UK CAA bites the bullet on pilots pure flying skills

[Judd]

CASA take note. How about a similar notice to Australian operators?
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SafetyNotice2019005.pdf

[Nkosi]

The suggestion by Judd seems ultimately sensible.

[CaptCloudbuster]

CASA take note. How about a similar notice to Australian operators?
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SafetyNotice2019005.pdf


Qantas has implemented a comprehensive UPRT program within its recurrent training syllabus

[maggot]

Qantas has implemented a comprehensive UPRT program within its recurrent training syllabus
the comprehensive part remains to be seen

[Global Aviator]

No matter what I’ve flown or fly I’ve always kept my GA hand in. People disagree with me that a renewal in a piston twin has relevance to driving a jet... I beg to differ! Even a renewal once in a performance single kept me on hands and feet. I don’t think you can discount the relevance of real flying, EVER!

[Street garbage]

No matter what I’ve flown or fly I’ve always kept my GA hand in. People disagree with me that a renewal in a piston twin has relevance to driving a jet... I beg to differ! Even a renewal once in a performance single kept me on hands and feet. I don’t think you can discount the relevance of real flying, EVER!
Mate, you need to fly a 737, piston twins are easy compared to this...

[Angle of Attack]

Ummm, I’d rather be in a 737 engine out after takeoff in ISA+30 max weight, than a Seneca, Partenavia or something similar...care to enlighten how a 737 would be harder to handle?

[Australopithecus]

Because a part 23 aeroplane relieves you of much choice...you just have to keep it straight to the crash. That said, there are probably more 737 rated pilots in the world than any other transport type-it can’t be that hard. Even I can fly it well some days.

[parkfell]

1Ummm, I’d rather be in a 737 engine out after takeoff in ISA+30 max weight, than a Seneca, Partenavia or something similar...care to enlighten how a 737 would be harder to handle?



In a previous life, as a flying instructor at BAe flying college last century,
I carried out C of A renewal flight tests.
The twin flight consisted of Seneca 3s. Part of the flight included an one engine inoperative (closed down) 5 minutes climb at blue line speed on the good engine. 40" MAP 2600rpm?
Needless to say you chose your days carefully. Gaining 1000ft in the 5 minutes was normal.

The thought of getting airborne on a dirty blowy night and suffering an ENG FAIL shortly after take-off even below MTOM, would require a great deal of skill to survive.
Just how many ac under 5.7MT experiencing this actually survive. Answer: not many.
Invariably the handling pilot gets caught out big time.

Give me the 737NG any time in comparison. Just practising it in the simulator gives you the necessary confidence, and distinctly easier to handle.

[bazza stub]

UK CAA bites the bullet on pilots pure flying skills


Bahahaha! So the antivaxers of the aviation world suddenly realise that to fly an aeroplane, you need to be an actual pilot?! Most of those dot points in par 2.3 sound like the sorts of things you learnt and practiced in GA and exactly the stuff the European sausage factory model skipped over.

[parkfell]

For those BA & Cathay cadets who trained at Prestwick in the 1980/90s, they will recall their flying in the AS202 BRAVO, and the requirement under the UK CAA CAP509 bespoke BAe syllabus that PT5 included UPRT & the ability to fly the five aerobatic manoeuvres.

Once BA stopped their full sponsorship scheme, BAe revised the syllabus to simply comply with CAP509 for licence issue.
The famous quote from the then MD " there is no point making Rolls Royces when the airline industry simply want a Ford Escort".

2 hours of stall and spin awareness was the norm. At least the modular customer had 1 additional hour in the BRAVO, and were exposed the spinning & recovery techniques.

The Brownair Bandit crash ~ loss of control departing Leeds with A/H failure, was the catalyst for a CAA to rethink matters. Perhaps something better than a Ford Escort is needed after all?

No doubt the statisticians can work out the correlation between " the makes of cars" and the accidents related to this topic.

[bazza stub]

Yet QF forge ahead with its training academy idea. You can’t tell me those guys will be trained up to a standard any higher than the bare bones minimum.

[Lookleft]

The first of those dot points in 2.3. was how one flew a Metro from take-off to landing day in, day out. I do like this comment So the antivaxers of the aviation world suddenly realise that to fly an aeroplane, you need to be an actual pilot?!. Very true.

[B772]

Ummm, I’d rather be in a 737 engine out after takeoff in ISA+30 max weight, than a Seneca, Partenavia or something similar...care to enlighten how a 737 would be harder to handle?
I suspect I would close both throttles and land straight ahead if in an Apache, heavy Seneca or heavy Partenavia.

[lucille]

As each iteration of airliner design takes to the skies, the capability of the automation systems increases thus negating the need for old school flying skills. It won’t be long before all the pilot has to do is taxi out to the holding point. Look to the modern UAVs for an insight into the future of airliners.
It won’t be long before the crew will only need to know how to steer the aircraft on the ground and handle the half dozen or so emergencies which require human intervention because the data comms may not be linked or compatible.

