Modern Training erroding pilot skills
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
d246
I for one would want landings to be considerably more reliable than the current generation of smart weapons; they may be extremely accurate 99.?% of the time but when things go wrong they can go very wrong.
You also have to point them in the right direction which has proved a problem in the past.
I for one would want landings to be considerably more reliable than the current generation of smart weapons; they may be extremely accurate 99.?% of the time but when things go wrong they can go very wrong.
You also have to point them in the right direction which has proved a problem in the past.
qwertyuiop
I agree. That said, the SA is generally going to be higher with someone who is using EFIS type displays in conjunction with raw data than simply divining one's position simply by which way the needle is pointing.
I agree. That said, the SA is generally going to be higher with someone who is using EFIS type displays in conjunction with raw data than simply divining one's position simply by which way the needle is pointing.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Ashbourne Co Meath Ireland
Age: 73
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We've drifted off topic a little
If I remember correctly the thread was originally about modern training eroding pilot skills.
I guess we need to look at what we mean. Are we saying, and I think we are, that the modern heavy commercial transport now requires skills and operation that is so far removed from the skills required to operate a Piper Warrior that to spend 200 Hrs boring an expensive hole in the sky in such a machine is no longer appropriate. In many respects, I think that could well be true. OK, some of the very recent single and new multi engine aircraft are fitted with avionics that more closely represent those found on the modern heavy, so maybe, and it's a maybe, spending time flying such a modern light aircraft MAY, and note I say MAY, be appropriate to developing the awareness of the bigger picture.
In theory, it's possible to get someone up to speed and capable of flying a modern jet entirely by the use of a level D simulator. The problem I see with that concept is that it removes the unexpected. Yes, the instructor can introduce "the unexpected" in relation to failures of the airframe and it's components, but can the instructor simulate the huge noise and shock etc of suddenly flying into what looked like rain and suddenly turns out to be hail?
Can the instrutor simulate another aircraft suddenly doing something unexpected, more often on the ground rather than in the air, that demands an INSTANT and positive response?
Can the instructor prepare the student for the strange things that can happen when flying at relatively low levels over mountainous terrain?
The list is massive, and I'm sure that many other people could add to this list in a much more comprehensive way than I have.
The underlying issue is that a low time student trained in the "brave new world of beancounting" is going to have even less real aviation experience when thrown into the right hand seat of what ever it happens to be. The vast majority of the time, that's not going to be a problem. Once every so many times, regardless now of which seat the student is in, and to some extent, regardless of how long that student has now been flying, there WILL be circumstances for which there has been no training, or preparation, and the fear of many is that if there are no opportunities for that student to expand their knowledge horizons after initial training, there is the real risk that the underlying knowledge base will not be there when it's needed.
Flying was something that was an ongoing learning experience, and was enhanced by discussion with peer groups, and by practical experience.
Modern flying bears very little relationship to the art as practised until relatively recently. The automation is now so complex, and so reliable, as are engines and airframes, it's now a matter of heated debate when things like a 747 engine fail on take off
, and there are recriminations a mile long for other incidents that in former years were regular happenings.
The result of that is the skills to operate a modern heavy have changed. It's no longer a physical endurance test that requires muscle and endurance, it's now about understanding how all these complex computer based systems all integrate, and what they are doing to the airframe.
UNTIL FOR SOME REASONS THAT'S NOT BEEN SEEN BEFORE IT ALL BREAKS
When that happens, and we've seen situations where it does, it's no good then saying "It's broken, and I haven't got a check list for this, now what do I do". When it's all gone for a ball of chalk, and there's not much left working, that's the point where the underlying aviations skills are still going to be needed if there's not going to be yet another smoking hole in the ground, and there's scant comfort to me in a bean counter saying that "the odds on that are so long, we can't afford to spend money training for it".
The problem is that Joe Public does not see that issue, because it's not out in the open, and unfortunately, Joe Public wants to pay less for travel than he used to, so something has to give. Reduce the inflight catering. Don't clean the aircraft every turnround. Don't provide "extras". Charge for wheelchairs, reduce the baggage allowance, charge for every kilo of excess, sell scratch cards in flight. The list is as extensive as can be imagined by an under pressure accounts system, and it's getting longer and more creative by the week.
We've seen all of this happening over the last 10 years. Now, there's not a lot left to trim, all the easy targets have been knocked over. Pilot costs is a large target, both in terms of what they are paid, and in terms of what they cost overall when recurrent training and all the other issues are taken into consideration. To many beancounters, that's a soft target now because there are fewer "incidents" than there used to be.
Maybe, but the accident rate for serious accidents is still there. Recent weeks have seen a worrying blip, hopefully short lived, but it might give everyone pause for thought. There's no easy way to ensure skillsare developed and retained, and it's even harder now than it used to be, as there are a lot more people flying aircraft because it's a very well paid job, and I know from discusssions that some of those people have no interest in developing their skills beyond the minimum that the company requires. That's a change, not unique to aviation, but an insidious and probably long term subtly dangerous change, as it will be quite a while before the real effects of those changes start to reflect in statistics.
Another issue that needs to be considered is aging airframes. Do we really know and understand what the effect of aging on highly integrated systems is going to be? I don't think we do, so we're facing into a new scenario, of trying to ensure that people know enough about the aircraft to ensure that they can bring it home when something significant fails. Again, that's where the wider experience is going to be needed, and I'm not sure that it's there in the same way.
Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, and the beancounters will be right, this brave new modern automated world will mean that failures will be so rare and so easily dealt with that flight crews will no longer even have to be at the sharp end, as long as there's someone somewhere in the airframe, it will be possible to get it working again.
That thought sends all the wrong sort of shivers up and down my spine.
Enough. I could say a lot more, but I don't think I will, this should be more than enough to keep the thread running. I just hope that we're not about to launch into a brave new world that will come back to haunt us in 20 years time.
I guess we need to look at what we mean. Are we saying, and I think we are, that the modern heavy commercial transport now requires skills and operation that is so far removed from the skills required to operate a Piper Warrior that to spend 200 Hrs boring an expensive hole in the sky in such a machine is no longer appropriate. In many respects, I think that could well be true. OK, some of the very recent single and new multi engine aircraft are fitted with avionics that more closely represent those found on the modern heavy, so maybe, and it's a maybe, spending time flying such a modern light aircraft MAY, and note I say MAY, be appropriate to developing the awareness of the bigger picture.
In theory, it's possible to get someone up to speed and capable of flying a modern jet entirely by the use of a level D simulator. The problem I see with that concept is that it removes the unexpected. Yes, the instructor can introduce "the unexpected" in relation to failures of the airframe and it's components, but can the instructor simulate the huge noise and shock etc of suddenly flying into what looked like rain and suddenly turns out to be hail?
Can the instrutor simulate another aircraft suddenly doing something unexpected, more often on the ground rather than in the air, that demands an INSTANT and positive response?
Can the instructor prepare the student for the strange things that can happen when flying at relatively low levels over mountainous terrain?
The list is massive, and I'm sure that many other people could add to this list in a much more comprehensive way than I have.
The underlying issue is that a low time student trained in the "brave new world of beancounting" is going to have even less real aviation experience when thrown into the right hand seat of what ever it happens to be. The vast majority of the time, that's not going to be a problem. Once every so many times, regardless now of which seat the student is in, and to some extent, regardless of how long that student has now been flying, there WILL be circumstances for which there has been no training, or preparation, and the fear of many is that if there are no opportunities for that student to expand their knowledge horizons after initial training, there is the real risk that the underlying knowledge base will not be there when it's needed.
Flying was something that was an ongoing learning experience, and was enhanced by discussion with peer groups, and by practical experience.
Modern flying bears very little relationship to the art as practised until relatively recently. The automation is now so complex, and so reliable, as are engines and airframes, it's now a matter of heated debate when things like a 747 engine fail on take off
, and there are recriminations a mile long for other incidents that in former years were regular happenings. The result of that is the skills to operate a modern heavy have changed. It's no longer a physical endurance test that requires muscle and endurance, it's now about understanding how all these complex computer based systems all integrate, and what they are doing to the airframe.
UNTIL FOR SOME REASONS THAT'S NOT BEEN SEEN BEFORE IT ALL BREAKS
When that happens, and we've seen situations where it does, it's no good then saying "It's broken, and I haven't got a check list for this, now what do I do". When it's all gone for a ball of chalk, and there's not much left working, that's the point where the underlying aviations skills are still going to be needed if there's not going to be yet another smoking hole in the ground, and there's scant comfort to me in a bean counter saying that "the odds on that are so long, we can't afford to spend money training for it".
The problem is that Joe Public does not see that issue, because it's not out in the open, and unfortunately, Joe Public wants to pay less for travel than he used to, so something has to give. Reduce the inflight catering. Don't clean the aircraft every turnround. Don't provide "extras". Charge for wheelchairs, reduce the baggage allowance, charge for every kilo of excess, sell scratch cards in flight. The list is as extensive as can be imagined by an under pressure accounts system, and it's getting longer and more creative by the week.
We've seen all of this happening over the last 10 years. Now, there's not a lot left to trim, all the easy targets have been knocked over. Pilot costs is a large target, both in terms of what they are paid, and in terms of what they cost overall when recurrent training and all the other issues are taken into consideration. To many beancounters, that's a soft target now because there are fewer "incidents" than there used to be.
Maybe, but the accident rate for serious accidents is still there. Recent weeks have seen a worrying blip, hopefully short lived, but it might give everyone pause for thought. There's no easy way to ensure skillsare developed and retained, and it's even harder now than it used to be, as there are a lot more people flying aircraft because it's a very well paid job, and I know from discusssions that some of those people have no interest in developing their skills beyond the minimum that the company requires. That's a change, not unique to aviation, but an insidious and probably long term subtly dangerous change, as it will be quite a while before the real effects of those changes start to reflect in statistics.
Another issue that needs to be considered is aging airframes. Do we really know and understand what the effect of aging on highly integrated systems is going to be? I don't think we do, so we're facing into a new scenario, of trying to ensure that people know enough about the aircraft to ensure that they can bring it home when something significant fails. Again, that's where the wider experience is going to be needed, and I'm not sure that it's there in the same way.
Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, and the beancounters will be right, this brave new modern automated world will mean that failures will be so rare and so easily dealt with that flight crews will no longer even have to be at the sharp end, as long as there's someone somewhere in the airframe, it will be possible to get it working again.
That thought sends all the wrong sort of shivers up and down my spine.
