So, what have you learned after 20+ years in this industry?

[Northbeach]

I am interested in hearing from 20+ year veterans. Two items come to the top of my mind. First being a 180 degree shift in my opinion on 2 person cockpit crew verses single pilot. The first 10 years of my career was completely single pilot; remote area flying in the U.S. then flying the bush in Africa, followed by single pilot multi-engine no autopilot hard IFR freight operations (FAR 135 & 121). After several thousand of hours flying non-precision approaches in a non radar environment and years of operating solo out in the bush, I really didn’t see the point in having another pilot around. My opinion began to slowly change after moving to the corporate world and flying new jets and having the opportunity to go through great training centers. I am now fully convinced that a crew functioning well together does have the opportunity to perform better than either pilot could alone. That is not to say that categorically two are better than one. It just represents a major shift philosophically from where I was in my 20s & 30s.

The second being the realization that one could really fail another pilot on any check ride at any time. With the blizzard of material, regulations and procedures there is always enough material to down somebody in a simulator ride. Not that I have EVER had the inclination to fail somebody, in fact I probably tend to go the other direction to a fault.


To quote a friend of mine “You don’t know, what you don’t know”. So, what stands out in your last 20 years and 20,000 +/- hours? I’m especially interested in complete changes of opinion driven by experience.

[A37575]

Here is one subject that has seen a distinct change over the past thirty years and that is the bastardization of the principle of logging instrument flying time.

The war years and post war, too, instrument flight time could only be logged if the aircraft was manually flown in cloud. After all that what was instrument flying was all about in those days. For example, my RAAF log book circa 1951 had two columns for instrument flying. Dual and Pilot. The main heading covering these two titles was INSTR/CLOUD. When we were first issued with our log books the dual column of instrument flying was changed to SIM (simulated in the air). And the pilot column was changed to ACTUAL (in cloud) and finally LINK (simulator today) was added in a third column drawn in.

It was clear from the outset that the logging of cloud flying was a true indicator of a pilots instrument hands on flying experience. Of course he may not have been competent but at least he had had the exposure and if he had lasted that long in cloud without killing himself maybe that was good enough for the purpose of logging time. That is why the log book column was designed.

Mainly since the introduction of glass cockpit types with their superbly reliable automation, and of course high altitude cruise characteristics above "the weather", hand flying in cloud is now generally a thing of the past. In fact, there is evidence that hand flying at any time is actively discouraged by many airlines. Because of this, it is difficult to remain in manual instrument flight currency.

So the regulations were changed following, I presume, ICAO advice. This suited the airlines, since logging of instrument flying is now legal while the aircraft is on automatic pilot. This means the crew can be enjoying their lunch up front while keeping an eye on the automatics and whoever is flying the leg in IMC logs the time in the instrument flight column. Of course, this is ridiculous in terms of measuring a pilots real instrument flying experience but it keeps the regulators happy.

It boils down to the fact that no longer is instrument flight time in the log book column a true indication of the pilots flight time exposure to cloud flying (or IMC). Therefore, the instrument flight time column may as well be deleted as superfluous, since almost 100 percent of that logged time is now on automatic pilot.

Some operators in Australia, for example, have changed their candidate qualifications to have the pilot show evidence of at least three instrument rating renewals before acceping an application for employment. Thirty or more years ago, the candidate for a job would have had to show log book evidence of a certain minimum number of hours hands on flying in cloud or at the least in flight simulated under the hood. But not now.

Of course, evidence of a minimum number of instrument rating renewals also means nothing since the pilot may have flown very little or even not at all retween renewals.

As logging of instrument flight time on automatic pilot is now the accepted and legal routine, my recommendation would be for ICAO to delete all reference to in-flight instrument logging as a now pointless exercise and instead make currency on instrument approaches (in a simulator or airborne - visually or IMC flown by hand or on automatic pilot is sufficient) the only regulatory requirement.

[Kelly Hopper]

I got my I/R issued many years ago and never logged a single minute of instrument time after that. Flying IFR it's all instrument, no?

[BOAC]

You fly take-offs, landings and visual circuits all on instruments?:eek:

[Kerling-Approsh KG]

The first three thoughts I had on reading the original post:

It took me too long in my early years to realise that the most important thing in aviation is money. Once that became clear, everything started falling nicely into place.

There is no subsitute for excellent hand-flying skills. Without them, you'll never progress properly in your career, to command, to training, to doing interesting and challenging flying, etc...

