Tee Emm
3rd Jul 2010, 10:18
In March 2008, Aviation International News published an article based upon a UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch report on a major electrical failure to an A319 flying at night from London to Budapest.
The flight deck became dark as the crew lost all flight displays, autopilot, intercom and radio and most of the flight-deck lighting including standby instrument electrical lighting. The autothrust was also disabled, triggering the associated warning horn. The captain took control using the external night horizon and the poorly illuminated standby horizon and altimeter for reference. Most of the affected systems were restored after 90 seconds as the AC ESS FEED push-button was selected to alternate.
The aircraft was removed from service and investigators conducted extensive testing over the next four months but they could not identify any faults or reproduce the symptoms the crew reported. Although the AAIB could not trace the source of the fault, it did issue 13 safety recommendations as a result of the incident.
Among those recommendations: flying on standby instrumentation should be included in flight simulator training programmes.
Presumably our ATSB as well as Airbus operators in Australia, would have been made aware of the AAIB report and its recommendations - in particular that of flight simulator training on standby flight instruments. I wonder if the syllabus of type rating and recurrency training in the simulator includes regular practice in IMC. The operative term being "regular" and how that is defined.
Flight on standby flight instruments is more often than not, an annual box ticking exercise like unusual attitude recovery training. For example during an entire type rating syllabus of 40 hours, flight on standby flight instruments may cover less than 15 minutes. Yet, most would agree this emergency is one of the most demanding a pilot would meet in his career.
Clearly the situation is serious if a crew is forced back on standby flight instruments at night or IMC or any length of time. A pilot may be legally current in terms of ticking the box, but then we all know currency becomes a dubious point as the months pass since the last decent practice in the simulator.
For instance, an ILS every 35 days for instance keeps you current. Beyond that statuary time frame, not so. Is it easier to fly an ILS on automatic pilot every 35 days than flight on standby instruments once each year? Most pilots would take the ILS currency every time.
That said, it would be interesting to judge how much time should be scheduled for standby flight instrument practice without the aid of an automatic pilot, in order to be considered 100 percent competent throughout each year. Keep in mind, the vast majority of line flying is on automatic pilot and it is known that lack of hand flying practice inevitably leads to degradation of instrument flying skills. It gets worse as more sophisticated automation takes over the operation of the aircraft.
Leaving the choice of self regulation to the airline operators, as it applies to flight simulator training, means that nothing will change - especially where cost reduction is priority. In Australia, the regulator authority must pay more attention to overseas aircraft investigation reports and recommendations. Where such recommendations should equally apply to Australian operators, then pressure needs to be applied by the regulator to ensure compliance.
The British AAIB recommendation that flight simulator training programmes should include flying on standby instrumentation, should not be treated lightly. After all, that agency would know that this training is already in the approved syllabus of type ratings.
Reading between the lines, I suggest the AAIB is hinting that airline training managements should ensure increased priority be given to flying on standby flight instruments in the simulator.
The flight deck became dark as the crew lost all flight displays, autopilot, intercom and radio and most of the flight-deck lighting including standby instrument electrical lighting. The autothrust was also disabled, triggering the associated warning horn. The captain took control using the external night horizon and the poorly illuminated standby horizon and altimeter for reference. Most of the affected systems were restored after 90 seconds as the AC ESS FEED push-button was selected to alternate.
The aircraft was removed from service and investigators conducted extensive testing over the next four months but they could not identify any faults or reproduce the symptoms the crew reported. Although the AAIB could not trace the source of the fault, it did issue 13 safety recommendations as a result of the incident.
Among those recommendations: flying on standby instrumentation should be included in flight simulator training programmes.
Presumably our ATSB as well as Airbus operators in Australia, would have been made aware of the AAIB report and its recommendations - in particular that of flight simulator training on standby flight instruments. I wonder if the syllabus of type rating and recurrency training in the simulator includes regular practice in IMC. The operative term being "regular" and how that is defined.
Flight on standby flight instruments is more often than not, an annual box ticking exercise like unusual attitude recovery training. For example during an entire type rating syllabus of 40 hours, flight on standby flight instruments may cover less than 15 minutes. Yet, most would agree this emergency is one of the most demanding a pilot would meet in his career.
Clearly the situation is serious if a crew is forced back on standby flight instruments at night or IMC or any length of time. A pilot may be legally current in terms of ticking the box, but then we all know currency becomes a dubious point as the months pass since the last decent practice in the simulator.
For instance, an ILS every 35 days for instance keeps you current. Beyond that statuary time frame, not so. Is it easier to fly an ILS on automatic pilot every 35 days than flight on standby instruments once each year? Most pilots would take the ILS currency every time.
That said, it would be interesting to judge how much time should be scheduled for standby flight instrument practice without the aid of an automatic pilot, in order to be considered 100 percent competent throughout each year. Keep in mind, the vast majority of line flying is on automatic pilot and it is known that lack of hand flying practice inevitably leads to degradation of instrument flying skills. It gets worse as more sophisticated automation takes over the operation of the aircraft.
Leaving the choice of self regulation to the airline operators, as it applies to flight simulator training, means that nothing will change - especially where cost reduction is priority. In Australia, the regulator authority must pay more attention to overseas aircraft investigation reports and recommendations. Where such recommendations should equally apply to Australian operators, then pressure needs to be applied by the regulator to ensure compliance.
The British AAIB recommendation that flight simulator training programmes should include flying on standby instrumentation, should not be treated lightly. After all, that agency would know that this training is already in the approved syllabus of type ratings.
Reading between the lines, I suggest the AAIB is hinting that airline training managements should ensure increased priority be given to flying on standby flight instruments in the simulator.