Preventing the loss of pure flying skills in jet transport aircraft.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Preventing the loss of pure flying skills in jet transport aircraft.
During an informal discussion in the simulator crew room the subject arose on how to regain lost pure flying skills caused by years of automation dependency. Clearly, such are everyday ATC restrictions and company mandated procedures, it is a lost cause during line flying where full use of all automatics is invariably enforced and any transgressions quickly picked up by the QAR and the pilot carpeted and risks losing his job.
That leaves only the simulator. Again, time and costs limits its use for other than regulatory requirements unless the operator takes the enlightened view that there is a cost benefit to scheduling regular pure flying practice because there is a flight safety spin-off in the long run.
But what pure flying sequences give most handling benefits is open to individual opinion. Recently this contributor received a private request from a current airline pilot to hire a company jet transport simulator at own expense for an hour of personal handling practice in the hope of increasing his own self confidence in his ability to hand fly in IMC without having to fall back on the automatics.
Despite considerable experience on jet transports he was quietly concerned that he had lost the skill and ability to seamlessly switch from full automatic flying to basic pure flying skills should it be needed quickly.
Talking to other pilots over the years, this loss of confidence in one's own ability to get out of trouble by switching back to flying without flight directors and auto-throttles, is a lot more common than people might think. This often stems from initial simulator type rating training on todays jets where automatics are introduced from the first session and no time allotted to get the feel of flying the aircraft.
Horses for courses, but in another era the first thing we did before simulators were the go, was lots of circuits and touch and go landings. There were so many things to think about during circuits. Fast scanning of instruments, awareness of the runway environment in terms of circuit width, speed and altitude control, flap and gear selections and judgement of base and final inside the circuit area.
It could be argued that touch and go landings are unnecessary as they never happen in real life. That misses the whole point of the manoeuvre as a training aid. One FCTM states the primary objective of touch and go landings is approach and landing practice. It is not intended for landing roll and takeoff procedure training.
The object of circuit training in the simulator is to increase pilot skill and therefore his confidence in handling his aircraft in a quickly changing environment (the circuit). Half-an hour of circuits in the simulator has worked wonders for many pilots that I have seen.
Perhaps Pprune readers would like to chance their arm and add to the list of pure flying sequences that, given the opportunity, they would like to practice in order to be at one with their aircraft rather than being at one with the automatic pilot?
That leaves only the simulator. Again, time and costs limits its use for other than regulatory requirements unless the operator takes the enlightened view that there is a cost benefit to scheduling regular pure flying practice because there is a flight safety spin-off in the long run.
But what pure flying sequences give most handling benefits is open to individual opinion. Recently this contributor received a private request from a current airline pilot to hire a company jet transport simulator at own expense for an hour of personal handling practice in the hope of increasing his own self confidence in his ability to hand fly in IMC without having to fall back on the automatics.
Despite considerable experience on jet transports he was quietly concerned that he had lost the skill and ability to seamlessly switch from full automatic flying to basic pure flying skills should it be needed quickly.
Talking to other pilots over the years, this loss of confidence in one's own ability to get out of trouble by switching back to flying without flight directors and auto-throttles, is a lot more common than people might think. This often stems from initial simulator type rating training on todays jets where automatics are introduced from the first session and no time allotted to get the feel of flying the aircraft.
Horses for courses, but in another era the first thing we did before simulators were the go, was lots of circuits and touch and go landings. There were so many things to think about during circuits. Fast scanning of instruments, awareness of the runway environment in terms of circuit width, speed and altitude control, flap and gear selections and judgement of base and final inside the circuit area.
It could be argued that touch and go landings are unnecessary as they never happen in real life. That misses the whole point of the manoeuvre as a training aid. One FCTM states the primary objective of touch and go landings is approach and landing practice. It is not intended for landing roll and takeoff procedure training.
The object of circuit training in the simulator is to increase pilot skill and therefore his confidence in handling his aircraft in a quickly changing environment (the circuit). Half-an hour of circuits in the simulator has worked wonders for many pilots that I have seen.
