Chaps, Ladies
Those of us who are of some age and from the UK may remember the Schedule 8 & schedule 10 test format for the renewal of an AR/IR and the company OPC. During the schedule 8 check, the man from the ministry would come to ensure that skill retention was above the line, and that skill fade in a limited amount of items if any had not dropped below the line and affected safety.
The schedule 8 items were very limited as the skill fade, which concerned the man from the ministry were the handling of an Engine failure at V1, demonstrating bank and pitch control prior to flap retraction, transitioning to a higher bank after flap retraction, while following the needles outbound on the SID and then entering the hold correctly and not forgetting to time it.
We then had to Perform an ILS approach RAW data and at minimums perform a go-around. Finally we also needed to demonstrate a non precision approach and a full stop landing using reverse thrust with an outboard engine inoperative.
Those of you who believe that skills are eroding have no real basis to compare skill retention data. There is no scientific evidence that pilots of the years past where better than us today in skill based exercises. Actually the contrary may be true due to better engineered jets.
The mishandling of planes during critical phases of flight has not contributed to any significant accidents in the last 30 years since automation became more ubiquitous.
None of these items checked diligently on the skill retention lists of years gone by have been a problem recently in any of the accidents on the Air Asia 320, Air france 330 or on the emirates 777.
How would you be a better pilot or for that mater a better rested pilot if you hand flew any modern jet around the globe at Flight level 290 out of RVSM airspace?
One does not need to be an expert in human factors to see that wasting time flying manoeuvres that are not relevant in a particular skill set does not improve the overall skill set for a particular task as a go-around. Spending hours flying around does not make you better at performing go-arounds it makes you more tired.
The definition of skill is the ability to do something well, it's expertise. In order to become proficient in a skill one needs to be trained to do a particular task again and again.
Competence rather than skill is the ability to do something successfully, by using skills, knowledge, attitude, and it depends on ability.
As we have moved to more complex aircraft skill training is not enough. What is required is a competency based training environment, which looks at competency rather than skill.
I am not in Emirates therefore I cannot comment on the training and continuous Pilot Development these two chaps received, or for that matter what the rest of the Emirates Pilots receive.
Scientifically proven, pilots when reacting to stimulus from the environment, we don't decide on a course of action based on a classical decision making model as we don't have time. We react to what we perceive is happening and we match our reaction to what we have done in the past. We do not optimise we are satisficing, as do fire chiefs, trauma doctors and nurses and for that matter army officers on the battle field.
Our brains are woefully underpowered for what we want them to do in time critical events thus we use heuristics.
On the day the two chaps had to process within seconds, inputs from the environment, from the aircraft, combine that with knowledge and rules in the OMA and in the FCOM and then make a decision under critical time pressure and react by matching what they have done in the past with this event.
It's funny that some have criticised their reaction as unskilful. The contrary is evident. They were very skilful. Years of training worked and they retracted the FLAPS to 20 as required, they pressed the TOGA buttons, they pitched to up, they retracted the Gear as required and the PM even had the presence of mind to call Speed as he is required to do.
No one teaches or requires the PM to look at engine thrust during a go-around and good luck to all of us if we think that the solution is to include one more item in the process during a high task load event. What is required is competency training.
What is also evident is that they lacked the competency not the skill to do the manoeuvre as clearly their understanding of the automation failed them on this occasion, which is probably because they have not been trained in such an event, and or fatigue and or the startle effect.
Remember it is proven scientifically that Subject Matter Experts (pilots) in highly risky environments react to stimuli with recognition primed decisions. These actions require competency not just skill. This requires proper competency training not just skill based tick boxing.
Combine the above with fatigue as we no longer fly sensible hours rather we fly to the limits and any one of us on the day could have ended up in the same situation, as having no thrust available on a go-around is something that we are not taught and we don't expect.
There but for the grace of God go I