The new Miss Humphrey Appleby of the UK CAA

[A37575]

Sir Humphrey in female form at UK CAA.

See latest Flight International (18-24 May 2010) - last page meaning page 47 under heading "Working Week"

Interview by Flight on Ms Gretchen Burrett, now UK CAA's group director, safety regulation. Mind you the lady is very good looking and this automatically excuses her obtuse and mangled reply to the question:


Flight Int: "Randy Babbitt at the US FAA is worried that high levels of automation are causing the loss of traditional pilot skills, and believes pilot training should be reviewed to take this into account. Do you have views on this?"

Ms Burnett's reply:

"Firstly, the design of automated systems needs to take into account how best to support effective human performance. Secondly, training needs to ensure appropriate skills are maintained. Training has evolved with technological developments and of course it must continue to keep pace".

Interviewer's unspoken thought on this erudite reply: "Wot the stuff is she going on about?'

Do you?

[BDiONU]

http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/401181-gretchen-burrett-leave-nats.html

BD

[FlightlessParrot]

I should have thought that statement is quite significant, if a bit oblique.
'Support effective human performance': that is, NOT replace human pilots, and it looks like a rejection of radical notions of humans as purely monitors of the machines.
'Training has evolved with technological developments and of course it must continue to keep pace': in bureaucratese, that is a way of saying that we might have a problem here.

[Air Tourer]

She made sense to me. Should I worry about that?

[jetsreams]

Having considerably delved upon the information conveyed by you in minute detail and with great interest,the fact of the matter is that I would have replied in the affirmative ;had her objective summary of her understanding of the usage of human skills (in the background of a complex man-machine interface)not totally obscured my faculties of comprehension and reasoning.

In plain English ?

"NO.Prime Minister "

[GarageYears]

Mind you the lady is very good looking and this automatically excuses her...

That caught my eye, but I have to say was pretty disappointed once Google delivered me a pic or two... that said, the question was simply put, and the answer obtusely vague, so much so that I suspect anyone reading this can make their own interpretation of an answer fit her words!

Unfortunately that seems to be the only way for anyone working in the public eye these days - speaking in plain English inevitably results in whoever getting it in the rear from some minority interest group or other. That does NOT seem like a particularly relevant or sensible idea when discussing safety. :ugh:

-GY

[wozzo]

Unfortunately that seems to be the only way for anyone working in the public eye these days - speaking in plain English inevitably results in whoever getting it in the rear from some minority interest group or other.

The question was loaded with the premise/assumption (FAA guy "worried"), that (1) automation is bad for pilot skills and (2) current training is not good enough. Me thinks she didn't really want to react to these premises in that particular interview situation and (rather skillfully) resorted to state overall objectives. A classic PR move if you don't like a question. You can't nail her one way or the other.

[GarageYears]

resorted to state overall objectives

I can't make out ANY objectives from her reply.

Sentence by sentence:
"Firstly, the design of automated systems needs to take into account how best to support effective human performance."

So we open with a bland statement of the bleeding obvious and nothing to do with training. Not an objective.

"Secondly, training needs to ensure appropriate skills are maintained."

Er, hello... that is what (recurrent) training is all about. :rolleyes: We still haven't learned anything.

"Training has evolved with technological developments and of course it must continue to keep pace"

This is nearly an objective but you'd have to change a couple of words:
"Training must evolve with technological developments and of course it must continue to keep pace"

Still none of the above addresses the point of the question which was whether current training is maintaining "traditional pilot skills" or not.

We are all asked questions we'd rather not answer at some point - the problem today is that no one ever seems brave enough to say that, so some meaningless babble is substituted - often confusing enough that the interviewer is left wondering if he/she is smart enough to understand what was just thrown at them. :hmm:

- GY

[5milesbaby]

speaking in plain English
Will it make a difference then that she is American? :}

[Airbubba]

Will it make a difference then that she is American?

And she's a Zoomie...

Anybody know how much flying she did in the Air Force?

[5milesbaby]

All I know is "flew jets & pistons" was mentioned in her resume.

[Checkboard]

"Randy Babbitt at the US FAA is worried that high levels of automation are causing the loss of traditional pilot skills, and believes pilot training should be reviewed to take this into account. Do you have views on this?"

"His name is Randy Babbitt? Really? Oh well - current pilot training is very similar to the training that took place before automation came into prevalence. You don't lose "traditional pilot skills" (and by this I assume you mean hand-flying competence as opposed to, say, knowledge of astro-navigation) through training. You lose these skills through lack of on-line practice and that is the provision of company SOPs, not training programs - so Randy Babbitt doesn't know what he is talking about."