Perhaps Pprune readers would like to chance their arm and add to the list of pure flying sequences that, given the opportunity, they would like to practice in order to be at one with their aircraft rather than being at one with the automatic pilot?
Moderator
From my observations, apart from the value of tightly flown circuit work, basic IF/stick and rudder skills are honed maximally by exercises such as -
(a) initially: the old climbing and descending timed turns exercise, simultaneously from and to a heading, from and to an airspeed, and from and to an altitude
(b) subsequently: hand-flown, raw data, ILS in 0/0 conditions, progressively improving to a satisfactory landing and roll out. The simulator excels at this by sensible use of freeze and reposition. Not something that one is ever likely to do in anger .. but smartens up the scan rate and smooth handling like magic
(c) and raw data EFATO, progressively reducing to a min weight, min speed schedule at SL aft CG, with a requirement to track the opposite end localiser. Again, freeze and reposition permits maximum repetitive practice. The pilot who gets it all under control with a failure during the rotation flare usually goes off home at the end of the program with quite a (well deserved) swelled head ...
I have used the above three exercises, sprinkled throughout initial jet endorsements with both high and low time pilots .. in the great majority of cases, progress is fairly rapid and pleasing to watch from the back seat. The spin off to the other standard endorsement flying exercises is patently obvious to the back seater.
The automatics don't get a look in for this stuff ...
Clearly, the back seater has to be of a suitable personality to keep extraneous stress levels low in the front seat so that full concentration is on the exercise and no worry about the learning curve screw ups along the way and what the back seater might think of the pilot .. indeed, this back seater had little but high admiration for the hard work put in by the typical endorsement student.
... the end goal justifies the means ...
(a) initially: the old climbing and descending timed turns exercise, simultaneously from and to a heading, from and to an airspeed, and from and to an altitude
(b) subsequently: hand-flown, raw data, ILS in 0/0 conditions, progressively improving to a satisfactory landing and roll out. The simulator excels at this by sensible use of freeze and reposition. Not something that one is ever likely to do in anger .. but smartens up the scan rate and smooth handling like magic
(c) and raw data EFATO, progressively reducing to a min weight, min speed schedule at SL aft CG, with a requirement to track the opposite end localiser. Again, freeze and reposition permits maximum repetitive practice. The pilot who gets it all under control with a failure during the rotation flare usually goes off home at the end of the program with quite a (well deserved) swelled head ...
I have used the above three exercises, sprinkled throughout initial jet endorsements with both high and low time pilots .. in the great majority of cases, progress is fairly rapid and pleasing to watch from the back seat. The spin off to the other standard endorsement flying exercises is patently obvious to the back seater.
The automatics don't get a look in for this stuff ...
Clearly, the back seater has to be of a suitable personality to keep extraneous stress levels low in the front seat so that full concentration is on the exercise and no worry about the learning curve screw ups along the way and what the back seater might think of the pilot .. indeed, this back seater had little but high admiration for the hard work put in by the typical endorsement student.
... the end goal justifies the means ...
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps PPRuNe readers would like add to the list of pure flying sequences they would like to practice in order to be at one with their aircraft.
When I had the opportunity to write a FFS TR course for B737 I started session 1 with this. Later, when having to teach someone else's TR syllabus with little manual flying included, I also used it for students who were having trouble with manoeuvres like raw data ILS and SE ILS & GA. Those whose scan was weak & slow and feel a bit agricultural.
No FD's.
* 5000' level 210kts.
* Accel 250kts then reduce 210kts and accel 250kts.
* level turns 25degrees BA through 90 degrees then reverse with no pause for 90 degrees.
* continue the turn & increase bank 45 for 180 degrees then reverse for 180 degrees.
* maintain turn & reduce 25BA and reduce speed 210kts for 120degrees then reverse and accel 250kts for 180 degrees.
* Climb 1000' at 1000fpm 25BA 90 degrees.
* level off maintain 25BA for 90 degrees.
* reverse turn 25BA and descend 1000' at 1000fpm for 180 degrees.
* reverse the turn 25BA and climb 1000' at 1000fpm.
