TPE crash
The accuracy of log books in Asia has been well documented so I wouldn't place too much emphasis on that
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: HK- A little bit of industrial China in every breath you take.
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TransAsia plane crash: Airline cancels 90 flights to conduct pilot proficiency tests
Independent 'training' for all the ATR guys with a regulator looking over the shoulder.
I wonder if the families' lawyers see this as an admission of wrong doing, and the subsequent legal implications for the airline and the crew... Going to be huge lessons for all of us from this one. Were the guys who slotted the engine negligent, or was the company for putting them in that situation with what is potentially inadequate training? Was the regulator negligent for not policing the whole sad sorry show? The ambulance chasers will have a field day with this one. I just hope the families get some compensation out of it, not just the 'beloved' legal profession.
Independent 'training' for all the ATR guys with a regulator looking over the shoulder.
I wonder if the families' lawyers see this as an admission of wrong doing, and the subsequent legal implications for the airline and the crew... Going to be huge lessons for all of us from this one. Were the guys who slotted the engine negligent, or was the company for putting them in that situation with what is potentially inadequate training? Was the regulator negligent for not policing the whole sad sorry show? The ambulance chasers will have a field day with this one. I just hope the families get some compensation out of it, not just the 'beloved' legal profession.
I was talking to one of our cadets and he claimed Hong Kong MPL's no longer receive asymmetric flying training in a light twin as part of their MPL. They receive all their "asymmetric handling" in an A320 simulator.
Though the differences between a sim and the aeroplane are not worlds apart, they are different enough to suggest it's not a great idea to eradicate another core skill from the training program.
I agree Lowkoon, the accountability from this could be wide reaching if the surface is scratched on current training practices.
Though the differences between a sim and the aeroplane are not worlds apart, they are different enough to suggest it's not a great idea to eradicate another core skill from the training program.
I agree Lowkoon, the accountability from this could be wide reaching if the surface is scratched on current training practices.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: HK- A little bit of industrial China in every breath you take.
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the bet no assymetric training is purely a cost issue, ie cheaper insurance at the flight school? Nothing more. Another potentially hazardous decision made by someone it will ultimately not effect unless they happen to be onboard on the fateful day these skills are required. Probability low, so risk analysis complete... 
I guess we can unfortunately foresee these MPLs coming to us at some stage in the not so distant future with zero flight time, and all sim time. Who is going to stop it? CAD has signed off on 80hrs total flight time already. Is it up to the union to say enough is enough and be proactive in highlighting this? This is more pressing for KA than CX, at least back seat time is an apprenticeship of sorts, minimal handling though, but at least some operational exposure. Obviously the training department are just going to wear it and pass the majority of expensive new hires, so that training/checking filter is useless to curbing an obvious safety issue. The company want zero hours zero cost in the RHS, so they wont stop it until they are told to, bull in the china shop. Their fix for the current command shortage is simply to lower the requirements, problem solved. How low do we go before we all stand around the proverbial smoking hole saying "Wow! How did this happen?!" The only thing stopping this from having happened already is the quality of the aircraft manufacturers, but these planes are getting old, some of them older than the FOs we get to fly them. tick tick tick.
I guess we can unfortunately foresee these MPLs coming to us at some stage in the not so distant future with zero flight time, and all sim time. Who is going to stop it? CAD has signed off on 80hrs total flight time already. Is it up to the union to say enough is enough and be proactive in highlighting this? This is more pressing for KA than CX, at least back seat time is an apprenticeship of sorts, minimal handling though, but at least some operational exposure. Obviously the training department are just going to wear it and pass the majority of expensive new hires, so that training/checking filter is useless to curbing an obvious safety issue. The company want zero hours zero cost in the RHS, so they wont stop it until they are told to, bull in the china shop. Their fix for the current command shortage is simply to lower the requirements, problem solved. How low do we go before we all stand around the proverbial smoking hole saying "Wow! How did this happen?!" The only thing stopping this from having happened already is the quality of the aircraft manufacturers, but these planes are getting old, some of them older than the FOs we get to fly them. tick tick tick.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hotel
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so they shut down the good motor. Simple mistake. BUT then they lost control over the aircraft and lost all ability to maybe just maybe do what Sculley did in the New York river....
