS when two flights on the same airway would never cross directly over/under each other,a few miles horizontally being the norm. It's quite common today and makes me wonder about an incorrect altitude - either by ATC or Crew - causing a head-on collision (OK, probably won't happen with TCAS - but is this more machine dependancy?).
As to automation, I find that most new hires are too dependant on the FD and AP. They have to be prompted to do a bit of hand flying - and most of them need it. Not forgetting the veterans who become lulled into complacency by the gadgets.
Don't get me wrong, when the weather is kicking, I'll use everything available and the automation makes my job alot easier, but on those clear days it's real nice to hand fly a raw data ILS.
So, is safety improved by the new technologies? Definitely yes - but when the technology fails, we will have to rely on skills that have gone rusty due to the new technologies.

[BOAC]

BelArg - Another example, about FADEC or equivalent power limiting systems for engines... - to pick up on just one of your points, I think that if you study the findings of the Habsheim accident you will find that 'overboosting' would have made no difference to the outcome. It was spool-up time from idle that was the 'killer', and the fly-by-wire did its job perfectly in refusing to allow any significant raising of the nose due to lack of performance. Result - the a/c settled into the trees, but WINGS LEVEL. There is always the possibility that on a non FBW a/c the 'panic' pull back on the c/column could have caused a wing drop and roll which would probably have killed lots of pax?

The a/c kit said 'No'! We will never know whether there really WAS enough energy to lift the a/c those few feet.

[bflyer]

I once read in 'HANDLING BIG JETS' by its great author of a scheme to restore those [rusty flying skills]
A major airline..can either own or lease a small jet, such as a learjet and train their pilots in recovery from unusual attitudes since most of them hae forgotten how to fly an aircraft as opposed to operate one..what are your thoughts on this idea?

[BelArgUSA]

I believe Singapore Airlines had Learjets to train pilots, at least some time in the past. Also remember PanAm in 1968 had thought of using DA-20 Falcons to do the same thing, but never came to be a fact. So did United, I saw pictures of a Falcon 20 with PanAm colors, and a Learjet 23 in United markings...
xxx
Learjet (particularly old 20 series) are excellent "jet trainers" and all new hires I have seen with that aircraft background do a good job in airline training environment. These old Lears are not easy planes to handle, and can kill you if you dont watch-out...
xxx
The CEO of "an airline that I know well" has the use of a Learjet 31A, but that is just to enjoy nice company while flying to exclusive resorts... I dont think he likes the service in F class of his own airline, or the schedules... Good excuses...
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

[MarkMcC]

An intresting idea, bflyer, but one to be approached with a great degree of caution.

One must avoid imparting negative training when using a scheme like that, and that is very difficult to do! Upset recovery techniques can vary widely, especially in the FBW world, and the last thing that we want is a crew in an Airbus not burying the stick aft to avoid terrain because some small part of their subconscious is linked to a Lear jet where that would overstress the aircraft. The law of primacy comes into play strongly here.

Upset recovery training itself can be a double edged sword - let us not forget the lessons of AA over New York in an A300/310. While certainly not the consensus, there is a feeling among many that the upset recovery training provided to the crew was a major contributor to the accident.

The lesson always seems to be this: know your aircraft, be it an A340 or a Sopwith Camel. Know its systems, its automation, and most importantly its limits. Know the SOPs cold, and keep up to date with the latest regs (i.e. strategic lateral offsets - deliberately flying slightly offset in certain airspace as described by the original poster).

