Modern Training erroding pilot skills
16 Blades (+ Allisons, but no standby horizon??): the technology on "our" fleet ( among several, the oldest) is the same vintage 
. Our autopilot only holds altitude, as we find VOR frequencies and radials on a crammed chart. So many cities are served from three hubs, that we still must look up all of the routes, along with the STARs and SIDs, to verify or become 're-acquainted'. On a few SIDs, a certain altitude must be reached by a certain DME (O' Hare is one), depending upon the initial heading. None of this is accomplished by pushing (FMC) buttons or opening (MCP) mode control panel windows etc.
By the way, world-famous Southwest Airlines had the Boeing company create the Southwest 737-800, only for them
, with flight instruments which depict information with ROUND Gauges, as with the older 757! I don't know about the US Navy Reserve's VR squadrons which have retired the DC-9 
. SWA did this in order for safety to be the priority. I have no idea how many 737-200 or -300s are left. If the newer displays are indisputably better, then why did Southwest choose the older, STANDARD flight displays, and train pilots to use only a PORTION of the available automation 
? There must be a reason which improves flight safety, no?
Of course many Ppruners "drink the manufacturers' 'poisoned' Kool-Aid" about aviation's future, ignoring the past which produced aircraft whose higher demands were placed upon constant attention to power settings, heading, altitude level-offs and VOR tuning+watching course drift, and a much higher workload to operate hydraulics, APU, cabin press. and anti-ice etc. (no holding page). Comparing storms on weather radar to two additional, different gauges, in order to determine just where the VOR and airport should be is added to the above...And the past was not built upon modes and NASA's control laws, nor condensed "glass displays".
Boeing did not design those into the original 737 New Generation aircraft.
If the Lowest Cost were the only King (besides the advantage of ordering many aircraft at once) , then would the airline not have forgotten the entire concept of using the older style displays?
Southwest pilots seem to use only a small part of their actual automation in the newer 737s, which seems to enhance safety. If fully-automated lateral and vertical navigation systems are always safer, then why do their Flight Operations bosses NOT allow their pilots to use all of the automation? It can't just be standardization. Some airlines flew the 737-2 and newer series, which have numerous differences in equipment. The Southwest policy is a totally unique situation for any airline-they seem to be the only airline in the world which makes standard displays the highest priority, not to mention having only one fleet type (rating, also). And Boeing pilots can watch the throttles move, in order to quickly notice what the engine power trends are, along with MD pilots (or pilots must always move them full-time, in "real time", in X-GenerationSpeak
).
. Our autopilot only holds altitude, as we find VOR frequencies and radials on a crammed chart. So many cities are served from three hubs, that we still must look up all of the routes, along with the STARs and SIDs, to verify or become 're-acquainted'. On a few SIDs, a certain altitude must be reached by a certain DME (O' Hare is one), depending upon the initial heading. None of this is accomplished by pushing (FMC) buttons or opening (MCP) mode control panel windows etc.By the way, world-famous Southwest Airlines had the Boeing company create the Southwest 737-800, only for them
, with flight instruments which depict information with ROUND Gauges, as with the older 757! I don't know about the US Navy Reserve's VR squadrons which have retired the DC-9 . SWA did this in order for safety to be the priority. I have no idea how many 737-200 or -300s are left. If the newer displays are indisputably better, then why did Southwest choose the older, STANDARD flight displays, and train pilots to use only a PORTION of the available automation ? There must be a reason which improves flight safety, no? Of course many Ppruners "drink the manufacturers' 'poisoned' Kool-Aid" about aviation's future, ignoring the past which produced aircraft whose higher demands were placed upon constant attention to power settings, heading, altitude level-offs and VOR tuning+watching course drift, and a much higher workload to operate hydraulics, APU, cabin press. and anti-ice etc. (no holding page). Comparing storms on weather radar to two additional, different gauges, in order to determine just where the VOR and airport should be is added to the above...And the past was not built upon modes and NASA's control laws, nor condensed "glass displays".
Boeing did not design those into the original 737 New Generation aircraft.
If the Lowest Cost were the only King (besides the advantage of ordering many aircraft at once) , then would the airline not have forgotten the entire concept of using the older style displays?
