Erosion of Basic Piloting Skills

[Q-RTF-X]

The following is quoted in a recent (Oct 17th 2012) Flightglobal article on the disturbing AF 447 incident.

Meanwhile EASA, concerned about the growing evidence of the effect of high levels of aircraft automation on traditional piloting skills, has conducted a study on the subject. The headline finding was this: "Basic manual and cognitive flying skills tend to decline because of lack of practice, and feel for the aircraft can deteriorate."

I would be most interested to learn views and opinions on this contention; I myself (granted a non-pilot) have held similar concerns for many years.

The full article can be found here Accidents and Incidents News Channel | Flightglobal.com (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/accidents-and-incidents/), it's quite a sobering read

[Courtney Mil]

Couldn't agree with you more. My concerns really started when I was instructing at Chivenor, watching the course being gradually sliced back. Same was true on OCUs and sqns as flying hours were continually hacked back to make in-year savings. The increasing use of automation, the introduction of easier nav aids during training, no-drop weapons training and the transfer of flying hours to the sim have all taken their toll.

Grrr, grump, grumble!

[DBTW]

Agreed CM. Same observations from my perspective as a dark blue instructor over (I expect) a similar timeframe.

The most tellingly sad part about the whole story is that so many pilots, when the going gets tough, are too frightened to knock the automatics off and get back to basics because they are afraid they can't fly as well as the systems, even though it is those very same systems which have brought them to the bad situation. Simulation and systems are meant to be aids which improve pilot capacity, but that really only works in extremis if the pilot is competent to fly him/herself. At the very least, he/she should not be frightened of flying the aeroplane at any point, and to do that one must have recency in basic handling skills.

[CoffmanStarter]

I had the good fortune recently to experience a full crew continuation training session in an A320 Simulator ... and was utterly amazed that the preference to bank left/right was to twiddle a knob ... likewise for climb/decent ... My old QFI would have had a fit ! That said, the Sim Instructor (a good mate) on the session I watched then encouraged the crew to do the remaining approaches in manual.

PS. Even managed a couple of passable, unaided, manual approaches/landings myself :)

[orgASMic]

There was a lot of discussion on this matter at an Institute for Airworthiness seminar I went to recently at City University. Frank Turner's presentation 'The Critical Interface' talked about increased automation divorcing both pilot and engineer from the aircraft, resulting increased instances of pilots asking 'what's it doing now?' and engineers being unable to diagnose faults on the ground as the pilots did not really know what had happened when the computer said 'no'.

Seminar stuff here:
http://www.ifairworthy.com/pdf/IFAproceedings.pdf

[si.]

The same situation could arise with small arms training. The use of SAT ranges, instead of live firing for competancy checks etc was becoming more common before I left.

I wonder how many are wandering around the likes of Bastion, having only fired a live weapon immediately before deployment, and not for X years....

[Mike Gallafent]

An old friend is currently engaged in rectifying the apparent lack of basic flying skills for crews of a particular airline. Unusual positions? 'You have control Bloggs'!!

Evidently airline management appears to be learning from the appalling and unnecessary loss of the Air France flight.

[Onceapilot]

Unfortunately, hand flying skills seem doomed to suffer in the quest for profit/reduced training cost.

[SASless]

A quick rethink of past extreme events that turned out successfully....included more than a few Airline Pilots that were very active in flying gliders, light aircraft, engaged in aerobatics on their time off. Stick and Rudder skills may be different for each type aircraft...but old fashioned airmanship should never be out of vogue.

Having taught in Sims and the actual aircraft....it is amazing how many "Pilots" do not fully understand the effect and use of the flight controls. They grasp the rough part...but are clueless on the finer points of their monkey skills.

Years ago....Piedmont Airlines while still a small regional airline....did not have auto pilots installed on the aircraft at all....and as a result had a crop of old fashioned pilots who flew the airplanes....Martins, Fairchilds, DC-3's, and YS-11's. Sometimes with leg lengths in the 15-20 minute range....they got a lot of handling and hand flown instrument approaches.

They had a nearly perfect safety record despite the lack of fancy auto pilots and automated nav systems. The move to isolate the Pilot from "handling" and making us "system operators" may not be the correct answer.

