I’m going to wander a bit off the reservation here for a quick moment (at least I hope it’s quick). It has to do with flying an airplane and programming an airplane.
I am well aware that there are a lot of features on a lot of modern airplanes that allows, and often demands, that a pilot understand what he (or she) wants the airplane to do and then be proficient in translating that desire into programming the various systems. He (or she) is then to watch carefully as the airplane does as programmed.
That is all “well and good,” but it doesn’t do a lot for the continued education and proficiency of that pilot in “flying” the airplane. Granted, to be completely proficient in SOME airplanes, what I just described is not an alternative – it IS a requirement. No argument. But, on those aircraft, when the computer functions decide to take longer to “think” or it somehow “misinterprets” the “translation,” the pilot is going to HAVE to FLY the airplane – in direct law if necessary. And, this is true on all airplanes without all that “magic” installed.
This brings me back to
Fellow Aviator’s original request for assistance:
Originally Posted by Fellow Aviator
Regarding an up comming sim check with a southern european B757 operator, I need help with B757 power settings. I would like to know how much EPR and ANU/AND is needed for typical situations such as T/O, climb, CRZ, normal descent, approach etc. Also, help with abnormal things such as steep turns will help very much. I have never flow jets, please feel free to give any tips or pointers that might come to mind.
Please, understand that I’m NOT picking on
Fellow Aviator! He just brings to mind something that, to me, has always felt like “sandpaper.” His plea for assistance sounds to me like an “interview” session – designed to see if an applicant knows how to fly; and, if I am correct, it is probably NOT a session to see if an applicant knows how to “program” a specific type of airplane. When I had students transitioning into the airplane on which I was teaching and they asked similar questions (which I interpreted as necessary “crutches”) – I usually responded with a bit of advice that they probably considered a bit “cold-shouldered.” I’d say something whitty and bright, like, “If you’re on final approach and find that you’re a bit slow, I’d suggest you push forward a bit on these,” and tap the throttles; or “If you’re a bit nose low, you have this very handy tool to make an adjustment,” while tapping the control column. And then I’d throw in an oft-used phrase, “remember, anything that will take you to it, will take you through it.”
I fully understand the uncertainty about being examined regarding whether or not you can “fly” – and not wanting to screw up a pretty good chance. But, at least for me and the guys I work with, observing someone take a few extra minutes to figure out those kinds of things for themselves gives me a pretty good idea that the pilot I’m observing has (or does not have) a good, basic understanding of the way an airplane “flys,” and what kinds of control applications can be made to have that airplane “fly” the way that pilot desires. If I see someone spending time adjusting specific EPR, EGT, or N2 settings and/or moving the attitude to some specific point each time something changes I’m going to assume that he (or she) doesn’t know as much about what is necessary to make the airplane do what is required at that moment as compared to “trusting” what someone else has said “works for them” in similar circumstances. If I wanted to hire that “other” pilot, that’s who I’d hire. But, in that I’m looking at the pilot in the simulator (or airplane), THAT’s who I want to see “fly.” I’m not interested to see if THAT person can accurately interpret what was said by someone else. Of course, I think this begs the question, “should a pilot really ‘trust’ what another pilot uses as a control application strategy for any given circumstance?”
It is my opinion that pilots, in general, are very adaptive in their ability to adjust to differing circumstances – but, they are also quite different from individual to individual. I don’t believe that any pilot really knows what input stimuli they use or that they really know in what order they use the myriad of input stimuli available. Of course, because they are adaptive, pilots usually CAN use specifically prescribed stimuli – and many, given enough practice, can adequately use that prescribed stimuli, even if it is NOT what would he (or she) would use, given an individual selection opportunity, to make the airplane respond the way he (or she) desires.
It is my opinion that a pilot uses his (or her) own choices of “streaming input stimuli” to make conscious or sub- conscious decisions about control application strategies in order to have the airplane “do” what is desired. I use the term “streaming,” because, as we were taught from the beginning, flying is a constant adjustment of pitch, bank, power, and trim – based on what is seen from second to second. In my experience, I find it relatively rare that a pilot, who regularly uses his (or her) decisions about control application strategies, changes what he (or she) is used to using as input stimuli, shift to another’s suggestion, and do very well at it.
I say ALL of this simply to point out that trusting someone else’s thoughts and interpretations of input stimuli
may not be what you want to demonstrate to someone making a hiring decision. And, at some point, each of us is going to have to develop our own set of application strategies, based on what we, as individuals, see, recognize, and interpret, and from this know, based on experience, what control application response to make in order to achieve the desired results.
OK. I’m off my soapbox (for now). I’ll let you judge whether or not that was a “quick” moment of deviation.