Swiss RJ captain "struggled" to fly without a flight director to tell him what to do

[sheppey]

Flight International 11-17 December has published its correspondent's story on the Swiss investigation of the near loss of control by the captain and first officer of their Avro RJ100 after take off.

Extract: "Given the copilot's mistrust of the attitude indicators after a failure of a single reference system, the captain took over using the standby ADI but had problems flying on the standby ADI due to parallax error. The aircraft underwent a series of "changeable and unstable" attitudes oscillating with rates of climb and descent of about 1500 fpm which then increased to some 2500 fpm. Safe control of the RJ100 was at times no longer guaranteed, says the BFU. The report said the changes in attitude shows the captain was temporarily "overburdened"

The report goes on to say "with the assistance of ATC and eventual re-engagement of the autothrottle and flight director the pilots guided the aircraft to a safe landing."

The report said the aircraft sustained a brief instrument failure shortly after take off but the pilots incorrectly suspected a fault in the flight guidance computer.

So there we are. Flight director and automatic throttle saved the day. Thank God for the miracles of automation. Forget the need for pilots to fly using basic instrument flying skills when one ADI goes out, as long as the flight director tells the pilot how to recover from unusual attitudes. And of course full marks go to the autothrottles to unburden the captain.

I would have thought the last thing the captain needed was a flight director and autothrottles to save the day. This is yet another instance of poor instrument flying ability coupled with automation dependency causing a near loss of control. Parallax error is no big deal. Live with it.

"Safe control of the RJ100 was no longer guaranteed" said the investigators. What an indictment of the company training system that would allow the captain and copilot to get into such a mess. I guess the passengers wouldn't be too impressed, either:=

[BOAC]

To put a little balance on this, and not defending the performance, but flying on the standby A/H is not easy and nor is it regularly practised. Whether or not it was needed as the attitude reference is another matter, but it was 'chosen'. Those of you who have not tried to fly IMC on the stdby A/H with a big AI possibly giving you different attitude information might want to try it in the sim and see how you get on?

If you have an errant main AI a priority is to find a way to cover it. Harking back to the days of the Lightning with its HUGE AI and small standby, you would have seen most pilots had a 'sticky' AI sized patch stuck on their bone-domes, and that was the next item used after control was re-established.

It is not easy!

[Gretchenfrage]

Just why am I not surprised ......

But do you think anyone cares?

The company? Nahhhh, as long as it's cheaper to reduce training, to keep it to the legal minimum imposed by the regulator everything is fine. Because the moment there's a smoking hole you can simply blame the individual pilot. In terms of bad publicity the beancounters long ago have determined that such an effect fades quickly, that you can have an accident every 7 years and the savings in training vs. momentary loss off revenue still prevail.

The regulator? Nahhhh, they merely stipulate the very minimum of training, assisted by heavy lobbying of the airlines. If there is a loss of skill they shove it back to the airlines because they are responsible to detect such and to take action -> thus refer to above.

The customers? Nahhhh, as long as the price is right and the incidents not too widespread they take it that it happens to others only. They'd rather pay less than enhance safety. They believe that the regulator has to oversee safety. -> thus refer to above.

The pilots? Nahhhhh, as long as they can get a seat, trained or not, as long as they can upgrade and bypass others, capable or not, they will shut the f### up.

So there is only the abhorrent cynical "hope" that more incidents happen, otherwise nothing changes at all.

...... the needle returns to the start of the song and we all sing along like before .......

[Navigator33]

Thank god I get to fly 9 out of 10 approaches raw data....

[zeddb]

You have to do a raw data approach in the simulator every 3 years as part of EU ops.

Any decent company would insist that it is at least practiced more regularly.

Why not try it on a computer flight sim every so often? No jepoardy sitting at your desk.

[stator vane]

there is the hard fact that even if the captain does not allow hand flying, the F/O can mentally focus and observe as if their life may soon depend upon it, just what that autopilot is doing. and memorise it for various necessary events.

just last night, the F/O was flying a descent and approach, and i silently renewed my "mental notebook" by taking careful effort to dig into my head the various pitch and power settings that were achieving the various segments. we never know when we will get a loss of airspeed. but we don't want the real event to be the first time in a long time that we have gone through that mental exercise, nor do we want to wait for when the system brings it up in a sim session.

hard fact is, we have the opportunity to be better simply by our mental choices and determination regardless of exterior restrictions.

funny, when i try to get the F/O's to hand fly approaches, many decline. and those that do, suddenly start moving the controls fast and furious the second they disconnect the autopilot. i remind them that they have never seen the autopilot do that.

much can be learned by actively watching the autopilot when not allowed to hand fly.

[BOAC]

Hey all you 'aces' - read the OP - no-one is talking about 'raw data' flying! The incident I am reading about involves 'difficulty' flying on the Stdby AH. How many of you obvious aces have done that recently and accurately? Remember it takes only a degree or so of pitch to generate a 2500' RoC at high speed. Can you ALL read the stdby AI to that accuracy? No, I didn't think so.:ugh:

I am prepared to be mightily impressed at the obvious skill sets you obviously all possess (but a touch dubious..........).

Let's leave 'raw data' out of our posts as irrelevant, shall we?

[beardy]

Ah, the whited sepulchres are out in force.

You weren't there: cut the criticism, which appears to be founded on little more than your prejudices, and learn from the experience of others.

[Gretchenfrage]

You wise@$$es read the full report!

My criticism was not only about the lack of skill of manual flying, I agree that doing so with the SAI is not easy, but look at the values good grief!
It is more so about the wild and random switching by presuming what went wrong, instead of analysing correctly, going by the real indications and doing the correct checklist.

That's just as much about training and standards of today as about manual skills.

If you criticise others of not reading the article, at least read the report yourself!!

[stator vane]

rather leading isn't it?

and i see no link to any full report.

excuse me.

[BOAC]

look at the values good grief - Hmm! Did I miss the link to the report? We are all discussing the OP.

"the captain took over using the standby ADI but had problems flying on the standby ADI due to parallax error. The aircraft underwent a series of "changeable and unstable" attitudes oscillating with rates of climb and descent of about 1500 fpm which then increased to some 2500 fpm. Safe control of the RJ100 was at times no longer guaranteed, says the BFU. The report said the changes in attitude shows the captain was temporarily "overburdened"

Why not post a link so we can all be wise?

Edit: Out of interest, does the RJ100 have a stdby 'ADI' or 'AI'?

[Tee Emm]

Hey all you 'aces' - read the OP - no-one is talking about 'raw data' flying! The incident I am reading about involves 'difficulty' flying on the Stdby AH

Steady the Buffs, BOAC:ok: if squinting at the small standby ADI is not raw data, I don't know what is..

Nevertheless, I bet my left ball withered though it may be, very few pilots will ask their simulator instructor if he minds if they practice flying on the standby ADI just to keep in practice. Most will avoid it like a plague because they know they will f..k up in front of the instructor. It is a fact of life in discussions like this on Pprune that generalisations are inevitable. Otherwise Pprune would just be blank pages since most of us do not know what really happened in these sort of incidents until the official report surfaces a year or more later.