Enough. I could say a lot more, but I don't think I will, this should be more than enough to keep the thread running. I just hope that we're not about to launch into a brave new world that will come back to haunt us in 20 years time.
Whatever happens,.. happens!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 19' N, 82' W
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
d246 is absolutely right!
We're history! or at least well on the way to becoming it!
Consider the following:
Beancounters objective: to reduce operational cost to the absolute minimum.
One of the costliest components of the Industry are the human resources, so lets replace them with technology to the maximum extent possible.
But of course this can not be just a straight line effort of designing technology that can deal with 99.99% of occurrences in flight operations. The human element (Pilots) on whom the other human element (passenger) likes to rely on has to be discredited before it can be discarded without a backlash from the farepaying passenger.
This can be achieved by changing the training of these aircraft handlers from actually handling flight controls to becoming specialized in programming a third party to the entire operation the FMC, which now becomes the focus of the entire mission.
This shift in focus will have several beneficial consequences towards the advancement of the ultimate objective.
1.) Airline managements are quite willing to adopt new standards of competency for "Pilots"allowing cost savings by hiring persons with minimal actual experience but good computer skills.
2.) An added benefit will be a lower quality of handling skills among these late 20th century aviators as an automatic consequence of never having acquired them in the first place and having little opportunity and less encouragement to practice them.
3.) The lack of capability to deal with anything but precise inputs to produce an acceptable output of the current generation of FMC's, combined with the reduction of actual situational awareness and substandard handling skills of the operator, then contribute to dramatic instances of so called"human error"further demonstrating the human shortcomings and lack of reliability to the travelling public.
I therefore predict that within my lifetime (I'm 57) we will see "remotely piloted" aircraft transporting people for hire around the globe. At first it will be perhaps one person dedicated to "handle" one flight from takeoff to landing, shortly therafter there will be further cost savings by having one "operator" sitting at a desk on the ground, handling two or more flights in different phases of flight.
I suppose one thing won't change, when there is a loss of aircraft (and cargo) it will probably still be called human error!
The one thing I'm wondering about is, how will I travel when it gets to that stage? It takes quite a while to cross the Atlantic (much less the Pacific) by sailboat.
However, for now I continue to enjoy what is by now a dinosaur, a 732 with an SP 77, which most of us are disengaging for everything except cruise.
We're history! or at least well on the way to becoming it!
Consider the following:
Beancounters objective: to reduce operational cost to the absolute minimum.
One of the costliest components of the Industry are the human resources, so lets replace them with technology to the maximum extent possible.
But of course this can not be just a straight line effort of designing technology that can deal with 99.99% of occurrences in flight operations. The human element (Pilots) on whom the other human element (passenger) likes to rely on has to be discredited before it can be discarded without a backlash from the farepaying passenger.
This can be achieved by changing the training of these aircraft handlers from actually handling flight controls to becoming specialized in programming a third party to the entire operation the FMC, which now becomes the focus of the entire mission.
This shift in focus will have several beneficial consequences towards the advancement of the ultimate objective.
1.) Airline managements are quite willing to adopt new standards of competency for "Pilots"allowing cost savings by hiring persons with minimal actual experience but good computer skills.
2.) An added benefit will be a lower quality of handling skills among these late 20th century aviators as an automatic consequence of never having acquired them in the first place and having little opportunity and less encouragement to practice them.
3.) The lack of capability to deal with anything but precise inputs to produce an acceptable output of the current generation of FMC's, combined with the reduction of actual situational awareness and substandard handling skills of the operator, then contribute to dramatic instances of so called"human error"further demonstrating the human shortcomings and lack of reliability to the travelling public.
I therefore predict that within my lifetime (I'm 57) we will see "remotely piloted" aircraft transporting people for hire around the globe. At first it will be perhaps one person dedicated to "handle" one flight from takeoff to landing, shortly therafter there will be further cost savings by having one "operator" sitting at a desk on the ground, handling two or more flights in different phases of flight.
I suppose one thing won't change, when there is a loss of aircraft (and cargo) it will probably still be called human error!
The one thing I'm wondering about is, how will I travel when it gets to that stage? It takes quite a while to cross the Atlantic (much less the Pacific) by sailboat.
However, for now I continue to enjoy what is by now a dinosaur, a 732 with an SP 77, which most of us are disengaging for everything except cruise.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flufdriver,
I don't for a second believe that and I'm 34!
If a pilot won't get in the aircraft to fly it, why the hell should I just to travel in it?
Rigas Doganis, author of The Airline Business in the 21st Century, writes in Chapter 5 about how labour typically constitutes between 15-40% of airline total operating costs whereas fuel has been around 10-15%.
With fuel price having doubled in the last year, in real terms we are now back in a situation similar to the late 70's and where fuel now comprises a similar percentage of total operating costs compared to labour.
This is good for those of us who sit in the seats ahead of 1A because it diverts the characteristic intense management focus of the late 1990's/early 2000's away from the unit labour cost because it is no longer arguable that this cost is the major determinant in airline profitability.
This weeks Flight International includes an article on how proponents of gas turbine research are now breathing a sigh of relief again as they see their budgets rapidly expand to cope with astronomical fuel prices. William Koop, from the US Air Force Research Laboratory's Propulsion Directorate says the
The same magazine carries an editorial feature on the shrinking budget available for the JSF, a situation not without precedent when one considers the shrunken B2 and F/A-22 programs.
