If I remember correctly the thread was originally about modern training eroding pilot skills.
I guess we need to look at what we mean. Are we saying, and I think we are, that the modern heavy commercial transport now requires skills and operation that is so far removed from the skills required to operate a Piper Warrior that to spend 200 Hrs boring an expensive hole in the sky in such a machine is no longer appropriate. In many respects, I think that could well be true. OK, some of the very recent single and new multi engine aircraft are fitted with avionics that more closely represent those found on the modern heavy, so maybe, and it's a maybe, spending time flying such a modern light aircraft MAY, and note I say MAY, be appropriate to developing the awareness of the bigger picture.
In theory, it's possible to get someone up to speed and capable of flying a modern jet entirely by the use of a level D simulator. The problem I see with that concept is that it removes the unexpected. Yes, the instructor can introduce "the unexpected" in relation to failures of the airframe and it's components, but can the instructor simulate the huge noise and shock etc of suddenly flying into what looked like rain and suddenly turns out to be hail?
Can the instrutor simulate another aircraft suddenly doing something unexpected, more often on the ground rather than in the air, that demands an INSTANT and positive response?
Can the instructor prepare the student for the strange things that can happen when flying at relatively low levels over mountainous terrain?
The list is massive, and I'm sure that many other people could add to this list in a much more comprehensive way than I have.
The underlying issue is that a low time student trained in the "brave new world of beancounting" is going to have even less real aviation experience when thrown into the right hand seat of what ever it happens to be. The vast majority of the time, that's not going to be a problem. Once every so many times, regardless now of which seat the student is in, and to some extent, regardless of how long that student has now been flying, there WILL be circumstances for which there has been no training, or preparation, and the fear of many is that if there are no opportunities for that student to expand their knowledge horizons after initial training, there is the real risk that the underlying knowledge base will not be there when it's needed.
Flying was something that was an ongoing learning experience, and was enhanced by discussion with peer groups, and by practical experience.
Modern flying bears very little relationship to the art as practised until relatively recently. The automation is now so complex, and so reliable, as are engines and airframes, it's now a matter of heated debate when things like a 747 engine fail on take off
, and there are recriminations a mile long for other incidents that in former years were regular happenings.
The result of that is the skills to operate a modern heavy have changed. It's no longer a physical endurance test that requires muscle and endurance, it's now about understanding how all these complex computer based systems all integrate, and what they are doing to the airframe.
UNTIL FOR SOME REASONS THAT'S NOT BEEN SEEN BEFORE IT ALL BREAKS
When that happens, and we've seen situations where it does, it's no good then saying "It's broken, and I haven't got a check list for this, now what do I do". When it's all gone for a ball of chalk, and there's not much left working, that's the point where the underlying aviations skills are still going to be needed if there's not going to be yet another smoking hole in the ground, and there's scant comfort to me in a bean counter saying that "the odds on that are so long, we can't afford to spend money training for it".
The problem is that Joe Public does not see that issue, because it's not out in the open, and unfortunately, Joe Public wants to pay less for travel than he used to, so something has to give. Reduce the inflight catering. Don't clean the aircraft every turnround. Don't provide "extras". Charge for wheelchairs, reduce the baggage allowance, charge for every kilo of excess, sell scratch cards in flight. The list is as extensive as can be imagined by an under pressure accounts system, and it's getting longer and more creative by the week.
We've seen all of this happening over the last 10 years. Now, there's not a lot left to trim, all the easy targets have been knocked over. Pilot costs is a large target, both in terms of what they are paid, and in terms of what they cost overall when recurrent training and all the other issues are taken into consideration. To many beancounters, that's a soft target now because there are fewer "incidents" than there used to be.
Maybe, but the accident rate for serious accidents is still there. Recent weeks have seen a worrying blip, hopefully short lived, but it might give everyone pause for thought. There's no easy way to ensure skillsare developed and retained, and it's even harder now than it used to be, as there are a lot more people flying aircraft because it's a very well paid job, and I know from discusssions that some of those people have no interest in developing their skills beyond the minimum that the company requires. That's a change, not unique to aviation, but an insidious and probably long term subtly dangerous change, as it will be quite a while before the real effects of those changes start to reflect in statistics.
Another issue that needs to be considered is aging airframes. Do we really know and understand what the effect of aging on highly integrated systems is going to be? I don't think we do, so we're facing into a new scenario, of trying to ensure that people know enough about the aircraft to ensure that they can bring it home when something significant fails. Again, that's where the wider experience is going to be needed, and I'm not sure that it's there in the same way.
Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, and the beancounters will be right, this brave new modern automated world will mean that failures will be so rare and so easily dealt with that flight crews will no longer even have to be at the sharp end, as long as there's someone somewhere in the airframe, it will be possible to get it working again.
That thought sends all the wrong sort of shivers up and down my spine.
Enough. I could say a lot more, but I don't think I will, this should be more than enough to keep the thread running. I just hope that we're not about to launch into a brave new world that will come back to haunt us in 20 years time.