A competent crew member will make bloody sure he remains up to scratch on basic instrument flying - one way or another. Reading through some of these replies it is self evident that there are captains out there scared fartless of letting their first officers hand fly "raw data" (ie no FD)

On the other hand I too have offered my co-joe the opportunity to practice raw data while line flying and the majority say thanks- but no thanks. Why is this so? It's a generational thing I believe like wearing base ball caps on the side or back to front as well as dark sunnies over the scone at night. It is called technical arrogance - or simply can't be bothered, Mate.

Seems to me from reading the Flight International report on the RJ incident, the crew were out of their depth with a relatively simple instrument failure. Or as the report put it "the captain was overburdened"
Nonsense. As the commander of his flight he simply displayed gross technical incompetence.

[BOAC]

Tee - I still would be interested in a link! I did say in my post "Whether or not it was needed as the attitude reference is another matter, but it was 'chosen'" so the jury as ever remains out on that until we all see the 'full report'.

'Raw Data': To me, that means no 'artificial' aids to pitch, power and bank so yes, the stdby AI will absolutely be 'Raw Data', but most posting here, pound to a pinch of ****, I'm sure, just understand FD or AP/AT off, main instruments.

[Denti]

A lot might depend on the type of standby ADI/AI. The old electromechanical displays are indeed not easy to read and fly if not trained so. The newer PFD-style LCD displays are much easier to use. There is no parallax error to begin with and the display is very familiar as it is nearly the same as the "big" PFD. Those i know do not offer a FD, however they do an ILS/BC approach display if desired.

Raw data flying has something to do with it of course as it offers a cheap training in scanning, hand to eye coordination and building up of muscle memory not to mention the application of simple pitch and power technique. If one is not used to raw data flying and not trained on the standby AI the results will not be pretty, as displayed in this case.

[Gretchenfrage]

http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/2158_e.pdf

[His dudeness]

Summary
On 20 July 2011, at 08:53 UTC, the AVRO 146-RJ100 aircraft, registration HB-IXP, took off under flight number LX 5187 and radio call sign "Swiss five one eight seven" on a ferry flight from Nuremberg to Zurich.
Shortly after take-off, at a height of approximately 400 ft above the ground, when the aircraft was still under manual control, the autothrottle (AT) and the flight director (FD)1 failed simultaneously. These could subsequently be regained, together with the autopilot (AP).

After an otherwise uneventful flight, the crew assumed that all systems were available with- out any restrictions. LX 5187 then received clearance for an approach on runway 14. When lined up on the localiser and at an altitude of 4000 ft AMSL, at 09:51:40 UTC the autopilot, the autothrottle and the flight director failed. A few seconds later the acoustic alert "bank angle" for a high bank angle sounded.
At 09:52:04 UTC, the red ATT (attitude) and HDG (heading) warnings appeared on the commander's electronic flight instrument system (EFIS) and the navigation data disappeared. On the copilot's EFIS displays the indications remained stable and allowed the aircraft to be controlled manually.
The copilot no longer trusted his indications; the commander took over control of the aircraft using standby instruments and also continued to conduct radio communications. Shortly afterwards, he reported to air traffic control that there were navigation problems and that no heading indication was available. During the subsequent flight phase, significant oscillations in attitude occurred and the rate of climb and descent, as well as the aircraft's airspeed, var- ied considerably. The air traffic control officer (ATCO) guided the aircraft with left/right in- structions into a position for a repeated approach. In addition, arriving and departing traffic on Zurich Airport was halted in order to provide flight LX 5187 with optimal support.
In accordance with the abnormal checklist, the crew switched the EFIS selector to the "BOTH 2" position and at 09:58:52 UTC reported that they would shortly have the indications available again.
A little later the ATCO gave clearance for an approach on runway 14 and the crew, who had reengaged the AT and the FD, reported at 10:03:21 UTC that they were "fully established". The approach was carried out manually.
The subsequent final approach and landing were uneventful.

Causes

The serious incident is attributable to the fact that after the failure of a single system the crew did not use the remaining systems appropriately and safe control of the aircraft was at times no longer guaranteed.
The investigation identified the following factors which led to the serious incident:
- The crew had a fundamentally unfounded picture about the technical problem causing the system failure.
- After the loss of the autopilot, autothrottle and flight director, the copilot did not manage to continue to control the aircraft manually.
- The commander was able to fly the aircraft only to a limited extent with the aid of the standby instruments.
- Crew resource management (CRM) was unsatisfactory.
- The crew did not carry out a sufficient analysis of the situation.
- An exercise which had been practised in the simulator using standby instruments and raw data could only be partially implemented in the actual case.

hahemmm....so they knew that they might have an AT/AP/FD problem.... thats a crew of a well respected airline?
A capt with 9400hrs of nearly 4000 on type? The F/O with 1500/1000 on type?

Woah.

[BOAC]

Thanks H D. I agree with all the findings, the only bit I would change (which may be a translation thing) is no2,

the copilot did not try to continue to control the aircraft manually.

So, we have an a/c with two serviceable AI s, and quite capable of being flown (presumably on a full ILS on autopilot if they must) by P2.

Why would the Captain say 'that no heading indication was available'? Is the RJ100 compass system driven only by IRS1? If so, is there no standby?

[FR8R H8R]

Not exactly shocking news. Hell, most of us can't fly without an FD. Just wait until everyone has a HUD and it goes tits up. That's a complete ******* mess.

[King on a Wing]

BOAC,
I have been told that the only disability that a man can have is a Bad Attitude. And you seem to have proven the point more than adequately.
My suggestion is that you stop riding on your past laurels and the fact that you have 15k + posts on pprune. I might have double that number amongst half my other handles alone.
Cut the attitude son. Gonna get you nowhere.

I don't like to quote, cause its a sign of weaknesses. So this will have to do..
"'Raw Data': To me, that means no 'artificial' aids to pitch, power and bank"
So what you're trying to say is that VSI for pitch, N1 for power and the standby horizon for bank are all the instruments that you would authorise for your 'standard raw data'. Of course the FD's would have to be off and the AT's disengaged!
You little imbecile, sitting in your little microsoft armchair. Do you even realise the complications that would hazard in a very regular jet such as the 380 flying a normal regular RNAV sid out of ZRH...!
No you don't. Which is why, I guess, you have all the time in the world to make those 15,800 odd posts on Pprune. Do you have even a tenth of those in flying hours matey.
Having said that, please respect what the other ppruners might have to say. Don't simply dab it aside just because it doesn't appeal to your sense of (in)sanity. Make space and then comment. Your comments are far too harsh for ppruners son. Tone down.
The next guy might just be your mentor ..

Raw Data means FD's off. Raw Lateral and Raw Vertical guidance only.
And nothing else.

Why don't you knock off a couple of engines too in your next sim session. Just to simulate 'Raw Data' eh ..
Off now.