[Flap62]

There are many strands to this argument.
In modern multicrew aircraft it is undoubtably safer to make efficient use of the automatics. The accident rate and incident rate goes through the roof when people take out the automatics to "sort it themselves". For this to work however, there needs to be a solid training programme to understand what the automatics do and how to get them to do what you want them to. There also has to be an understanding of when it is appropriate to go for the manual option. This has to be supported by a culture where there is sufficient practice of manual flying skills.
In the fast jet world there has been a significant move towards medium level ops with employment of sensors and PGMs. This must have had a significant effect on the handling skills required to fly operationally at low level but perhaps current operators would see it otherwise.

[Al R]

Assuming(!) that each jet within a sqn flies with slightly different characteristics, is sim time a comparable experience, ie; does it still offer a valid 'feel', allbeit a different one to one of the real things?

[Flap62]

In my limited (25 years) experience, all aircraft on a fleet feel pretty much the same. The simulators almost universally feel nothing like the real aircraft and are very good for practicing procedures and emergencies but are in no way a suitable replacement for hand flying an aircraft.

[PTR 175]

I suppose one of the best telling stories of a good pilot whose skills were honed not in a sim but in a glider and as a PPL holder is the Gimli glider. He managed to land a B767 by side slipping it onto a disused field.

I for one would rather fly with a pilot who flies a C120, PA 28, a T21 or whatever in his spare time. They do have good current stick and rudder skills.

Another example of poor airmanship is probably the AF A330 that was effectivly stalled because the crew did not recognise a stall or the signs of an incipient one.

As a PPL holder even I know what it is like to get airborne after being out of the LH seat for a few weeks and that is in a PA28. Heavens only knows what it is like to be a little out of currency in a fast jet or a slow one for that matter

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Note, however, the BoI comments on the F3 crash at Rest-and-be-Thankful, where the pilot may have used light aircraft techniques on a fast jet.

[SASless]

Glider skills might come in handy now and then.....


Unpowered Jet Airliner Landings (http://www.airsafe.com/events/noengine.htm)

[US Herk]

The simulator is often held up as the panacea to all things ailing military flying (cost of hours, cost of aircraft, availability of aircraft, etc). And the airline model is held up as the cornerstone of it - the first time a new pilot flies the plane is with a load of 200 warm pink paying passengers down the back. So it must be good enough.

However, comparing the simulator usage in the military and that used by the airlines is a bit of apples and oranges. The airlines aren't typically teaching their pilots how to fly airplanes. In the US, to achieve an ATPL, one must have a minimum of 1500 hrs. To be competitive at a major, you need something north of 3000 total and at least 1000 PIC of a turbojet aircraft. The sim is used to learn a new aircraft, instruct emergency procedures, learn checklist flows and company procedures - not how to fly.

The military is bent on using the sim as a replacement for the aircraft. They are trying to teach basic handling skills in a box. The challenge is that the box will only ever be 1G and can never replicate the sinks, slips, and skids required to learn how to feel what an airplane is telling a real pilot. The sim teaches numbers and procedures which, while important, only gets you about 80% of the way there.

The other challenge is that tactical flying has no real comparison in the civvie world and cannot be adequately replicated in the simulator. Taking nothing away from my airline brethren, but departing a 10,000ft runway, climbing to FL350, autopilot on, followed by the AP-flown ILS to another 10,000ft runway is not as demanding from a piloting skills perspective as any sort of low-level, tactical mission management, weapons delivery, threat defeating, NVGs, or any other sort of tactical flying. Consequently, the skills that need to be honed may not be learned in the same way.

Make no mistake, the simulator is an outstanding training tool when used for the right reasons in the right way. What it is not, is a replacement for the aircraft. The sim is not equal to the plane.

[ShyTorque]

Not too long ago I attended a display flying seminar. During general discussion, a concern was expressed that many of today's pilots do not possess the same level of basic handling skills as their forebears did (a product of training and the aviation world in general, rather than any individual failings).

This causes issues with some of today's pilots display flying precious old warbirds, where excellent basic handling skills are of paramount importance. This was first voiced by OC Battle of Britain Memorial Flight, who was present - he had to be extremely careful to choose the right pilots for the job.

A retired Group Captain with a long affiliation to RAF Central Flying School, a fixed wing pilot and instructor of some great repute, suggested using helicopter pilots, because of the way they are still trained and must fly their aircraft. OC BBMF, being an ex helicopter pilot himself, had to agree that it was a good idea.

[West Coast]

It's easy to lament the loss of skills but it ignores the larger picture. Flying today has never been safer.

Besides, what generation of pilot hasn't lamented that pilots today weren't what they were when he or she came up. They were at one time the object of some senior pilots lament.