There is never any substitute for first-class training. In my present role I do a fair bit of interviewing, and I'm shocked at the poor basic knowledge of many candidates. Maybe, that's, at least in part, a consequence of a checking system which doesn't bin the poor candidates..?

[flufdriver]

a) Pilots are their own worst enemies

b) Flight & aircraft technical training has been reduced to the absolute minimum

c) the World's Skies have become much busier

d) flying is the new cheap mass-transport

e) security measures allow aircrew to be harassed by imbeciles

f) never to recommend airline flying to a friend as a desirable career

to be continued...

[Miserlou]

What I have learned?

Open the yoghurt AWAY from your body!

[Northbeach]

Pilots are their own worst enemies



Unfortunately that is completely true, and it is terminal I'm afraid.... this has been a bitter realization for me.


It took me too long in my early years to realise that the most important thing in aviation is money. Once that became clear, everything started falling nicely into place.



Yes, I made the same mistake. Although I am learning "the tax man" does not suffer from this malady, always ready to maximize their "take - NOW" with some vague generalization [that is easily amendable] of some future benefit due me in return.

Open the yoghurt AWAY from your body!

Yes, I will acknowledge that one as well, along with never eating a crew meal in the dark.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Open the yoghurt AWAY from your body!

I'm sure it's a genuine mistake but you missed out...

'and point at the F/O'





:}

[doubleu-anker]

"The day you stop learning is the day to give up."

[fireflybob]

Never assume, always check!

Be constantly vigilant. Never treat any flight as "routine".

If in doubt, then don't.

You're much better off down here wishing you were up there, than up there wishing you were down here.

[Centaurus]

There is no subsitute for excellent hand-flying skills. Without them, you'll never progress properly in your career, to command, to training, to doing interesting and challenging flying, etc...


Yes and no. I agree there is no substitute for excellent hand flying skills. But in the real world of flying highly automated aircraft, it is evident that the flight management computers are God as far as many highly experienced captains are concerned. Their flying skills have long since eroded and automation dependancy has taken over.

The occasional third world accident occurs where the pilots are so out of touch that even automation has not saved hundreds of deaths. In most cases local cultural mores were a significant factor in the cause of the accident.

But lack of excellent hand flying skills certainly is no bar to career progress up the command chain to check pilot positions. That progression is generally based on seniority, rather than the ability to demonstrate a reasonable crosswind landing in the simulator.

Nowadays, where 99.9 percent of airline and corporate flying is on automatics, there seems to be (unfortunately) little priority for manual flying skills; except perhaps for the first few seconds after lift off and the last 200 feet on landing. Even in scheduled simulator testing, autopilot flying forms the major part of each exrercise. A single raw data ILS is about the only hand flying required by some regulators for the instrument rating. The rest of the test is on automatics. Paradoxically, that suggests even regulators regard hand flying skills as low priority over automation monitoring skills.

However, once you get away from airline style flying into general aviation, where autopilots are not so sophisticated or not installed, then manual flying skills assume greater importance.

[eckhard]

What have I learned?

1. Don't fly into the ground/water;
2. Don't run out of fuel;
3. Don't stall;
4. Don't hit another aircraft.

Pretty much everything else is negotiable.

Some ways to prioritise:

1. Aviate, Navigate , Communicate.
2. Safe, Legal, Expeditious.
3. Life, Licence, Job

When it's raining, let the other guy do the walk-round.

[FLCH]

In over 33 years of flying 25 in the airline environment, I've learned that common sense is being phased out and procedures that cover your six written by lawyers are becoming the norm.

Safety first is just a slogan being bandied around by airlines, the primary focus is money (cost cutting) that includes acceptable hull loss rates and minimal training. Airline managers these days aren't from the airline business or even aviation, so their focus is completely different from flight ops.

The technology in aircraft use has been fantastic, but the dependence on it to be used as a crutch and not an aid is more apparent these days.

That being said I've flown with younger pilots that have really good flying skills and older pilots that cling onto automation like their lives (and mine) depended on it, so it's not an 8 track tape generation vs X-box generation argument.

The glamour (if there ever was any) and prestige has long since departed this profession.

Finally I've learned I still love flying, whether it's plying the skies between continents or getting into a sailplane and going back to basics, the b.s surrounding it gets deeper and deeper, but it's still a rush after all these years.