PDA

View Full Version : FAA proposes to strengthen airline pilot training


Machaca
11th May 2011, 20:09
FAA proposes to strengthen airline pilot training
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110511/ap_on_re_us/us_airline_pilot_training)
By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Federal aviation officials proposed the most wide-ranging overhaul of air crew training in decades Wednesday, more than two years after a crash in western New York that was attributed to pilot error.

The Federal Aviation Administration proposal would require airlines to train pilots, flight attendants and flight dispatchers together in real life scenarios in more advanced flight simulators. That includes simulator training for pilots on how to recover from full stall in flight.

The proposal also would require remedial training for pilots with performance deficiencies such as failing a proficiency test or check, or unsatisfactory performance during flight training or a simulator course.

"The difference is that rather than just have a pilot execute a ... skill in isolation, the new training will require a more realistic and coordinated effort by the crew as if they were on a real flight," FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt told reporters. "It will be a lot more lifelike."

Continental Connection Flight 3407 crashed after experiencing an aerodynamic stall — a loss of lift brought on by too little speed — during a landing approach to Buffalo Niagara International Airport in February 2009. The stall caused the plane to plummet to the ground, killing all 49 people aboard and a man in a house below.

The National Transportation Safety Board later determined the flight's pilots failed to monitor the plane's airspeed and thus were surprised when a safety system known as a "stick shaker" activated, alerting them to the impending stall. The captain responded by pulling back on the plane's steering mechanism when the correct action that pilots are trained to take is to push forward to pick up speed.

The plane immediately went into a full stall, triggering the activation of another safety system known as a "stick pusher" because it points a plane's nose downward to pick up speed. The captain again pulled back hard when the proper response would have been to push forward.

Safety investigators estimated that even after the stick pusher had activated, the captain still had seconds to save the flight if he had taken the correct action.

The accident is considered especially noteworthy by aviation experts because of the wide array of systemic safety concerns revealed during the crash investigation, including several involving pilot training. For example, the stick pusher had been described to the captain in classroom training, but it wasn't included in simulator training. The final seconds before the crash may have been that the first time he'd experienced its activation.

The captain had failed at least five key tests of piloting skills during his career, but was allowed to retake each test. Despite his record, the captain wasn't singled out for any remedial or special training by Colgan Air, the regional carrier that operated the flight for Continental Airlines. Colgan said it was unaware of two of the test failures, which occurred prior to the captain's hiring.

FAA proposed updating pilot training requirements a month before the accident. Officials have spent the last two years reshaping the previous plan to reflect issues raised by the Flight 3407 investigation and to meet the requirements of a law passed by Congress in response to the accident.

FAA has "stepped up to the plate big time here," said victims' families spokesman Scott Maurer, whose daughter, Lorin, was killed in the crash. "We're pleased as a family group with the progress these folks have been making."

sevenstrokeroll
11th May 2011, 23:43
more realistic flight simulators?

One of the great tragedies is the development of the combined windshear recovery and stall recovery....I should say approach to stall, impending stall, incipient stall.

Instead of pushing forward on the yoke, you are encouraged to pull back while adding power to minimize the loss of altitude...as this is like the windshear recovery, it actually hurts your ability to recovery from a full stall.

NUTS!!!!

Stall? Push forward until unstalled.

and if you are too close to the ground, you would probably have died anyway.

dear randy babbit, you are not impressing me!

Brian Cohen
12th May 2011, 07:30
Instead of blaming the P2F cancer, they are pointing the finger at training! Well try to avoid to sell to rich kids TRs and 500h of line experience (experience my axx).
We all know the consequences ...

We need to reset the airlines business and restart from the get-go with different motivations.

chksix
12th May 2011, 09:16
The usual response: Punishing all flightcrew because one bad apple failed to understand instructions during training (or was a faker).

MaxReheat
12th May 2011, 09:54
Sounds like LOFT or is this a new concept to the FAA? Just asking.

Tourist
12th May 2011, 10:15
chksix

How does this punish flightcrew?

Airlines have to give us more/better training.

Win win

A37575
12th May 2011, 10:23
I have heard it all before. The airline training system will never have significant changes. Each operator trumpets how good their own training is and the local regulator nods wisely saying "YAY" we are a good regulator and see how good our airline audits are. Another major airline boasts it does extra special hot off the press unusual attitude recovery training.

Others including the military have been doing that for decades, so nothing new there.

So much depends on the skill and knowledge of the individual flight simulator instructor in any airline or training provider. If he/she is muzzled by the system then simulator recurrency or training becomes the same old regulator box ticking exercise with relieved pilots saying `Thank Christ that's finished for the next three months`

ICAO conferences are held, hugely expensive flight safety symposiums trundled out in Europe and SE Asia, cocktails are quaffed at these places and big wheels attend to network and meet up with old mates from other airlines.