At the beginning of my career, I knew at the end of every flight that the safe, smooth and efficient outcome was solely due to the skills, training, diligence and knowledge of the crew.
In the last 5-10 years of my career, I had lost this feeling.There was no challenge, automation did everything better than I ever could. Navigation anywhere across the globe became doddle. Information was fresh and instantly available at any phase of flight. etc etc. My only challenge for the day was Coping with Fatigue and staying awake.

Extrapolate that line of technological “progress” a bit further and eventually the two humans at the front become almost redundant. Repurposed call centres in Mumbai will be controlling everything from take off to landing. 🙁

[compressor stall]

Qantas has implemented a comprehensive UPRT program within its recurrent training syllabus

UPRT is just one part of the CAA’s topics listed.

[sheppey]

UPRT is just one part of the CAA’s topics listed.
I wonder if all this stuff about UPRT is blown out of all proportion. From what I have read in accident reports over the years, aircraft that have gone in following failure to recover from an initial unusual attitudes, have their genesis in poor basic instrument flying ability by the pilot. While "G" forces cannot be replicated in current simulators it makes no difference to the outcome if the pilot lacks instrument flying skill in the first place.
The majority of recurrent simulator training sessions currently emphasize management of the automatic pilot and associated flight directors. An occasional no flight director instrument approach is a box tick. No wonder that some pilots lack basic instrument flying ability because they are rarely given the opportunity to keep their hand in. Some pilots should not even be in an airline because they simply cannot fly.

A competent simulator instructor should have the skill to take a command seat and demonstrate the various types of unusual attitudes which can occur. You don't need Motion On for that. Pilot interpretation of what the instruments are telling him is the key to successful recovery to safe level flight. For example, a demonstration of a 737 in a spiral dive is easily done. The simulator freeze button is used to stop the simulator and image of the artificial horizon at any point of the spiral flight path. A short discussion may follow as to the most expedient way of getting out of trouble by unloading and levelling the wings etc. A building block exercise if you like.

Sure you can spend $$$$ hiring a Pitts Special or some other aerobatic aircraft and even practice getting airsick if you like. But that does not teach pilots how to recover using the full suite of flight instruments available in an airliner. Recovery from unusual attitudes on instruments is not rocket science; although judging by the complexity of present UPRT training courses it is going that way.

Fully inverted flight is easily done in a simulator. Simply apply hard continuous aileron and it happens. Some simulators have a button that when actuated sets up a UA of your choice. Now freeze the simulator and discuss the options available to return to wings level right side up. The building block principle all over again. Boeing do an excellent job of explaining UA recoveries in their FCTM. It doesn't matter what sort of UA is applied in the simulator, it is pilot skill at interpreting what the instruments are telling you that is the key to a safe recovery.

It is this scribe's view that the full suite of UA's that one could be reasonably exposed to during instrument flight and its recovery, can be adequately covered in one hour in the simulator. Forget the "G" forces and hours of Power Point pictures - use the simulator as the blackboard. If a pilot in a simulator cannot interpret what his flight instruments are telling him if the blue side is down and the Sky Pointer is 90 degrees, then how did he get the job offer in the first place? A good case for testing a candidates instrument flying ability in a suitable simulator before he is hired - and not just one ILS

[Duck Pilot]

But we have the 61 MOS......

:oh:

[Mach E Avelli]

....which has got "descending steep turns" as part of a Type Rating syllabus. Yeh, right, we are gonna negative train airline pilots in THAT as a planned manoeuvre.
Now if it said "recovery from a spiral dive" I would not mind so much.

[LeadSled]

Yet QF forge ahead with its training academy idea. You can’t tell me those guys will be trained up to a standard any higher than the bare bones minimum.

bazza stub,
I can and I will --- based on what was required of previous iterations of Qantas cadet schemes --- at one stage including up to 10H aeros. on a CAP 10 --- serious aerobatics.
The standards of knowledge required in the classroom and the standards of "stick and rudder" performance were all well beyond any CASA syllabus.
It is to be devoutly hoped that such a legacy is carried through, and the sentiment among senior QF training people is very much to support such basic skills.
That pilots have to be more than "Systems managers/monitors" is now well understood, even if such an idea has not ascended by osmosis to non-operational management.
Tootle pip!!

[Propjet88]

[QUOTE=sheppey;10512568]...
A competent simulator instructor should have the skill to take a command seat and demonstrate the various types of unusual attitudes which can occur. You don't need Motion On for that. Pilot interpretation of what the instruments are telling him is the key to successful recovery to safe level flight. For example, a demonstration of a 737 in a spiral dive is easily done. The simulator freeze button is used to stop the simulator and image of the artificial horizon at any point of the spiral flight path. A short discussion may follow as to the most expedient way of getting out of trouble by unloading and leveling the wings etc. A building block exercise if you like.

I am detecting the words of an experienced instructor...couldn't agree more. The whole UPRT business is becoming just that ....

