Globalnav: I like some of your thinking & comments, especially about being aware and staying alert to what the a/c is doing. Many years I found it very disappointing to be a new train sign captain in a fledgling airline. It had just transitioned from a needles & dials +FE a/c to the latest EFIS/EICAS LNAV/VNAV new toy.
The instructors developed the mantra of "fly the FD", and the idea that it was not necessary to keep a scan of the overhead panel, or anywhere else, as "EICAS would tell you when there is a problem". My philosophy of being alert to trends and being proactive was not appreciated. They thought EICAS had replaced the hairy old fart who used to sit behind them and monitor trends. EICAS only tells you when a limit is reached. You might now be faced with a worse scenario than 30 mins earlier. IMHO these 2 mantra's led to a false sense of security and low awareness; both can be disastrous.
I think you are with me in questioning the technocrats + accountants idea that error can be reduced by more automation and more back up redundancy just in case.
Can someone please tell us how much line pilot input is there into modern a/c development. I don't mean manufacturer's test pilots, I mean day in day out line training captains. At a Boeing visit to our home base we were invited to discuss issues as we had more operating experience than they did. It was interesting how much detail we had to include to gain a full understanding by the Boeing pilots. Sometimes it was something they had not appreciated. It didn't always lead to a change, and we don't know if it was carried forward in the development process, but we tried.
FDM11: Also some very interesting points. Your comments ref. SOP's in the new age is relevant. I once heard 2 very different philosophies about SOP's. One was the old idea that it allowed many different pilots to fly together in a manner that the DFO & CP had deemed safe & efficient. The other was that they were a legal safe-guard. If it went wrong, but you had followed SOP's then you were vindicated; not your fault. Ouch!
When training & checking I focused more on the overall operation within an SOP framework rather than the SOP minutiae. Was it acceptable, safe, good airmanship? The grading process indicated that X SOP errors = A grade, Y errors = B grade, Z errors = C grade etc. I had a more subjective view. This of course brings in personal attitudes of trainer/checkers and subjective assessments. I still prefer that to the nit-picking black & white trappers.
Of course a certain profile had a crew coordination process and a correct use of the automatics to achieve a safe result. That is correct as it is a crew procedure and both expect the other to act in a certain way & certain times. No confusion. Solid SOP required. Pass/fail?
What many forget is that it is an SOP to deviate from SOP's when safety dictates. What that requires is the realisation that something is going awry, why the normal SOP will not be the best, and what other FCTM technique is a solution. IMHO this is what is missing in basic TR, and more critically in command training. It can be that SOP focus is even more intense in that phase.
One then hears real life stories which leave the question "why did they do that & not the other?" You will often find that they were outside their comfort zone, knew no other way of doing something, even though they suspected it might not be the best; but they could not be blamed for following SOP's. It would not be their fault. Ouch.
This is where the training process has let them down. It was a common comment from cadet based F/O's that they liked flying with the old farts from a varied background rather than the newbie captains. When presented with a situation they got on with it and used all resources to achieve the task required; no hesitation. Smooth, efficient and well managed with good CRM, while complying as best as possible with SOP's but not afraid to deviate as required. The newbies first thought was "what's written down." Then doubt crept in and moments of indecision delayed action.
FDM11 questions the true and best status for SOP's. Should they be 'obedience of fools & guidance of wise men,' or something which fits into the auditing process of right/wrong black/white?
Last edited by RAT 5; 5th Jan 2016 at 12:34.