Southwest pilots seem to use only a small part of their actual automation in the newer 737s, which seems to enhance safety. If fully-automated lateral and vertical navigation systems are always safer, then why do their Flight Operations bosses NOT allow their pilots to use all of the automation? It can't just be standardization. Some airlines flew the 737-2 and newer series, which have numerous differences in equipment. The Southwest policy is a totally unique situation for any airline-they seem to be the only airline in the world which makes standard displays the highest priority, not to mention having only one fleet type (rating, also). And Boeing pilots can watch the throttles move, in order to quickly notice what the engine power trends are, along with MD pilots (or pilots must always move them full-time, in "real time", in X-GenerationSpeak
).
Last edited by Ignition Override; 3rd Sep 2005 at 05:48.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16Blades
Amazing comments - you must walk on water!
Being ex-military I only ever flew one aircraft that had a partial autopilot and that was a Wessex Mk 1, doing night decelerating transitions to the hover over the sea, the rest were hand flown. When I left the military having spent my last 8 years flying a F***ing Harrier mate and transitioned to a B757 I was very glad of the Autopilot at times. I was behind the aircraft initially at 250 kts even though I had been used to flashing around the sky in my 500+ bona jet.
I am now flying Airbus A330 and A340 in the far east and most of the flying is NOT manual, for many various reasons, pax comfort, fuel economy, weather avoidance, ATC etc etc and not forgetting the poor PNF whose workload trebles if I am having FUN!!
I am surprised that you have not advocated assymetric training to be done on the "real" aircraft again and with pax on board to show them how good we "hand flying GODS"are. Let the RAF loose another in the circuit shall we? Or why not have the charter boys fly the whole 12 hour sector manually.
Unfortunately this topic seems to have developed into who has got the bigger w***ie (apologies to our female pilots) or b**ls. The "real" world has moved on!
Amazing comments - you must walk on water!
Being ex-military I only ever flew one aircraft that had a partial autopilot and that was a Wessex Mk 1, doing night decelerating transitions to the hover over the sea, the rest were hand flown. When I left the military having spent my last 8 years flying a F***ing Harrier mate and transitioned to a B757 I was very glad of the Autopilot at times. I was behind the aircraft initially at 250 kts even though I had been used to flashing around the sky in my 500+ bona jet.
I am now flying Airbus A330 and A340 in the far east and most of the flying is NOT manual, for many various reasons, pax comfort, fuel economy, weather avoidance, ATC etc etc and not forgetting the poor PNF whose workload trebles if I am having FUN!!
I am surprised that you have not advocated assymetric training to be done on the "real" aircraft again and with pax on board to show them how good we "hand flying GODS"are. Let the RAF loose another in the circuit shall we? Or why not have the charter boys fly the whole 12 hour sector manually.
Unfortunately this topic seems to have developed into who has got the bigger w***ie (apologies to our female pilots) or b**ls. The "real" world has moved on!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the newer displays are indisputably better, then why did Southwest choose the older, STANDARD flight displays, and train pilots to use only a PORTION of the available automation ? There must be a reason which improves flight safety, no?
There are arguments for both sides, really... it's easier to 'scan' dials than it is reading off a display, but it could be argued that the information that some of the more esoteric dials display has been superseded by things like the EGPWS map display.
Swings and roundabouts mate, isn't it?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's easier to 'scan' dials than it is reading off a display
I see a lot of posts mentioning simulators as a contributing factor in the lack of hand flying skills. Nothing stops you from hand flying the sim. In fact I find hand flying the a/c a lot easier than hand flying the sim.
I completely agree that basic flying skills (no automation) is the foundation of our profession and it is a fact that this needs to be practised to maintain proficiency. I do however have a problem when the first action when anything unusual happens, is the AP disconnect switch.
In my opinion if you want to fly airliners, you have to demonstrate and maintain a high level of skill/proficiency using full manual, full autoflight or any combination of the two.
Yes, the manual handling skills of the average airline pilot is probably lower than 20 years ago.
Yes, the autoflight skills of the average airline pilot is probably higher than 20 years ago.
I have never seen a pilot beat a proper autopilot in precision flying over anything longer than a few minutes.
A professional pilot will regularly practice his manual skills due to his professionalism and will use the autopilot when required. If you are in a situation where you need the manual skills of Chuck Yeagar, your manual practice on the odd approach or departure probably would not be enough in any case.
The most important consideration should be to avoid the situations where your superior manual flying skills are needed to save the day.
Jus som spellun currecsions.
Last edited by nugpot; 2nd Sep 2005 at 17:55.
I have already stated that I have always embraced automation but am an equal enthusiast for stick and rudder skills.
