Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
It's the cost of doing business to keep your aircrew current and proficient.
Current and proficient aircrew who know their aircraft inside and out is a reasonable expectation of the fare paying public. A great many professional pilots meet that description, but as we can see from Asiana, not all do.
Of course you are correct, Lonewolf 50, however, or, in addition, I believe that focusing on the Asiana accident is far and away much too narrow, as it doesn’t begin to focus on a situation that I have been harping on for what seems to be decades … and that is first, the complete and competent training of the pilot, but just as important is the complete and competent training of those who are charged with the responsibility of training those pilots (the instructors) and those who will evaluate those pilots against an appropriately documented standard. I am currently aware of the following on-going efforts that have been mounted by some of the most prestigious aviation oriented groups around.
Initially, the UK’s Royal Aeronautical Society started the ball rolling with the development of an international working group – subsequently named the International Committee for Advanced Training in Extended Envelopes (or “ICATEE”) supported by a wide-based representation through out the aircraft industry, simulator manufacturers, training providers, regulators, researchers and airline customers. Participants include Boeing, Airbus, CAE, Opinicus, ETC, APS Emergency Maneuver Training, Calspan, FAA, NTSB, NASA, NLR, DLR, ALPA, IFALPA, KLM Flight Training, IDT, UTIAS and many others. ICATEE is chaired by Dr. Sunjoo Advani, Mr. Peter Tharp, and Capt. Gordon Woolley (Chairman of the RAeS Flight Simulation Group) where all three are members of the RAeS Flight Simulator Group.
Following this, another group began to form with a slightly different focus … this one being the International Pilot Training Consortium or “IPTC.” This working group was created to improve the safety, quality and efficiency of commercial aviation by developing international agreement on a common set of training and evaluation standards for pilots, instructors, and evaluator. Initially, this effort has focused on training and evaluation standards for pilots, but, it is hoped that the process will then be extended to address exactly those features for both instructors and evaluators. The ultimate goal has always been the development of recognized and logical processes for the benefit of the industry worldwide and which will hopefully result in clearly stated provisions that would then, hopefully be adopted, first by ICAO, and then individual national regulatory authorities.
You may be correct with your statement that “…in order to improve or just maintain the industry’s high level of safety we have to find alternative methods to complement the existing initiatives.” This precisely the goals of the 2 working groups I described above. I still believe that we are able to at least maintain, and more likely, improve the industry’s safety record by understanding more completely – perhaps only more basically – what it is we expect out of the training we currently accomplish. I fully understand the concerns voiced regarding “cultural issues” being at least a contributing factor, if not more basic, to the successful completion of training – but I think that we have to return to the basic premise of training.
I firmly believe that this premise is, or certainly should be, to train a pilot to the degree that he/she is able to recognize, correctly, what the airplane is currently doing; make an immediate decision as to whether or not what the airplane is currently doing is what is desired by that pilot; and if the airplane is NOT doing what is desired, be able to make an immediate decision as to what must be done to the airplane’s control and power systems to correct that condition ... and to execute that decision quickly and accurately. Lastly, during this execution, continually monitor the condition of the airplane with respect to whether or not the resulting airplane condition is changing in the desired direction and magnitude. Once again, this part demands that the pilot correctly identify the changing airplane condition, determining whether or not that change is what is desired. This process is a continual process – taking place all the time – and in situations that are rapidly changing, requiring more directly focused attention to the airplane condition by the pilot flying.
In summary, the pilot flying must have an accurate knowledge of what he/she is expecting of the airplane – at all times – and have accurate knowledge of what control applications are appropriate should any adjustments in the airplane condition become necessary at any time under any circumstance – and knowing when, where, how, and how much of those control applications have to be made – and then make them, accordingly.
Lastly, to ensure that the pilot flying, does, indeed, have this knowledge and ability, the training program must have been designed to provide that pilot with the opportunity to experience various scenarios where such recognition, decision making, decision execution, and continual evaluation of each, is provided initially and then sufficiently repeated, throughout the multiple combinations of conditions and situations, to provide that pilot the recognition and reinforcement of actions, recognized responses, and, when or if appropriate, reactions that will ultimately be required. Throughout this exposure, the instructor must take careful notice of when, where, and how the student addresses each scenario, judging whether or not the student’s performance should be modified, and if it should be modified, understand why, and then how, that modification can be accomplished. This process has to be completed for each required scenario, with each appropriate modification scrutinized, and, obviously, the resulting airplane condition properly and completely evaluated.