I would love to see all the accidents in the last ten years where gross mishandling was an issue and compare that to the pilots actual flying experience.
And with actual flying experience i mean pilots who flew real aeroplanes before they got into airlines. Its all very well to have 10000 hours - but if its all airline time you have virtually zero actual flying time. You only have take off and landing time. The rest was autopilot.
So far just recently AF447, the recent Air Asia A 320 and both these ATR crashes in Taiwan most likely had pilots whose aircraft handling was not up to scratch because they were airline button pushers from day 1......
I would love to see all the accidents in the last ten years where gross mishandling was an issue and compare that to the pilots actual flying experience.
And with actual flying experience i mean pilots who flew real aeroplanes before they got into airlines. Its all very well to have 10000 hours - but if its all airline time you have virtually zero actual flying time. You only have take off and landing time. The rest was autopilot.
So far just recently AF447, the recent Air Asia A 320 and both these ATR crashes in Taiwan most likely had pilots whose aircraft handling was not up to scratch because they were airline button pushers from day 1......
BUT then they lost control over the aircraft and lost all ability to maybe just maybe do what Sculley did in the New York river....
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inexperience = oh no!
"And with actual flying experience i mean pilots who flew real aeroplanes before they got into airlines. Its all very well to have 10000 hours - but if its all airline time you have virtually zero actual flying time. You only have take off and landing time. The rest was autopilot."
Exactly. However: from the point of view of most modern airline managers, a pilot's most important qualities all boil down to one word: Obedience.
We are now an OBEDIENT guild of "professionals." Most pilots around the world are not unionised, cannot speak up without having their head chopped off, and will do just about anything they're told to do. They also feel lucky to have their job, as opposed to deserving of their position, because they are more aware than anyone just how inexperienced they really are.
Not all pilots, mind you, but in my opinion MOST. And it moves in that direction a little more every year. It is showing up even in staunchly unionised pilot groups, which is particularly scary. Unions are supposed to empower pilots and put safety first, not defend the comfort of pilots who are in over their heads.
The accidents we're seeing nowadays are testament to this shift in values from skill to obedience. The pilots in these accidents lack the kind of broad spectrum of flying experience which would have conferred upon them the level of expertise the job really deserves.
The best writing I've seen so far in this subject is this article: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/busin...ight-447-crash
Exactly. However: from the point of view of most modern airline managers, a pilot's most important qualities all boil down to one word: Obedience.
We are now an OBEDIENT guild of "professionals." Most pilots around the world are not unionised, cannot speak up without having their head chopped off, and will do just about anything they're told to do. They also feel lucky to have their job, as opposed to deserving of their position, because they are more aware than anyone just how inexperienced they really are.
Not all pilots, mind you, but in my opinion MOST. And it moves in that direction a little more every year. It is showing up even in staunchly unionised pilot groups, which is particularly scary. Unions are supposed to empower pilots and put safety first, not defend the comfort of pilots who are in over their heads.
The accidents we're seeing nowadays are testament to this shift in values from skill to obedience. The pilots in these accidents lack the kind of broad spectrum of flying experience which would have conferred upon them the level of expertise the job really deserves.
The best writing I've seen so far in this subject is this article: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/busin...ight-447-crash
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missingblade-Missinglink
Mate, your post infers that all pilots flying Airline routes are only "button pushers". Sounds a bit like former PM Bob Hawke describing pilots as "glorified bus drivers", not only insulting pilots but also bus driver's. Unless things have changed greatly most Airline pilots get plenty of "hands on" flying. Not everyone engages the autopilot as soon as the gear and flap is up and and the majority of the approach and landing phase is hand flown. You say they only have take-off and landing time. Well, those both are pretty important phases of the flight. I presume you meant "Sully" and not "Sculley and the Hudson River, not the New York River. I would be interested to know what you consider "real aeroplanes". BTW aeroplanes, at least most, are powered by "engines" rather than motors.