But let's face it. Nothing tangible happens except everyone has a marvellous time with grand power point presentations made by top management pilots and manufacturers. Glossy brochures in resplendant graphic design colour schemes are handed around and later quietly disposed of in some operators tech library never again to see the light of day. :ugh:

smith
12th May 2011, 11:06
Max reheat

What does LOFTstabd for? Lack of F@&¥ing Training?

anotherthing
12th May 2011, 11:17
Introduce a limit in the number of hours you are allowed to train before being chopped if not good enough.

Might be difficult to enforce but there's bound to be a way. Seems silly that in a safety orientated business if you have the money you can throw as much time as you need into it until you are good enough... good enough is not, 'good enough'.

Military academies around the world have systems whereby each course in the training pipeline has a set number of hours. There is some flex for students who show improvement but if you don't make the grade you are out on your ear.

Give anyone enough time and they will manage to scrape a pass...

Smith

LOFT - Line Orientated Flight Training

rogerg
12th May 2011, 12:03
you are encouraged to pull back while adding power to minimize the loss of altitude...

Not in any airline I have flown with. Maybe its a yank thing.

Brian Cohen
12th May 2011, 12:23
How does this punish flightcrew?

Airlines have to give us more/better training.

Win win

Unfortunately isn't always a win win ... depends on the airlines and in some cases it'll be lose lose (especially when the airline is not performing good)!


In any economic down turn allowing to raise the standards will automatically imply the possibility to sand pilots home for stupid reasons.
More training doesn't signify higher quality of pilots ... an the military are master in that! (if you don't meet the minimum standard in a certain time you are out!)
There is no selection process in the civilian sector ... if you have money to afford an ATP and a line training on a Boeing or Airbus then you are a pilot! Self-sponsor TR are probably good for the TRTO wallet but really bad for the pilot market. And on the long run also the TRTO will not have their revenue ...
The P2F is probably good for the airline, because the RHS seat pays the LHS seat pay-check, but safety is inevitably reduced. The moment you loose a plane with 150 POB, the day after you are out of business.
The box is pretty much the same ... once you've learned the tips & tricks ... you might change the airport but other then that ... every three months the same old dance!
Multiple contemporary emergency aren't realistic so not to be consider ...

Tourist
12th May 2011, 13:33
1. It also allows you to get rid of [email protected] pilots.
2. No, but more training certainly won't make them worse, and most will get better.
3. If standards were higher, less dross would get through in the first place
4. I think higher standards will reduce P2F, because it will be too expensive for the duffers to continue failing trips
5. You can always make sims better, and no practice emergency is silly, they all increase capacity, knowledge, skills, comfort with the aircraft
6. For things that are not realistic, they happen surprisingly often....

ATPMBA
12th May 2011, 14:16
quote: Stall? Push forward until unstalled.


If it's a tail stall then you need to pull back. I hear you can get those in icing conditions.

clunckdriver
12th May 2011, 14:25
Rogered, I would sugest you read "Nose High, it will fly" by Boeing, belive me it works! Standard actions in shear conditions, not to be confused with stall recovery, but if this needs explaining to any pilot then maybe they are in the wrong seat!

Mad (Flt) Scientist
12th May 2011, 14:43
quote: Stall? Push forward until unstalled.

If it's a tail stall then you need to pull back. I hear you can get those in icing conditions.

Tail stall has been, to all intents and purposes, designed out by regulation for years. I would be shocked if there are any current, Part 25 or equivalent, aircraft which are susceptible to tailplane stall, even in icing conditions.

Mad (Flt) Scientist
12th May 2011, 14:46
The usual response: Punishing all flightcrew because one bad apple failed to understand instructions during training (or was a faker).

More than one, sadly. The PTS for recovery from stall warning has bred a dangerous tendency for crews to prioritise minimizing altitude loss over recovering control of the aircraft. (I'm trying to be generous here, and assume there is some reason for the behaviour that's been seen; the alternative is that the crews concerned simply had no idea what to do in a stall.) Regardless, it seems clear that knowledge of stall recovery principles is weak amongst a large enough proportion of crews to be a threat.

safetypee
12th May 2011, 15:34
MFS,I totally concur with your two points above. You have indeed been generous in describing some operator’s attitude to training, which also IMHO, applied to some regulators.