It is also clear that NASA are staring down the barrel of what to replace an increasingly defunct Shuttle with? Scaled Composites SpaceShip Three?
In Aircraft Commerce you can get an idea of how great a proportion the financing charges comprise of the total trip cost of any particular aircraft. Feb-Mar 2005 edition compare the 787, 763 and A330. Suffice to say that financing charges comprise a higher proportion of the cost than either fuel or crew.
Which leads me round to my contention that we will see technology make a sideways move in the near future to mitigate against the extraordinary investment costs involved in the development of commercial aircraft and their operation using hydrocarbon based fuel.
The Shuttle will, quite conceivably, be the most complicated flying machine ever to fly, if only because cost prohibits the exercise ever being repeated. Its systems might not be the most capable but its architecture, perhaps, justifies the accolade...
This increasing focus on simplicity and efficiency will have repercussions for us and how we carry out our job.
The notion that one is pre-historic if one espouses a philosophy that argues for as much knowledge as possible about the systems integration and operational capability of a piece of equipment one entrusts ones life to, and the ability to practise using it in order to famailiarise oneself with all its functionality, throughout the envelope, so that when it all fails you know what to do, seems to me somewhat cavalier.
Do you dive without an octopus?
I therefore predict that within my lifetime (I'm 57) we will see "remotely piloted" aircraft transporting people for hire around the globe
If a pilot won't get in the aircraft to fly it, why the hell should I just to travel in it?
Rigas Doganis, author of The Airline Business in the 21st Century, writes in Chapter 5 about how labour typically constitutes between 15-40% of airline total operating costs whereas fuel has been around 10-15%.
With fuel price having doubled in the last year, in real terms we are now back in a situation similar to the late 70's and where fuel now comprises a similar percentage of total operating costs compared to labour.
This is good for those of us who sit in the seats ahead of 1A because it diverts the characteristic intense management focus of the late 1990's/early 2000's away from the unit labour cost because it is no longer arguable that this cost is the major determinant in airline profitability.
This weeks Flight International includes an article on how proponents of gas turbine research are now breathing a sigh of relief again as they see their budgets rapidly expand to cope with astronomical fuel prices. William Koop, from the US Air Force Research Laboratory's Propulsion Directorate says the
...phones been off the hook!
It is also clear that NASA are staring down the barrel of what to replace an increasingly defunct Shuttle with? Scaled Composites SpaceShip Three?
In Aircraft Commerce you can get an idea of how great a proportion the financing charges comprise of the total trip cost of any particular aircraft. Feb-Mar 2005 edition compare the 787, 763 and A330. Suffice to say that financing charges comprise a higher proportion of the cost than either fuel or crew.
Which leads me round to my contention that we will see technology make a sideways move in the near future to mitigate against the extraordinary investment costs involved in the development of commercial aircraft and their operation using hydrocarbon based fuel.
The Shuttle will, quite conceivably, be the most complicated flying machine ever to fly, if only because cost prohibits the exercise ever being repeated. Its systems might not be the most capable but its architecture, perhaps, justifies the accolade...
This increasing focus on simplicity and efficiency will have repercussions for us and how we carry out our job.
The notion that one is pre-historic if one espouses a philosophy that argues for as much knowledge as possible about the systems integration and operational capability of a piece of equipment one entrusts ones life to, and the ability to practise using it in order to famailiarise oneself with all its functionality, throughout the envelope, so that when it all fails you know what to do, seems to me somewhat cavalier.
Do you dive without an octopus?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well.... is it modern training that may be eroding traditional flying skills or modern aircraft that erode those skills, requiring the pilots to throw away traditional techniques.
Throw in modern ATC, modern destinations (those Greek islands again), modern congestion and I defy anyone to say that taking the autopilot out in most situations is a good idea. It isn't - it degrades the PF's situational awareness and turns the PNF into a one-armed paperhanger with the same result.
The FE has gone... many flightdecks have very low-houred FOs and, no offence to them because we've all been there, a lot of cockpits are single-pilot-with-interference.
In the good old days, when your lone Comet was making an approach, you could close the throttles at TOD and hand fly all the way down, spooling up at 700 feet or so. Anyone done that at Corfu recently ? Didn't think so !
An autopilot in anything bigger than a small turbo-prop is not a luxury. Yes, they can be u/s and you can despatch with the relevant MEL sign-off (anyone remember when the MEL was a 'get you home' document and not a 'depart or we lose money' document ??!!). I've done it..... it sucked monkey balls.... all the way down to TFS and back in a 757, hand-flown... horrible. Tiring. Fatiguing.
Legal - sure. Sensible.. you tell me ?
If all the systems trip out on me going into Corfu, at night, in dodgy weather, an I going to rely on some hand-flown practiced NP approach I did into Belfast when the weather was nice, or am I going to sack it and go somewhere else with a nice visual or ILS ?
I am quite certain that, now on the Airbus, I am not a stick and rudder pilot. There's a rumour that the A380 SOPs will include autoland for every approach. Don't know if it's true or not, but if it is, there's the future.
For those who don't fly... rest assured, that despite some of the gloom about skills that I and some others share, we could still fly whatever it is we fly, safely onto the ground with no instruments and no automatics.
A bit like the circuit I'm sure we've all done in a light aircraft where the instructor covers the panel with the checklist and says...."just do it".
