What "Management is missing"
I don't think jet upset training is done in HKG- there is far more regulatory obsession with timing holding patterns !
Anyway, jet upset training needs to move beyond the scope of a decade or so ago where airline pilots ( some but maybe not in HKG ) were trained in recovery from the conventional upsets defined as being beyond 45 degrees bank, +25 & -10 degrees of pitch. Excursions beyond these parameters met elemental principles of recovery and fell within sim fidelity.
It's a difficult subject to address though the new world of upsets is not coventional jet aircraft, it is FBW aircraft where systems reconfigurations and errors probably require a greater knowledge and exposure than before.
The contemporary upset can see crews fighting the aircraft which is correctly or incorrectly actioning a recovery. We have examples of this locally.
The military versus civilian debate is moot. Would all modern Airbus airline crews for instance, have correctly turned off flight control computers to recover an aircraft in an upset prior to proper awareness forthcoming from Airbus via engineering bulletins? The AF accident only brought more poor instruction and confusion to the fore with poorly defined stall philosophy being handed to cadet pilots in a mix up with unreliable airspeed principles.
It's just a mess considering from where our pilot demographics are spawning- and don't sell me a spin on cadet training, its missing the mark by a fair margin!
Anyway, jet upset training needs to move beyond the scope of a decade or so ago where airline pilots ( some but maybe not in HKG ) were trained in recovery from the conventional upsets defined as being beyond 45 degrees bank, +25 & -10 degrees of pitch. Excursions beyond these parameters met elemental principles of recovery and fell within sim fidelity.
It's a difficult subject to address though the new world of upsets is not coventional jet aircraft, it is FBW aircraft where systems reconfigurations and errors probably require a greater knowledge and exposure than before.
The contemporary upset can see crews fighting the aircraft which is correctly or incorrectly actioning a recovery. We have examples of this locally.
The military versus civilian debate is moot. Would all modern Airbus airline crews for instance, have correctly turned off flight control computers to recover an aircraft in an upset prior to proper awareness forthcoming from Airbus via engineering bulletins? The AF accident only brought more poor instruction and confusion to the fore with poorly defined stall philosophy being handed to cadet pilots in a mix up with unreliable airspeed principles.
It's just a mess considering from where our pilot demographics are spawning- and don't sell me a spin on cadet training, its missing the mark by a fair margin!
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 15th Jan 2016 at 05:35.
and don't sell me a spin on cadet training, its missing the mark by a fair margin
As a SLF it seemed to work back then, in as much I never read any derogatory comment back in those days. What has changed with the modern day cadet training?
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The big difference is that most of the cadets from those programs experienced hundreds of takeoffs and landings flying the regional fleets that those airlines have. Our cadets, once they make captain have about 10% of the experience in To's and Ldgs that the pilots hired in the 80's had when they made command. Ten percent....and you don't think there might be a problem?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dumbing down has a lot to do with it too. Minimum educational qualifications for consideration were 5 good "O" levels including Maths, Physics & English Language. Two further subjects were required at "A" level. Remember, these were the good old GCE certificates. Much, much harder than the GCSE of today.
Then, you had a fiercely competitive selection procedure. If you got past all that, you still had to perform at a high level throughout the course. Within the course, we really did do spinning, stalling, spiral dives, steep turns & recovery from unusual attitudes. Not quite as exciting as Arfur's jet provost but I can tell you that the Cherokee 140 was a pig to get into a spin and I remember my arse pointing at the sky too ! The Tech standard at Hamble was so high that a "Frozen " ATPL was issued. Finally, at least 4000 hours was required by most companies before a LHS selection and training was ever, even, looked at.
Now, compare that with the standards today and I agree with Arfur Dent & his argument concerning the Management issue which has lowered standards, encouraged P2fly , in the name of cost reduction and you have the scenario of today.
Don't get me started on the technology either. Airbus crashed a A320 while demonstrating how good it was ! People today really do think that they are "flying" the plane when they knock out the autopilot and "disconnect" the autothrottle. Yeah right. Throttles that don't even move !
Solution ? Easy. High level of selection and training followed by years and years and thousands of hours of monitoring and continuation training. Of course it won't happen. Bean counters with easy to get correspondence course qualifications will tell you that it costs too much. Discussion over.
Then, you had a fiercely competitive selection procedure. If you got past all that, you still had to perform at a high level throughout the course. Within the course, we really did do spinning, stalling, spiral dives, steep turns & recovery from unusual attitudes. Not quite as exciting as Arfur's jet provost but I can tell you that the Cherokee 140 was a pig to get into a spin and I remember my arse pointing at the sky too ! The Tech standard at Hamble was so high that a "Frozen " ATPL was issued. Finally, at least 4000 hours was required by most companies before a LHS selection and training was ever, even, looked at.
Now, compare that with the standards today and I agree with Arfur Dent & his argument concerning the Management issue which has lowered standards, encouraged P2fly , in the name of cost reduction and you have the scenario of today.
Don't get me started on the technology either. Airbus crashed a A320 while demonstrating how good it was ! People today really do think that they are "flying" the plane when they knock out the autopilot and "disconnect" the autothrottle. Yeah right. Throttles that don't even move !
Solution ? Easy. High level of selection and training followed by years and years and thousands of hours of monitoring and continuation training. Of course it won't happen. Bean counters with easy to get correspondence course qualifications will tell you that it costs too much. Discussion over.