Well, that would have been my answer. Perhaps I should apply for the job?

[Fitter2]

A spokesperson for the FAA at a conference recently (I can dig out the reference if anyone really wants chapter and verse) stated that there are CAT pilots approaching retirement who have never exceeded 30 degrees of bank in the last 20 years of flying.

I guess this is relevant to the question asked (but not answered).

Should anyone be worried?

[Huck]

Oh well - current pilot training is very similar to the training that took place before automation came into prevalence.

Wow.

I once took an MD11 type ride, and in the entire session the autopilot was on, except for an engine-out ILS.

Furthermore, I bet we hand-flew a total of 30 minutes in that entire one-month course.

Which is to say - I don't agree with you.

[GarageYears]

Checkboard:
You don't lose "traditional pilot skills" (and by this I assume you mean hand-flying competence as opposed to, say, knowledge of astro-navigation) through training.He didn't say you lost traditional pilot skills through training, did he? Read it again. His concern is that "high levels of automation are causing the loss of traditional pilot skills", which I think is the point you are trying to make! :hmm:

- GY :=

P.S. J. Randolph Babbitt - Administrator (http://www.faa.gov/about/key_officials/babbitt/)

[Air Tourer]

All or most posters in this forum seem to agree with her.

IE, Keep pilots in the loop while on automatics.

And, training needs plenty of hands on practise.

And, training needs plenty of practise on what the automation is up to.

And she's good looking too??

[Sir George Cayley]

Gretchen will be damned if she does, damned if..... etc

With less than 100 days under her belt could anything but a generalised answer be expected?

Looking at her cv, I note she went from Missile Defense systems to Human Machine Interface Engineering on the F-16 and from there into ATC.

Yes, she is drop dead gorgeous, charismatic and savvy - so lets cut her a teeny weeny bit of slack, eh? I've seen evidence of a razor sharp intellect and the ability to take on new info extremely quickly, so I'm in favour of taking the long view.

Actually a long lingering view:O

Sir George Cayley

[Slats One]

Giver her a break will you- at least she did not use the meaningless cliche of the moment- "going forwards" or worse, its newer derivative "moving forwards"...

She is an American - she speaks CNN - that is her culture- where the word 'mirror' is pronounced 'mere' - to me a mere is a man made ancient pond on a hill top, to an American it is a glass, reflecting device...

As a former insider in the dark arts of Pr gobbledegook and non-speak, I find her words as bland and as non-commital as they were intended and designed to be - just like all corproate - speak robot output.

Gordon Brown once told he was "Progressing the economy going forwards". One is forced to ask what other direction could or would progress create for its self....

You lot really ought not to be surprised at this Sir Humphery-esque speak the woman is spewing- its her job! Training that evovles- wow what a scorcher...

Frankly, we Brits invented it you know, don't blame anyone else...

[Say again s l o w l y]

I think some people have a different definition of the word gorgeous than I do...

Mind you, what that has to do with her competency in her new job I have no idea.

A woman in a powerful aviation position and people automatically start blathering on about her looks? We've still got a long way to go in this industry...

[matt_hooks]

And there, I think, one has hit the nail fairly and squarely on the head sassy!

Setting aside what she actually said, (which I thought made perfect sense, albeit it not very informative, but then again after such a short time in the job what else can we expect?) we have to wonder if it would have been worthy of comment had the person uttering it been of the male persuasion?

I admire a pretty face as much as the next man, but in no way do I take the presence, or lack, thereof as any kind of indicator to the abilities and intelligence of the bearer! Some of the best pilots I know (male AND female) are ugly as sin!

[BAe146s make me cry]

Let's hope this pretender is better than the last pretender..

What will she do about the 20+ UKCAA issued EASA Part 66 aircraft maintenance licences issued in 2006 that STILL to this day do not have required conversion reports?

BAe

[AirRabbit]

His name is Randy Babbitt? Really? Oh well - current pilot training is very similar to the training that took place before automation came into prevalence. You don't lose "traditional pilot skills" (and by this I assume you mean hand-flying competence as opposed to, say, knowledge of astro-navigation) through training. You lose these skills through lack of on-line practice and that is the provision of company SOPs, not training programs - so Randy Babbitt doesn't know what he is talking about."
Well, that would have been my answer. Perhaps I should apply for the job?
:=
Before you so quickly jump to conclusions that you think you know something about, you might want to check on some of the relevant facts first.