Superficially, the new policy could be interpreted as ‘blame and train’, particularly as the FAA appears not to acknowledge many associated / underlying regulatory issues.
Pilots require appropriate training, but this must be built on a sound knowledge base and has to be continuously expanded in operations.

I agree with the calls for more LOFT, which I interpret as the need to develop skills in using basic knowledge; the application of basic flying principles. Previously this was the ‘experience’ gained in lengthy apprenticeships, but with increasing commercial pressures we do not have the luxury of time (training or flying experience), and many individuals now have different social expectations – instant gratification and advancement in the profession.
Thus the problem is how to gain (teach) experience; how to apply the essential knowledge of aviating.

Brian Cohen
12th May 2011, 16:02
1. It also allows you to get rid of [email protected] pilots.
2. No, but more training certainly won't make them worse, and most will get better.
3. If standards were higher, less dross would get through in the first place
4. I think higher standards will reduce P2F, because it will be too expensive for the duffers to continue failing trips
5. You can always make sims better, and no practice emergency is silly, they all increase capacity, knowledge, skills, comfort with the aircraft
6. For things that are not realistic, they happen surprisingly often....



yes the company will also get rid of the pilots that are not really incline to brown nose the CEO!
Absolutely, but more training increase the cost of a company that is already striving to safe money in the training department!
correct and with the additional benefit of saving even more money in the training department!
Yes I agree with you!
Although modeling and simulation cost a lot, we hope geeks are making the sim software and hardware better, more realistic and more realistic emergency ... but a lot depends on how you use the sim and what kind of restriction you have in building scenarios. You need to set a standard scenario that every pilot in your company have to pass with a certain minimum performance! Union can always use the discrimination card.
yes training is very important and as far as i recall recurrent sim used to be longer. But a dude one day said that considering modern airlines incident/accident statistics and the infallibility of new flying machine, the chances of getting involved in a simultaneous sequence of emergencies was highly improbable ... so LPC shorter (wrong from a pilot prospective, but money saver).

bearfoil
12th May 2011, 16:57
rogerg

Seven stroke is correct. At horn, even shaker, the Colgan pilot of the line is taught to maintain pull on stick (pressure, not travel), and add power to fly through the warnings without loss of altitude +/- 50 feet, I think. Trust nothing the FAA says until you see it in the FARS and watch if it is enforced a couple times, just sayin'

bear

Spunky Monkey
12th May 2011, 18:39
Will the new "realistic" training include
1. Company Bullying
2. Lack of proper rest
3. Poor wages
4. Base Changes at short notice
5. redundancy threat

yadda yadda yadda

These issues also need to be addressed...

bubbers44
12th May 2011, 19:13
Colgan had the lowest hiring requirements in the US. They wanted cheap help and got it. Starting out with them would be a disaster to master flying so you could get a real job somewhere. Normal pilots wouldn't have stalled, would have known how to recover by not bringing the nose up and wouldn't have aggravated it further by reducing flaps. After a few thousand stall recoveries both teaching and receiving it is such a simple procedure it could be done half asleep. We have had our few pilots that constantly fail check rides and are retrained to proficiency to get them through. They are still dangerous because you can't train high time dangerous pilots to proficiency. You just give up and lower the standards, sad.

bearfoil
12th May 2011, 19:35
Spunky Monkey

Your list is the priority, not the FAA approach of trying to strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

It is those items you list, plus scrupulous entry requirements that are required. Since "Company Requirements" are "Squishy" and dependent on compliance that is subject to off list "judgment", this (FAA) approach will not work. That's two of us know what the problem is.

sunset_contrails_10
12th May 2011, 20:21
Nowhere have i ever been taught to pitch the nose down for a stall recovery because on checkrides you are to maintain 100 feet. Proceedure has always been to hold pitch and power through it.

My personal opiniion is that this proceedure is wrong for a full stall...we should perform all stall to full stall and be graded on proceedure, not altitude loss.

If colgan flight had lost three hundred feet in the recovery i am guessing everybody would still be alive however this would be a failure in a sim ride...go figure.

L337
12th May 2011, 20:33
If colgan flight had lost three hundred feet in the recovery i am guessing everybody would still be alive however this would be a failure in a sim ride...go figure.

Nope, procedure for stall recovery has changed. Boeing have re-written the manual and height loss is not the issue, un-stalling the wings is.

I have just done my 6 monthly check and had to practice the "new" procedure...

BEagle
12th May 2011, 20:39
Boeing have re-written the manual and height loss is not the issue, un-stalling the wings is.

So what on earth was the previous procedure? Seriously, if it needs Ol' Bubba Boeing to tell people that unstalling the wings is the priority for an aerodynamic stall recovery, then something has gone horribly, horribly wrong with flight training.