[DouglasFlyer]

most of us can't fly without an FD

I've been flying on DC-9-32/33/34/51 for five years - the FD was almost unusable and the primary horizon looked like a RJ100 standby horizon. We flew ILS approaches as monitored approaches to the minimum in dense fog and survived it:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/DC-9_Cockpit.jpg/1024px-DC-9_Cockpit.jpg
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. (wikipedia)

Ours didn't have any navigation box, just NDB, VOR, DME & ILS...

I think every pilot flying those planes should be able to carry out a line-up and an ILS approach to the minimum with those standby instruments and a ILS LOC and GP indication.

[Lonewolf_50]

Just a note: King, your guesses on BOAC's background are probably wrong. ;)

Question on certification: for carriage of passengers, is it required to have redundant attitude reference systems, or are there shades of gray in that regulation set?

This incident seems to support the criticism of the industry, as it stands today, in terms of how often hand flying is needed to keep the skill from perishing.

[hunterboy]

If BOAC is who I think it is, the earlier post is hilarious!

[BOAC]

Chaps - don't waste your time and effort on that poster, better we stick to looking at this incident. He/she has admitted to multiple pprune i/ds so you can draw your own conclusions. I'll speak to my next 'mentor' about it, and the thought of flying an RNAV SID out of ZRH..................:eek: Sleepless nights.

.....and I didn't understand much of the rant, anyway:).

[King on a Wing]

Wouldn't expect you to understand it if you called it 'rant' BOAC.
Enuff said.
Now back to the real issue before the thread drift.
I fully agree. Raw data flying has become a kind of 'IP's only' zone these days. About time they brought it down to the weakest link and then developed it from there.
Raw data flying has become tough enough for the line pilot. Add to that the loss of a critical instrument and we have a bad recipe.
AH flying is surely a tough lil cookie to crack. Not all have the right tools.
Cheers

[Gretchenfrage]

The nutshell info is not enough. You have to read the full report to understand what i meant with random switching and where the bone of the mistake is.

[rogerg]

We train for Raw Data ( No FD, AT, AP ) ILS and NDB during the MCC/JOC course. At least some guys have some exposure.

[Dan Winterland]

Raw data is one thing - flying on the standby instruments is another. They are only there for regulatory reasons and not really intended for serious use. If they were, we would be expected to practice with them. In ten years, I have tried flying the sim once on the standby instruments and that was only because we had some spare time and I insisted.

[AerocatS2A]

Have flown the sim on standby's several times and don't see what the fuss is. Even from the co-pilot's seat it is a piece of wee wee. Of course it helps if you have good support for heading changes and so on. Also if flying on the standby instruments from the co-pilot's seat, use ALL of the captains instruments, don't try and split between the standby on his side and your own ASI, VSI, and altimeter. If you are using them from the left seat, it is a very simple handling exercise. If you can't do it, you shouldn't be there.

[millerscourt]

Pity that Air France co pilot sitting in the LHS did not look at it!

[SLFandProud]

What a fantastic rant. Let's try decoding it...

My suggestion is that you stop riding on your past laurels and the fact that you have 15k + posts on pprune. I might have double that number amongst half my other handles alone.
OK, so among your sockpuppets, you have found the time to post at least 30k posts, by your own admission.

You little imbecile, sitting in your little microsoft armchair. Do you even realise the complications that would hazard in a very regular jet such as the 380 flying a normal regular RNAV sid out of ZRH...!
No you don't. Which is why, I guess, you have all the time in the world to make those 15,800 odd posts on Pprune. Do you have even a tenth of those in flying hours matey.
But by your 'guess', having just half that number of posts is prima facie evidence that the poster is an 'imbecile' whose experience is confined to playing computer games.

You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to work out what we can deduce about your qualifications to comment then, do we?

Cut the attitude son. Gonna get you nowhere.
Well, quite.

Have you considered asking your doctor what lithium can do for you?

[DOVES]

http://www.pprune.org/7343900-post102.html
I was wrong.
I am now sure that it will be needed some pteurosaurus help somewhere, somehow.
How small it is, as far offset, the std.by horizon is always an attitude indicator, and I challenge anyone to argue that his instructor taught him that it is secondary to the indications of the altimeter and variometer: DO NOT CHASE THE INDICATIONS OF THESE WITH THAT. For each configuration, speed, flight path and segment of an instrumental procedure, there is a prefixed "Attitude" and a "Set of thrust”. That's the secret to perform an instrument approach with raw data.
To BOAC
Hey all you 'aces' - read the OP - no-one is talking about 'raw data' flying! The incident I am reading about involves 'difficulty' flying on the Stdby AH. How many of you obvious aces have done that recently and accurately? Remember it takes only a degree or so of pitch to generate a 2500' RoC at high speed. Can you ALL read the stdby AI to that accuracy? No, I didn't think so.
If I remember well during climb, above FL100 with almost 300 KIAS a 10° ANU is needed to maintain a 2500'/min climb (against a few degrees ANU for level flight with same speed).
To begin the descent from cruise it is necessary to reduce the attitude more than a single degree, but if I remember well the MD11, from about 4°ANU to about 1° AND to get to Vz -2500.
I remember that in one of my the last simulator Check on the B73 we had a double failure and made a "Manual reversion" approach and with Std.by instruments only.
P.S.
Even if I were King I'd stay away from sycophants and would encourage critics to get better!
Fly Safe
DOVE

[BOAC]

Reading the BFU report shows that the commander had flown the necessary standby instrument detail only 2 months earlier and should have known there was heading info available.

Doesn't say much for a 'good to very good' Captain and a 'Training F/O'.

[wizzkid]

Now where's that much spoken about parallax?

Photos: BAE Systems Avro 146-RJ100 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Swiss-International-Air/BAE-Systems-Avro/1887114/L/&sid=96464ffcdffd04a277576109ee9fe95b)

[Lonewolf_50]

wizzkid, thanks for the photo.

That standby gyro is better than the actual Attitude Gyro I was trained on in T-28's. :uhoh:

Point on parallax taken. :ok:

[Herod]

Am I missing something here? Surely the main purpose of the standby horizon is to enable a defective ADI to be identified. The captain lost his instruments. The first check is to compare the FOs ADI with the standby. If they agree, the FO has control. I've been out of flying for a while now, but I believe the two systems are totally separate, meaning that if the capt's flight computers go down, the FO still has a full set. He didn't trust his instruments (?) or perhaps he didn't want to fly the thing (?)

[Centaurus]

They are only there for regulatory reasons and not really intended for serious use. If they were, we would be expected to practice with them. In ten years, I have tried flying the sim once on the standby instruments and that was only because we had some spare time and I insisted.








Australian regulations require testing of competency on standby flight instruments as part of an instrument rating tests. It is quite tricky in the 737 Classics since the stab trim has to operated manually by means of the big wheel. The copilot has no standby flight instruments although I think he has a clock if he is lucky. It is certainly a challenging exercise. If you do not have the demonstrated skill to fly on standby flight instruments to within regulator tolerances then you don't have a job because you will not hold an instrument rating.