Nugpot makes a very valid point when he says that using the autopilot in a problem situation can be an absolute Godsend. As a TRI/TRE I teach pilots to ALWAYS use the autopilot if at all possible when things get difficult. This is especilally important in the 2-man cockpit. It takes so much pressure off the PF while the PNF is dealing with the problem and managing the situation.
There have been quite a few instances where the tendency to disconnect the autopilot whenever something catastrophic happens has turned out to be the nail in the coffin.
For example, it could be argued that if the automatics on the Turkish DC-10 at Paris had been left in then it may well have been able to do an auto-land back at Orly. (Without getting too involved, the hydraulics ran underneath the floor - which was catastrophically damaged - whereas the electrics for the autoland ran along the roof which was intact).
Now I absolutely do not criticise the captain for taking the automatics out when he had such a catastrophic failure for it was in those days the instinctive thing to do. Sadly, as it turned out, it was not the best solution.
Now then, the closest I have ever got to dying in an aeroplane happened one night over Northern Canada when the automatics in my aeroplane (Triplex) threw out and left me very close to the stall and a control column that was frozen in pitch.
We hand-flew the aircraft for 7 hours on the elevator trim wheel before it was possible to get the automatics back in. During those 7 hours it was just about possible to keep the rate of climb and descent between 700 ft per minute. I was very glad that I had good hand-flying skills otherwise we might all have died.
So; what am I as an old dinosaur saying? I am saying that you should use ANY working automatics to your advantage when things get nasty but, when the fancy stuff fails, if you do not possess decent hand skills to deal with emergencies which are simply not covered in your beloved QRH, then some of you are statistically going to die.
Nugpot makes a very valid point when he says that using the autopilot in a problem situation can be an absolute Godsend. As a TRI/TRE I teach pilots to ALWAYS use the autopilot if at all possible when things get difficult. This is especilally important in the 2-man cockpit. It takes so much pressure off the PF while the PNF is dealing with the problem and managing the situation.
There have been quite a few instances where the tendency to disconnect the autopilot whenever something catastrophic happens has turned out to be the nail in the coffin.
For example, it could be argued that if the automatics on the Turkish DC-10 at Paris had been left in then it may well have been able to do an auto-land back at Orly. (Without getting too involved, the hydraulics ran underneath the floor - which was catastrophically damaged - whereas the electrics for the autoland ran along the roof which was intact).
Now I absolutely do not criticise the captain for taking the automatics out when he had such a catastrophic failure for it was in those days the instinctive thing to do. Sadly, as it turned out, it was not the best solution.
Now then, the closest I have ever got to dying in an aeroplane happened one night over Northern Canada when the automatics in my aeroplane (Triplex) threw out and left me very close to the stall and a control column that was frozen in pitch.
We hand-flew the aircraft for 7 hours on the elevator trim wheel before it was possible to get the automatics back in. During those 7 hours it was just about possible to keep the rate of climb and descent between 700 ft per minute. I was very glad that I had good hand-flying skills otherwise we might all have died.
So; what am I as an old dinosaur saying? I am saying that you should use ANY working automatics to your advantage when things get nasty but, when the fancy stuff fails, if you do not possess decent hand skills to deal with emergencies which are simply not covered in your beloved QRH, then some of you are statistically going to die.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Attic
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For example, it could be argued that if the automatics on the Turkish DC-10 at Paris had been left in then it may well have been able to do an auto-land back at Orly. (Without getting too involved, the hydraulics ran underneath the floor - which was catastrophically damaged - whereas the electrics for the autoland ran along the roof which was intact).
So even if the crew used the automatics to try and raise the nose, it would have been equally useless as the main flight controls still wouldn't work.
Although I'm not sure if the DC-10 has an AC backup motor for the elevator trim like the 747 has, the only thing they could do (and which to my recollection they did), was try and raise the nose by increasing power on the number 1 and 3 engines. To no avail, I'm sad to say
Edited for correctness: The floor collapse following explosive depressurization jammed all of the control cables to the tail, including those for elevator trim and the number 2 engine. No mention of a hydraulic failure, which might suggest they still had roll control and control over their flaps/slats.
link
Last edited by A-FLOOR; 2nd Sep 2005 at 15:45.
Not strictly true if my memory serves me right. I freely admit that my manuals are up in the attic and that I am 20 years out of date but I seem to remember that we had reversible and non-reversible motor pumps in the flying control part of the hydraulic systems.
The non-reversible motor pumps had their own reservoirs which still contained fluid in the event of the failure of the main hydraulics.
The theory was that these reservoirs would have contained enough fluid for the automatics to work the control surfaces according to my mentors at AA in DFW.
