Emirates: New "Acid" test after Recurrent SIM!
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: north pole
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“When we can’t fit a square peg into a round hole, we’ll usually blame the peg—when sometimes it’s the rigidity of our thinking that accounts for our failure to accommodate it.”
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Behind you
Age: 76
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: room number...
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting article titled "When the error comes from an expert: The limits of expertise"
It uses EK521 as a case study. I hope the people in EK Human Factors dept are making their voices heard.
“It is all too easy to say, because crew errors led to an accident, that the crew was the problem: they should have been more careful or more skilful. This “blame and punish” mentality or even the more benign “blame and train” mentality does not support safety—in fact, it undermines safety by diverting attention from the underlying causes.
Admittedly in general aviation, many accidents do show evidence of poor judgment or of marginal skill. This is much less common in airline operations because of the high standards that are set for this type of operation. Nonetheless, whatever discussion about airline operation could have implications for general aviation.
There are two common fallacies about pilot error:
Fallacy 1: Error can be eliminated if pilots are sufficiently vigilant, conscientious, and proficient.
The truth is that vigilant, conscientious pilots routinely make mistakes, even in tasks at which they are highly skilled. Helmreich and his colleagues have found that on average airline crews make about two errors per flight leg and even more on challenging flights (Helmreich, Klinect, & Wilhelm, 1999; Klinect, Wilhelm, & Helmreich, 1999). And this is, if anything, an undercount because of the difficulty in observing all errors.
Fallacy 2: If an accident crew made errors in tasks that pilots routinely handle without difficulty, that accident crew was in some way deficient—either they lacked skill, or had a bad attitude, or just did not try hard enough.
But the truth is that the most skilful, conscientious expert in the world can perform a procedure perfectly a hundred times in a row and then do something wrong on the 101st trial. This is true in every field of expertise—medicine, music, and mountain climbing just as much as aviation (Reason, 1990).
To improve aviation safety we must stop thinking of pilot errors as the prime cause of accidents, but rather think of errors as the consequence of many factors that combine to create the conditions for accidents. It is easy in hindsight to identify ways any given accident could have been prevented, but that is of limited value because the combination of conditions leading to accidents has a large random component. The best way to reduce the accident rate is to develop ways to reduce vulnerability to error and to manage errors when they do occur.”
(I can't post the link to the full article because I'm 'not an experienced enough poster'. Can someone else post the link? Search for livingsafelywithhumanerror and/or 'when the error comes from an expert')
It uses EK521 as a case study. I hope the people in EK Human Factors dept are making their voices heard.
“It is all too easy to say, because crew errors led to an accident, that the crew was the problem: they should have been more careful or more skilful. This “blame and punish” mentality or even the more benign “blame and train” mentality does not support safety—in fact, it undermines safety by diverting attention from the underlying causes.
Admittedly in general aviation, many accidents do show evidence of poor judgment or of marginal skill. This is much less common in airline operations because of the high standards that are set for this type of operation. Nonetheless, whatever discussion about airline operation could have implications for general aviation.
There are two common fallacies about pilot error:
Fallacy 1: Error can be eliminated if pilots are sufficiently vigilant, conscientious, and proficient.
The truth is that vigilant, conscientious pilots routinely make mistakes, even in tasks at which they are highly skilled. Helmreich and his colleagues have found that on average airline crews make about two errors per flight leg and even more on challenging flights (Helmreich, Klinect, & Wilhelm, 1999; Klinect, Wilhelm, & Helmreich, 1999). And this is, if anything, an undercount because of the difficulty in observing all errors.
Fallacy 2: If an accident crew made errors in tasks that pilots routinely handle without difficulty, that accident crew was in some way deficient—either they lacked skill, or had a bad attitude, or just did not try hard enough.
But the truth is that the most skilful, conscientious expert in the world can perform a procedure perfectly a hundred times in a row and then do something wrong on the 101st trial. This is true in every field of expertise—medicine, music, and mountain climbing just as much as aviation (Reason, 1990).
To improve aviation safety we must stop thinking of pilot errors as the prime cause of accidents, but rather think of errors as the consequence of many factors that combine to create the conditions for accidents. It is easy in hindsight to identify ways any given accident could have been prevented, but that is of limited value because the combination of conditions leading to accidents has a large random component. The best way to reduce the accident rate is to develop ways to reduce vulnerability to error and to manage errors when they do occur.”