* level off, maintain 25BA and reduce 210kts for 180 degrees.
* wings level. maintain HDG.
* radar vectors to a raw data ILS. IMC
* allow descend for +/- 2500 - 3000'.
* Call a GA at 200' with MAA at 3000'.
* Clean up and level off.
I call this aerial ballet. The a/c is always dynamic in hdg/speed/BA/ROC/ROD. Not only does it develop feel it develops and increases scan speed. It also educates the students WHERE to look for the information. If they've come from non-glass cockpit or EFIS the FBS phase on autopilot does not develop a scan. Suddenly, in FFS, they are expected to have a scan in a totally different instrument layout and perhaps many months since their last flying lessons. Their instrument scanning is already only minimum experience and needs developing step by step to help confidence.
I'd spent years on needles & dials. It took me much practice to feel confident with an EFIS scan. I had the feel for a jet and knew power/att settings. I had lots of spare capacity to learn a new cockpit. The cadets do not and IMHO too much is expected of them too early without giving them the necessary tools to do the job.
The 'ballet' is a basic concept that can be adjusted, modified to suit. Follow it with no FD circuit training and importantly include some GA's, even 500' low level circuits. 1 hour at the beginning of FFS will reap rewards. It is also a great refresher for those who are not allowed to do it on a day to day basis.
The airlines I've been involved with are expanding so fast but do not have spare FFS time to allow their 1000's of pilots to have fun. They barely have enough sim time for all the mandatory stuff. It's sad the way some companies restrict and discourage the maintenance of basic skills on the line. If they do that it is perhaps indicative of their overall attitude to piloting skills. There is the root cause of the problem. In B732 I was not taught, extensively, in the sim how to fly manually. I was taught the basics, learnt the power/ATT numbers, developed an OK scan and then, importantly, practiced and improved on the line. It was demonstrated by captains and they encouraged to follow suit. The pilot based management demanded excellence in piloting skills and captain management.
Hey JT. I was writing mine as you were posting yours. Seems we come from the same school.
When I had the opportunity to write a FFS TR course for B737 I started session 1 with this. Later, when having to teach someone else's TR syllabus with little manual flying included, I also used it for students who were having trouble with manoeuvres like raw data ILS and SE ILS & GA. Those whose scan was weak & slow and feel a bit agricultural.
No FD's.
* 5000' level 210kts.
* Accel 250kts then reduce 210kts and accel 250kts.
* level turns 25degrees BA through 90 degrees then reverse with no pause for 90 degrees.
* continue the turn & increase bank 45 for 180 degrees then reverse for 180 degrees.
* maintain turn & reduce 25BA and reduce speed 210kts for 120degrees then reverse and accel 250kts for 180 degrees.
* Climb 1000' at 1000fpm 25BA 90 degrees.
* level off maintain 25BA for 90 degrees.
* reverse turn 25BA and descend 1000' at 1000fpm for 180 degrees.
* reverse the turn 25BA and climb 1000' at 1000fpm.
* level off, maintain 25BA and reduce 210kts for 180 degrees.
* wings level. maintain HDG.
* radar vectors to a raw data ILS. IMC
* allow descend for +/- 2500 - 3000'.
* Call a GA at 200' with MAA at 3000'.
* Clean up and level off.
I call this aerial ballet. The a/c is always dynamic in hdg/speed/BA/ROC/ROD. Not only does it develop feel it develops and increases scan speed. It also educates the students WHERE to look for the information. If they've come from non-glass cockpit or EFIS the FBS phase on autopilot does not develop a scan. Suddenly, in FFS, they are expected to have a scan in a totally different instrument layout and perhaps many months since their last flying lessons. Their instrument scanning is already only minimum experience and needs developing step by step to help confidence.
I'd spent years on needles & dials. It took me much practice to feel confident with an EFIS scan. I had the feel for a jet and knew power/att settings. I had lots of spare capacity to learn a new cockpit. The cadets do not and IMHO too much is expected of them too early without giving them the necessary tools to do the job.
