Erosion of Basic Piloting Skills
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philippines
Age: 81
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Erosion of Basic Piloting Skills
The following is quoted in a recent (Oct 17th 2012) Flightglobal article on the disturbing AF 447 incident.
I would be most interested to learn views and opinions on this contention; I myself (granted a non-pilot) have held similar concerns for many years.
The full article can be found here Accidents and Incidents News Channel | Flightglobal.com, it's quite a sobering read
Meanwhile EASA, concerned about the growing evidence of the effect of high levels of aircraft automation on traditional piloting skills, has conducted a study on the subject. The headline finding was this: "Basic manual and cognitive flying skills tend to decline because of lack of practice, and feel for the aircraft can deteriorate."
The full article can be found here Accidents and Incidents News Channel | Flightglobal.com, it's quite a sobering read
Last edited by Q-RTF-X; 26th Oct 2012 at 08:46.
Couldn't agree with you more. My concerns really started when I was instructing at Chivenor, watching the course being gradually sliced back. Same was true on OCUs and sqns as flying hours were continually hacked back to make in-year savings. The increasing use of automation, the introduction of easier nav aids during training, no-drop weapons training and the transfer of flying hours to the sim have all taken their toll.
Grrr, grump, grumble!
Grrr, grump, grumble!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed CM. Same observations from my perspective as a dark blue instructor over (I expect) a similar timeframe.
The most tellingly sad part about the whole story is that so many pilots, when the going gets tough, are too frightened to knock the automatics off and get back to basics because they are afraid they can't fly as well as the systems, even though it is those very same systems which have brought them to the bad situation. Simulation and systems are meant to be aids which improve pilot capacity, but that really only works in extremis if the pilot is competent to fly him/herself. At the very least, he/she should not be frightened of flying the aeroplane at any point, and to do that one must have recency in basic handling skills.
The most tellingly sad part about the whole story is that so many pilots, when the going gets tough, are too frightened to knock the automatics off and get back to basics because they are afraid they can't fly as well as the systems, even though it is those very same systems which have brought them to the bad situation. Simulation and systems are meant to be aids which improve pilot capacity, but that really only works in extremis if the pilot is competent to fly him/herself. At the very least, he/she should not be frightened of flying the aeroplane at any point, and to do that one must have recency in basic handling skills.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I had the good fortune recently to experience a full crew continuation training session in an A320 Simulator ... and was utterly amazed that the preference to bank left/right was to twiddle a knob ... likewise for climb/decent ... My old QFI would have had a fit ! That said, the Sim Instructor (a good mate) on the session I watched then encouraged the crew to do the remaining approaches in manual.
PS. Even managed a couple of passable, unaided, manual approaches/landings myself
PS. Even managed a couple of passable, unaided, manual approaches/landings myself
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Going deeper underground
Age: 55
Posts: 332
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a lot of discussion on this matter at an Institute for Airworthiness seminar I went to recently at City University. Frank Turner's presentation 'The Critical Interface' talked about increased automation divorcing both pilot and engineer from the aircraft, resulting increased instances of pilots asking 'what's it doing now?' and engineers being unable to diagnose faults on the ground as the pilots did not really know what had happened when the computer said 'no'.
Seminar stuff here:
http://www.ifairworthy.com/pdf/IFAproceedings.pdf
Seminar stuff here:
http://www.ifairworthy.com/pdf/IFAproceedings.pdf
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Northumberland
Age: 52
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The same situation could arise with small arms training. The use of SAT ranges, instead of live firing for competancy checks etc was becoming more common before I left.
I wonder how many are wandering around the likes of Bastion, having only fired a live weapon immediately before deployment, and not for X years....
I wonder how many are wandering around the likes of Bastion, having only fired a live weapon immediately before deployment, and not for X years....
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Reading UK
Age: 91
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An old friend is currently engaged in rectifying the apparent lack of basic flying skills for crews of a particular airline. Unusual positions? 'You have control Bloggs'!!
Evidently airline management appears to be learning from the appalling and unnecessary loss of the Air France flight.