(I can't post the link to the full article because I'm 'not an experienced enough poster'. Can someone else post the link? Search for livingsafelywithhumanerror and/or 'when the error comes from an expert')
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 2000
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We've had unannounced line checks in the U.S. for decades in my experience. Sometimes you know you are due for a line check (every two years for the PIC in an FAA AQP program) or can see an extra body on the flight crew list in the computer when you take a look at your jumpseat riders. Other times you are doing the departure paperwork when the 'friendly stranger' approaches you and announces that you are being checked.
Usually the line check with U.S. carriers is cordial and instructive unless you are not doing your job and something goes wrong during the flight. Don't know the failure rate but where I've worked, they are not out to get you in my opinion. I had a line check with a low fuel weather divert a few years ago and I put the check airman to work looking up alternates and communicating with dispatch. He was very pleased with the CRM and so was I.
Usually the line check with U.S. carriers is cordial and instructive unless you are not doing your job and something goes wrong during the flight. Don't know the failure rate but where I've worked, they are not out to get you in my opinion. I had a line check with a low fuel weather divert a few years ago and I put the check airman to work looking up alternates and communicating with dispatch. He was very pleased with the CRM and so was I.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Arakis
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys you just don't get it do you? Or put it another way can you read the writing on the wall or better still try reading between the lines....
This evidence based thingy is the airlines "official" way of weeding out a lot of pilots instead of redundancy. A lot of pilots who have been in the company a long time are a payroll burden. Best way to get rid of them ? Sim check them and make them feel that for the last number of years they have been doing things the wrong way and their skills are substandard - why this same training department in the past was quite happy with your performance ? And now they want to chop people because they suddenly don't have certain skills in A,B C areas...Ironic that all this comes at a time when companies need to downsize, reduce people and aircraft because they are in financial trouble ! Is this a coincidence you may ask?
Guys and girls leave when you want to not when you are pushed out. Take control of your futures and happy safe flying. As the saying goes Nothing lasts forever !! And for those on the other side, every dog has his day.
This evidence based thingy is the airlines "official" way of weeding out a lot of pilots instead of redundancy. A lot of pilots who have been in the company a long time are a payroll burden. Best way to get rid of them ? Sim check them and make them feel that for the last number of years they have been doing things the wrong way and their skills are substandard - why this same training department in the past was quite happy with your performance ? And now they want to chop people because they suddenly don't have certain skills in A,B C areas...Ironic that all this comes at a time when companies need to downsize, reduce people and aircraft because they are in financial trouble ! Is this a coincidence you may ask?
Guys and girls leave when you want to not when you are pushed out. Take control of your futures and happy safe flying. As the saying goes Nothing lasts forever !! And for those on the other side, every dog has his day.
Well said.
I thought "Chop Checks" went out with the Ark. These disgust me to the core. Anyone can be broken in a sim session but what does it prove? Nothing. I knew a guy that passed a "chop check", so he was given another one as soon as there was a slot. That was so they could get rid of him "legally".
Surely the checkers have enough b*lls to see whats going on and refuse to participate. The ones that haven't left that is. If they don't, then this is troubling in itself. Or am I on a different planet? I admit being a dinosaur.
I thought "Chop Checks" went out with the Ark. These disgust me to the core. Anyone can be broken in a sim session but what does it prove? Nothing. I knew a guy that passed a "chop check", so he was given another one as soon as there was a slot. That was so they could get rid of him "legally".
Surely the checkers have enough b*lls to see whats going on and refuse to participate. The ones that haven't left that is. If they don't, then this is troubling in itself. Or am I on a different planet? I admit being a dinosaur.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a reason why the wheels of an aircraft mounted with the torque wrinch.
keep em' to loose they will fall off by them self - tighten the bolts to hard they will break, and the wheels fall of - but blame the lazy bolt for just being there and not maintained and treaded well - it is for shure better to tell him how to be a better bolt and threaten him to be replaced if the maintance guy does not use the right tool.
keep em' to loose they will fall off by them self - tighten the bolts to hard they will break, and the wheels fall of - but blame the lazy bolt for just being there and not maintained and treaded well - it is for shure better to tell him how to be a better bolt and threaten him to be replaced if the maintance guy does not use the right tool.
There do seem be several tools on the 3rd floor.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UAE
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the best job in aviation.
Left seat line pilot. No more. No less.
With the latest email lets see how many heroes want to join the checking department now. Pay per duty. What a joke.