I've even heard that a large number of airline pilots have never experienced a fully-developed stall in anything - not even in a little spamcan puddlejumper...:eek:

Mad (Flt) Scientist
12th May 2011, 20:57
Problem is, checkrides were not stall recoveries - they were recovery from stall warning, initiated from shaker (or equivalent) and done at low altitude. So there was a lot of excess power, and the aircraft was still flying. So as a measure of piloting technique, "recovering" without undue loss of altitude was a fair thing to expect.

Problem is, that scenario has bugger all to do with a real stall condition, yet people were misled into thinking that the techniques required for this party-trick checkride item were appropriate for a REAL stall. When clearly they are not.

It appears we are now (painfully slowly) moving towards demonstration of recovery technique for a real stall - or certainly something a lot more like one.

As for the comment about the Boeing technique previously - I bet there wasn't one explicitly in the manuals - there's actually rules about what goes in the manuals that explicitly prohibit basic airmanship items - you're only supposed to put stuff specific to the type. The fact that OEMs are now putting stall recovery techniques and procedures into flight manuals ... well, draw your own conclusion from that.

RAT 5
12th May 2011, 21:11
For many years I have been teaching TQ courses on Boeings. Where it said in FCTM for an approach to stall recovery, which is all that was required, "apply full power and reduce attitude (lower the nose)" I always emphasised the other way round; sep;erated by a split second. In an under-wing a/c if you did it the FCTM way, and were slow to counter the nose up pitch aggressively, you made the situation worse. By applying fwd elevator force a split second before the power you were ready for the rearing bronco, especially if doing this from idle power. OK, at approach to stall the wing is still flying, and it was an interesting demo to do it with the autopilot in ALT HLD. Increase power at stick shaker and let George try and hold on. At lower levels it generally manged, just. Never did try it at medium/high levels. Then I suspect it would disconnect or not remain at shaker for far too long.
The losing 100' exercise should only have been if ground contact was a factor, surely. Use all the height you've got to survive, within traffic reason. At 10,000' and applying 5 degrees attitude it would lose between 3-500' depending on idle or 40% N1%. (cadets)
Now, after Turkish at AMS, Boeing have realised that gravity always wins and the laws of aerodynamics haven't changed that much, no matter how much umph you've got. I suspect that the tail mounted bretheren have a slightly easier time of it, as would the propellor brigade.
From the current turbo-prop people can you tell us what effect prop wash at full power has on stall recovery? compared to just areodynamic recovery with attitude? I'm assuming little pitch effect with power (not speed); is that correct? I suspect some effect on elevator as well?

FlightPathOBN
12th May 2011, 21:26
and here I thought LOFT was lack of flight training....

Mad...

As for the comment about the Boeing technique previously - I bet there wasn't one explicitly in the manuals - there's actually rules about what goes in the manuals that explicitly prohibit basic airmanship items - you're only supposed to put stuff specific to the type. The fact that OEMs are now putting stall recovery techniques and procedures into flight manuals ... well, draw your own conclusion from that.

Very good!

Look for a 20 thousand page manual in your future...

sevenstrokeroll
12th May 2011, 21:33
if the colgan pilots had let go of everything, the plane would have unstalled and hit the ground ''flying''. sure things would have been bad, but I'll bet that someone would have survived.

but they fought and kept it stalled right into the ground.

EVERY FREAKING PILOT should have to read: STICK AND RUDDER. the whole book constantly says IF YOU STALL PUSH THE STICK FORWARD (and remember in some spins your nose will already be DOWN).

unstall the wing and then recover to a climb, to level flight, to whatever you want...because once you are unstalled, you are flying.

I agree with the above post by RAT 5. It is one of the reasons I hate the underwing engine mounted jets. The engines can affect pitch.

On the DC9 and other tail mounted engine planes, you have a purer form of flying. they just push the plane along without major pitch change.

bubbers44
12th May 2011, 21:40
We all know this is elementary airmanship on how to recover from a stall. You don't need any power if you can sacrifice altitude like these folks could. Adding power once you have begun lowering the nose means less altitude loss but who cares if nothing is below you? Starting your aviation career with basic airplanes and working up makes you much more prepared for an airline job than having Daddy pay your way into the right seat. I know the UK isn't doing this any more and CRM and procedures for checklists is the priority but I like the old way. Work your self up into the job with experience doing basic flying first.