Throw in modern ATC, modern destinations (those Greek islands again), modern congestion and I defy anyone to say that taking the autopilot out in most situations is a good idea. It isn't - it degrades the PF's situational awareness and turns the PNF into a one-armed paperhanger with the same result.
The FE has gone... many flightdecks have very low-houred FOs and, no offence to them because we've all been there, a lot of cockpits are single-pilot-with-interference.
In the good old days, when your lone Comet was making an approach, you could close the throttles at TOD and hand fly all the way down, spooling up at 700 feet or so. Anyone done that at Corfu recently ? Didn't think so !
An autopilot in anything bigger than a small turbo-prop is not a luxury. Yes, they can be u/s and you can despatch with the relevant MEL sign-off (anyone remember when the MEL was a 'get you home' document and not a 'depart or we lose money' document ??!!). I've done it..... it sucked monkey balls.... all the way down to TFS and back in a 757, hand-flown... horrible. Tiring. Fatiguing.
Legal - sure. Sensible.. you tell me ?
If all the systems trip out on me going into Corfu, at night, in dodgy weather, an I going to rely on some hand-flown practiced NP approach I did into Belfast when the weather was nice, or am I going to sack it and go somewhere else with a nice visual or ILS ?
I am quite certain that, now on the Airbus, I am not a stick and rudder pilot. There's a rumour that the A380 SOPs will include autoland for every approach. Don't know if it's true or not, but if it is, there's the future.
For those who don't fly... rest assured, that despite some of the gloom about skills that I and some others share, we could still fly whatever it is we fly, safely onto the ground with no instruments and no automatics.
A bit like the circuit I'm sure we've all done in a light aircraft where the instructor covers the panel with the checklist and says...."just do it".
d246: yeah, some skills are slowly disappearing. But in some countries, most pilots tend to have 2,000-3,000, possibly 7,000 hours of flight experience or much more (at the nationals/majors) before they ever step into an FMC/FMS aircraft simulator.
Despite the advanced technical tools stated in previous remarks, a very sophisticated aircraft landed at the wrong US airport not too long ago ( but it was right under the extended final for the correct airport). The Jeppsen note about the "other airport" was not large or in bold print, from what I remember.
Besides the Cali tragedy, and the others at Habsheim, Mulhouse (Lorraine), the Persian Gulf, India, Japan, there were very unstable approaches in automated aircraft in Miami, over Paris (on film). These are just the ones which come to mind. Some we might never read about, outside of recurrent training or the sim. briefing cubicles?
Some involved aircraft factory pilots. Including the horrible A-330 tragedy at the Airbus 'homebase' at Toulouse. But this was a test flight-or just a demonstration flight?
Are line pilots generally less complacent, possibly being more aware of their personal limitations?
Despite the advanced technical tools stated in previous remarks, a very sophisticated aircraft landed at the wrong US airport not too long ago ( but it was right under the extended final for the correct airport). The Jeppsen note about the "other airport" was not large or in bold print, from what I remember.
Besides the Cali tragedy, and the others at Habsheim, Mulhouse (Lorraine), the Persian Gulf, India, Japan, there were very unstable approaches in automated aircraft in Miami, over Paris (on film). These are just the ones which come to mind. Some we might never read about, outside of recurrent training or the sim. briefing cubicles?
Some involved aircraft factory pilots. Including the horrible A-330 tragedy at the Airbus 'homebase' at Toulouse. But this was a test flight-or just a demonstration flight?
Are line pilots generally less complacent, possibly being more aware of their personal limitations?
Last edited by Ignition Override; 28th Aug 2005 at 03:55.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't this thread supposed to be about the future? What we are getting, as always, are the dinosaurs who can't accept or use a 30 yr old FMC. Stick and rudder aeroplanes are going to disappear Airbus started the trend some time ago. Reliance upon automated flight systems, yes please, pilots screw up to often, i.e. the Cali tragedy, and the others at Habsheim, Mulhouse (Lorraine), the Persian Gulf, India, Japan, the very unstable approaches in automated aircraft in Miami, over Paris' etc. Many UK charter airlines are flying pilots with 200 hrs or so, they in general are able to understand and use current automatic systems which do have limitations but are old, the aviation world is looking to the future.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
d246
There may be (a few) 200 hour pilots in the charter fleet but they are sitting next to a P1 with thousands of hours.
However I suspect you are partly right, but I think it will be a very, very long time before fully automated systems are 100% reliable in all situations, if for no other reason than issues of coping with the unexpected and the complexity of testing.
Fifty years ago Duncan Sandys (Sec of Sate for Defence) predicted that the English Electric Lightning would be the last manned fighter for the RAF and it would be replaced by missiles and unmanned aircraft, even the Lightning was supposed to be controlled remotely from just after take off till firing the “Red Top” missiles.
Then we had the Bloodhound I / Ferranti Scandal and for unconnected reasons the radio guidance packs were removed from the Lightning. Now 50 years later we have Predator type drones (remotely piloted not automatic a/c) becoming armed but everyone is still designing and building manned fighters, all be it unstable platforms with fly-by wire etc.
So what’s the point of these comments? Well I know about Moore’s Law, improving technology etc but reliability in civil aviation will always have to be demonstrated to be many times better than in the military, they have been trying to automate the pilots job on and off for over 50 years and aren’t there yet.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that automated systems are not a major contributor to flight safety, the issue is that a pilot has to be able to cope without some or most of the automated systems, how will they if they don’t practice or worse aren’t fully trained to do so?
