Originally Posted by
vilas
There's a lot to learn from this but raw data has nothing to do. Let's leave the accidents.
Do you think that if they saw the VSI and altitude tapes (and in the QZ case, also the airspeed tape) and incorporated that information into a picture of the airplane's state, that could have had an effect on the outcome?
Originally Posted by
PEI_3721
Vessbot, #169 re 'skills being transferable'. Ideally it would be convenient to acquire skills in one situation that would transfer to others. However, the research report indicates that some skills may not transfer; page 63 onwards.
I'm not sure you got what I was trying to say in response to your previous post. In short, we're not talking about "transfer," but assembly from basic elements. You looked for transfer of skill from flying one maneuver (approach) to another maneuver (go around) and decided it's not gonna happen, so you might as well not bother. (At least that's how I read it, please correct me if it's not what you meant).
What I meant in reply to that by saying "you're looking in the wrong place" is that what improves the performance (as well as minimizes the chance of falling off the rails due to deviations, distractions, multitasking, stress, etc.) of a maneuver is the constituent basic elements of flying: the inputs pitch, bank, and thrust; and the results altitude, VSI, airspeed, heading, and course; and all of their interplay. (And whether holding all that together simultaneously, takes part of your mental capacity or all of it... or even more than all of it.) In other words, general "flying" as opposed to "flying an approach" (another maneuver). General "flying" is what we should be looking at. Ability to handle those elements together comes from hand flying. And while we have no opportunity to practice the one particular assembly of them in question (the go around) we do have the opportunity to develop them otherwise, by general hand flying. And while that doesn't get us all of the way to full go around expertise (as daily go around practice would), it sure gets us a lot farther than doing nothing.
I read the 2.4 Transfer section of that document (
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a536308.pdf) and it had a lot of different definitions of what transfer might mean, and different situations under those definitions. But I didn't really find anything that matches what we're talking about closely. But I did find this in one of the early summarizing paragraphs:
"Unless there is continuous deliberate practice at difficult tasks, the only thing one can do “on the job” is forget and actually experience degradation of skill. "
Perceptual-motor skills, manual flight handling, feel of the aircraft, could transfer between approach and GA, but less so the mental skill of knowing when to GA, or knowing that the aircraft will 'intersect the ground 2300 feet short of the runway', knowing that the need is to 'level the wings', - the orientation (the understanding) part of OODA.
Well yeah, but we're not talking about deciding when to go around - at least I wasn't. I was talking about flying it. Making the decision to, is different, and I agree hand flying pretty much doesn't effect it. It's a fairly straightforward evaluation of the present state, regardless of if you were flying, the other guy was, or the autopilot was. Knowing if you're gonna hit the ground short of the runway comes from some experience descending toward runways - using the runway as guidance and not the FD. And knowing there is a need to level the wings, they very much had that knowledge. Where things went astray is in the downstream habitual response of how to make that happen.
The rest of your post is, to me, vague and somewhat rambling. It
touches on many things, but I'm afraid I can't follow the path you've laid, through those things, to an overall point.
Note that the report relates advance proficiency with expertise, a deffiniton not alway used in aviation.
Also, and importantly, that task is considered in different ways; manual task includes both cognitive and motor skills - tactical, whereas flying involves manual tasks and higher order cognitive skills in awareness, understanding, and decision making - strategy. Higher order skills should transfer, but rarely do - we may not have them to begin with (training) or with the basics they are not practiced, improved, higher levels of expertise.
Re 'regulator beliefs', see refs - as we choose to interpret them.
A conclusion of sorts: the issue is less of 'know what' but more of 'know how', tacit knowledge, experience from being there, doing it, remembering that something has been achieved.
Like riding a bike; tell me, I fall off, but having fallen off and continuing to seek the skill, there comes success, but still being unable to explain how this was achieved.