[BelArgUSA]

Hola BOAC -
xxx
I agree with you that the Habsheim accident was probably due to the factor of spool-up time, and combined with other factors, such as a lower altitude than planned. Apparently, the pilot was not even familiar with the airfield environment, but I still believe that the concept of the A-320 technology may be a difficult transition for the flight crews of my generation.
xxx
When I started as airline pilot, numerous captains were ex DC-6/7 pilots, some who had a difficult time to adapt to the 727 jet transports. I remember a notorious accident (UAL 727, Salt Lake City, mid-1960s) that was often cited as example in classroom discussions, about the factors when transitioning pilots from one generation of aircraft to the next. The spool-up time of a R-2800 or R-3350 was different than a JT3D or JT8D...
xxx
I found myself in the same situation a few years ago when the first airplanes appeared with "glass cockpits" and FMS equipment, and I refused to transition to such airplanes. Same with a reduction of flight crews from 3 cockpit crewmembers down to the 2 pilots as we often have nowadays.
xxx
A few years ago, our 747 pilot group (and myself) fought a war with our management to select 747-300s rather than more expensive 747-400s... The issue was supression of the flight engineers, and the extra range offered by the 400 series (very little range increase, which was not even warranted for our sectors). The price of the 300s was approximately $10-12 million per unit, instead of $30-35 million for the 400s... Passenger capacity was same for both aircraft types. The major issue was then the flight engineers. The company politics at the time was worsened by the economic situation in Argentina in 2001-2002, and averting the bankruptcy of the airline... The proponents of the 747-400s won the battle... They acquired 4 747-400s from Canada, and spent a fortune in crew training, while no training would have been required if they had acquired the 747-300s...
xxx
What made us smile, however, our unions demanded that flight engineers be trained to be "cruise first officers", and that all first officers be qualified as "cruise captains" with P-1 type rating...
xxx
At the end... our 747-400 sectors are long, all requiring a crew of three pilots, but now, that crew of 3 pilots have a higher salary, than the crew of 3 (2 pilots + F/E) in the 747-200/300s... So, our accountants selected an airplane... with higher crew costs...
xxx
Airline managements know little about airplanes...
:)
Happy contrails

[bookworm]

The a/c kit said 'No'!

I have a pair of piston engines and CSUs designed in the 1950s (if not earlier). Even when I push the blue levers as hard as I can against the stops, the "a/c kit" says "No!" and stops me from getting more than 2700 RPM, even though I know the engines can turn faster in an emergency. Damned new technology... ;)

[BelArgUSA]

I dont know much about reciprocating engines, just remember a few questions from an ATPL written with some DC-7 questions...
xxx
Power available was not RPM only, but BMEP as well... Then on top of that, I remember the propeller slipstream on the wing reducing stall speeds... and immediate power increase available, not the case of jets from idle power...
xxx
If I remember well, an Allison J-33 engine or RR Nene had something like 30 seconds spool-up time from idle to max power...? Probably was hard for the Mustang P-51 or Spitfire pilots to live with that difference when transitioning to F-86s Sabres or Gloster Meteors...
xxx
Flying a prop airplane, and transition to jets WAS difficult...
:)
Happy contrails

[Groundloop]

BelArg,

Regarding accuracy of modern nav systems, the solution is to offset where possible.

For example, see
http://http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=286071

[Centaurus]

If I remember well, an Allison J-33 engine or RR Nene had something like 30 seconds spool-up time from idle to max power...?

I don't know about the Allison, but I flew the Nene powered single seat Vampires and spool up time on a touch and go was quite fast -around 5-8 seconds from idle to full power. The dual Vampire Mk 33 with a Goblin wasn't too bad either although if you pushed open the throttle too fast the engine made loud rumbling noises.

Regarding the observations on reluctance of pilots (SOP maybe) to switch off the flight directors and automatics. From listening to countless stories of my former simulator students now happily flying jets as first officers, I was surprised to hear that most of them would love to be able to hand fly raw data but their captains are often reluctant to let them do this. All sorts of reasons are offered for this reluctance but it boils down to the fact the captains were themselves rusty at real handling (as against letting the automatics do the lot).

There are plenty of willing young first officers out there who would like to dare to switch of the FD in a climb or descent - but the left seat bloke won't allow them the pleasure. It's all about the "twitch factor."

[bomarc]

This thread is to speak out on the concepts of automation in the cockpit.

About 15 years ago, I met a chap who was / is on the boeing chair at MIT (important technical university near boston, usa).