There may be (a few) 200 hour pilots in the charter fleet but they are sitting next to a P1 with thousands of hours.
However I suspect you are partly right, but I think it will be a very, very long time before fully automated systems are 100% reliable in all situations, if for no other reason than issues of coping with the unexpected and the complexity of testing.
Fifty years ago Duncan Sandys (Sec of Sate for Defence) predicted that the English Electric Lightning would be the last manned fighter for the RAF and it would be replaced by missiles and unmanned aircraft, even the Lightning was supposed to be controlled remotely from just after take off till firing the “Red Top” missiles.
Then we had the Bloodhound I / Ferranti Scandal and for unconnected reasons the radio guidance packs were removed from the Lightning. Now 50 years later we have Predator type drones (remotely piloted not automatic a/c) becoming armed but everyone is still designing and building manned fighters, all be it unstable platforms with fly-by wire etc.
So what’s the point of these comments? Well I know about Moore’s Law, improving technology etc but reliability in civil aviation will always have to be demonstrated to be many times better than in the military, they have been trying to automate the pilots job on and off for over 50 years and aren’t there yet.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that automated systems are not a major contributor to flight safety, the issue is that a pilot has to be able to cope without some or most of the automated systems, how will they if they don’t practice or worse aren’t fully trained to do so?
I think the one classic automation versus raw data instrument interpretation accident that sticks in my mind, was the Thai Airways Airbus A310 that flew into a mountain at Kathmandu on 31 July, 1992. The accident was well illustrated in one of the excellent books by the Australian flight safety author Mac Job, called Air Disaster Volume 3.
At the beginning of a VOR/DME approach to runway 02 at Kathmandu in IMC, initially the flaps failed to extend. Instead of following the published missed approach procedure, and sorting things out in the holding pattern, the captain, in attempting to rectify the flap problem (which was successful a few minutes later), allowed the aircraft to wander in a large orbit until it finally took up a heading on autopilot towards an area of MSA 21.000 ft.
The captain maintained 11,500 ft in the mistaken belief that the aircraft was in safe sector where the MSA was 11,500 ft. The CVR revealed that pilots were heavily engrossed in staying heads down into the FMC trying to type in waypoints that were behind them and which could therefore not be easily seen on the MAP.
It was obvious that no notice was taken of VOR or ADF RMI readings which, coupled with the VOR/DME position would have immediately shown that the aircraft was in fact 24 nm NNE of the airport and not 24 nm south as the captain thought. Lack of simple raw data instrument rating skills was the cause of the accident which killed all aboard.
At the beginning of a VOR/DME approach to runway 02 at Kathmandu in IMC, initially the flaps failed to extend. Instead of following the published missed approach procedure, and sorting things out in the holding pattern, the captain, in attempting to rectify the flap problem (which was successful a few minutes later), allowed the aircraft to wander in a large orbit until it finally took up a heading on autopilot towards an area of MSA 21.000 ft.
The captain maintained 11,500 ft in the mistaken belief that the aircraft was in safe sector where the MSA was 11,500 ft. The CVR revealed that pilots were heavily engrossed in staying heads down into the FMC trying to type in waypoints that were behind them and which could therefore not be easily seen on the MAP.
It was obvious that no notice was taken of VOR or ADF RMI readings which, coupled with the VOR/DME position would have immediately shown that the aircraft was in fact 24 nm NNE of the airport and not 24 nm south as the captain thought. Lack of simple raw data instrument rating skills was the cause of the accident which killed all aboard.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying an aeroplane safely from point 'A' to point 'B' is about more than just the 'machine'.
Automation helps. Not only helps, it is REQUIRED kit and has greatly imporved the safety of jet transports. It is, in modern, complex and fast aeroplanes, an indespensible 'tool'.
It should never, EVER, be a CRUTCH.
Hand flying, whether via direct cable & pulley, hydraulics or FBW, is another INDISPENIBLE tool.
When the chips are down, and the last line of defense is to get your hands dirty and hand fly, is not the time to find THAT BASIC SKILL to have atrophied.
JEE_ZUS, I never thought that basic flying skills would be referred to as 'Top Gun' skills.
Automation helps. Not only helps, it is REQUIRED kit and has greatly imporved the safety of jet transports. It is, in modern, complex and fast aeroplanes, an indespensible 'tool'.
It should never, EVER, be a CRUTCH.
Hand flying, whether via direct cable & pulley, hydraulics or FBW, is another INDISPENIBLE tool.
When the chips are down, and the last line of defense is to get your hands dirty and hand fly, is not the time to find THAT BASIC SKILL to have atrophied.
JEE_ZUS, I never thought that basic flying skills would be referred to as 'Top Gun' skills.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to agree with the Colonel on this - and fervently disagree with d246.
I’m one of those silly old buggers who hand flies IlSs from the initial approach fixes and earlier, sometimes in (gasp!) IMC. I know I get some pitying looks from my FOs, because I can’t always do it quite as well as the autopilot, and some of them can’t hide their concern when I attempt to hand fly while we’re still above the cloud base. The vast majority of these same FOs disconnect the autopilot below 500’ on approach, and almost as many plug it in before 500’ on departure.