Babbitt, the son of an airline pilot, was raised in Florida, attended the University of Georgia and the University of Miami before becoming an airline pilot, flying for Eastern Air Lines for 25 years, and served multiple roles within the Air Line Pilot’s Association, including Executive Administrator for 3 years and President for 8 years. After leaving ALPA Babbitt formed an airline management and financial consulting firm in Reston, Virginia, Eclat Consulting. In September 2007 the personnel of this company were merged into the Aircraft Management division of Oliver Wyman.

;)
No one knows everything - but I would suspect that Mr. Babbitt knows at least as much about aviation and pilot training, including the skill levels involved and their current condition, as many regular posters on this thread.

[brooksjg]

Hasn't been so much interest in a new Director at the CAA since Hypatia was moonlighting from her librarian job!:):)

[herman the crab]

This thread is worthless without pictures! ;):p

HTC

[A37575]

Mind you the lady is very good looking and this automatically excuses her obtuse and mangled reply to the question:

Mea Culpa. It was meant to be a joke, chaps. Fell flat it seems!

[Sir George Cayley]

Beauty is after all in the eye of the beholder. Some Cabinet members thought Maggie was sexy:eek:

Here they al are in all their splendour -
CAA Board and Staff | About the CAA | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=286&pagetype=90&pageid=796)

Sir George Cayley

[Nopax,thanx]

Well, if she wants some advice on cutting costs I can give her the name of one surveyor who should have been given his P45 years ago...:mad:

[Reverserbucket]

I think she looks a little like Kelly Brook :).

[GarageYears]

I think she looks a little like Kelly Brook http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif.

Wow... that's some imagination you've got there! :eek:

- GY

[Reverserbucket]

...well at least she's female.

[Bronx]

I guess the real new Sir Humphrey is CAA Chairman Dame Deirdre Hutton who gets paid £130,000 a year for a 2 day week. :eek:

Equivalent to £325K for a 5 day week.

How much does the Prime Minister of Britain get?

[Ballymoss]

c£142,500 apparently; hardly worth getting out of bed, never mind attempting
to run this country and the inherent sh*t that goes with it..

Rgds
The Moss:ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've had the pleasure of meeting Ms Burrett in a few meetings recently, and t'is true that she is quite attractive. On paper, she is certainly a very impressive aviation safety professional - which to my mind makes her a huge and useful contrast to Andrew Haines, CAA's Chief Executive who seems to know virtually nothing about aviation and in my opinion really shouldn't be in that job.

Also however, I was very surprised at her virtual invisibility in the recent volcanic entertainment - given her prominent role and safety background, I'd really have expected to see and hear a lot more of her than we did. To be fair, she was brand new in the job and we were all desperately trying to understand what was going on, so she may simply have been standing back and letting a few very competent people in her organisation get on with it.

On net, I think that my personal jury is still out, but I suspect that I'm going to decide as she goes along that she is much more useful to UK aviation than Andrew Haines.

G

[Slats One]

Now would that be the same Andrew Haines who has made it to being cited in content on the Letters page of Flight International this week...

Would that be the same CAA decision that Sir Richard Branson called "crass and stupid" in an interview with ITV Meridan's Mike Pearce a week of three ago...


Would that be the same CAA decision that Lufthansa's CEO told Berliner Zeitung was 'astounding' in its lack of reference to LH's airborne test flight outcome findings.

You know, I think it might.....

This one will run and run.:E

[Genghis the Engineer]

That will be the single Lufthansa flight that carried no cloud particle instrumentation capable of measuring ash concentration better than +/- an order of magnitude presumably? Or will it be the Airbus test flight in Lufthansa markings which carried no cloud particle instrumentation at-all, so they only ever knew where they were on the black/red/white map, but never if they were actually in any of the concentrated ash layers?

On the whole, I don't think I'd have used data from a couple of gash "test" flights where you really didn't have more than a very vague idea of whether they were in the ash or not either.

Whilst I may not have a desperately high opinion of Andrew Haines appointment, he's not actually malicious or stupid, is trying hard to get it right, and some of the people working for him really are quite clever (certainly a lot cleverer than some of the continental behaviour I've witnessed over the last couple of months.)

A certain aviation boffin of my acquaintance was interviewed repeatedly for BBC news about Sir Richard's comments, strangely when he consistently refused to say anything other than it was hardly surprising that Virgin were frustrated, but that everybody had to treat safety as paramount, they never used it.

G