He said that the days of the skilled pilot were gone and that anyone with 300 hours or so would be able to handle the new computerized jet airliners.

With the thread about the TAM crash already at 737 posts (hmmm 737), I thought I would shift talk about automation and the man/machine interface to this spot.


Time to speak up or out on this subject.


Those of you who know me will probably understand that I would prefer a simple jet with less automation and more skill by the pilot.

[barit1]

There was at one time a significant theory about the human capability to operate within the well-designed loop, versus his ability to effectively, long-term, monitor a control loop operating autonomously.

The evidence at that time was seen to support the former rather than the latter. There were some theories postulated why this should be true, including evolutionary processes, that favor the "doer" over the "watcher" role for mere mortals.

What is the current thinking in this regard? Airbus particularly seems to have departed from this quasiparadigm (if you'll pardon my vocabulary).
The insurance industry must have some opinion one way or the other.

[Flight Detent]

Good on ya!

BelArgUSA has just posted the basic concept of many, many 'decisions' that were being made a couple of years ago.

Many times the decision to bypass the B747-300 is totally based on things other than the efficient economics of operating a v/large aeroplane.

Like QF and AP!

It has been, and will always remain, that I believe that the B747-300 is by far the best jumbo aircraft ever made, bar none (including the oncoming!).

This is inline with my ongoing dogma that I believe going to 2 pilot crews on v/large airplanes, versus the 3 crew (2+1), was and remains a very questionable decision!

Cheers...FD...:ugh:

[bubbers44]

I found the transition from the MD80 to the 737 200 much more difficult than years before going from the 737 200 to the MD80 in the right seat. Learning automation and still having your manual skills intact is easier than losing your hands on flying skills because of auto everything and having to do everything yourself again.

I ended my career in the B757 flying manual approaches rather than going to the B777 so I could enjoy the last few years. No stress, no surprises.

[ITCZ]

BelArgUSA, I think you might enjoy this book Air Disaster Vol 3 (http://www.amazon.com/Air-Disaster-Vol-Macarthur-Job/dp/187567134X) by Macarthur Job. Mac Job is a former australian air safety investigator that has a talent for exploring the issues behind accidents and communicating them to us.

Chapter 1 deals with the AirFrance A320 in 1988. Interestingly on that occasion the engines spooled up as commanded, in fact faster than manufacturer data.

It is an interesting read. I recommend it to you!

ITCZ:ok:

[barit1]

Chapter 1 deals with the AirFrance A320 in 1988. Interestingly on that occasion the engines spooled up as commanded, in fact faster than manufacturer data.

The obvious corollary is that the command came too late.

[ITCZ]

Indeed. :\

[ExSimGuy]

Background (for those who do not know me) - Built sims for Singer-Link (-Miles) and maintained sims for BA (VC-10, 707, 747 Classic, and 737-"just")

Scenario - Aircraft happily rolling down the ILS (maybe in A/P or maybe hand-flown) - passes 100ft (?) and auto knocked off, pilot continues landing, shutting the power as the aircraft flares and touches down, spoilers (manually) deployed and thrust levers lifted up into reverse and brakes applied.

Can somebody please tell me what was wrong with this story (minor details maybe as it was years ago for me)

Now it appears that almost everything above is carried out by The Computer (okay -lesson the Boeing, but still some of it). Is it hard to remember "flare, power off, spoilers, reverse, brakes" (sharing some of those with your colleague)? So why hand over the control of the aircraft to The Computer?

Not that I have any problem with the autopilot systems - flying an 8-hour leg across the Atlantic must have been pretty tiring and boring (hopefully) - but why do we now seem to be handing most, if not all of the authority to a machine? Especially those critical phases of the flight

I remember in the latter days of my airline career doing a "route-fam" in a BA 737 to Spain and back - on arriving at LGW asked the crew if they were going to approach on A/P and getting the answer "no, it's a lovely clear day and we probably need the practice" !! The PF (left seat) held those 2 yellow bars glued beautifully in the centre all the way down with no problem!