Evidently airline management appears to be learning from the appalling and unnecessary loss of the Air France flight.
A quick rethink of past extreme events that turned out successfully....included more than a few Airline Pilots that were very active in flying gliders, light aircraft, engaged in aerobatics on their time off. Stick and Rudder skills may be different for each type aircraft...but old fashioned airmanship should never be out of vogue.
Having taught in Sims and the actual aircraft....it is amazing how many "Pilots" do not fully understand the effect and use of the flight controls. They grasp the rough part...but are clueless on the finer points of their monkey skills.
Years ago....Piedmont Airlines while still a small regional airline....did not have auto pilots installed on the aircraft at all....and as a result had a crop of old fashioned pilots who flew the airplanes....Martins, Fairchilds, DC-3's, and YS-11's. Sometimes with leg lengths in the 15-20 minute range....they got a lot of handling and hand flown instrument approaches.
They had a nearly perfect safety record despite the lack of fancy auto pilots and automated nav systems. The move to isolate the Pilot from "handling" and making us "system operators" may not be the correct answer.
Having taught in Sims and the actual aircraft....it is amazing how many "Pilots" do not fully understand the effect and use of the flight controls. They grasp the rough part...but are clueless on the finer points of their monkey skills.
Years ago....Piedmont Airlines while still a small regional airline....did not have auto pilots installed on the aircraft at all....and as a result had a crop of old fashioned pilots who flew the airplanes....Martins, Fairchilds, DC-3's, and YS-11's. Sometimes with leg lengths in the 15-20 minute range....they got a lot of handling and hand flown instrument approaches.
They had a nearly perfect safety record despite the lack of fancy auto pilots and automated nav systems. The move to isolate the Pilot from "handling" and making us "system operators" may not be the correct answer.
Last edited by SASless; 26th Oct 2012 at 13:06.
There are many strands to this argument.
In modern multicrew aircraft it is undoubtably safer to make efficient use of the automatics. The accident rate and incident rate goes through the roof when people take out the automatics to "sort it themselves". For this to work however, there needs to be a solid training programme to understand what the automatics do and how to get them to do what you want them to. There also has to be an understanding of when it is appropriate to go for the manual option. This has to be supported by a culture where there is sufficient practice of manual flying skills.
In the fast jet world there has been a significant move towards medium level ops with employment of sensors and PGMs. This must have had a significant effect on the handling skills required to fly operationally at low level but perhaps current operators would see it otherwise.
In modern multicrew aircraft it is undoubtably safer to make efficient use of the automatics. The accident rate and incident rate goes through the roof when people take out the automatics to "sort it themselves". For this to work however, there needs to be a solid training programme to understand what the automatics do and how to get them to do what you want them to. There also has to be an understanding of when it is appropriate to go for the manual option. This has to be supported by a culture where there is sufficient practice of manual flying skills.
In the fast jet world there has been a significant move towards medium level ops with employment of sensors and PGMs. This must have had a significant effect on the handling skills required to fly operationally at low level but perhaps current operators would see it otherwise.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming(!) that each jet within a sqn flies with slightly different characteristics, is sim time a comparable experience, ie; does it still offer a valid 'feel', allbeit a different one to one of the real things?
In my limited (25 years) experience, all aircraft on a fleet feel pretty much the same. The simulators almost universally feel nothing like the real aircraft and are very good for practicing procedures and emergencies but are in no way a suitable replacement for hand flying an aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: N London
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose one of the best telling stories of a good pilot whose skills were honed not in a sim but in a glider and as a PPL holder is the Gimli glider. He managed to land a B767 by side slipping it onto a disused field.
I for one would rather fly with a pilot who flies a C120, PA 28, a T21 or whatever in his spare time. They do have good current stick and rudder skills.
Another example of poor airmanship is probably the AF A330 that was effectivly stalled because the crew did not recognise a stall or the signs of an incipient one.