[US Herk]

It's easy to lament the loss of skills but it ignores the larger picture. Flying today has never been safer.

True for the civvie side. But consider this: the overwhelming majority of mid-senior captains on civvie street working in the majors are military trained. Couple the exceptional airmanship and skills honed during formerly thorough and demanding military, with cutting their teeth on earlier airliners with far less automation, and enhancing their skills through the concept of CRM fully embraced only in the last 20-30 years and it's an obvious conclusion.

However, that ignores the reality that if you don't start from the same point, you cannot get to the same end. As my stock broker is fond of saying, "Past performance is no guarantee of future performance." And in the never-ending quest to remove the "human error" element from aviation, we are actually removing the human part by pushing automation over skills. Will we one day see pilot-less airlines removing all "human error"? Perhaps...but automation is only as good as its programming and is ill-equipped to deal with compound emergencies that aren't in the book. That's where highly experienced pilots with good foundational skills honed in the correct manner come in.

I'm in no way in favor of dismantling our present system, rather, acknowledging the real perishable skills that must be developed, honed, and maintained. Automation cannot do this for us. This is worse on the military side, but it trickles over to the civvie side as time marches forward.

Besides, what generation of pilot hasn't lamented that pilots today weren't what they were when he or she came up. They were at one time the object of some senior pilots lament.
A truism. ;)

[SOSL]

Your post has set my mind racing and I have had some thoughts. Please don't take the rest of my post as any sort of criticism.

I quite agree that "past performance is no guarantee of future performance" and to a certain extent that is why I dispensed with my stockbroker; without prejudice, of course. (well not much!) (well actually quite a lot - for all the good it did me!)

On the other hand, I don't agree that "if you don't start from the same point, you cannot get to the same end" You probably can, but you have to take a different route, and it seems to me that the most important thing for the aviation community is to find that route.

There has to be a way within the existing or future technology, HMI and training culture to make things better. As a previous poster said - "aviation is safer now than it has ever been" so we aren't getting most things wrong.

But what he didn't say was that there are now new hazards associated with new technology. We shouldn't abandon the enormous advances we have made. We should, and we can, work to better understand what we have done and keep up with and overtake the technology developments with developments in (forgive me) human resources.

Rgds SOS

[West Coast]

Herk

The goal obviously is to get to the destination safely. The greatest chance of that happening is now. How that comes about, be it from technology, training or sourcing of crews is fodder for discussion. That the safety record is where it is should be the focus.

[West Coast]

Herk

I challenge your assertion that the vast majority of airline Captains are from the mil background. I am airline and I commute offline weekly to and from work. I'd say it's around even on the breakdown. Some have more (SWA) some less (USAIR, especially the westies).

[US Herk]

I think you'll find I'm generally in agreement with most of what you say. What I go to great pains to point out is that the sim is not the aircraft. I object greatly to the concept that you can replace flying hours with sim hours.

Flying is expensive. Flight training is expensive too. I was an instructor at a military flight training squadron and the folks coming through had a largely simulator-based background. I argued with my commander, and won, to add a syllabus sortie dedicated to basic handling! The sim degrades skills ONLY because it is being used to replace flight hours rather than enhance them. The same can be said for virtually all cockpit automation. I saw every level of student suffer from a lack of basic handling skills, from co-pilot through to instructor.

At the end of the day, the best automation cannot hone skills, it erodes skills. Flight skills are perishable, else we wouldn't have training requirements. Automation does make things easier and, often, better. But unlike the advent of calculators where generations of students have lost the ability to do simple tasks such as long division without the little plastic brain, losing the stick and rudder skills, airmanship, and general SA when it all goes pear-shaped in a complex way has dire consequences if the crew is not of the highest caliber.

What will the next generation of pilots do when something like the Sioux City, Iowa scenario unfolds? Or the Hudson River landing scenario? The ability to make decisions comes from making decisions, not having a computer make them for you most of the time.

I'm a cautious supporter of all things that make my life easier. However, I always ask, 'what is the cost?' 'what am I giving up?' - the human mind still processes things in a distinct manner, different than computers and often better. Crashes such as the AF tragedy point out problems with both training and automation, IMO.

[West Coast]

In large part I find myself nodding yes, I just try to keep the larger picture as my primary focus. The equal an opposite reaction to the increase in automation is atrophy to stick and rudder skills, troubling but what's the realistic alternative? Less automation and more hull losses I would suggest.