I did it that way and enjoyed every minute of it. J3's, Pitts, B18, Citabrias, Supercubs crop dusting, Citations, Learjets, Jetstars, Falcons, then one lucky day got an airline job and retired. I only could get hired by that airline because I had over 5,000 hrs and 1,000 turbojet PIC. Yes, I was lucky because a lot of people were just as qualified as me. I knew the interviewer liked T6's.

bubbers44
12th May 2011, 22:05
sevenstrokeroll, yes, I have the book Stick and Rudder along with Flying the big Jets. Learned a lot from both I wouldn't have learned anywhere else. I didn't think there were pilots that didn't know how to recover from a simple stall until Colgan. Starting your aviation career in the right seat is insane. How can the captain teach you how to fly if you have no experience? I know you went through all phases before getting your first 121 airline job but I enjoyed every minute of it.Starting in the right seat of an Airbus would not have been satisfying to my career. Bet you agree with that.

sevenstrokeroll
12th May 2011, 22:20
bubbers...I learned a great deal coming up the hard way. Especially as a CFIIMEI...you can't KNOW SOMETHING until you can TEACH IT to someone else.

I learned from flying bank checks in crappy little planes that were poorly maintained...started that job when the controllers went on strike and I felt like lindbergh flying the mail "contact" style.

I learned alot in my first jet (NA Rockwell Sabreliner) and in one of the most demanding planes I ever flew (MU2). By the time I went through three regionals (we called them commuters then) I knew my craft to be ready on the first day on the line as a DC9 copilot flying into airports I had never seen before.

I would have liked more money as pay while as a CFIIMEI but I learned alot.

bubbers44
12th May 2011, 22:52
SSR, I forgot to add the MU2 to my list. I also had all of those instructor ratings and was learning along with my student, Steve Hinton, famous race pilot at Chino for one. He returned the favor by giving me a couple of adventurous rides in a P51. I had to pay for the gas. My buddy and I were reading the flight manual on the MU2 flying across the US checking ourselves out in it. It was a handfull. Just lowering the gear or flaps was challenging. We landed on an ice slick runway in the midwest and it took both of us to keep it on the centerline. When we parked at the ramp we were afraid it was going to slide down the ramp off the ice. I flew a twin Navion a few times. I counted 76 types I flew but how many flew a twin Navion? How about a Bailey Bitty Bipe because only one was made.

sevenstrokeroll
12th May 2011, 23:07
bubbers...isn't it funny how things work out? you flew the P51 a bit and you also flew the twin navion...both made by North American (I briefly flew the North American Sabreliner) and the navion had pieces from the P51 in it?!!!!

Imagine the modern pilot...what planes did you fly? I flew a Pa 28, a PA 44 and the Airbus and that's it...funny huh?

and here would be the real kicker...how many REAL hours do you have? the new kind of pilot would say...what do you mean? REAL...not on autopilot!


He would look at his logbook...at the end of his career...maybe 100 hours in pipers, 100 in simulators, five minutes on each five hour airbus flight...Maybe 400 hours total!!!!

how can someone LEARN to fly on autopilot??????????

bubbers44
12th May 2011, 23:26
Airbus will show it is so simple to fly an Airbus a caveman can do it. And that is it.

ATPMBA
13th May 2011, 00:42
As a dead master CFI told me, if you stall for real (not practice) it most likely will kill you as it took you by suprise (Colgan).

He died in a car crash as someone else missed a stop sign.

bubbers44
13th May 2011, 00:57
Why would that happen? Any competent pilot can recover from a stall easily from less than 100 ft.

bubbers44
13th May 2011, 01:10
Why would you be at 100 ft unless you were on short final. If you stalled at a higher altitude the easy stall recovery procedure would take care of it.

Brian Cohen
13th May 2011, 05:36
I've even heard that a large number of airline pilots have never experienced a fully-developed stall in anything - not even in a little spamcan puddlejumper...

Yes ... what happened to the good old days when we were practicing also spin and spin recovery on the little cessna!

Brian Cohen
13th May 2011, 06:18
How can the captain teach you how to fly if you have no experience?
The Captain is not seated on the left seat to teach the F/O how to fly. In a 2 man cockpit you need but brain working. It a 2 brain cockpit!

Starting your aviation career in the right seat is insane...

... and you skip the fun part of pilot training. I cannot imagine a 21 years old kid willing to do gear up and down for the rest of his career, also if on a nice and shine Boeing or Airbus.

Today we are talking about airline pilots with lots of experience handling the big jets (Airbus and Boeing) loosing their basic pilot skill and ... what's going on ... because the market dictate so, we are just putting on the right seat of a 737 or 320 a kid with zero experience, zero pilot skill, zero airmanship, zero situational awareness, but with a big bag full of daddy's money and a big attitude! And after an accident we are surprised do find out a pilot is not able to recover from a stall!
We need to do a big pull to cage and reset the entire airline pilots market world!