Reminds me of another era when undergoing instrument rating tests in a RAAF Dakota where part of the test included conducting single pilot, asymmetric, aurul null NDB let-down, on limited panel (meaning no AH and no DG but you had a tiny E2 type compass held in place with two bungees between the pilots windcreens)

I must say, that required real instrument flying skill. But the satisfaction gained from being able to hack it was inestimable. What a difference between the knowledge in those far off days you could truly fly on instruments, to today's generation when a manually flown visual approach on a sunny day is beyond the capabilities of some airline pilots who are so automatics dependent. Comparing apples and oranges? Well, maybe. But I know who I would trust when the chips were down on a dark and stormy night.

[alf5071h]

IMHO the incident report does not review the crew’s activities in context, and the analysis and recommendations warrant wider consideration.

A single IRS fault/failure tripped the Flight Guidance Computer (FGC). This computer provides AP, FD, AT, but also, altitude alerting, auto pitch trim, flap trim compensation, and electric pitch trim.

When selecting flap between 0 and 18 (and vice versa) there is a significant change in pitch trim, which with an unpowered control system is felt directly on the control column. Normally flap trim compensation alleviates this force; the crew can assist / override this with electric trim. With a FGC failure, manual trim may be required, which for the lower flap angle selections requires quick and ‘extensive’ trim wheel movement; even with electric trim (but no FTC) timely action is important.
Thus inadequate/late trim application could have contributed to the altitude deviations / pitch attitudes, and together with the primary instrument and other failures, IMC, and coincident ILS join, then the flight path might be as expected. This failure situation is unlikely to have been practiced, particularly with disorienting/distracting factors (attitude mismatch/failure), bank attitude warnings (warranted/unwarranted), loss of altitude alerts, and P2 flying.

The apparent knowledge weaknesses of ATT/HDG caution (yellow) and cross side compass display might be understandable in the stress of the situation, which together with potentially disorientating bank angle calls contributed to P2’s doubts.

With an unusual technical failure combined with aircraft reconfiguration and manoeuvring for the approach, the crew could have been unprepared for the trim change and perhaps were situational disorientated by the flight deck indications. Situation awareness suffered, logical assumptions were made, which in hindsight have been questioned; but why should a crew seek deeper analysis if their mental model associated the latter incident with the first, particularly where the main indications were the same.

Unsatisfactory CRM is a glib comment without qualification. With hindsight, workload management might have been better. However, with P2 unsure of his displays, the Captain’s choice is to either fly and communicate, with P2 diagnosing, or put the workload on P2 with diagnosis and communication; however in this incident communication was a relatively high priority – inability to navigate and that ATC were very helpful; this is a judgement call and it would be unfair to criticise without experiencing the entirety of the situation.

Why recommend a technical change to the stby attitude instrument when it meets the certification requirements and has not been faulted over 20+ years in this and other aircraft types.
What parallax (#34); the instrument is satisfactory for emergency use (abnormal crosscheck #36). We should not expect pilots to pass an IRT with it and the resultant extended scan pattern.
Why should instruments fail more often with age of design; the current rate, although less than electronic versions, has been judged satisfactory.

The training recommendations will probably result in more practice with stby instruments, but this overlooks the significant point of the aircraft handling with abnormal trim operation - FTC failure. The crew need to have a ‘feel’ for the aircraft in this unusual configuration.
Not every situation can be simulated; realism in surprise and stress is very difficult.
We might teach ‘CRM’, workload management, and surprise management, in the class room, but who can assure that the correct behaviour will be recalled in actual situations. This begs the question if the operational scenarios in combination with rare events are extending human performance to the limit – perhaps it’s unrealistic to ask any more from the individual. The industry might be reaching a balance where cost of restricting operational workload matches additional training costs.

This was a serious incident when judged against the high standards of today’s excellent safety record.
The outcome was safe; it may not have been a tidy execution, but it was just within the limits of human performance (those particular individuals, in that particular situation).
The industry might learn from this; what went right, why. Also note the similarities with recent accidents – the role of trim and aircraft ‘feel’, the need to fly attitude not computations or feel/stick position, and difficulties of situation awareness / assumptions – both by the crew and the organisational system.
Is the industry assuming too much about the effectiveness of training, about crew behaviour, knowledge retention/recall, or the extent of / ability to gain experience of unusual combinations of events.

This was not a blame and train accident; it’s for looking and learning.

[misd-agin]

BOAC - a one degree pitch change could equate to 2500 FPM rate of climb/descent? (post#7)

That is one FAST Avro!

[Teddy Robinson]

Herod has it in a nutshell ...as did ALF507 in detail
as for the king of the wing ..... oh dear .. :ugh: did anyone say ego issue ?
ok .. I did :E

[bubbers44]

I always practiced standby instruments only in our 757s. Attitude, airspeed,altitude and wet compass worked quite well, sort of like flying a Cessna 150 in the old days. Quite easy if you have your sh*t together. Try it sometime when you are just climbing out on heading and watch for lead and lag on north and south headings. Nothing has changed much in the last 40 years except pilots forgot how to hand fly on instruments with just the basics and depend on automation.

[bubbers44]

Remember when in a J3 cub you could point it south and descend through an overcast with no attitude instruments using the lead error to tell you you were turning? We all knew that back then. I still know it and could do it in an airliner today. Nobody has probably heard of that in the last 20 years. Automation is great but sadly the new pilots have to do it themselves to do what us old guys knew. The airlines now don't want you to turn the autopilot off. Training costs money.

[RAT 5]

"The airlines now don't want you to turn the autopilot off. Training costs money."

I still go back to the basic premise that pax expect us to be able to solve the problem when the computers & automatics go on holiday. We are the last insurance policy to get them home safely. The sure as hell don't expect us to screw up on the automatics, either. Consider all the accidents we know about which were caused by mishandling a flying serviceable a/c. We've read about the scenarios where pitot or static air sources were lost and there was a crash, yet the a/c was flying. With calm thinking this should be manageable if the basic foundations of piloting skills were in place. For that to be the case it will take much more than the rudimentary tick in the box handling exercise in the sim every 3 years. Once those skills are lost it takes repeated practice to recover them and keep them honed.
Years ago it was very sad to see pilots of both ranks transfer from a needles & dials a/c to an EFIS one and throw away all the scans and skills learnt from the old generation a/c and become 'children of the magenta' and VNAV PTH disciples. FD followers rather than pilots in command. The FD could fly you into a stall or the ground, but they didn't notice what was going wrong. The industrial solution has been to build in more fail-safe systems and numerous back ups.
It has always been said that if you think safety is expensive then try an accident. This was related more to flight safety training than piloting skills, but I think ultimately it should be about piloting skills. It is said we are contribute to the crash in 70% or so of cases. One wonders, if piloting skills have been allowed to deteriorate and replaced with technology, has there been a secret risk/cost assessment made and the industry has knowingly chosen the path we are on? Great for the conspiracy theorists. But surely, when you look at the spate of accidents over the past 15 years there have been some worrying trends and little corrective reaction from the industry; more aghast head in hands asking 'how could they have done that?' The answer might be 'because you allowed it in your training and daily operating philosophy.' This debate has been going round in circles within the pilot community for years. When will the circle be broken and action taken?