[DBTW]

West Coast, how funny you should see it from such a "black or white" perspective. There may be some generational issues related to a view that instructional standards have dropped...and this may well be measurable. Various national authorities certainly seem to be taking action on it so it's not just us talking here.

But even using your perspective, the proper answer is to make things less black and white by allowing modern safety measures and automatics to stay in full use, whilst also getting all professional pilots to maintain basic handling skills. If flying is to be even more safe with even fewer hull losses, everyone should want all professional pilots to be able to fly their aeroplanes when the systems and automatics are not giving them the right answers. We certainly do not want people claiming to be professional pilots captaining aeroplanes they can't actually fly.

[West Coast]

When someone says generational, I view that as a comparison to something. Been in aviation for 27 years between the military and civilian world, so I let you decide whether it's generational or not.
To the crux of your arguement, I do see it as a black and white issue, but with a lot of detail and nuance. As challenges arise, military, manufacturers, industry and regulatory agencies answer. Just as CFIT was a major challenge a number of years ago, technology and training evolved to address it. Not saying by any means it's eliminated however. If the perception of eroding stick and rudder skills is somehow recognized as systemic and not isolated (and it appears to be the former) then the same process will play out.
I'll admit it's a very clinical view devoid of the emotive pictures of a burning hulk and grieving relatives that accompany accidents. If you choose to fault me there, then guilty as charged. I've simply come to recognize the difference between waxing poetic about the loss of stick and rudder skills and what triggers actual change.

Cheers

[DBTW]

West Coast said on 18 Oct 2012Besides, what generation of pilot hasn't lamented that pilots today weren't what they were when he or she came up. They were at one time the object of some senior pilots lament.

That's how I'll define "generational" for the purposes of this discussion. Older people thinking things are not as good as they once were. So we have a point of agreement here.

Talking about safety, 29 Oct 2012 West Coast said How that comes about, be it from technology, training or sourcing of crews is fodder for discussion. Another point of agreement.

Humble apologies if you thought I was implying something else about different generations, and congratulations on your career to date, West Coast. Hope it has all gone well and continues to do so. In the fodder of this discussion, my point has been made here and is built on what you have said If flying is to be even more safe with even fewer hull losses, everyone should want all professional pilots to be able to fly their aeroplanes when the systems and automatics are not giving them the right answers. We certainly do not want people claiming to be professional pilots captaining aeroplanes they can't actually fly. Further, I withdraw my comment/query about you seeing things in black and white. Now that I know more about you as one who sees issues as black or white, albeit with a lot of detail and nuance (black and white with grey areas?) it seems we are more in agreement than in discussion. Good day to you.:)

[US Herk]

In large part I find myself nodding yes, I just try to keep the larger picture as my primary focus. The equal an opposite reaction to the increase in automation is atrophy to stick and rudder skills, troubling but what's the realistic alternative? Less automation and more hull losses I would suggest.
I don't think I advocated for less automation, actually. The thrust of my arguments has been better training.

The FAA recognizes this: In the wake of the Colgan crash, they have just released a change to how we should teach stall recovery. Gone is the emphasis on approach to stall training with its over-emphasis on minimizing altitude loss and a refocus on actual recovery procedures recognizing that there may have to be altitude loss in order to reduce AOA sufficiently to break the stall.

I'm not certain if you're apathetic or not about the whole issue though. You seem to want to do nothing since our safety record is good. Yet you acknowledge most of the points made by others. Or, perhaps it's not that you don't want to do anything, rather, you don't think there's anything to be done, or will be done? Not meant as an attack, just curious...

[West Coast]

Doing nothing is the last course of action I advocate. We collectively and individually should drive towards the goal of increasing safety with every flight, every sim session and every hanger debrief.
Within the narrow point of automation, I challenge anyone to prove that automation hasn't improved aviation safety(not implying that you have). Can to much of a good thing can be bad for you, yeah. Have we reached the point where the pendulum has swung a bit too far, perhaps.
Not that I would expect that industry and/or the military would erase gains in safety by emphasizing basic handling skills at the expense of automation, any "correction" in the training pipeline must complement and not replace what has proven to work.

[US Herk]

Within the narrow point of automation, I challenge anyone to prove that automation hasn't improved aviation safety(not implying that you have).

And therein lies the rub - you can't prove something that doesn't happen. You can only use statistics to infer something. When things happen, you can find causes, but when things don't happen (crashes), you have to surmise and assume and infer.