The 'ballet' is a basic concept that can be adjusted, modified to suit. Follow it with no FD circuit training and importantly include some GA's, even 500' low level circuits. 1 hour at the beginning of FFS will reap rewards. It is also a great refresher for those who are not allowed to do it on a day to day basis.
The airlines I've been involved with are expanding so fast but do not have spare FFS time to allow their 1000's of pilots to have fun. They barely have enough sim time for all the mandatory stuff. It's sad the way some companies restrict and discourage the maintenance of basic skills on the line. If they do that it is perhaps indicative of their overall attitude to piloting skills. There is the root cause of the problem. In B732 I was not taught, extensively, in the sim how to fly manually. I was taught the basics, learnt the power/ATT numbers, developed an OK scan and then, importantly, practiced and improved on the line. It was demonstrated by captains and they encouraged to follow suit. The pilot based management demanded excellence in piloting skills and captain management.
Hey JT. I was writing mine as you were posting yours. Seems we come from the same school.
It is interesting that having done type ratings in the airline and corporate environment that the only establishment that did the sort of exercises suggested above was CAE on the Learjet. Sim 1 was bashing raw data circuits, and EFATOs (and the dreaded TR unsafe after V1) were practiced roughly as outlined above.
The airline training I have experienced by contrast is very much set pattern, box ticked.
My new airline have a policy allowing pilots to use the sims whenever they are not in use for self-directed practice, and as somebody moving on to long haul, I hope to try to get in once every month or so to bash through a bit of raw data circuits, approaches and failures.
The airline training I have experienced by contrast is very much set pattern, box ticked.
My new airline have a policy allowing pilots to use the sims whenever they are not in use for self-directed practice, and as somebody moving on to long haul, I hope to try to get in once every month or so to bash through a bit of raw data circuits, approaches and failures.
jw
Not sure who you are with but where I work they also have that scheme. However most guys these days are FTL'd out/to knackered and/or to busy to drag themselves out of bed/away from family life on a regular basis to do sims in their spare time . There also needs to be a qualified panel operator to run the box, so at our place it's not easy to organise on a regular and frequent basis.
As aside, just on the off chance it's relevant to your plans, I'll mention that there can be a problem ( again at least where I work) for pilots trying to get extra practise by volunteering as in stand-in P1/P2 on another pilots recurrent detail (e.g because the originally rostered pilot went sick). Some of those volunteers have suddenly found themselves in "jeopardy" because, volunteer or not, they've been involved in a check that has not gone as planned
....
I'm certainly not disagreeing in principle with the sort of thing you're suggesting but with workload these days it should be done on the company's time, and with some clear ROE (pull the wings off - yes/no? full SOPs - yes/no? jeopardy- yes/no?......)
My new airline have a policy allowing pilots to use the sims whenever they are not in use for self-directed practice, and as somebody moving on to long haul, I hope to try to get in once every month or so to bash through a bit of raw data circuits, approaches and failures.
As aside, just on the off chance it's relevant to your plans, I'll mention that there can be a problem ( again at least where I work) for pilots trying to get extra practise by volunteering as in stand-in P1/P2 on another pilots recurrent detail (e.g because the originally rostered pilot went sick). Some of those volunteers have suddenly found themselves in "jeopardy" because, volunteer or not, they've been involved in a check that has not gone as planned
....I'm certainly not disagreeing in principle with the sort of thing you're suggesting but with workload these days it should be done on the company's time, and with some clear ROE (pull the wings off - yes/no? full SOPs - yes/no? jeopardy- yes/no?......)
Last edited by wiggy; 28th May 2016 at 17:05.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is going to sound like a stupid idea, and yes there would be issues.....
However. Here goes.
In today's computer driven aircraft, it would be possible to "separate" the two sides of the cockpit from each other.
One side flies the aircraft for real.
The other side switches to a simulation/computer game mode.
During long sectors, pilots take turns on the computer game mode flying through random scenarios.
Yes there is no simulation of aircraft movement, but this is a relatively minor loss in airline flying.
Nobody loses their own time to practice.
Long Sectors get less boring.
Pilots get more hands on and experience of the bad stuff which thankfully is less and less common in the real world.