PLovett
13th May 2011, 08:37
Correct me if I am wrong but I thought that the Colgan Air Dash 8 didn't stall UNTIL the Capt. pulled back on the control column and the FO retracted the flaps. All that was happening until then was the stick shaker had activated due to the ice protection switch being activated.

Once the stall occurred after the aircraft was severely mishandled following the activation of the stick shaker, it half rolled into a severe nose down attitude and the rest is history.

Whatever the recovery technique used it would have worked because all it needed at that point was an increase in speed, it wasn't actually falling out of the sky. What wasn't required was what the crew subsequently did, whether out of ignorance, poor training or tiredness who knows.

733driver
13th May 2011, 08:46
Hmmm, whilst I certainly agee that a broader aviation experience is generally better than hopping directly into the right seat of an Airbus or Being I think we must also be honest with ourelves and others regarding some of the "glorified" routes into the cockpit of a modern jet transport.

Many pilots say they are glad that they had to do instructing, cargo-flying in light aircraft etc before getting a shot at a commuter/regional.

I agree to some extend. However: There is a limit to what instructing in light aircraft will do for your airline pilot skills. Also, I am glad I never had to fly badly maintained old airplanes for a crap-operation (such as some light aircraft cargo or pax charter operators) for a living. Also, bad operators can form lot's of bad habits (accepting airplanes that are not quite airworthy, flying around CBs without wx-radat erc, overloaded aircraft etc) I am certainly not saying that this is true for all or even most entry level operators but we have all heard and read the stories.

In my view, ideally someone would do a bit of instructing (at a professional flight training organisation), a bit of turboprop flying with a professional operator on well-maintained aircarft, respecting the FARs or equivalent, and then move on to a jet-airline with high training and ops standards.

Having said all that, I do still believe that the ab-initio approach (zero-to hero) can work if the training is completely airline-integrated from day one (Lufthansa, Air France etc). Sure, they can't teach experience but the training itself will be of very high quality and the selection is tough.

It always surprises me how everybody is happy that the military put their pilots through a very compreshensice and fast-paced traing program were guys in their early twenties fly fast jets with only a couple of hundred hours total time but the same thing in a two crew airline environment is considered unacceptable.

FlareArmed
13th May 2011, 08:59
Simulators interpolate between data points collected from test aircraft. I believe the data points are well within the normal envelope; when outside the normal envelope, the simulator doesn't know how to behave; it's guessing.

This issue arose with upset training on B737s (the rudder thing). Some trainers were teaching to do a complete roll – instead of countering the roll – because the simulator showed more terrain clearance. Boeing highlighted the simulator could not accurately replicate such an extreme maneuver, and pilots should stick to recommended techniques.

My point: simply expanding a simulator syllabus to include full stalls may not be enough; there are technical issues too.

Brian Cohen
13th May 2011, 09:56
It always surprises me how everybody is happy that the military put their pilots through a very compreshensice and fast-paced traing program were guys in their early twenties fly fast jets with only a couple of hundred hours total time but the same thing in a two crew airline environment is considered unacceptable.

You shouldn't be surprise, on a military fast-jet you do not carry 150 passengers!
But in order to avoid future surprises you should check the time-line, the training programs, and the pass rate in any military organization in the western world dedicated to train military pilots!
Instead in the an airline environment, where you must have two 'qualified' pilots to fly a plane, you deliberately putting a very experience captain with a low timer full of sh...t rich kid. Perfect scenario for a pilot incapacitation right after V1! ...and who is getting incapacitated is the captain of course! Please record the result after the first couple of crashes or the stats will look really bad!

bubbers44
13th May 2011, 10:24
Another thing that is missing in our airline cockpits is knowledge of how to fly if you get in an unusual attitude. Spin recovery and doing a roll or recovering from inverted flight should be mandatory training. Hopefully you will never need it but what if you do? Everybody just dies because you couldn't handle it? A lot of the new right seat guys can't and probably neither can their captains teaching them. Our military guys are probably the only ones that have that training unless you did it on your own. I did it on my own because I wore glasses and the military wouldn't let me fly. I did get to solder wires on the USS Enterprise though in 69. A guy let me sit in an F4 on the hanger deck one day going to Nam. Closest I got to Naval aviation.

Denti
13th May 2011, 11:01
The training programs of the like of lufty or other big airlines that use cadet programs for the last 60 years are very comprehensive. Yes, of course you go out and do spin and unusual attitude training (in my case it was in a T34, nowadays its a G120 shared with the german air force). And of course it is not about "full of sh...t rich kids" as the training is sponsored until the student flies for the relevant airlines, it is about getting the best possible match. To achieve that said airlines use very thorough entry selection and training progress monitoring.