Incidentally, we used to practice flying the DC-10 in the simulator just by using the engines after the Chicago disaster (a long time before Sioux City). Their biggest problem was the fact that they didn't have No.2 available to control pitch.
We were taught to use Nos 1 and 3 for turning.
With No.2 available it was a relatively easy exercise.
The non-reversible motor pumps had their own reservoirs which still contained fluid in the event of the failure of the main hydraulics.
The theory was that these reservoirs would have contained enough fluid for the automatics to work the control surfaces according to my mentors at AA in DFW.
Incidentally, we used to practice flying the DC-10 in the simulator just by using the engines after the Chicago disaster (a long time before Sioux City). Their biggest problem was the fact that they didn't have No.2 available to control pitch.
We were taught to use Nos 1 and 3 for turning.
With No.2 available it was a relatively easy exercise.
Registered User **
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it not just evolution/modernisation that is driving this ? The fact that the automatics are essentially controlled by mini-computers doing thousands of repetitive [and error free one should hope ?] calculations with minor variations to change pitch, bank, rate(s) and so forth ? A good example is a precision hold.
I'm sure many here remember times-tables ? and indeed I'm one of those old cranky Victor Meldrews who were not allowed to take "calculators" into exams back in my youth ? But what real worth is memorizing times-tables for the modern student, when a calculator is now a fundamental part of his tools ?
Likewise, modern pilots are expected to not only have the basic stick 'n' rudder skills, but also be able to manage the automatics and know [to a fair degree of certainty] what the raw inputs would yield without the computers ? Same deal with modern Jet Airliners, the automatics are a fundamental part of the aircraft.
I guess its the way its going, for example, you'd be hard pressed to find a manual FX trading (excluding futures, because no one can tell the future, not even computers) desk that can do as well as a comptuerised one, the arbritrage (price difference) exists for a millisecond [well a few hours or so at any rate] across markets and the ripple is almost in an instant globally equalized, all of this is done by computers with little or no input from a person, 24/7.
Which is why the banks make lots of lolly on our holiday drachmas!
I'm sure many here remember times-tables ? and indeed I'm one of those old cranky Victor Meldrews who were not allowed to take "calculators" into exams back in my youth ? But what real worth is memorizing times-tables for the modern student, when a calculator is now a fundamental part of his tools ?
Likewise, modern pilots are expected to not only have the basic stick 'n' rudder skills, but also be able to manage the automatics and know [to a fair degree of certainty] what the raw inputs would yield without the computers ? Same deal with modern Jet Airliners, the automatics are a fundamental part of the aircraft.
I guess its the way its going, for example, you'd be hard pressed to find a manual FX trading (excluding futures, because no one can tell the future, not even computers) desk that can do as well as a comptuerised one, the arbritrage (price difference) exists for a millisecond [well a few hours or so at any rate] across markets and the ripple is almost in an instant globally equalized, all of this is done by computers with little or no input from a person, 24/7.
Which is why the banks make lots of lolly on our holiday drachmas!
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Ashbourne Co Meath Ireland
Age: 73
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But what real worth is memorizing times-tables for the modern student, when a calculator is now a fundamental part of his tools ?
Yes, that happened to me not long back, it took close on 5 MINUTES to get past the payment stage, the first calculator had a flat battery, the "spare" was missing, and despite several "suggestions" that it was 4.50, I could not pay for the items until said "assistant" had eventually found the means to work it out for himself.
If the same scenario starts happening in aircraft flight decks, and I seem to recall that's how this thread started, I for one am not going to be too comfortable about the implications. Yes, there is a lot more automation, but that does not remove the requirement to know and UNDERSTAND how the thing works when a normally obscure and minor part suddenly decides to throw it's toys out of the pram and not do what it's supposed to. At that stage, someone has to be able to make sensible decisions about what to do, and how to do it, and if the underlying knowledge and skills are not there, do we all just sit there and wait for the impact? I hope not.
One of the most scary aspects of the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is that so many of the things that people take totally for granted, like water, food, electricity, petrol, vehicles and roads to use them on, mobile phone services, the internet, ALL of these things are at present not there, and not likely to be for a long time to come, and even the emergency services are struggling to cope because they can't operate in the manner in which they've become accustomed to doing, using facilities that within living memory, have always been there, or at least been mostly there, with gaps.
Now, ALL of the "essentials" have been wiped out over a massive area, and the sytem has suddenly discovered that it's not sure how to work any more.