[BOAC]

misd- yes, I should have said 'a few degrees'. I still, however, maintain that it is difficult to read the standby pitch accurately enough and as alf says, "We should not expect pilots to pass an IRT with it and the resultant extended scan pattern".

inability to navigate - I still do not understand 'inability'? Are you saying that heading information in the RJ100 on both sides would be lost (leaving the standby compass out of this, which is of course, 'able' to provide an approximate heading)? Why could P2 not provide heading info?

[mini-jumbo]

BOAC - - I still do not understand 'inability'? Are you saying that heading information in the RJ100 on both sides would be lost (leaving the standby compass out of this, which is of course, 'able' to provide an approximate heading)? Why could P2 not provide heading info?

No, the Captains EFIS was lost, and the FO's DBI was also lost as this gets its info from IRU1. The FO had a working and correct ND and PFD, and also the standby compass. The standby horizon is clearly visible from the right seat, and can easily be used to cross check indications if there is any doubt. The captain had heading information from his DBI as this takes its feed from IRU2.

It's a shame the CVR wasn't available to the investigation, it would have added a lot of useful information.

With a loss of the FGC (Flight Guidance Computer) and thus the FTC (Flap trim compensator), the RJ becomes a 146 and unless you've flown tbe 146, or practice it regularly in the rj sim, the pitch change when going from flap 0 to flap 18 or vice versus will catch you out. A lot of immediate trim is needed to counteract it. The crew would have been distracted and not prepared for it which could account for the initial "excessive" pitch changes.

[BOAC]

Thanks, m-j, for the clarification. Makes it worse!

[alf5071h]

BOAC, the technical aspects for the compass are as #45; however the ILS aspects might not be as clear depending on ILS course selection and EFIS display switching.
The problem of ‘inability’ revolves around the crew’s apparent failure to recall this technical detail; I surmise that this could have been due to mental workload, memory degradation with time, or that the aspect had not been taught.

mini-jumbo, re flap trim compensation, RJ vs 146.
IIRC this not quite as simple as you state. A FTC failure in the RJ reverts to the basic airframe aerodynamics; in normal manual flight 146 has a mechanical FTC system.
You may have implied this, but if not, then your description of the need to anticipate 146 trim use could be significantly greater with FTC failure.

[AerocatS2A]

Only the 146-300 has a flap trim compensator, it is electric. The smaller 146s have no FTC. Unless a 146 pilot has only been exposed to the 300 series they would be familiar with the trim changes required with the first stage of flap and would do it automatically. I agree that an RJ pilot with no 146-100/200 experience would get a rude shock when extending or retracting the flaps if the FTC was not working.

[mini-jumbo]

alf5071h - Sorry,I should have been clearer in my initial post, but I was referring to the 100/200 series.

There is no flap trim compensation on the 146-100/200 series. The 300 series does however have FTC.

[BOAC]

Do I assume the 'DBI' is like an 'RBI'? and throughout the whole exercise P2 had a fully working IRS driven compass and P1 a working 'DBI', plus a standby 'E2B' type compass? The problem of ‘inability’ revolves around the crew’s apparent failure to recall this technical detail; I surmise that this could have been due to mental workload, memory degradation with time, or that the aspect had not been taught. - I cannot see how anyone could have missed those headings? The ILS display on both P2 and the standby would have worked, radar headings would have worked. Surely the only real 'problems' were a non-functioning P2 and the pitch detail on the standby AI? The trim change would have definitely caused a 'wobbler' if flying on the Standby AI. I wonder if the F/O is still a 'training' F/O..........................?

[Yankee Whisky]

Quote:
Originally Posted by alf
inability to navigate


I must be naive and behind the times, but the old fashioned use of "Needle, ball, airspeed and magnetic compass" seems to be a lost art in these modern electronically controled aircraft.

Put pilots back into a Tiger Moth and a (gosport ?) tube and have them fly this to perfection "under the hood" !:ugh:

[wiggy]

""Needle, ball, airspeed and magnetic compass" seems to be a lost art in these modern electronically controled aircraft.



To a certain extent yes, but this is how modern flight ops management see the importance of hand flying - here's a verbatim extract from a FCOM near me:

"It is recommended that appropriate use of the Autoflight sytem is used throughout flight to:

- achieve maximum efficiency of aircraft operation, and
- to reduce workload and exposure to errors.

Autothrottle should be engaged throughout the flight"

[mini-jumbo]

BOAC - Do I assume the 'DBI' is like an 'RBI'? and throughout the whole exercise P2 had a fully working IRS driven compass and P1 a working 'DBI', plus a standby 'E2B' type compass?

Yes, the DBI is essentially like an RBI.

All heading information with the exception of the standby compass is IRU fed.
The logic in the RJ is that under normal ops, a single failure of an IRU will not cause either pilot to lose all heading information and also allows quick verification that both IRU's are providing valid data.

IRU1 drives the LHS PFD / ND, and the RHS DBI, and IRU2 drives LHS DBI, RHS PFD / ND.

Transfer switches are fitted and used as directed by Abnormal checklists in the event of various system failures to restore data to the EFIS.

[Prober]

Like Bubbers I, too, used to practise flying S/by only instruments on the 757. It was just like going back to the old steam era with the exception of the engine instruments. It made the ‘new age’ F/O’s realize that it was actually – an aeroplane! I only really needed it once and that was following an engine failure and the APU glitched on change-over, giving us nothing but blank screens. Reversion proved no problem, even for the subsequent S/E go-around. Pity about the Turn and Slip, though, it might have made it a bit easier. Had there been no previous practice .......?:sad:

[nitpicker330]

The older Airbus has a crap standby Attitude indicator, it lags badly in turns and it's pitch indication can be 3 deg different to the main ADI's !!
The newer ones with the LCD ISD Displays are good in pitch but lag badly in the turns!!

Now the really new Airbus's are not fitted with DDRMI's anymore, so if all fails you'll need to look at that small crappy compass on the window......

I hope I never need to do it for real.

[bubbers44]

If you never look at your standby instruments how can you trust them if all electrical systems fail and all automation fails? It is your final backup so you should be comfortable using them alone.

Good pilots will get you to destination no matter what happens. Automation dependent pilots won't. A good example is the AF crash with full back side stick in a stall for over 3 minutes. Even if your airline doesn't require you to know how to hand fly do it anyway. Professional pilots all know how to hand fly, why shouldn't you be a professional pilot instead of a qualified pilot? Think about it. AF had two qualified pilots that couldn't hand fly.

[iceman50]

nitpicker330

The stby AI's do NOT lag in the turns, have you heard of roll precession? Because the A/C turns at a gentle AOB in the cruise, below the roll precession cutoff limit, the stby AI will precess in the turn. It will show a minor bank on roll out but will quickly re-erect on wings level.

The DDRMI has been taken away as it was just a repeater of either ADIRU 1 or 3 so not independent, whereas the "E2B"is independent.

[wiggy]

If you never look at your standby instruments how can you trust them if all electrical systems fail and all automation fails? It is your final backup so you should be comfortable using them alone.