I am surprised though that approach to stall and stall training are not mandatory in the states. In every single simulator training event during my career we had to do that, every six months (once upon a time every three months), same as the V1 cut and the raw data OEI pattern and approach and of course and same as unusual attitude training although that is better done in the real world (in certified airplanes).

Fair_Weather_Flyer
13th May 2011, 11:54
A few things I remember about the Colgan crash that seem to have been missed:-

-Both pilots were badly paid and overworked.
-The Captain was very new to the Q400
-The Captain had commuted in from a 1000 miles away and had spent the previous night sleeping on and off in the crew room.
-The FO had commuted in from 2000+ miles away via two cargo flights.
-She had fallen sick in the night but decided to fly anyway because otherwise she would have to pay for her own accomodation and on $15,000 that was too much.
-Colgan training had included a NASA video detailing how to recover from a tailplane stall. The Q400 was not susceptible to tailplane stall.

In my opinion, that crash was nothing to do with the Captain or FO's basic ability to fly. They were dangerously tired and the Captain forgot to put the Power Levers forward again after slowing to capture the Loc. The aircraft stalled and he tried to do a tailplane stall recovery. The even more tired and sick FO retracted the flaps and..... It was the dysfunctional and dangerous cost cutting culture of Colgan and many other airlines that lead to this accident. No matter how many tests the Captain failed I'm sure he would not have got into that situation if he had been better rested and the FO would not have let it happen if she was on her game. Sullenberger, or any other pilot could have screwed up this way if they were in the mess those two pilot's were that day.

Most airline training is all done at minimum cost with competitive advantage gained from doing less or not at all. The FAA needs to increase the amount of recurrent and training that pilots are given. I don't mean increasing or intensifying testing either. Regulation is the answer.

Centaurus
13th May 2011, 12:27
This issue arose with upset training on B737s (the rudder thing). Some trainers were teaching to do a complete roll – instead of countering the roll – because the simulator showed more terrain clearance

Would be most interested if you can quote the authoritive source of "some trainers". And could you amplify the statement "the rudder thing."

Without sounding too cynical, these statements do sound like "my mate told me and his mate told him".

BEagle
13th May 2011, 12:43
It always surprises me how everybody is happy that the military put their pilots through a very compreshensice and fast-paced traing program were guys in their early twenties fly fast jets with only a couple of hundred hours total time but the same thing in a two crew airline environment is considered unacceptable.

Yes, but the military still conduct aptitude testing which has a strongly-rooted scientific background. They also conduct extensive team management and leadership training long before Bloggs gets anywhere near an aeroplane.

Whereas some huggy-fluffy human resources spook interview and a few technical questions for existing licence holders who might even have paid for their own type rating seems all the airlines bother with - if that....

Brian Cohen
13th May 2011, 12:53
BEagle preaching to the choir, mate!

fireflybob
13th May 2011, 13:13
Beagle, agree 100% - therein lies the key.

bubbers44
13th May 2011, 13:33
They forgot to push up the throttles and then forgot how to recover from their self induced stall? How can you use regulations to fix that? I agree neither one had adequate rest but you can't blame that totally for their extremely poor performance that day. We have all flown extremely tired and somehow get through it without crashing. Usually the hardest part is driving home after an all nighter without falling asleep at the wheel.

sevenstrokeroll
13th May 2011, 14:27
bubbers makes a good point, let me say something on that.

Lindbergh (remember him?) flew an uncomfortable, unsophisticated plane for over 33 hours...any reading of his books showed he had some moments of sleep/near sleep, and other difficulties.

he had challenges including letting fuel tanks run dry.

But, despite his challenges he kept from stalling and managed a safe landing...ALONE.


all this means is we should be able to take care of the basics of airmanship in a reduced state of focus...for whatever reason.
Colgan crashed because of deregulation, dropping the cost of running an airline to the mcdonald's level (hamburger chain). cheap on training, cheap on caring for your workers, and so many other things as to be scary.

IF deregulation had not happened, the flight would be a mainline flight in a jet like a 737, flown by two pilots who could have called in sick with no big hassle, who could afford to live within 90 minutes driving time of EWR airport, and who would have had training of high order. The captain probably would have had 17 years with the airline and the copilot probably 12 years.

along came deregulation and you get what you pay for...

I'll remind you that Lindbergh only had 2500 hours when he flew NY to Paris...but not one minute was on autopilot or with autothrottles.