You would have to have a very robust system to get everybody playing together again.
Only certain low workload situations would allow it.
It would be difficult to stop the actual real world pilot from becoming distracted by the more interesting game sitting next to him.
However. Here goes.
In today's computer driven aircraft, it would be possible to "separate" the two sides of the cockpit from each other.
One side flies the aircraft for real.
The other side switches to a simulation/computer game mode.
During long sectors, pilots take turns on the computer game mode flying through random scenarios.
Yes there is no simulation of aircraft movement, but this is a relatively minor loss in airline flying.
Nobody loses their own time to practice.
Long Sectors get less boring.
Pilots get more hands on and experience of the bad stuff which thankfully is less and less common in the real world.
You would have to have a very robust system to get everybody playing together again.
Only certain low workload situations would allow it.
It would be difficult to stop the actual real world pilot from becoming distracted by the more interesting game sitting next to him.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: France
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly, such are everyday ATC restrictions and company mandated procedures, it is a lost cause during line flying where full use of all automatics is invariably enforced and any transgressions quickly picked up by the QAR and the pilot carpeted and risks losing his job.
Our part A explicitly states that crew should take the opportunity to maintain their manual flying skills during normal line operations. I personally fly manually whenever appropriate (and for me "appropriate" is not just CAVOK calm at a quiet airfield!), and encourage my FOs to do the same.
If for some reason it all goes wrong, we can always go around, and nobody in the FDM team will bat an eyelid.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That which has never been possessed can't be lost.
Are you advocating that it is not necessary for airline pilots to have such skills? And therefore they should not be part of the training program in the transition from spam-cans to jet powered aluminium tubes? Surely any pilot in whom others trust should have pure flying skills to a minimum degree. That does not mean rock & roll inverted flight etc., but pure flying skills related to their application.
Tongue in cheek, if you wish.
Are you advocating that it is not necessary for airline pilots to have such skills? And therefore they should not be part of the training program in the transition from spam-cans to jet powered aluminium tubes? Surely any pilot in whom others trust should have pure flying skills to a minimum degree. That does not mean rock & roll inverted flight etc., but pure flying skills related to their application.
Tongue in cheek, if you wish.
Last edited by RAT 5; 28th May 2016 at 18:59.
Funny, RAT 5, I took it to mean that many (most?) of today's pilots just never acquired the manual skills that were standard 30 Yeats ago. One of those skills isn't just manual, hands on; but the ability to mentally draw a picture of where the plane is in space and where it needs to go, how to get it there.
Not demeaning JT's and your excercises, but the ND has taken away the skill of orientation.
Not demeaning JT's and your excercises, but the ND has taken away the skill of orientation.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but the ND has taken away the skill of orientation.
Interesting? I was brought up with needles & dials and a mathematical & scientific education. I played most sports. Perhaps all that gave me the ability to draw a picture in my mind of what the needles & dials were telling me. Equally I could navigate around London via the sun; knowing my start point, destination and having looked at a map before I left. I'd get myself into a small circle close to destination and ask questions.
Flying into Spain & some Greek islands B732 with nothing except a DME/NDB and a challenge not to spool up before 4nm kept the SA & orientation skills sharp. I could not believe it when I flew with a map & fix pages & distance to go etc. I found the amount of data made the job of mental SA so much easier; in 4 dimensions.
What I found in the sim and later on the line, sadly, is how little the F/O's looked at the ND. They were children of the magenta line with in LANV & VNAV. No mental x-check outside the PFD. It had to be a training thing first and a modern cultural thing afterwards. Laziness was allowed to develop uncorrected.
So I'm curious by your comment. It's not the ND that is at fault it is the way it is trained, or not. Raw data ILS being a classic case in point. I ask students, who came from a basic spam-can instrument panel, why they did not look at THE MAP? They had no answer even though they had a TomTom. It had not been stressed in introduction to the a/c. SOP's, checklists, QRH's and systems were the priority.
TRAINING is the root cause of so many modern faults.
