Airbus becoming too "Pilot-Proofed"
 

What do any bus pilots make of this? I do agree very much with the last page of the article re. pilot training.

Miranda Devine

I love this part:

"After 22 years with Qantas, Jackson says experience in flying light planes or in the air force is superior to simulator training. "Those skills are still needed no matter how automated planes are."
Yet cheaper pilots, with fewer "real world" flying hours are replacing experienced pilots around the world, he says.
The importance of pilot skill was clear in the emergency landing of a US Airways plane on New York's Hudson River in January.
In this high-tech age we can't forget that the most important safety equipment is a well-trained pilot."

:ok:

This writer needs to do some more research. Why Fairfax pays her to full part of a page with such rubbish is beyond. Have a look at this perversion:

The retirement of the classic is the reason for that statement..not completely untrue.

KC,

There is, in my mind, a clear implication in this statement: I believe it suggests that there was more to the FEO 'phase out' than retirement of the Classic. But hey? FEOs have not been present on more aircraft types than those on which they were carried. Their not being on an aeroplane is more than debatable but that's for another time and place. :ok:

I am very close to retirement and at last I agree with a Jurno. While some of her facts are a little off the mark, the basic thread is true. I also agree with the Qantas Capt Jackson. You cannot beat a basic 'real flying' background, Airforce or GA. The 'Jam Factories' are producing pilots who cannot fly. God, agreeing with Qantas and a Jurno..... I've got to go and have a stiff Gin and Tonic.

Agreed Mr Jackson, but pilots also need training in support of skill retention. When I did my A320 endo, (as a first jet type) we covered flying with automation in the first instance, then built upon this as a foundation. Sure we flew some parts in alternate law and direct law (reduced levels of automation and protection) but only in the context of the checklist/ECAM...that is...when the system told you to do so. I cannot recall learning to fly the A320 sim using power and attitude alone as a comfortable fallback option.

In hindsight my view is that this approach to training also contributes to latent resistance to take manual control of the aircraft unless told to do so by the system …. too much emphasis on automation training from the start, and not nearly enough on turning it into a normal airplane to use one’s skills. Of course this is how airbus engineers designed the system, but it seems instils too much trust in the engineering and autoflight systems, and not enough in the pilots skills. It is all very easy to let the airbus system tell you what to do or believe it will do as it is told, possibly to your detriment.

I would have learned better by building on no-automation in the first instance, then overlaying the automation later. (More expensive too of course!) I would have better learned habits to detect the subtle cues that bus automation tends to blur, like a lack of tactile feedback to the pilot by not having thrust levers moving during power changes. In my organisation some thoughtful and experienced captains flying the line encourage occasionally disconnecting autothrust/FD at suitable times to address this.….thank goodness.:ugh:

RM

"Alternate law"? "Direct law"?:confused: The only law I believe in when it comes to flying controls is the law of push-rods, bellcranks and pulleys!:ok:
Thems ones and naughts moving the wiggly bits will only leads ya to trouble, I say!:eek:

Perhaps more raw data in the Sim is an idea, maybe a visual circuit, manual thrust, and no F/D for example. Only takes a few minutes and at least it's a start. I still have trouble understanding the Turkish accident, how a cockpit full of pilots can stall a modern jet on approach in good weather. The 'Automatic Disease' is not only Airbus.

Hey...

Captain Sand Dune...

I'm with you 100%

Cheers...FD

While the article has its merits, the remainder simply adds more fuel to the anti-Airbus argument.

It was Captain Sullenberger.... plus various flight control laws that made it into the Hudson.

I love the way Miranda refers to the "...so-called air data inertial reference units (ADIRU's)". No "so-called" about it my patronising journalistic friend. That's what they are!

Finding it difficult to accept something you know nothing about are we?:rolleyes:

I don't think I have ever read a better aviation related article from a non technical journo.:ok:

Teething troubles with the introduction of a new type (A380). Has this ever happened before ? :rolleyes:

So, are you talking about the journalistic fool, Devine, CC?...

or Barry Jackson? :confused:

I trust it's the latter! :confused:

I have no trouble with either obie...Devine may not have it perfect but its far from the usual drivel we read from non aviation journos...or aviation 'specialist' journos for that matter.

I very much agree. Many moons ago when we transitioned from the very analogue, very hands on B737-200 to the slightly less analogue and quite a bit more automated B737-400 we commenced line training by turning off the automatics and taking the pilot back to a comfortable starting position. No auto throttle, no flight director and no autopilot other than heading select, V/L and Alt hold from memory. Over a few days we added the automation (they had it all in the sim for the endorcement) until they could fly the automatics AND know the basic performance characteristics of a raw data -400. We seldom saw any problems with the rigours of ATC and constant profile alterations. Today the new NG pilots seem all at sea when something non standard occurs with ATC or pilot errors. All the flying is taught on the automatics and raw data is discouraged. Tried a no auto throttle takeoff with an FO recently who subsequently had no idea how to find climb thrust on the
FMC, Performance in Flight section of the QRH or the Flight Planning and Performance manual.

I say pilots should know the "stick and rudder" flying charateristics on any level of automated aircraft before they hand over to the black boxes.

Its the same old story matey, a young pilot who comes from the Airforce or paddock bashing in GA, has learnt the beginning of Airmanship, and hopefully thru scaring the living cr$p out of themselves at least a couple of times, they build on the foundation, a bit like building a wall, no foundation, well its like building a wall half way up, and could have the same result, the whole box and dice comes down around your ears, at some point in time. No I am not a fan of cadet systems, you cannot be taught airmanship, you have to experience it, I don't give a ratz what you are flying, I don't care how many jesus boxes its got, it is still a aeroplane, and is still unpredictable, (as some previous advents have proven) I hope GA and the armed forces continue to be the feeders of young pilots into the airlines for years to come, the thought of pilots coming out of school into sims, given two stripes, and on to a aircraft gives me the creeps, (are they pilots or systems observers)? sometimes the old ways are still the best ways, not always, but nothing replaces experience learnt, nothing at all.

If you don't learn to fly before getting in a (airline) jet you will never learn in an airline jet.

Note the reference in Miranda Devine's article to the Emirates tailstrike incident.

Is that problem something that could only be confined to an Airbus (or any other FBW) aircraft?

I mean, would not a similar too-low thrust setting have resulted from putting a TOW that was 100 tonnes light into a Boeing FMC?

On the whole the article seems reasonably well written and not as sensationalist as most tabloid and TV current affairs media might have made it.

I disagree with one of her constructs: The retirement of the 747 Classic is far more to do with the economies to be obtained by operating newer, more fuel efficient, less tired and worn aircraft and absolutely nothing to do with devaluing pilot skills. And it's nothing to do with the airline being cash-strapped. A cash-strapped airline is potentially less likely to be buying new aircraft. Those two sentences should never have been put together that way. Either poor journalism, or sloppy sub-editing.