Fair point but FWIW given that on a lot of the shiney new toys the standby instruments are in themselves 100% "electrical" their usefulness in the event of a total electrics failure is a bit limited.

[de facto]

Are they still serving those swiss chocolates?they were miummy:p

[Loose rivets]

Many, many years ago on Pprune, I was severely flamed for saying I could fly an airliner on limited panel. Back in 1970, even BAC 1-11s had a good old Tied gyro.

Back then we flew a lot of empty seats around, and when pax=0, cardboard and selotape would be fished out - assuming a good bloke in the RHS.

It wasn't anything special, except in the ability to do it without getting fired. Indeed, after showing the young ones the tricks, they could do it better than me.

There were a couple of time when knowing it was possible took a lot of heat out of a situation. Like, a heron down to one AH, which then breathed in soapy water and looked like a washing machine before it tumbled. Totally IMC, so flying on T&S was a fait accompli on that night.



Searches for packet of tinfoil.

[DC-ATE]

most of us can't fly without an FD

That might be true according to what I read now-a-days, but back when they [FDs] first came out, I NEVER used it except in the Sim where I was told I had to use it. I was one of those that didn't like being "told what to do" by some artificial 'thing' !! Just like some of the GPS systems in cars these days: I hate hearing some person telling me where and when to turn when I already know.

Sure would be nice if pilots these days knew how to fly !!

[JW411]

When I was with Laker, we were taught to hand fly the DC-10 down to 100 feet with the FD on the ILS and 200 feet without it. I think we were a lot sharper in those days.

[aterpster]

JW411:

When I was with Laker, we were taught to hand fly the DC-10 down to 100 feet with the FD on the ILS and 200 feet without it. I think we were a lot sharper in those days.

When were those days?:)

[bubbers44]

wiggy, the standby attitude indicator had an estimated 30 minutes of use before the battery went dead, after that you were on your own. You knew that so had time to do something about it.

[Loose rivets]

Indeed, some seriously nifty flying in Freddy's airplanes, but then, crews were delaying flights because of the 1,000 hour yearly limit being exceeded. One gets good with all that practice. ;)

[JW411]

aterpster:

Late 1970s early 1980s.

[fade to grey]

I'm with BOAC. I don't think the 757 stby AH is easy to use at all. It's bloody tiny for starters. Also not overlooking the fact that if you end up flying on that there's multiple other issues building...

[Reinhardt]

Yes, that's a problem for airlines pilots, it's true thay can't fly without a F/D - but also they can't fly more than 30° of bank, and they lose control every time something is a little bit out of the picture.
I once saw a TRI going inverted at 2000 ft on the Sim after a simple engine failure, and crashing... and the chief of training watching that and saying nothing...
Airlines pilots with pure civy background (pay for training, no failure as long as money flows) have never neen very good, and those days they become less and less impressive. Everybody knows that, but it's politically incorrect to write the truth.
Fortunately, there are still a lot of ex-fighter pilots with decent manoeuvring skills and ability in the cockpits, and that's saving the day quite often. But sometimes they are not here (AF 447, all three civies on board, with thousands of hours of... watching the autopilot in cruise! or doing paperwork and radio) And when things go wrong, nobody is there to understand anything and read the instruments correctly.

[ironbutt57]

Not assigning blame or leveling criticism at anybody, Im new to the Avro having spent 15 years on glass Boeings and FBW airbus, and before that heave turboprops that make that DC-9 pictured above look like the 787, and can't for the life of me understand how the Avro crew failed to identify this failure as an IR fault...the abnormal/emergency checklist has PICTURES of the failure along with the checklist...

[Sky_Captain]

that's a problem for airlines pilots, it's true thay can't fly without a F/D

Ouch Reinhardt, that hurts us "civy" pilots to hear :eek:

Still, there are fighter jets flown today that couldn't be hand flown without the aid of a computer and good thing us civy pilots understand MCC and don't fly commercially thinking its a one pilot aircraft!

Just saying :}

[fade to grey]

Surely you are a wind up reinhardt ?

When would an airline pilot pull more than 30 degrees bank ?

Unfortunately for heroes like you, people skills are just as vital as flying in airlines .

[aterpster]

Reinhardt:

Yes, that's a problem for airlines pilots, it's true thay can't fly without a F/D - but also they can't fly more than 30° of bank, and they lose control every time something is a little bit out of the picture.
I once saw a TRI going inverted at 2000 ft on the Sim after a simple engine failure, and crashing... and the chief of training watching that and saying nothing...
Airlines pilots with pure civy background (pay for training, no failure as long as money flows) have never neen very good, and those days they become less and less impressive. Everybody knows that, but it's politically incorrect to write the truth.
Fortunately, there are still a lot of ex-fighter pilots with decent manoeuvring skills and ability in the cockpits, and that's saving the day quite often. But sometimes they are not here (AF 447, all three civies on board, with thousands of hours of... watching the autopilot in cruise! or doing paperwork and radio) And when things go wrong, nobody is there to understand anything and read the instruments correctly.
We had to do 45 degree bank turns in the simulator every six months, 180 degrees in each direction and without a flight director. 707, 727, DC-9, L-1011, and 767.

[DOVES]

@Aterpster
Uuhhhh! I do not believe it! What a fright! I am petrified! No one can do such things!
Ando Rumour or not, News or not:
Merry X-mas an Happy New Year
Fly Safe
DOVE

[RAT 5]

B757: 1st command. The company was young and small and so was the training dept. I had come from a B732 and an airline with a good training dept. Thus manual no FD flying was the norm for many visual approaches. The old-school TRE on my command course considered it normal competency to fly an ILS on SBY instruments. The failure could happen and you should be able to do it. If you know pitch/power it's not difficult. In the sim session we had a sim glitch of the RMI failing, so the ILS was flown using the basic P1 compass. The F/O was very surprised it was not a major drama. Now, on B738 with a total loss of AC the captain's PFD & Map are still glowing. These are the SBY instruments, just minus the FD's. I believe this might be customer option? However, if the batteries are not up to scratch you could end up on the dark side, and a torch and tiny SBY's might be your only hope. Could you do it? Have you ever tried? Should you be able? IMHO the answer to the last is YES. The a/c is flying; there should be no reason not to keep it doing so. Sadly, because the technocrats have tried to design out the all possibilities of pilots ending up deep in the poo, training dept's and CAA's have diluted the training competency with the claim that "it'll never happen." In the world of TEM perhaps they are correct. Mother nature, human nature and mechanical gremlins will still try and line up the holes. However, the philosophy is that ever time the pilot screws up another set of restrictive SOP's is wheeled out; the a/c designers include more back-ups and fail-safe auto systems and the pilot is told not to do this or that.

It will not be long before the single pilot and the dog becomes true. That can only happen if we're allowed to take the dog food through security as all crew members have to bring their own chow these days.

[JW411]

aterpster:

Oh, what memories! I remember doing my FAA ATPL on the DC-10 in 1982 and we did indeed have to accomplish turns through "at least 180 degrees" with 45 degrees of bank exactly without the FD.