It's always been my habit in a non-normal situation to hand over to the FO after the immediate actions and checklists have been completed so he has the responsibility for flight path management while I get on with being a captain - ie, talking with the purser, ATC, the pax and the company, carrying out any necessary checklists as well as being able to give almost all my attention to planning what to do next without the distraction of having to fly the aircraft while I’m doing it. If I want the aircraft pointing in a particular direction at a particular speed or in a particular configuration, I'll ask the FO to make it happen. In this way, I’m still more or less the pilot flying if not actually the ‘Pilot Flying’.
While maintaining the flight path, the FO watches over what I'm doing, confirms any actions as necessary and sometimes makes very helpful suggestions, but his primary job is keeping a goodly cushion of that stuff we all breathe between the aircraft’s radome and any cumulo granitas clouds that might be lurking out there.
I've found this system works a treat… while we have a serviceable autopilot system. However, I did a simex once where the check captain gave us a double ADIRU failure along with a few other assorted failures which left us with basically a very big Cessna 172. No flight directors, no autopilots, none of those nice speed bands on the ASI.
I handed over to the FO while I set the aids up for the approach and ran the fuel jettison checklist – and stopped the checklist to recover from the unusual attitude we found ourselves in after less than three minutes. I found I had to reverse my normal procedure and fly the aircraft myself and have the FO do the checklist. And in the FO’s defence, I have to admit I found it quite hard maintaining an attitude on a bare AI and using manual throttle to maintain airspeed… but at least I was able to fall back on skills that I once possessed, skills that once were a requirement but in these days of minimizing costs at all costs, no longer are.
To those who say it’s highly unlikely you would ever find yourself in a position where you’d lose that much automation in a modern airliner, I’ll say I agree… to a point. Then I’ll remind them of Sioux City and the more recent missile attack on the Fedex A310 in Baghdad as ask them if we can predict anything with any confidence in this business.
I’m one of those silly old buggers who hand flies IlSs from the initial approach fixes and earlier, sometimes in (gasp!) IMC. I know I get some pitying looks from my FOs, because I can’t always do it quite as well as the autopilot, and some of them can’t hide their concern when I attempt to hand fly while we’re still above the cloud base. The vast majority of these same FOs disconnect the autopilot below 500’ on approach, and almost as many plug it in before 500’ on departure.
It's always been my habit in a non-normal situation to hand over to the FO after the immediate actions and checklists have been completed so he has the responsibility for flight path management while I get on with being a captain - ie, talking with the purser, ATC, the pax and the company, carrying out any necessary checklists as well as being able to give almost all my attention to planning what to do next without the distraction of having to fly the aircraft while I’m doing it. If I want the aircraft pointing in a particular direction at a particular speed or in a particular configuration, I'll ask the FO to make it happen. In this way, I’m still more or less the pilot flying if not actually the ‘Pilot Flying’.
While maintaining the flight path, the FO watches over what I'm doing, confirms any actions as necessary and sometimes makes very helpful suggestions, but his primary job is keeping a goodly cushion of that stuff we all breathe between the aircraft’s radome and any cumulo granitas clouds that might be lurking out there.
I've found this system works a treat… while we have a serviceable autopilot system. However, I did a simex once where the check captain gave us a double ADIRU failure along with a few other assorted failures which left us with basically a very big Cessna 172. No flight directors, no autopilots, none of those nice speed bands on the ASI.
I handed over to the FO while I set the aids up for the approach and ran the fuel jettison checklist – and stopped the checklist to recover from the unusual attitude we found ourselves in after less than three minutes. I found I had to reverse my normal procedure and fly the aircraft myself and have the FO do the checklist. And in the FO’s defence, I have to admit I found it quite hard maintaining an attitude on a bare AI and using manual throttle to maintain airspeed… but at least I was able to fall back on skills that I once possessed, skills that once were a requirement but in these days of minimizing costs at all costs, no longer are.
To those who say it’s highly unlikely you would ever find yourself in a position where you’d lose that much automation in a modern airliner, I’ll say I agree… to a point. Then I’ll remind them of Sioux City and the more recent missile attack on the Fedex A310 in Baghdad as ask them if we can predict anything with any confidence in this business.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Autopilots are GREAT.
They never forget to turn at flight planned waypoints, they are able to calculate the precise amount of drift required, and fly a heading that will maintain a very accurate track, when used in conjunction with a Flight Management Computer System (FMC).
As a matter of fact, they'll do just about everything they're commanded to do - as long as the CORRECT commands are given to them.......AND their initial programming is correct.
Regardless of the previous 2, they'll do EVERYTHING - without thinking - that they're ordered to do.
And THEREIN lies the problem!
Because I have had, on several occasions, autopilots that are being fed info from an incorrect data base, and autopliots that UNQUESTIONINGLY fly INCORRECT inputs, because the "programmer" simply made a mistake. eg. wrong flight plan routing; wrong hold info.
All with a SERVICABLE a/p!
Humans can think, check...double check.. and update/re-assess their projected thinking.
If a computer reverts to "static mode"/standby - which is frequently the case - there is no continuous system updating that allows IMMEDIATE Danger avoidance procedures.
Rather, the computer will stay in its present state, assuming the chances of radical change are negligible.
In aviation, this can prove to be be a FATAL mistake!
They never forget to turn at flight planned waypoints, they are able to calculate the precise amount of drift required, and fly a heading that will maintain a very accurate track, when used in conjunction with a Flight Management Computer System (FMC).
