Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

UK CAA bites the bullet on pilots pure flying skills

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

UK CAA bites the bullet on pilots pure flying skills

Old 4th Jul 2019, 13:01
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Here and there
Posts: 316
UK CAA bites the bullet on pilots pure flying skills

CASA take note. How about a similar notice to Australian operators?
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/...ice2019005.pdf
Judd is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2019, 02:45
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 61
The suggestion by Judd seems ultimately sensible.
Nkosi is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2019, 02:53
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Syd, NSW
Posts: 327
Post

Originally Posted by Judd View Post
CASA take note. How about a similar notice to Australian operators?
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/...ice2019005.pdf

Qantas has implemented a comprehensive UPRT program within its recurrent training syllabus
CaptCloudbuster is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2019, 04:59
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by CaptCloudbuster View Post



Qantas has implemented a comprehensive UPRT program within its recurrent training syllabus
the comprehensive part remains to be seen
maggot is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2019, 05:47
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Equatorial
Age: 46
Posts: 357
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!
Global Aviator is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2019, 06:32
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wellington
Posts: 120
Talking

Originally Posted by Global Aviator View Post
No matter what Iíve flown or fly Iíve 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 donít think you can discount the relevance of real flying, EVER!
Mate, you need to fly a 737, piston twins are easy compared to this...
Street garbage is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2019, 09:57
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 44
Posts: 1,025
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?
Angle of Attack is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2019, 10:09
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea
Posts: 630
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.
Australopithecus is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2019, 10:25
  #9 (permalink)  

de minimus non curat lex
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sunny troon
Posts: 780
1
Originally Posted by Angle of Attack View Post
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?
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.
parkfell is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2019, 11:03
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: The Outer Marker hut
Posts: 181
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.
bazza stub is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2019, 11:12
  #11 (permalink)  

de minimus non curat lex
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sunny troon
Posts: 780
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.
parkfell is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2019, 11:34
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: The Outer Marker hut
Posts: 181
Yet QF forge ahead with its training academy idea. You canít tell me those guys will be trained up to a standard any higher than the bare bones minimum.
bazza stub is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2019, 22:41
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 30
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.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2019, 11:12
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: International
Age: 71
Posts: 1,146
Originally Posted by Angle of Attack View Post
Ummm, Iíd 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.
B772 is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2019, 22:50
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: sierra village
Posts: 130
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 wonít 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 wonít 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 ďprogressĒ 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. 🙁
lucille is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2019, 21:45
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 3,488
Originally Posted by CaptCloudbuster View Post



Qantas has implemented a comprehensive UPRT program within its recurrent training syllabus
UPRT is just one part of the CAAís topics listed.
compressor stall is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2019, 03:23
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 369
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

Last edited by sheppey; 8th Jul 2019 at 03:58.
sheppey is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2019, 05:07
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Darwin and PNG
Posts: 842
But we have the 61 MOS......

Duck Pilot is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2019, 08:27
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,688
....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.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2019, 08:30
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,798
Originally Posted by bazza stub View Post
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!!
LeadSled is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.