What you forgot to mention was that the limits were +/- 50 feet, +/- 5 knots and roll out had to be +/- 5 degrees on heading. It was a great exercise once you got used to the idea.

On the DC-10 it was possible to cheat as far as speed was concerned for switching the FD off did not remove the speed donut so that was a bit of a help!

I also forgot to mention that auto throttle was not allowed.

[Loose rivets]

I once saw a TRI going inverted at 2000 ft on the Sim after a simple engine failure, and crashing... and the chief of training watching that and saying nothing...

Yep, so did I. I followed him into the sim, (nither of us had flown a box before) I barely touched the controls. Smooth as silk, but if I hadn't been warned I might well have set up a roll in the way he did, since the sim was unrealistically oversensitive.


Airlines pilots with pure civy background (pay for training, no failure as long as money flows) have never neen very good, and those days they become less and less impressive. Everybody knows that, but it's politically incorrect to write the truth.

I, and hundreds of self-trained pilots will have a jolly good larf about that tonight.

I spent a year just sitting beside new skippers on the fairly frisky BAC 1-11. What I witnessed was the complete gamut of skill levels. Some of the worst had been ex-mil - but then, so had some of the best.

When I spent a brief time with Laker, it was like a breath of fresh air. Young self-trained skippers with skills and professionalism the likes of which I haven't seen before or since.

In the sixties, one gained a lot of experience flogging to Spain - at night - with no radar. 30degrees, 45degrees? How about seeing the horizon bar go behind the shrouds, time and time again? Seemingly endless lightning strikes - one putting a 4" hole through the wing. And I mean through. And then having to beg to re-route to avoid going through it again on the way back.

Kids of today.:rolleyes:

Some of the ex-mil blokes were utterly lost. They'd never seen a cloud, let alone the inside of a CB. Somewhat tongue in cheek, but it showed when the Transport Command blokes came along. The were generally fine. They'd seen it all before and quickly transferred their skills to the civil aviation world.

So, don't generalize. My feeling has always been those that have routinely had an empty aircraft to play with, get to be ahead of the game. Sitting in a huge computer, never having seen much go wrong? I recon there are kids on x-boxes with more hand-eye coordination.

Rant over.

[gerago]

Reinhardt, if you care to check out the statistics ex-military pilots are the largest cause of accidents in airline and GA crashes. Pompous self aggrandizing winder up, but hey I am cool. Just winding you up!

[JW411]

Loose rivets:

I thank you for your kind comments about Laker and I absolutely endorse what you say about the high standards in the company.

I was one of the ex-Transport Command captains and, having spent 16 years flying 4-engined aeroplanes through Cbs (because the aircraft wouldn't go above 15,000 feet most of the time and the weather radar was rubbish), it was a joy to fly the DC-10 which could get above or around the weather most of the time.

I think my record was eight lightning strikes in a month.

[DOVES]

@Aterpster
I owe you an apology. I was just looking for a way to send greetings to everyone without being banned.
Anyway:
With 60° bank? (Now my pupils on the LSA meet their trail).
And one eng out ILS approach with no A/P, F/D, A/T?
Those were the days!
Fly Safe
DOVE

[Chronic Snoozer]

Perhaps the beancounters and ginger beers can prevent these types of situations by building an aircraft with quintuple redundancy in every aspect of instrumentation, navigation equip., flight controls, hydraulics and engine control. That way all pilots can avoid those tricky situations when only raw data is available.

In the mean time what needs to be done to close the 'skill-gap' between the last generation of pilots and the new?

[Reinhardt]

..We had to do 45 degree bank turns in the simulator every six months ...Ah... so my apology, yes I see you were more than adequately trained. What an adventure it used to be.

Were you allowed to have the upper button of your battle-dress loose as a testimony ?

[Machinbird]

Hey guys. What is this flight director thing that you rely on so much?:p
Never had one in any of my military steeds. Sounds like it is more trouble than it is worth if you have to ride herd on it all the time to make sure it is telling the truth.

Am I missing something important from my CV?:}

A Merry Christmas to all.

[aterpster]

Reinhardt:

Ah... so my apology, yes I see you were more than adequately trained. What an adventure it used to be.

Were you allowed to have the upper button of your battle-dress loose as a testimony ?

I suppose, had we flown the simulator in uniform. Thinking back on it before we advanced to Level D simulators the rating rides were in the airplane. So, we did the 45 degree banked turns in actual flight and no one died. Alas, that too was in civies.

[aterpster]

machinbird:

Never had one in any of my military steeds. Sounds like it is more trouble than it is worth if you have to ride herd on it all the time to make sure it is telling the truth.

If you knew what you were doing you "didn't have to ride herd" on it, at least not on an ILS approach. It wasn't required to be used at all except on an ILS approach, at least in my 727 days.

[aterpster]

OK465:

Having had and used the single cue FD all my career, I don't think I could make a dual cue work for me if I were confronted with one.

It seemed so intuitive to marry up with the little yellow "v."

[westhawk]

The Hawker 800 aircraft I flew could be switched from dual cue to single cue with a button in the cockpit on the fly. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gifslight thread drift continued...

When I went to FlightSafety for Hawker 800XP training I discovered the same thing. All of my previous jet experience was on "steam gauges" so the Honeywell glass setup was entirely new to me. I'd heard all the nonsense regarding the difficulty of the transition to glass so when I climbed in for sim session one and saw those two needles on the EADI screen instead of a proper V bar...

After "faking" my way through a takeoff and departure procedure looking "through" the FD cues to the raw data I decided to try following the cues. It reminded me of the GS and CDI needles on the old 172s I'd trained on years before and I eventually started to get the hang of it even though I was decidedly uncomfortable. When I mentioned this to the sim instructor, he laughed and directed my attention to the switch on the panel to my left. What a relief!

Veering momentarily back on topic...

I did have an exciting moment once in that Hawker when the EADI on my side went dark while flying a DP. I looked at the stby ADI and saw the attitude was still the same (10 deg NU and 25 deg bank) and that the co-pilot EADI looked normal so I asked the other guy if he wouldn't mind flying rather than test my skills on the little stby AI. We switched roles long enough to reach a safe altitude and reset the EFIS power. We never did figure out why this happened but figured that those little stby instruments might yet come in handy one day. I've never yet been required to demonstrate competency at flying an IAP using stby instruments only during any training/checking event. The way I see it, a real emergency is no time to find out you're not up to the task. Just include flying solely by reference to the stby instruments in recurrent!

And BTW it's not that big a deal once you've tried it a couple of times.

[aterpster]

ok465:

Little did they know we had a reconfigurable FD-110 display which could be set up with V-bars

Same with even the early 767s. But, maintenance had to do it I believe in the E & E bay.

[Centaurus]

Ideally, a competent instrument pilot should, with hardly raising of an eyebrow, be able to switch seamlessly from AFDS/ automatics operation, to disconnecting all the goodies and hand flying raw data. if the pilot cannot accomplish that task without the potential for a PAN call, then seriously he needs to recognise his failings and rectify them. This applies equally to those in the LH or RH seat. A professional pilot should be equally skilful at both tasks - automatics or raw data flight.