Interesting? I was brought up with needles & dials and a mathematical & scientific education. I played most sports. Perhaps all that gave me the ability to draw a picture in my mind of what the needles & dials were telling me. Equally I could navigate around London via the sun; knowing my start point, destination and having looked at a map before I left. I'd get myself into a small circle close to destination and ask questions.
Flying into Spain & some Greek islands B732 with nothing except a DME/NDB and a challenge not to spool up before 4nm kept the SA & orientation skills sharp. I could not believe it when I flew with a map & fix pages & distance to go etc. I found the amount of data made the job of mental SA so much easier; in 4 dimensions.
What I found in the sim and later on the line, sadly, is how little the F/O's looked at the ND. They were children of the magenta line with in LANV & VNAV. No mental x-check outside the PFD. It had to be a training thing first and a modern cultural thing afterwards. Laziness was allowed to develop uncorrected.
So I'm curious by your comment. It's not the ND that is at fault it is the way it is trained, or not. Raw data ILS being a classic case in point. I ask students, who came from a basic spam-can instrument panel, why they did not look at THE MAP? They had no answer even though they had a TomTom. It had not been stressed in introduction to the a/c. SOP's, checklists, QRH's and systems were the priority.
TRAINING is the root cause of so many modern faults.
Raw data ILS being a classic case in point. I ask students, who came from a basic spam-can instrument panel, why they did not look at THE MAP? They had no answer
I have always liked a dirty big HSI presentation in front of me when flying any ILS in any aircraft so I can pick the slightest movement of the CDI and correct for the trend. On the other hand, the miniature localiser needle moving laterally in the tiny box under the PFD in the MAP mode, never grabs my attention - but then I am sure its a personal preference. But the lovely long CDI on the HSI mode makes me feel at home.
It is rather like those captains (checkies or normal garden variety) who get quite irritated if their co-pilot flies an instrument approach with the elbow rests up (not being used) and insist their second in command have the elbow rests down for more accurate flying. It is personal preference.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Porirua
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tee eem,
Interesting thread indeed,some great observations and points being made.I have flown jet A/C for many years,the only way I've ever got close to getting those skills back was to buy an 85hp Taylorcraft,with the basic six pack,and spend days hand flying,short Cross country's and practicing approaches at various airports.
Flying for a major airline ,because of the obvious costs,will never allow you to regain those lost skills,impossible.The amount of information and "must-do" maneuvers associated with current training and check rides are geared to an automated system,not basic skills,and you can only do do much in a 4 hr session,and debrief every 6/9/12 month cycle.
We have introduced a "stall series" training session, prompted by the AirFrance accident.Not sure what to say about that,other than if you haven't figured out stall recognition and recovery by this stage,wtf are you flying this type of equipment for.We seem to gear our Sim sessions around current issues or problems.With the limited amount of time allowed basic flying skills get pushed to the wayside.More and frequent sim sessions cannot hurt,then again putting an 85 hp Taylorcraft through its paces never hurt either
Interesting thread indeed,some great observations and points being made.I have flown jet A/C for many years,the only way I've ever got close to getting those skills back was to buy an 85hp Taylorcraft,with the basic six pack,and spend days hand flying,short Cross country's and practicing approaches at various airports.
Flying for a major airline ,because of the obvious costs,will never allow you to regain those lost skills,impossible.The amount of information and "must-do" maneuvers associated with current training and check rides are geared to an automated system,not basic skills,and you can only do do much in a 4 hr session,and debrief every 6/9/12 month cycle.
We have introduced a "stall series" training session, prompted by the AirFrance accident.Not sure what to say about that,other than if you haven't figured out stall recognition and recovery by this stage,wtf are you flying this type of equipment for.We seem to gear our Sim sessions around current issues or problems.With the limited amount of time allowed basic flying skills get pushed to the wayside.More and frequent sim sessions cannot hurt,then again putting an 85 hp Taylorcraft through its paces never hurt either
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Judd: I mis-wrote. I meant to say the ND. The reason is observing the Track Line. Personally I fly raw data with APP Mode on ND. Dirty great big CDI with a track-line for extra measure. You see the LOC deviation displaced and the track-line tells you exactly how much to correct. Also the track-line tells you, in advance, IF the LOC is going to deviate. It's marvellous.