Fly Safe
PJ88

[mrdeux]

As each iteration of airliner design takes to the skies, the capability of the automation systems increases thus negating the need for old school flying skills.

Over the years I’ve had a couple of reasonably major problems. Perhaps I’m just lucky, but the best of them came with autopilot failures as a bonus part of the deal.

[Duck Pilot]

Another Kids of the Magenta thread :ugh:

Raw data and stick and rudder skills are mandatory for any airline pilot!

Full on aerobatic endorsement should be mandatory for all CPL candidates, like the old NVFR requirement that was dropped years ago. How many ATPL holders currently flying airliners would be able confidently have some idea to recognise and let alone attempt to recover with a good result from a high altitude upset condition without any major problems?

[Global Aviator]

Good luck bringing in any of this as it will cost airlines money.

You don't have a choice when you are flying single pilot in anything, you do it or you erm.... You make decisions good or bad.....

In todays airliners, depending on which part of the world, the command time is ENTIRELY made up of PICUS. Now thats fine if it is infact PICUS, however is it? That said its still multi crew, ya screwup and there is one more there for you, it may delay your progression but generally not your life. As in Europe from what I have been told cadetships have been done correctly, as were the original QF ones etc. Nowadays its all pay pay pay........

Who knows?

Sitting down the back I know a few stiff whiskys and I really don't care who's driving me, sometimes I don't want to know.

(ok shoot me down).

[Pearly White]

I suspect I would close both throttles and land straight ahead if in an Apache, heavy Seneca or heavy Partenavia.
Good luck with that technique if you get OEI just after takeoff into a hot northerly at YMMB. Take your golf clubs!

[Centaurus]

I suspect I would close both throttles and land straight ahead if in an Apache, heavy Seneca or heavy Partenavia.

There can be danger in generalisations such as the above high-lighted comment. Single engine climb performance can be affected by several variables, among which is individual pilot skill. A windmilling prop will certainly ruin any climb performance.

The widely taught technique at flying schools of going through the mantra of mixture up, propeller pitch up, power up, gear up, flap up, identify dead side dead leg - confirm with throttle closure - then finally feather, is fine for cruise where some height loss may be acceptable. But near the ground where seconds can be lost while methodically going through the steps leading up to the final action of feathering the prop, can quickly lead to loss of directional control due to the huge drag caused by a windmilling propeller. The loss of airspeed caused by a windmilling propeller is dramatic and every second that passes with a propeller still windmilling can reduce survival rates. It follows that pilot skill has a significant bearing on whether the aircraft is able to climb on one engine - albeit it very slowly - with the prop feathered, or the pilot loses control.

[Manwell]

Having read the comments so far, there are many that proscribe an emphasis on stick and rudder skills, even aerobatics, as a cure for accidents. Hear, Hear.

While I happily applaud those sentiments, may I be bold enough to suggest that the cause of all accidents is related to basic training?

In brief, here are the fatal flaws in basic training, whether it's military or civilian training, with aerobatics or without.

First, there is too much emphasis on instruments, and not enough attention is paid to power, attitude, and all our other senses. Yes, I know the arguments against use of the senses. It's true only to a point, but not the whole truth.
Second, using Mazlow's Hierarchy of Needs as a guide, the FIRST need a student pilot must satisfy before being able to progress further up the pyramid toward self-actualization, is security. That means he has to learn how to control the aircraft confidently, to make it do what he wants it to do, and prevent it from doing what it would like. That takes care of security.
Third, the application of an understanding of our basic needs, and an application of the principles and methods of instruction, demand the following-
Tuition and repetitive practice of the basics of control - Power, Pitch, Roll, & Yaw until each skill is over-learned. In other words, it's learned to the point that it becomes instinctive by developing muscle memory of the skill, and becoming familiar with all the other sensory indications of correct technique. Sounds, control pressures, G pressures felt through the seat of the pants, postural pressures, even smells are important. No reference is to be made of the instruments at this stage.
Fourth, the skills learned in power, pitch, roll, and yaw control are then applied to learn how to fly at stall speed and below in full control. The effect of flap and trim are introduced when appropriate.
Fifth, all those skills are applied to fly circuit patterns in the air, away from other traffic, and at enough altitude to avoid turbulence.
This is only a brief description of a training method that would vastly improve basic pilot skills, preventing unintentional stalls or spins. Aeros are a good idea, so pilots can handle the aircraft in any attitude, but this will prevent pilots to allow the aircraft from ever unintentionally departing controlled flight.

QANTAS were one of the very few airlines to include aeros in their syllabus, along with Honda Airways who trained cadets for JAL, ANA, etc. All the world's military pilots learn aeros, and I can tell you from personal knowledge most still don't know how to fly in the stall, or how to fly power + attitude confidently. The reason is simple, they've spent too much time looking at instruments, and learning advanced skills and theories, before properly laying the basic foundations.

Having said that, I have little confidence in current QANTAS management to hold true to moral principles. Rod Eddington started the rot by merging Australian with QANTAS to fatten it for sale, then Joyce has followed behind to finish the job.