As a PPL holder even I know what it is like to get airborne after being out of the LH seat for a few weeks and that is in a PA28. Heavens only knows what it is like to be a little out of currency in a fast jet or a slow one for that matter
I for one would rather fly with a pilot who flies a C120, PA 28, a T21 or whatever in his spare time. They do have good current stick and rudder skills.
Another example of poor airmanship is probably the AF A330 that was effectivly stalled because the crew did not recognise a stall or the signs of an incipient one.
As a PPL holder even I know what it is like to get airborne after being out of the LH seat for a few weeks and that is in a PA28. Heavens only knows what it is like to be a little out of currency in a fast jet or a slow one for that matter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The simulator is often held up as the panacea to all things ailing military flying (cost of hours, cost of aircraft, availability of aircraft, etc). And the airline model is held up as the cornerstone of it - the first time a new pilot flies the plane is with a load of 200 warm pink paying passengers down the back. So it must be good enough.
However, comparing the simulator usage in the military and that used by the airlines is a bit of apples and oranges. The airlines aren't typically teaching their pilots how to fly airplanes. In the US, to achieve an ATPL, one must have a minimum of 1500 hrs. To be competitive at a major, you need something north of 3000 total and at least 1000 PIC of a turbojet aircraft. The sim is used to learn a new aircraft, instruct emergency procedures, learn checklist flows and company procedures - not how to fly.
The military is bent on using the sim as a replacement for the aircraft. They are trying to teach basic handling skills in a box. The challenge is that the box will only ever be 1G and can never replicate the sinks, slips, and skids required to learn how to feel what an airplane is telling a real pilot. The sim teaches numbers and procedures which, while important, only gets you about 80% of the way there.
The other challenge is that tactical flying has no real comparison in the civvie world and cannot be adequately replicated in the simulator. Taking nothing away from my airline brethren, but departing a 10,000ft runway, climbing to FL350, autopilot on, followed by the AP-flown ILS to another 10,000ft runway is not as demanding from a piloting skills perspective as any sort of low-level, tactical mission management, weapons delivery, threat defeating, NVGs, or any other sort of tactical flying. Consequently, the skills that need to be honed may not be learned in the same way.
Make no mistake, the simulator is an outstanding training tool when used for the right reasons in the right way. What it is not, is a replacement for the aircraft. The sim is not equal to the plane.
However, comparing the simulator usage in the military and that used by the airlines is a bit of apples and oranges. The airlines aren't typically teaching their pilots how to fly airplanes. In the US, to achieve an ATPL, one must have a minimum of 1500 hrs. To be competitive at a major, you need something north of 3000 total and at least 1000 PIC of a turbojet aircraft. The sim is used to learn a new aircraft, instruct emergency procedures, learn checklist flows and company procedures - not how to fly.
The military is bent on using the sim as a replacement for the aircraft. They are trying to teach basic handling skills in a box. The challenge is that the box will only ever be 1G and can never replicate the sinks, slips, and skids required to learn how to feel what an airplane is telling a real pilot. The sim teaches numbers and procedures which, while important, only gets you about 80% of the way there.
The other challenge is that tactical flying has no real comparison in the civvie world and cannot be adequately replicated in the simulator. Taking nothing away from my airline brethren, but departing a 10,000ft runway, climbing to FL350, autopilot on, followed by the AP-flown ILS to another 10,000ft runway is not as demanding from a piloting skills perspective as any sort of low-level, tactical mission management, weapons delivery, threat defeating, NVGs, or any other sort of tactical flying. Consequently, the skills that need to be honed may not be learned in the same way.
Make no mistake, the simulator is an outstanding training tool when used for the right reasons in the right way. What it is not, is a replacement for the aircraft. The sim is not equal to the plane.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 428 Likes
on
226 Posts
Not too long ago I attended a display flying seminar. During general discussion, a concern was expressed that many of today's pilots do not possess the same level of basic handling skills as their forebears did (a product of training and the aviation world in general, rather than any individual failings).
This causes issues with some of today's pilots display flying precious old warbirds, where excellent basic handling skills are of paramount importance. This was first voiced by OC Battle of Britain Memorial Flight, who was present - he had to be extremely careful to choose the right pilots for the job.