Why does it seem to me that the automation is taking over the aircraft, complicating its operation (?), and depriving the crews (?) of the everyday "stick and rudder" practice? (in some aircraft,even depriving them of the stick completely;))

I know that commercial flying gets safer every decade, but are we not forgetting the valuable input from the well-trained professionals who inhabit "row -1"?

(post inspired by the recent TAM and other similar instances)

[lefthanddownabit]

Scenario - Aircraft happily rolling down the ILS (maybe in A/P or maybe hand-flown) - passes 100ft (?) and auto knocked off, pilot continues landing, shutting the power as the aircraft flares and touches down, spoilers (manually) deployed and thrust levers lifted up into reverse and brakes applied.

Can somebody please tell me what was wrong with this story (minor details maybe as it was years ago for me)

Now it appears that almost everything above is carried out by The Computer (okay -lesson the Boeing, but still some of it). Is it hard to remember "flare, power off, spoilers, reverse, brakes" (sharing some of those with your colleague)? So why hand over the control of the aircraft to The Computer?
This scenario happens to this day, except perhaps for the auto ground spoilers bit. Auto brakes and auto spoilers have been around for an awful long time and were integral to the hands on aircraft people seem to yearn after. I'm not aware of any current aircraft with auto thrust reverse. Ground spoilers can be manually deployed if the auto system(s) fail.

Auto brakes are a great benefit, both in reducing maintenance cost but also increase safety. It doesn't make sense to manually brake AND have to be using the rudders to control the aircraft during rollout. Auto everytime.

No one forces pilots to auto-land all the time. AFAIK most landings (and ALL takeoffs) are manual, of only in the last 500 feet. An A320 is very pleasant to hand fly as it happens (at least that is what I have found flying the simulator, not being a pilot).

FADEC gives the pilot care-free engine operation. It is found on some quite elderly aircraft, not just Airbuses. In the "good old days" rough handling of the engine might result in a catastrophic failure. Even pre-FADEC some engine manufacturers (e.g. RR) had limiters on everything so over-boosting simply was not possible. I can't think of a single good reason why FADEC could be a "bad thing".

The automatics are there to help the pilot and improve safety. There aren't too many instances where they have caused accidents, and even then it is usually because the "operator", (aka the pilot), misread indications or was over reliant on auto modes when the situation demanded otherwise. They can reduce situational awareness I suppose, but good training should take care of that.

[Centaurus]

There are countless opportunities for pilots of current airline types to manually fly and land their aircraft. I am sure the majority of pilots who are in the job because of the sheer enjoyment of flying, would welcome the opportunity for hands-on practice to increase their competency. On the other hand one sees pilots who have been brought up on automatics from their first type rating and fear switching off a flight director. Despite lip service by some operators on the need to remain competent at non-automatics, the fact is most airlines insist on full use of automatics at all times. Basic flying skills then fly out of the window. It then becomes safer to stick to the automatics. Catch 22.

[AirRabbit]

Once again, I agree with my colleague, Centaurus. Autoflight can be a very nice thing to have available in the cockpit – but it can be very much “drug-like” in its habit pattern dependency; and worse, its effect is usually so subtitle that it isn’t recognized until one tries to do without it – out of necessity. What is more, I wouldn’t make the differentiation simply between switching the flight director ON or OFF. The more automatics are used (i.e., use of the autothrottle, use of altitude select or altitude hold – with autopilot or FD, use of an FMS – planning and/or completing climb or descents to final or intermediate points – including entry into or departure from arrival holding patterns; selecting and using en route navigation facilities – including instrument arrival and approach/missed approach facilities; and, in the computer-controlled machines, even the use of “automatic” trim and “g” limit protection; etc.) the more “dependent” the pilot becomes … and, as Centaurus very correctly points out, the more the basic flying skills “fly out of the window,” and it “becomes safer to stick to the automatics.”