As a matter of fact, they'll do just about everything they're commanded to do - as long as the CORRECT commands are given to them.......AND their initial programming is correct.
Regardless of the previous 2, they'll do EVERYTHING - without thinking - that they're ordered to do.
And THEREIN lies the problem!
Because I have had, on several occasions, autopilots that are being fed info from an incorrect data base, and autopliots that UNQUESTIONINGLY fly INCORRECT inputs, because the "programmer" simply made a mistake. eg. wrong flight plan routing; wrong hold info.
All with a SERVICABLE a/p!
Humans can think, check...double check.. and update/re-assess their projected thinking.
If a computer reverts to "static mode"/standby - which is frequently the case - there is no continuous system updating that allows IMMEDIATE Danger avoidance procedures.
Rather, the computer will stay in its present state, assuming the chances of radical change are negligible.
In aviation, this can prove to be be a FATAL mistake!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So does the young pilot coming in to the right seat of an RJ with 250 hours who then goes on to upgrade 24 months later really have enough skills to handfly an RJ through any situation?
Because the reality is that once they get out of school and on the line they are deep into the automation...heads down programming the FMC. Would you rather have an F/O who spent a few years flying forest fire patrol or bank checks (although the check flying jobs are history now)....
Because the reality is that once they get out of school and on the line they are deep into the automation...heads down programming the FMC. Would you rather have an F/O who spent a few years flying forest fire patrol or bank checks (although the check flying jobs are history now)....
Last edited by TurningFinal; 28th Aug 2005 at 03:35.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What an excellent discussion.
I am pleased to predict that I shall probably be too old to travel by air before d426 gets to sit in command of his joystick and panel in his airline HQ and flies 'his' passengers to the US.
I have experienced F/Os with little 'handling' skills; who are LOST without the coloured line on the TV screen in front of them showing where they are and where they are going; who CANNOT have the background with which us older pilots grew up.
It may be that reliable automation will get to the point where the public, accountants and press will accept the occasional loss of a large unmanned hull due to a programming error as a reasonable statistic but......... is there any room in flufdriver's boat......................
I have always been vaguely re-assured as a pasenger that my flight crew would arrive first on the scene of any accident, but the thought of d426 putting his head in his hands, then throwing the offending joystick across the room before going for stress counselling and returning to post 2 weeks later is just TOO MUCH!
I am pleased to predict that I shall probably be too old to travel by air before d426 gets to sit in command of his joystick and panel in his airline HQ and flies 'his' passengers to the US.
I have experienced F/Os with little 'handling' skills; who are LOST without the coloured line on the TV screen in front of them showing where they are and where they are going; who CANNOT have the background with which us older pilots grew up.
It may be that reliable automation will get to the point where the public, accountants and press will accept the occasional loss of a large unmanned hull due to a programming error as a reasonable statistic but......... is there any room in flufdriver's boat......................
I have always been vaguely re-assured as a pasenger that my flight crew would arrive first on the scene of any accident, but the thought of d426 putting his head in his hands, then throwing the offending joystick across the room before going for stress counselling and returning to post 2 weeks later is just TOO MUCH!
Last edited by BOAC; 27th Aug 2005 at 21:02.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I expect the same argument raged when they first started putting a roof over the cockpit.An entire generation of pilots who never felt the wind in their hair.What if that new fangled ASI fails?
Monoplanes? Don't get me started!
One thing's for sure,nostalgia aint what it used to be.When was this golden era of steely eyed stick and rudder aces who never got lost,flew into mountains or spun in on finals?
Someone once likened intrument flying to watching a baseball game through the knot holes in a wooden fence.It is posible with a lot of effort and practice but lets face it it's not ideal.It was only presented on dials because thats the only technology that existed.A map display is an infinately more human centred.Check its accuracy and use it.
I'm still waiting to meet these young fo's who can only type into the FMC.In my experience there is absolutely no correlation between age/experience and reliance on FMC/autopilots.I've recently clutched my seat in horor as a crusty old ex fast jet driver performed an excrutiating protracted auto pilot approach followed by a lousy landing in gin clear vmc with no traffic. Same route next week with 500 hour wonder."there's the runway,mind if I just fly it ?" he says. "Fill yer boots" says I.Nice hand flown visual in about a third of the time as last week.
Tell t'yoongsters nowadays and they wernt believe you!
Monoplanes? Don't get me started!
One thing's for sure,nostalgia aint what it used to be.When was this golden era of steely eyed stick and rudder aces who never got lost,flew into mountains or spun in on finals?
Someone once likened intrument flying to watching a baseball game through the knot holes in a wooden fence.It is posible with a lot of effort and practice but lets face it it's not ideal.It was only presented on dials because thats the only technology that existed.A map display is an infinately more human centred.Check its accuracy and use it.
I'm still waiting to meet these young fo's who can only type into the FMC.In my experience there is absolutely no correlation between age/experience and reliance on FMC/autopilots.I've recently clutched my seat in horor as a crusty old ex fast jet driver performed an excrutiating protracted auto pilot approach followed by a lousy landing in gin clear vmc with no traffic. Same route next week with 500 hour wonder."there's the runway,mind if I just fly it ?" he says. "Fill yer boots" says I.Nice hand flown visual in about a third of the time as last week.
Tell t'yoongsters nowadays and they wernt believe you!