A retired Group Captain with a long affiliation to RAF Central Flying School, a fixed wing pilot and instructor of some great repute, suggested using helicopter pilots, because of the way they are still trained and must fly their aircraft. OC BBMF, being an ex helicopter pilot himself, had to agree that it was a good idea.
This causes issues with some of today's pilots display flying precious old warbirds, where excellent basic handling skills are of paramount importance. This was first voiced by OC Battle of Britain Memorial Flight, who was present - he had to be extremely careful to choose the right pilots for the job.
A retired Group Captain with a long affiliation to RAF Central Flying School, a fixed wing pilot and instructor of some great repute, suggested using helicopter pilots, because of the way they are still trained and must fly their aircraft. OC BBMF, being an ex helicopter pilot himself, had to agree that it was a good idea.
It's easy to lament the loss of skills but it ignores the larger picture. Flying today has never been safer.
Besides, what generation of pilot hasn't lamented that pilots today weren't what they were when he or she came up. They were at one time the object of some senior pilots lament.
Besides, what generation of pilot hasn't lamented that pilots today weren't what they were when he or she came up. They were at one time the object of some senior pilots lament.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by West Coast
It's easy to lament the loss of skills but it ignores the larger picture. Flying today has never been safer.
However, that ignores the reality that if you don't start from the same point, you cannot get to the same end. As my stock broker is fond of saying, "Past performance is no guarantee of future performance." And in the never-ending quest to remove the "human error" element from aviation, we are actually removing the human part by pushing automation over skills. Will we one day see pilot-less airlines removing all "human error"? Perhaps...but automation is only as good as its programming and is ill-equipped to deal with compound emergencies that aren't in the book. That's where highly experienced pilots with good foundational skills honed in the correct manner come in.
I'm in no way in favor of dismantling our present system, rather, acknowledging the real perishable skills that must be developed, honed, and maintained. Automation cannot do this for us. This is worse on the military side, but it trickles over to the civvie side as time marches forward.
Originally Posted by West Coast
Besides, what generation of pilot hasn't lamented that pilots today weren't what they were when he or she came up. They were at one time the object of some senior pilots lament.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
US herk
Your post has set my mind racing and I have had some thoughts. Please don't take the rest of my post as any sort of criticism.
I quite agree that "past performance is no guarantee of future performance" and to a certain extent that is why I dispensed with my stockbroker; without prejudice, of course. (well not much!) (well actually quite a lot - for all the good it did me!)
On the other hand, I don't agree that "if you don't start from the same point, you cannot get to the same end" You probably can, but you have to take a different route, and it seems to me that the most important thing for the aviation community is to find that route.
There has to be a way within the existing or future technology, HMI and training culture to make things better. As a previous poster said - "aviation is safer now than it has ever been" so we aren't getting most things wrong.
But what he didn't say was that there are now new hazards associated with new technology. We shouldn't abandon the enormous advances we have made. We should, and we can, work to better understand what we have done and keep up with and overtake the technology developments with developments in (forgive me) human resources.
Rgds SOS
I quite agree that "past performance is no guarantee of future performance" and to a certain extent that is why I dispensed with my stockbroker; without prejudice, of course. (well not much!) (well actually quite a lot - for all the good it did me!)
On the other hand, I don't agree that "if you don't start from the same point, you cannot get to the same end" You probably can, but you have to take a different route, and it seems to me that the most important thing for the aviation community is to find that route.
There has to be a way within the existing or future technology, HMI and training culture to make things better. As a previous poster said - "aviation is safer now than it has ever been" so we aren't getting most things wrong.
But what he didn't say was that there are now new hazards associated with new technology. We shouldn't abandon the enormous advances we have made. We should, and we can, work to better understand what we have done and keep up with and overtake the technology developments with developments in (forgive me) human resources.
Rgds SOS
Last edited by SOSL; 28th Oct 2012 at 19:52. Reason: Never mind why!