I certainly don’t mind the advent of “workload relievers,” and after a very long flight, over night flight, etc., it IS quite relieving to let “George” handle the approach while the flight crew monitors carefully. However, I have seen normally qualified pilots handed an airplane with the autothrottle inop and, as a result, a normal “ILS in VMC” approach flown on the autopilot to the Marker and then hand-flown to landing, be right on the ragged edge of what would be considered acceptable. Why? Simply because of being overly dependent on the autothrottle system to keep up with the multitude of pitch changes encountered during ANY approach trying to maintain the glide slope – even when the runway is, and has been, clearly in sight. IF companies are going to insist on flight crews using automatics under most conditions (and I question the logic behind that position anyway), then it would certainly be incumbent on those companies to ensure that basic flying skills be reviewed in depth and in a determined manner during each recurrent training session – just as reviewing other, not-often seen scenarios, like engine (and other system) failures, very low visibility approaches, extreme crosswind takeoffs and landings, etc.

There is an old and oft repeated saying when speaking more than one language … “if you don’t use it, you’re going to lose it…” and I, for one, strongly believe that applies to basic flying skills at least as much, and perhaps more.

[411A]

Despite lip service by some operators on the need to remain competent at non-automatics, the fact is most airlines insist on full use of automatics at all times. Basic flying skills then fly out of the window. It then becomes safer to stick to the automatics. Catch 22.

There is an old and oft repeated saying when speaking more than one language … “if you don’t use it, you’re going to lose it…” and I, for one, strongly believe that applies to basic flying skills at least as much, and perhaps more.

Both statements, in my humble opinion....absolutely positively correct, without a doubt.

[Dream Land]

Agree with most of the posts here, most experienced crews here have been in both worlds, I for one feel that things are safer and smoother. Wasn't too long ago I passengered out to join a flight, the equipment was a DC-9 (-10 I think), I felt like I had been through a ride at Disney World, yanking and banking, huge power adjustments, please give me the smooth world of automation.

[Lemper]

Hello BelArgUSA,

So, new technologies, but I do not believe it does increase safety, and certainly does not contribute to promote or maintain airmanship. I am curious to read those who will oppose my point of view... (or share it)

Sorry to quote only the last sentence of your post, it deserved complete quoting, but this one triggered some thoughts I wanted to share.

I am also a baby boomer only a couple of years from retirement. I learnt about flying with old timers like T33, F84F, then practiced 707, Caravelle, 737-200, but also flew A320, MD11 and now the 744 for the past ten years. Flew with old school tyrants, old geniuses, and then young enthusiastic chaps and today, sometimes, with toads loaded with more ambition than brains.
I have reached a stage where I think I can look back and serenely analyse what has happened in the past forty-two years or so of my flying (Starting at 16 y.o. with Grünau and Rhönlerche gliders).

It is true that in the old days, pilots needed quite a bit of skill; handling skills but also 3d position awareness, anticipation on dynamic situation, and all that made “airmanship”, “captaincy”, “crew spirit” and what is now named with hi-tech Harvard type lingo in CRM…
Air transportation was a public service (except in the USA) in the hands of governments, so skill was highly priced and rewarded but outrageously expensive for the industry: No phase III sims, lengthy training in airplanes, endless time build up in the right seat, flight engineers and….crashes.
Flying was dangerous (and sex a lot safer indeed) because the technology was still at experimental level, and the industry was counting on pilots skills and experience for safety, with mitigated results.

It is true that nowadays, new generation pilots have not got the skills and knowledge that would make them safe pilots in the world we have lived, and it is true that this is because new technology is depriving them from building those skills. Flight management computers, Nav displays, Auto Flight Director Systems (we do not speak about “George” anymore), ACARS, CPDLC, LNAV/VNAV approaches on a three degree G/S instead of our VOR non precisions, the VNAV to compute the descent, W/V data predictions, electronic flight bag, and all these things that used to happen in our computing brains and are now written in plain language in front of you.