And with actual flying experience i mean pilots who flew real aeroplanes before they got into airlines.
I've worked with airlines where handling skills were light years ahead of HKG. There was culture of hand-flying proficiency and jets were flown efficiently. Simulators were accessible and training pilots were inspirational ( there are standout trainers here too just ask the cadets who they learn the most from ) .
Locally, our flying has become bureaucratized and tangential to the best practices of airmanship- I feel sorry for the guys who don't realize that there's an easier way when you can see the airport 20 miles away, so to avoid the comical rigmarole of briefing for two minutes, then running two checklists just to engage a single button to do a VNAV approach or the like on an "Asian" gin-clear day.
Lowkoon, the unions do have an urgent role to play but it requires an independence. I'd suggest HKALPA needs to be pushed up by the local unions as a voice on these matters.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hotel
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Fella - thanks for the nice sarcastic reply.
I may call it a motor and off the top of my head got the name of a river slightly wrong but you all know what I talk about. I guess you are one of the old school flaps vs flap Cathay types??
For your information - I have plenty flying in military, GA and Airlines ( Various Boeing from 727 to 744 and Airbus) - so have some idea what I am talking about.)
What you obviously missed about my post is the fact that I am curious about the correlation between loss of control and previous stick time. Which I think is a valid question.
And you are TOTALLY WRONG when you think airline pilots get plenty of hand flying time. Very very few hand fly any part of the approach by hand except the last 1000 ft. I know. I see it every day. Unlike you. And you may think take off and landing phases are "pretty important phases off flight" -sure - but having done a 1000 landings doesn't help you any when you stall the thing up high..
I guarantee you now that there are many many airline pilots that came through these new fangled courses and had their very first job in a big turboprop or jet airliner who have virtually zero real handling time in real aeroplanes ( ie not simulators ) - apart from take offs and landings.
As an example - the most valuable flying I ever did was twin instruction, and stall/insipient practice with students - it gave me invaluable handling experience. Which may save me one day.
Never did I infer ALL airline pilots are button pushers. But many are these days....
You are seriously out of touch.
I may call it a motor and off the top of my head got the name of a river slightly wrong but you all know what I talk about. I guess you are one of the old school flaps vs flap Cathay types??
For your information - I have plenty flying in military, GA and Airlines ( Various Boeing from 727 to 744 and Airbus) - so have some idea what I am talking about.)
What you obviously missed about my post is the fact that I am curious about the correlation between loss of control and previous stick time. Which I think is a valid question.
And you are TOTALLY WRONG when you think airline pilots get plenty of hand flying time. Very very few hand fly any part of the approach by hand except the last 1000 ft. I know. I see it every day. Unlike you. And you may think take off and landing phases are "pretty important phases off flight" -sure - but having done a 1000 landings doesn't help you any when you stall the thing up high..
I guarantee you now that there are many many airline pilots that came through these new fangled courses and had their very first job in a big turboprop or jet airliner who have virtually zero real handling time in real aeroplanes ( ie not simulators ) - apart from take offs and landings.
As an example - the most valuable flying I ever did was twin instruction, and stall/insipient practice with students - it gave me invaluable handling experience. Which may save me one day.
Never did I infer ALL airline pilots are button pushers. But many are these days....
You are seriously out of touch.
Last edited by missingblade; 9th Feb 2015 at 01:52.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hotel
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TPE Songshan is surrounded by terrain, tall buildings, etc. Having 'lost' both engines I suspect they had stuff all options available. Hit hills or hit buildings or lose control trying to avoid both - the result would have been the same...
Their take off path was along a big wide river. I'd rather hit it right side up at 120 kts with full flap than inverted and stalled...