So, no, I can't prove automation hasn't improved safety...nor can I prove it has. I can agree with you that we have some of the safest skies ever. What's the reason? Automation? If so, remove the human element altogether and get rid of pilots. What's that? You don't want to do that? No surprise there either. ;)

Semi-sarcastic retorts aren't an argument, so I concede. I can, however, point to the apparent lack of stick and rudder skills that decline at the same rate the arcane functions of the FMS are discovered. (sorry, more sophomoric sarcasm)

I remember as my grandfather regaled me with how easy I had it now that we had VORs. Why, back in his day, they had lit towers and A-N beacons....and then ADFs made navigation easy for everyone. But VORs, that was almost cheating! Of course, he also thought the T37 was blisteringly fast when he test flew it in the mid-60s when the Army was thinking about getting them as observation planes. Said I'd need to be on my toes to keep up with it as I headed off to pilot training. He was also aghast that I didn't have to roll out on a precise heading when I told him about my spin training in the mighty T37...

So, perhaps you're right, it's just a generational bemoaning of nostalgia for lost arts. I don't think any of the navigators missed their sextants though. ;)

I'd just like to see guys know how to use rudders, that's all...

[BBadanov]

Some airlines acknowledge the erosion of basic flying skills and lack of situation awareness of the simulator-trained generation. Look at the example of the unfortunate Air France A330 out of Rio, where there was a complete loss of the picture by everyone on the flightdeck.

The successful resolution of QF32 A380 out of Singapore is also a good example. After catastrophic uncontained #2 engine failure, which then progressively took out most systems, the captain (aided by several check captains who were on board and helped analyse the emergency captions) relied on his basic military flying skills and awareness to attempt diagnosing what systems remained and successfully getting it back on the ground.

[Baron 58P]

Received this from Australia:

One has to wonder how this flight would have terminated had the extra crew not been there to provide major assistance.
Description of problems sounds like one-arm paper hanger.

A Check and Training Captain would normally have exceptional systems knowledge as he works with problems all day long every work day. I doubt the operating captain took any offense at the check captain helping out.

Here are just SOME of the problems Richard had in Singapore last week aboard
QF32.... I won't bother mentioning the engine explosion!.... oops... mentioned the engine explosion, sorry.....

* massive fuel leak in the left mid fuel tank (the beast has 11 tanks,
including in the horizontal stabiliser on the
tail)
* massive fuel leak in the left inner fuel tank
* a hole on the flap canoe/fairing that you could fit your upper body
through
* the aft gallery in the fuel system failed, preventing many fuel transfer
functions
* fuel jettison had problems due to the previous problem above
* bloody great hole in the upper wing surface
* partial failure of leading edge slats
* partial failure of speed brakes/ground spoilers
* shrapnel damage to the flaps
* TOTAL loss of all hydraulic fluid in the Green System (beast has 2 x
5,000 PSI systems, Green and Yellow)
* manual extension of landing gear
* loss of 1 generator and associated systems
* loss of brake anti-skid system
* unable to shutdown adjacent #1 engine using normal method after landing
due to major damage to systems
* unable to shutdown adjacent #1 engine using using the fire switch!!!!!!!!
Therefore, no fire protection was available for that engine after the
explosion in #2
* ECAM warnings about major fuel imbalance because of fuel leaks on left
side, that were UNABLE to be fixed with cross-feeding
* fuel trapped in Trim Tank (in the tail). Therefore, possible major CofG
out-of-balance condition for landing Yikes!

* and much more to come.........

Richard was in the left seat, FO in the right), SO in the 2nd obs seat
(right rear, also with his own Radio Management Panel, so he probably did
most of the coordination with the ground), Capt Dave Evans in the 1st obs
seat (middle). He is a Check & Training Captain who was training Harry
Wubbin to be one also. Harry was in the 3rd obs seat (left rear).
All 5 guys were FLAT OUT, especially the FO who would have been processing
complicated 'ECAM' messages and procedures that were seemingly never-ending!

Farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrkkkkkk!!!

[Red Line Entry]

Who decided what to have from the galley?

[4Greens]

A great deal of this discussion is more realistically about mode confusion ' what's it doing now stuff'. The posters should keep this in mind when advocating solutions. Manual flying skills are important but they are not the only issue.

Different subject: the Qantas 380 was handled well in spite of having more than one Captain on board - can be a problem - who is in charge? A very good example of allocating tasks - great CRM.