However, statistics show that although pilots have less flying skills and airmanship, there is a dramatic decrease in air accident, even with a dramatic increase in air traffic.
The reason is that technology has developed faster and further than pilots’ skills have waned, compensated largely for this lack of skill and airmanship.
In other words, the industry policy makers (Aircraft Manufacturers, Airlines Managers, and States Regulators) have succeeded in reaching a win-win situation for themselves and the industry clients:
Improve flight safety for the clients (pax and freight forwarders), and decrease the labour cost hence the fixed costs thus increasing their profit margins.
Training a pilot has never been so short and cheap; upgrading a co-pilot to captain has never been so easy and with so little failure rate. Responsibility of the pilot has never been so low (however, his accountability and liability remained!) and pilots have never been so cheap and controlled.
The sad part is only on the pilot’s side. It used to be that we either had the fun or we had the money, and there was always the glamour. Today there is neither money nor fun, and if there is a lot of money, there is no life, or a very hard one; as for the glamour…..
Young people with more brains than enthusiasm have started realizing that, and the boomerang is coming back in the face of the industry leaders: pilot shortage.
Personally, I have come to terms with the times: In a couple of years, I’ll go back to Africa and fly one of those real airplanes with no computers, no GPS, no flight director, no FADEC, just wings and engines, and the stuff to move them the right way.

[Centaurus]

The sad part is only on the pilot’s side. It used to be that we either had the fun or we had the money, and there was always the glamour. Today there is neither money nor fun, and if there is a lot of money, there is no life, or a very hard one; as for the glamour…..
Young people with more brains than enthusiasm have started realizing that, and the boomerang is coming back in the face of the industry leaders: pilot shortage.
Personally, I have come to terms with the times: In a couple of years, I’ll go back to Africa and fly one of those real airplanes with no computers, no GPS, no flight director, no FADEC, just wings and engines, and the stuff to move them the right way

A well written, beautifully expressed post, Lemper. And how true...

[ExSimGuy]

Lemper's post reminded me of BA Training Centre (Cranebank, Heathrow) when a cartoon appeared on the notice board . . . .

Picture of two pilots, sitting in armchairs, with a bare control panel in front of them apart from two buttons: "stop" and "go". Caption: "It's great what our union has done for us" ;)

That was some years ago, when a 747 (with round instruments!) was allowed to go to (I think) 500' before human hands had to be in control. Maybe I'm an old "dino",but I'd still rather have some of the guys I knew then have control of the aircraft, than someone who knew just how to set up the computer.

The computers may be great, but when s*** comes to bust, I still believe you need raw airmanship. Sadly, it appears that my worries have at least some foundation, that all of the "autos" are depriving us (us in the back, and you guys in the front) of the experience that's needed when in a nasty corner.

[Lemper]

Yep, this is called “nostalgia”, like enjoying a nice piece of classic jazz by Ella Fitzgerald, or of Paganini by Yehudi Menuhin.
I think we are not more unsafe today than 30 years ago, even if the wiz kids in front have 5000 hours of button punching, as long as they push the buttons in good sequence, read the NNC from left to right and top to bottom when crap hit the fan, and print all the ACARS messages they get during cruise.
And it will get better, I am sure! Someday, still in our lifetime, we will have ACARS controlled aircraft in which, should the pilots collapse in hypoxia or insist to land after half the wet runway length, an automatic MCP altitude swiveller will descend the plane to autoland or go around with thrust lever in idle, and all those sort of things. This will save more money for every one (Pax and CEO) and will make it still safer.
There will still be “pilots” sitting in front though as no freight forwarder would ever thrust his pallets to an airplanes with no one in front to sign the release (in case of…) for insurance; as for the passengers, if it is cheap enough, they would even board a plane without wings nor engine, as long as there is the booze available in the galley. Amazingly, they would be ready to pay more for the booze than for the flight ticket. Me, as soon as retire, I will travel by train and ship only. Time will not be a factor anymore.

[BAMRA wake up]

I’ll go back to Africa and fly one of those real airplanes with no computers, no GPS, no flight director, no FADEC, just wings and engines, and the stuff to move them the right way.