Apply that same scenario to the discussion here. When it's all working, and doing what it's supposed to , no problem, almost anyone can manage that scenario. Fail increasing quantities of the automation and support systems, and life gets very complicated, very fast. At that point, if the underlying skills and knowledge are not there, the potential for a catastrophic accident is only too clear.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But what real worth is memorizing times-tables for the modern student, when a calculator is now a fundamental part of his tools ?
Also, as mentioned above, it saves time in the check out queue when you how much is due before the checkout operator.
A very similar argument to the need to be good at stick and rudder flying to get the most from the automation.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am currently flying an Airbus out of my base that has the RDMI inop. It has been thus since we got the thing, and is likely to remain 'thus' for the forseeable future. When I say 'the', I mean 'the only' RDMI because this particular 321 only has 1 fitted. I'm pretty sure that most 32x series only have 1, if not all. Anyway, this is in accordance with the MEL.
If both the FMGSs fail, I would like to know how I could continue a SID or a STAR, hand-flown or automatic, in this situation. If all the screens fail, I would like to know how to do the above as well. As for continuing to fly on airways... don't make me laugh; I could do it on a Boeing, but not anymore.
The simple answer is... I can't. I'm now reliant on vectors and / or my standby instruments (which are glass... they can't fail, can they ?! see below....)
The RDMI is tuned from the FMGS anyway, so perhaps if the FMGS fails, I can't tune the thing anyway... can't find the answer in the FCOM, so it will be a 'can we try this ?' at the next sim.
The underlying argument seems to be - "When it all goes wrong, you should have the skills to be able to continue safely."
I'd like to add another argument - "When it all goes wrong, you should have the KIT to be able to continue safely." I'm not sure I do with the WonderBus... my operator has experienced an all-screen failure (including standby instruments) on this type and luckily it was VMC with subsequently no drama.
Having said that, it does make you look like an airborne god sometimes... FDs off, 'hand-flown' (chuckle) VOR approach into IBZ... on the rails, 3.2 degree continuous slope. Not because I'm great, but because the aircraft gives you tools that other types don't have. I don't fancy my chances on anything else after a few years on this though....
If both the FMGSs fail, I would like to know how I could continue a SID or a STAR, hand-flown or automatic, in this situation. If all the screens fail, I would like to know how to do the above as well. As for continuing to fly on airways... don't make me laugh; I could do it on a Boeing, but not anymore.
The simple answer is... I can't. I'm now reliant on vectors and / or my standby instruments (which are glass... they can't fail, can they ?! see below....)
The RDMI is tuned from the FMGS anyway, so perhaps if the FMGS fails, I can't tune the thing anyway... can't find the answer in the FCOM, so it will be a 'can we try this ?' at the next sim.
The underlying argument seems to be - "When it all goes wrong, you should have the skills to be able to continue safely."
I'd like to add another argument - "When it all goes wrong, you should have the KIT to be able to continue safely." I'm not sure I do with the WonderBus... my operator has experienced an all-screen failure (including standby instruments) on this type and luckily it was VMC with subsequently no drama.
Having said that, it does make you look like an airborne god sometimes... FDs off, 'hand-flown' (chuckle) VOR approach into IBZ... on the rails, 3.2 degree continuous slope. Not because I'm great, but because the aircraft gives you tools that other types don't have. I don't fancy my chances on anything else after a few years on this though....
DozyWannabe:
Maybe Southwest 737 NG pilots have a way to put the weather radar returns right onto the HSI (as with the 757 and numerous other aircraft), despite having mostly round gauge displays for flight instruments.
Don't know what swings and roundabouts are, but I tried to drive around some in England...
Maybe Southwest 737 NG pilots have a way to put the weather radar returns right onto the HSI (as with the 757 and numerous other aircraft), despite having mostly round gauge displays for flight instruments.
Don't know what swings and roundabouts are, but I tried to drive around some in England...
Last edited by Ignition Override; 5th Sep 2005 at 06:53.
Registered User **
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE:
"It also improves estimating skills and interpolation"
Of course it does, and it also gives you the ability to place your answers close enough to the solution.
My point was really that skills erosion is happening everywhere, and yes I agree that logarithmics are very useful, but trying to sell that to modern students, well is a hard task.
"It also improves estimating skills and interpolation"
Of course it does, and it also gives you the ability to place your answers close enough to the solution.
My point was really that skills erosion is happening everywhere, and yes I agree that logarithmics are very useful, but trying to sell that to modern students, well is a hard task.