Fair_Weather_Flyer
13th May 2011, 16:48
......but Lindburgh was running on pure adrenaline, with fame and glory on awaiting him on the other side of the Atlantic. For the Colgan pair it was just a standard day at the office for them and the rest of the regional airline industry. The law of averages caught up with them.

I agree with you, degregulation has slowly lead to a race to the bottom in the US. I worked out there for a few years and would not want to go back but much of Europe is going the same way. My employer does things the Colgan way too, cut back to the bone. Any increases in training will need to be forced by the authority, accountants won't do it.

733driver
13th May 2011, 17:07
I knew some people would counter my military fast yet analogy because of the kack of pax but I guess that is not really the point. The selection and training are top notch and to the point. A bit like some of the ab initio programs I was refering to. Just trying to say that training and experience have to be relevant.

Also, I guess it is fair to say that the airforces don't want to let pilots loose in multi-million dollar airplanes if they are not fit for the task. Just like cargo aircraft don't have lower licensing/training requirements.

My point is: Experience is great but it needs to be relevant quality experience. Some ab-initio programs seem to be able to mitigate the lack of experience through tough selection and relevant quality training. I am not talking about some of the pilots pilots who "bought" a license and maybe a rating and went to work for a third class operator. Of course some of those pilots are just as good but quality control can be an issue.

By the way: I was a self-funded, self-improver having done night cargo turboprob, pax jet and corporate jets.

Brian Cohen
13th May 2011, 18:06
I knew some people would counter my military fast yet analogy because of the kack of pax but I guess that is not really the point.

I wish one day the passengers will be able to choose not only the class of the ticket but also the pilots they want from a roster made by the airline.

The selection and training are top notch and to the point. A bit like some of the ab initio programs I was refering to. Just trying to say that training and experience have to be relevant.

Yes indeed! It is really not possible to compare for example a Royal Air Force College Cranwell to the best BA cadet program.

Experience is great but it needs to be relevant quality experience.

I guess everyone in the world would like to have the right amount of 'relevant quality experience', but I guess nobody really know the exact meaning of this very difficult, almost philosophical concept!


Some ab-initio programs seem to be able to mitigate the lack of experience through tough selection and relevant quality training.

Absolutely! Usually those very good ab-initio program are finalized to train pilot not to teach how to became one! Or usually those very good ab-initio program start with very good intent and end-up turning into a TR machine where its value is not quality but quantity and in the shortest amount of time!
I am not saying we have to start to teach pilot how to fly a plane with their butts again but it is really demotivating think about a young 21 year old kid (rich or poor whatever) starting his/her career start to push bottoms.

742
13th May 2011, 21:41
I am surprised though that approach to stall and stall training are not mandatory in the states.


Denti-

There is a misunderstanding developing. There certainly is stall training in FAA land, the issue is that the emphasis is on minimizing altitude loss which then discourages aggressive lowering of the angle of attack.

In other words too much checkride choreography and too little reality.

FlightPathOBN
13th May 2011, 22:07
They forgot to push up the throttles and then forgot how to recover from their self induced stall? How can you use regulations to fix that?


Concur, poor training, and a system that allowed this to fester.
Forget lack of sleep, that is the individuals responsibility, and that can occur no matter how much experience....

Lack of training, lack of experience, and the broad brush of fundamentals required to obtain a license are the foundations of this problem.

How many of you have flown with someone in the right seat, where you dont even want to go to the bathroom and leave them at the controls....

grodep
16th May 2011, 10:11
Denti-

There is a misunderstanding developing. There certainly is stall training in FAA land, the issue is that the emphasis is on minimizing altitude loss which then discourages aggressive lowering of the angle of attack.

In other words too much checkride choreography and too little reality.
if true, this is insane!

It always surprises me how everybody is happy that the military put their pilots through a very compreshensice and fast-paced traing program were guys in their early twenties fly fast jets with only a couple of hundred hours total time but the same thing in a two crew airline environment is considered unacceptable.
no way you can compare: military training is all about selection, if one can't do the job, he's out in the next few days, no second chance, no waste of hours to let him improve enough. In the army, you dont wanna know how much hours one needs to eventually reach the good level, you just wanna get pilots who can make it in the few hours scheduled.
Moreover, as mentionned before, i'm pretty sure you cant compare a military pilot course and the best cadet training program. But, you'll still need more than a couple of hundred hours to fly a fast jet, and you'll need much more hours to be qualified as an operationnal pilot on this aircraft.


Last word for fairweatherflyer, there's no way you can accept that being unable to recover from a stall is something else than poor training and lack of basic skills to say the least, this is definitely something every pilot should be able to do while being asleep...