Blade - I wasn't there and neither were you. I don't know whether they were in a position to put it in the river 'right side up at 120 kts with full flap' and neither do you. I humbly suggest you wait until the accident investigation is completed before making such assumptions.
Oh, and by the way, if you care to check you'll find the river is more or less perpendicular to the runway straight after take-off. Your assertion that their take-off path was 'along a big wide river' is somewhat short of the truth.
Oh, and by the way, if you care to check you'll find the river is more or less perpendicular to the runway straight after take-off. Your assertion that their take-off path was 'along a big wide river' is somewhat short of the truth.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: HK- A little bit of industrial China in every breath you take.
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gnadenburg, agree with both your posts, hand flying skills typically have got to a crisis point, made worse by restrictions on when we can disconnect and have a fly. The irony is the restrictions came about because of how bad things were getting flown by rusty old pilots and new pilots who never had the skills to get rusty in the first place. The restriction have worsened the situation, not improved it!
Also your suggestion that "the unions do have an urgent role to play but it requires an independence. I'd suggest HKALPA needs to be pushed up by the local unions as a voice on these matters". Is an excellent suggestion. It takes the personalities out of it, plus we could get support from US unions and regulators that helped get the minimum requirements in the USA lifted.
Also your suggestion that "the unions do have an urgent role to play but it requires an independence. I'd suggest HKALPA needs to be pushed up by the local unions as a voice on these matters". Is an excellent suggestion. It takes the personalities out of it, plus we could get support from US unions and regulators that helped get the minimum requirements in the USA lifted.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hotel
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Box - why don't you go look at the map and see where they crashed - then come back here and remake your statement.
There definitely was a (small) chance of putting it down in the river- and right side up always is better I'd say. I made no assumptions about this.
I don't know at what point they lost control - it may have been while trying to avoid a building. In which case they did what they could. But if it turns out they stalled it higher up..... Not good.
I honestly can't believe how you can say there's no difference between falling down stalled and a controlled glide! City below you or not.
Ultimately my concern here is still the likeliness of several recent accidents all having mishandling when handflying as a common factor. And maybe this one too...
There definitely was a (small) chance of putting it down in the river- and right side up always is better I'd say. I made no assumptions about this.
I don't know at what point they lost control - it may have been while trying to avoid a building. In which case they did what they could. But if it turns out they stalled it higher up..... Not good.
I honestly can't believe how you can say there's no difference between falling down stalled and a controlled glide! City below you or not.
Ultimately my concern here is still the likeliness of several recent accidents all having mishandling when handflying as a common factor. And maybe this one too...
Last edited by missingblade; 9th Feb 2015 at 05:55.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarcastic reply.
Missingblade, there was no sarcasm in my post, just plain and simple truths. You did infer that airline pilots are mostly button pushers with no "real aeroplane" experience. You did miss-name Capt Sullenburger, you did miss-name the Hudson River. You criticize me as "old school flap vs flaps Cathay type." I guess that little quip was in response to my "motors" vs "engines" comment. Frankly, I don't care whether you call them engines or motors, flap or flaps. What I would ask is whether you have all that experience in "real aeroplanes" or on your computer simulator? Your public profile tells me nothing about your credentials.
I honestly can't believe how you can say there's no difference between falling down stalled and a controlled glide! City below you or not.
I didn't say that, you did. I merely suggested their options were very limited with both engines out. There may well have been a small chance of putting it down in the river right side up, I do not know.
For what it's worth, I agree with you. Poor aircraft handling skills is becoming a problem, and it may or may not have been a factor in the outcome of this latest accident. At this point, we simply do not know.
Old Fella
We come from the same 'old school' as I think you know. Missing Blade and others do have a valid point. I very rarely see anyone hand fly above 1000' and, frankly, in today's busy environment, it creates its own hazard by overloading the PM. We lost a crew member when glass cockpits were introduced. He/she was replaced by a superb autopilot system and most of us use it a lot. So if you come to CX with no previous 'upside down' you are going to get none - EVER. All that is OK if your airmanship skills are good and the aforesaid Autopilot works properly in its efforts to protect.