The company has made the position a joke. It should be a well respected positions taken up experienced employees who are treated well because they are needed to train the next generation of pilots. This company has made the position a part time joke for anyone with 400 hours left seat.
Good luck to the new heroes.
J
Left seat line pilot. No more. No less.
With the latest email lets see how many heroes want to join the checking department now. Pay per duty. What a joke.
The company has made the position a joke. It should be a well respected positions taken up experienced employees who are treated well because they are needed to train the next generation of pilots. This company has made the position a part time joke for anyone with 400 hours left seat.
Good luck to the new heroes.
J
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Reap as ye sow".
Root cause analysis done.
Until the very top accept that a) The "All they do is push buttons and sh@g hosties!" belief is b@lls b) you cannot expect an error free company when you cruxify anyone who owns up to a cock up. It will only get worse!
Root cause analysis done.
Until the very top accept that a) The "All they do is push buttons and sh@g hosties!" belief is b@lls b) you cannot expect an error free company when you cruxify anyone who owns up to a cock up. It will only get worse!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Still, I would hope that most of us would be able to survive an unannounced line check.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like a lot of us here I've certainly experienced both cultures. And I would observe that a couple of expat nationalities are famous for making training (and flying) absolutely miserable.
Still, I would hope that most of us would be able to survive an unannounced line check.
Still, I would hope that most of us would be able to survive an unannounced line check.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Afraid to say there are many company's, not just airlines, suffering from such poor decision making at the top. It's not much different out here in SE Asia. We haven't sunk to ME3 levels yet, but we are not far off.
Good luck ladies. I hope you can keep all this intimidation at check and concentrate on what is important. Don't forget, at the end of they day, it's just a job and your skills are in high demand.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there were a number of "incidents" on line, isn't it correct to address the problem ? Looks like SVP has addressed a worrying trend although, a bit knee-jerk, I agree.But, I have to say, a good review and a pretty damn good effort in order to enhance standards.
Selection is the key. If you need lots of pilots and there aren't many around, entry standards would be lowered. High performing Training Departments would expect enhanced training standards to be implemented because the final line check standard should never be compromised.
Oh bring back the glory days. Very tough selection. Bi-annual Base check. One combined with annual I/R. Line check, once a year. One classroom (really fun times) lasting a week, once a year. Cripes, enough eh ? ON line incidents ? Can't remember any.
Worked for one dreadful outfit where a "surprise" standards check was the norm. Could be on anyone, often no-one and was usually just to ensure that we all knew how to arrive with more fuel than we departed with. Mostly a fun day out and chance to bend the ears of the Management pilot .
A later employer delighted in describing the Training Dept as a "Service" department. There were very few "failures" but quite a lot of refresher training. Worked very well.
Selection is the key. If you need lots of pilots and there aren't many around, entry standards would be lowered. High performing Training Departments would expect enhanced training standards to be implemented because the final line check standard should never be compromised.
Oh bring back the glory days. Very tough selection. Bi-annual Base check. One combined with annual I/R. Line check, once a year. One classroom (really fun times) lasting a week, once a year. Cripes, enough eh ? ON line incidents ? Can't remember any.
Worked for one dreadful outfit where a "surprise" standards check was the norm. Could be on anyone, often no-one and was usually just to ensure that we all knew how to arrive with more fuel than we departed with. Mostly a fun day out and chance to bend the ears of the Management pilot .
A later employer delighted in describing the Training Dept as a "Service" department. There were very few "failures" but quite a lot of refresher training. Worked very well.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: usa
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landflap you wrote:
"Selection is the key. If you need lots of pilots and there aren't many around, entry standards would be lowered. High performing Training Departments would expect enhanced training standards to be implemented because the final line check standard should never be compromised."
There is no shortage of pilots - plenty of apps with BA LH DL etc
Nor is there a shortage of capable future trainers.
There is a shortage of mgt willing to pay enough for the expertise.
The new Trainers package - a pitiful case in point.
"Selection is the key. If you need lots of pilots and there aren't many around, entry standards would be lowered. High performing Training Departments would expect enhanced training standards to be implemented because the final line check standard should never be compromised."
There is no shortage of pilots - plenty of apps with BA LH DL etc
Nor is there a shortage of capable future trainers.
There is a shortage of mgt willing to pay enough for the expertise.
The new Trainers package - a pitiful case in point.
Last edited by fliion; 22nd Sep 2017 at 10:46.
What Fliion said.