Lemper

Come to Scotland, it's still being done, 7 days a week; with deftness, fluency and imagination. Fancy 20+ take offs and 20+ landings per day?


http://www.fairisle.org.uk/Latest/freight_plane_0586.jpg

[ExSimGuy]

Why's the body of that aircraft got a 90-degree bend in it just behind the pilot's seat?

Maybe the Scottish runways have a bend inthe middle? ;)

[Lemper]

Bamra,
I would, with pleasure, accept your invitation; however, I'd rather fly in an area of the world where there is no acronyms like CAA-FAA-JAA-(F)OM(part A,B,C....Z), where one does not have to put his autograph on umpteen papers before closing doors, where one corrects one's mistakes (after surviving them) without having to hire a lawyer. Besides, no matter how much I like your hills and glenns, I prefer the bushes of the place where I was born.
Also, I do not think Scotland needs "pilotes sans frontieres" to fly "medecins sans frontieres" around bush clinics.

[skiesfull]

LEMPER
I hope that your ACARS is more robust then - mine keeps stating "message incomplete"!!
The possibility is that the new a/c such as A380/B787/B747-8/A350 will be 'autoland as normal SOP's and manual landing as non-normal'.
CNS-ATM (CPDLC/GNSS/ADS-B) may bring the day of the non-voice/all-automatic flight closer, with manual practice in the Sim only. Then what price nostalgia?

[BAMRA wake up]

Why's the body of that aircraft got a 90-degree bend in it just behind the pilot's seat?


ESG

There's a concertina section in the fuselage which allows the pilot to rotate the whole forward section left or right to improve visibility for the frequent crosswind landings. The nosewheel is of course linked to the rear section. Operation is by a hand cranked pump below the seat (makes the pilot look a right ***ker!).

[john_tullamarine]

.. otherwise known as a fisheye lens .... very wide angle field of view but considerable distortion.

[Lemper]

Then what price nostalgia?
Priceless! For everything else, there is....

[old,not bold]

Talking of airmanship and flying skills....


Maybe the Scottish runways have a bend inthe middle?

Perhaps they do, but a strip south of the Liwa Oasis in Abu Dhabi was made on two adjoining pieces of flat plain, with a small gap between them. The problem was that one was 15 degrees different alignment than the other.

Only the DC3s could do it, so long as you got the tail up in the first half, kicked through the 15% bend on the rudder and then used the second half to lift off and avoid the dune at the far end with a 45 degree turn at 50ft.

It only got really exciting when the oil company (customer, always right) lied about the weight of core samples they had put on board.

Landing was a matter of touching down good and early, not doing wheelies, and checking the brakes carefully before the flight....

I bet the B777 isn't half as much fun.

[Lemper]

The last time there could be a tiny little bit of fun in a 747 (777, 767, MD11, A330/340...) was the approach in Kai-Tak, and then it was a little more fun with the wind from the south west +/- 20 kts.
And they took even that away from us!

[ExSimGuy]

How about the Carnarsie approach to JFK, with nos 1 & 2 "out" and an adverse x-wind?

(Bluddy "automatics" could never do that one - takes real "s&r";))

(Do they still do Carnarsie?)

[old,not bold]

last time there could be a tiny little bit of fun in a 747 (777, 767, MD11, A330/340...) was the approach in Kai-Tak,

Yes, well, in the strangely surreal world that was Gulf Air in the 70's, some who had joined as DC3 pilots finished up flying L1011's into Kai-Tak as Captains, not that many years later. I recall a friend remarking conversationally that it was a useful background, as he handflew the Beast over the rooftops in a strong X-wind and torrential rain, with me paralyzed with fear in the jump seat, never having seen it from that angle before.

[Lemper]

How about the Carnarsie approach to JFK, with nos 1 & 2 "out" and an adverse x-wind?
(Bluddy "automatics" could never do that one - takes real "s&r")
(Do they still do Carnarsie?)