Much time is lost in some of the recent fatals by pilots desperately trying to restore the autopilot and forgetting to FLY THE AEROPLANE!
We come from the same 'old school' as I think you know. Missing Blade and others do have a valid point. I very rarely see anyone hand fly above 1000' and, frankly, in today's busy environment, it creates its own hazard by overloading the PM. We lost a crew member when glass cockpits were introduced. He/she was replaced by a superb autopilot system and most of us use it a lot. So if you come to CX with no previous 'upside down' you are going to get none - EVER. All that is OK if your airmanship skills are good and the aforesaid Autopilot works properly in its efforts to protect.
Much time is lost in some of the recent fatals by pilots desperately trying to restore the autopilot and forgetting to FLY THE AEROPLANE!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hotel
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oldfella -
Ok - Ill bite. You need to know my experience to judge whether I make sense? Really? How about just consider the point I made on its own merit...? Who cares about my profile - your profile says you're an ex F/E - which doesn't exactly qualify you to comment on something you've only ever observed from the back seat of an airliner.
Anyway - for your entertainment : 15 000 hour pilot. Single and twin piston/ fast jet/ turboprop / bizzjet and heavy airline jets. Instructor rated on many.
And here is my point again: I do 'infer' ( to use your term) that SOME airline pilots are button pushers. We all know this. Why do you have some sort of issue with it? In my opinion these are generally the guys who had no other flying in their careers. They started on big airline types and that puts them at a significant disadvantage when the fancy autopilot is off. I consider this a fact. All I did in my original post was wonder about the statistical correlation between this and recent accidents where loss of control played a role...
And the reason I do this - which again is 'inferred' is that it says something about the direction modern training is taking - which is ultimately where my concern lies. The only way this will change to a place where real flying experience is valued again is if the insurance companies and travelling public sees the statistical evidence I was wondering about... I for one will not put my family on the average low cost carrier - especially in Asia - due to the fact that I think too many of their pilots are 'buttonpushers'!
So now can you actually make a contribution to the conversation as opposed to pointing out you don't care about motors vs engines when all you've done so far is to point that out?
Ok - Ill bite. You need to know my experience to judge whether I make sense? Really? How about just consider the point I made on its own merit...? Who cares about my profile - your profile says you're an ex F/E - which doesn't exactly qualify you to comment on something you've only ever observed from the back seat of an airliner.
Anyway - for your entertainment : 15 000 hour pilot. Single and twin piston/ fast jet/ turboprop / bizzjet and heavy airline jets. Instructor rated on many.
And here is my point again: I do 'infer' ( to use your term) that SOME airline pilots are button pushers. We all know this. Why do you have some sort of issue with it? In my opinion these are generally the guys who had no other flying in their careers. They started on big airline types and that puts them at a significant disadvantage when the fancy autopilot is off. I consider this a fact. All I did in my original post was wonder about the statistical correlation between this and recent accidents where loss of control played a role...
And the reason I do this - which again is 'inferred' is that it says something about the direction modern training is taking - which is ultimately where my concern lies. The only way this will change to a place where real flying experience is valued again is if the insurance companies and travelling public sees the statistical evidence I was wondering about... I for one will not put my family on the average low cost carrier - especially in Asia - due to the fact that I think too many of their pilots are 'buttonpushers'!
So now can you actually make a contribution to the conversation as opposed to pointing out you don't care about motors vs engines when all you've done so far is to point that out?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: HK- A little bit of industrial China in every breath you take.
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sad but potentially true, had these two guys got an autopilot in, they might be alive right now. It may well have unloaded them enough to recognise which engine had actually failed. Maybe the way we train V1 cuts hand flown to a SE ILS followed by a single engine MAP has just claimed a victim.