I see the students reacting to the LOC deviation on PFD other than being proactive using the track-line on ND. That is my observation. Even if they use MAP for an ILS the track-line is still their to give vital information. You just need to look at it. Back to training. If they haven't been told what/how to do then they do not it.
I see the students reacting to the LOC deviation on PFD other than being proactive using the track-line on ND. That is my observation. Even if they use MAP for an ILS the track-line is still their to give vital information. You just need to look at it. Back to training. If they haven't been told what/how to do then they do not it.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That leaves only the simulator. Again, time and costs limits its use for other than regulatory requirements unless the operator takes the enlightened view that there is a cost benefit to scheduling regular pure flying practice because there is a flight safety spin-off in the long run.
Just a few decades ago, automatics were unreliable enough that manual flying ability was something one needed to keep current on for good reason - 1 in 50, you could be handed an aircraft that needed to be 'handled' with no help from George, with his cousin McDoo barely able to keep an accurate track beyond 300nm without some learned, situationally aware input from time to time.
Now, in the world of synthesized digital 'perfection', there is the idea that we can train for a calculated percentage of possibilities by some MBA types to remain within the 'margin'.
The solution lies with re-establishing safety culture and the way there is through regulation and reward as you suggest, TM.
Regulation comes from the industry and government working in a (for a change) truly functional way, and reward coming from the industry in conjunction with an educated marketplace, the last of which might need some sort of fertilizer of a more refined nature than the blend currently being applied to the masses.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That leaves only the simulator. Again, time and costs limits its use for other than regulatory requirements unless the operator takes the enlightened view that there is a cost benefit to scheduling regular pure flying practice because there is a flight safety spin-off in the long run.
Are you suggesting 6 monthly base training. Unnecessary & impractical. From diverse experience of multiple employers, and reading comments on Prune during the numerous discussions about this problem, there is no doubt a huge variety in operators' philosophies. Until 10 years ago all my operators, including B732733/737/757/767 either encouraged manual flight = approaches, or did not discourage it and left it to crews' own choice. More recently the opposite was true, aggressively. It was claimed to be a safety consideration. The observation was that the better the weather the more GA's were made due 'unstable at landing gate'. What a surprise as on line practice was not encouraged.
We hear there are airlines who encourage basic piloting skills and allow their use daily on line. Is their safety record any worse than the straight-jacket operators? I don't think so. It has become so bad that some operators, while allowing visual approaches, insist on an LNAV/VNAV construction and prefer use of automatics to guide the a/c to a medium finals. OMG! These airlines should not be allowed to advertise for 'pilots wanted'; rather wealthy trained monkeys. It is contrary to correct advertising practices and not in the interest of pilot welfare. It is an abuse to our profession.
Are you suggesting 6 monthly base training. Unnecessary & impractical. From diverse experience of multiple employers, and reading comments on Prune during the numerous discussions about this problem, there is no doubt a huge variety in operators' philosophies. Until 10 years ago all my operators, including B732733/737/757/767 either encouraged manual flight = approaches, or did not discourage it and left it to crews' own choice. More recently the opposite was true, aggressively. It was claimed to be a safety consideration. The observation was that the better the weather the more GA's were made due 'unstable at landing gate'. What a surprise as on line practice was not encouraged.
We hear there are airlines who encourage basic piloting skills and allow their use daily on line. Is their safety record any worse than the straight-jacket operators? I don't think so. It has become so bad that some operators, while allowing visual approaches, insist on an LNAV/VNAV construction and prefer use of automatics to guide the a/c to a medium finals. OMG! These airlines should not be allowed to advertise for 'pilots wanted'; rather wealthy trained monkeys. It is contrary to correct advertising practices and not in the interest of pilot welfare. It is an abuse to our profession.
50 + hours/ year of private SE flying. Tailwheel, SP Ifr, crosswinds, night approaches to black hole aerodromes, short runways & circling approaches combined give confidence in any manual handling required in an airline environment. Now if I could only get my employer to directly sponsor it.