[Gretchenfrage]

Ideally, a competent instrument pilot should, with hardly raising of an eyebrow, be able to switch seamlessly from AFDS/ automatics operation, to disconnecting all the goodies and hand flying raw data. if the pilot cannot accomplish that task without the potential for a PAN call, then seriously he needs to recognise his failings and rectify them. This applies equally to those in the LH or RH seat. A professional pilot should be equally skilful at both tasks - automatics or raw data flight.

Do you want to ground half of the commercial fleet worldwide??
Unfortunately I am not even sarcastic with the above .....

On another note: Why don't you guys read the report and discover that there were some funny switchings in the whole process. Switchings that eventually lead to having to display the absent skills. It was not necessary, but provoked through some more incompetence. Again, not sarcastic, but realistic.:ugh:

[RAT 5]

I was safety pilot on base training detail. The company wanted the FD to be used in manual flight. This entailed PF calling for HDG's & Spds and LVL CHG, V/S etc. (B757 No speed tape, just ASI). The captain student was from DC8. He was all over the sky and couldn't coordinate hands, brain & mouth. After a few circuits I could see the BTC was getting frustrated with the DEC candidate. He turned to me and said this guy couldn't fly. I suggested turning the FD's off and letting him fly it like a DC8. Round & round we went on rails. Later, in LT he could learn the AFDS, but he could fly. Nowadays, as has been said, a visual circuit on the line becomes an LNAV/VNAV programmed exercise. Indeed, one airline has this as an SOP to help avoid G/A's and using A/T to help control speed. Still they have G/A's from visuals. The piloting skills are diluted due to company philosophy; perhaps this also justifies the company philosophy of diluting the T's & C's of said pilots. If you ain't got the skills why should you be paid for them? An interesting conspiracy theory for PR. Why pay big bucks for button pushers and cause fares to rise? The pax might go for that; until the day when buttons don't solve the problem.

[Stuck_in_an_ATR]

Having had and used the single cue FD all my career, I don't think I could make a dual cue work for me if I were confronted with one.

It seemed so intuitive to marry up with the little yellow "v."


On the other hand, I was "raised" with the crossbar. Then switched over to an airplane with "v bars" and hated it! :{ The only way for me to fly it was either with A/P on, or raw data... Grew quite proficient in the latter thanks to the v-bar... :)

[fitliker]

Wow,to think i got yelled at for turning down a trip in the van at night when the weather was three hundred feet below landing minimums and the airplane had both attitude indicators were u/s.
The first indicator broke three weeks prior and the other one went wobbly and finally stopped working the previous night.Flying partial panel at night to minimums is no fun.

[bubbers44]

I have flown with a broken attitude indicator. Yes and know it is wrong to do an ILS approach in a twin beach when the airplane part of the bar broke off during a roll because in the 70's nobody cared.

Flying has changed so much through the years but still prefer the 70 era pilots to what we have now. I am sure that era is gone for good.

Now automation is king. Kind of sad isn't it?

[Rananim]

We're not saying anything new here but just revisiting the same trail over and over.What will it take for the airlines to realize that you can buy all the automatic "flies by itself" A320's that your dollars,pounds,dinars or yuan can buy, but when the **** hits the fan,you still need yourself a "P-I-L-O-T".AF found this out to their great cost.EVA to their great relief.And as we sit here and debate and argue right now,there are many cockpits out there crewed by pilots who wont take the automation out or ever come out of NAV or switch the FD off or take the AT out.
Pilots must fly the plane.Stick in left hand,thrust levers in right and classic T scan.They must do this first when they join the line.And they must revert to this manual mode of flying once a week or 2 weeks to retain proficiency.When theyre comfortable with the basics,then introduce the automatics,the SOP's and the finer points of menial line flying.But dont omit the fundamental!Honestly,I think 80% of line First Officers have their mind focused on SOP's and just arent trained to focus their attention on whats important("fly the plane").As you line up,the big issue is not SOP's!!!!( eg,FO distracted because CAPTAIN didnt have correct page showing in FMC!!!!!!)The big issue is silent config check and quiet review of actions in case of abort or turns required after EFATO.But nobodys teaching them this anymore.They think the FMC page is more important.The airline training departments are no longer run by pilots but by the bean counters who answer to the insurance companies and the bottom line.Pilots arent on the board.They dont make the decisions like they used to.And besides theres a whole new breed of antiseptic politically-correct pilot thats running things these days.Which is why we get AF447 and the THY crash at AMS.Pilots not flying the plane!Imagine that..a contradiction in terms.

[King on a Wing]

Great post Rat,
And equally true.
Boiling frog syndrome all over again. We're getting too comfortable with sickness and the stench of it all.
Keep those old flying skills up I say. And then make full and proper use of the available automation.
Keep the skills up nevertheless.
Dependency kills.

[FlexibleResponse]

Go "the rat", go!

[aterpster]

Very well stated!!

[error_401]

@ BOAC - a bit of facts on the RJ1H
You were right, In the incidents configuration even an AVRO needs only about 1 - 2 degrees of pitch change with respective advance of thrust levers to climb at 2'000+ fpm as it was a ferry flight. Makes for some funny pitch indications as well, especially at lower speeds. Up to 3 degrees difference to normal.

As for lowering or rising the flaps at speeds around 200 kts which is about the normal configuration speed you may expect pitch changes up to 7 - 9 degrees to keep it level and about 15 - 20 % N1 change to keep speed in level flight.

The stby attitude indicator has a center indication (a dot) where the dot covers about 2 to 2.5 degrees. The scaling on the standby att is not the same as on the EFIS. Seen from the Copilots side it shows a bit of bank due to the parallax.

Additionally, on an ILS you will have a cross-hair pointer superimposed on the standby attitude indicator to show the ILS such as these old VOR pointers in your local C172. It can be VERY DISTRACTING when changin from EFIS to standby to look "through" these pointers.

I've flown the AVRO form the RHS using the stby instruments in the SIM several times. Challenging.

The AVRO is a bit of a bit..h on pitch and roll as it is inherently unstable and needs continous attention and corrections. A hard grip with very fine corrections is what helps me. And I'll have a look all once in a while to the standby's to get the feel for them.

[error_401]

@ Reinhardt

Have to add this: IMHO every airline pilot envies you guys from the military flying. I would have wished for flying military planes but it was not meant for me to be. So I've ventured the civil way.

I would have loved to learn to fly the way you fly. Upside down or at 60 deg bank and +2g in turn. Surely you get the feel for "flying". But then it is only for so and so many of us and it costs not millions but probably billions to finance an airforce. A single fighter aircraft costs as much as a 737 with the more advanced ones with the price tag of a 777 for the system.

Instead of ranting and also a bit bragging about the mil. vs. civ. way - would you offer me training hours on one of these steeds? Need not be an F16 so I can learn how to fly?. ;)

Sometimes it comes to make the best use of equipment - and I'll take what is given to me and will try to excel in that. As for the comments about what could have been done better I agree with your opinion but disagree with the way you have exposed them.