Never had to do it with engine out, it was fun enough with all them turning. The funniest (scariest?) part was that between the VOR and the leading strobe, level at MDA, Mr. Effo was punching stuff in his Emm See Dee You! Never got to know what.

And yep, they still do it today (The Canarsie AND punching stuff at minima.)

Then there was: Kano in Harmattan; Luanda at night without lights (shooting rebels), Kilimanjaro any time, Abudja still in construction, Kamina, Boende, Tashkend and Samarkand before ILS's....endless list of fun memories.

....Mais où sont les neiges d’antan…
(Flora, La Belle Romaine…FV)

[barit1]

The L-188 got off to a rocky start - this LGA accident (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19590203-1) was the first, and could readily be blamed on inadequate training on new technology.

But within a few years it was a reliable workhorse, unfortunately passed over in favor of jets.

[bflyer]

Mais où sont les neiges d’antan

I'm afraid mon ami that les neiges d'antan ont fondue pour toujours and that's the sad part of it:{

safe flying

[ExSimGuy]

Added in case the Press come thisaway . . . . . ;)

Carnarsie with "2 out" was only in the "Sim",to while away a quiet night shift:} - I'm sure anyone with even one donk adrift in the real thing would be definitely voting for the Alternate!


The TAM thread on R&N certainly seems to be panning out that the strong probability is an over-reliance on the "autos" and, possibly, lack of full understanding (or confusion in a scary "panic situation") - Back to my first post on this thread:
- 1) Chop the power, 2) hit the spoilers, 3) reverse buckets out, 4) toes on anchors - I'm sure it was easy for me to remember.

And after step 2, if it ain't stopping and the tarmac is short and wet: 1) firewall the throttles, 2) spoilers in, 3) flaps to 15 (or whatever according to type). Why does it need a computer?

(Disclaimer: Just a Sim Eng, and don't know nuffin!;))

[BOAC]

ESG - absolutely. That is the 'old' way. This thread has significant cross-over with my thread http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=285754 where I asked if too much reliance was being placed in training on the 'auto' side of the game. We do not, I think, know much about the background of the TAM crew as to in which flying regime they gained their experience and whether most of their 'time' was FMC/computer related.
You may wish to chip in over there, but we must establish how much can we train pilots ONLY on the 'automatics' (assuming of course they are totally reliable) and how much emphasis do we place on the 'old' skills.

This is a dilemma which will be with us for ever and grow in complexity as more and more 'if/then' and 'and/or' loops are added to the software until it is impossible for the human brain to adapt and follow the processes.

If I understand the TAM thread correctly (and I may well have got that wrong - it is a long one!), the option of deploying full spoilers manually was not there? If so, that takes away a large chunk of your raison d'etre. How do we train for that?

[ExSimGuy]

BOAC - I've been following the "TAM thread" since the start (all 1400+ posts on it!) but haven't chipped in there as I was banned some time ago, with a note "When you get back, stay out of R&N" I assumed that this was because I'm not a "current Professional Pilot", although I have seen many posts on"TAM" from self-admitted PAX! Soured me a bit on PPRuNe, having been registered since before the Big Crash, and I'm in the very distinct minority there (R&N) as one who has made some financial contribution!

Anyway - digression - (Quote)the option of deploying full spoilers manually was not there?(/Quote) - Yes, as I understand it, if you don't have both Thrust Levers at or near idle, or in reverse, the aircraft locks you out of spoilers. Assuming the pilot(s)made a mistake there, it is (to my mind) an example of the aircraft taking over control.

Even if (again, an assumption at this stage) one of the TAM engines was trying to open to climb power, I would have thought that the availability of "manual spoiler deployment" would have given the guys braking (both spoiler and wheels) and a hell of a lot more time to work out what was wrong and to do something about it. (certainly more than 19 seconds!)

Thanks for the link -I'll be over there later today, after I check out the latest on "TAM" (if you don't check daily, there's too much to "read-in"!)

Stu