Modern Training erroding pilot skills
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: M.E.
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't agree more. The better your scan and motor skills the better your stuational awareness. That simple formula has yet to be disproved. I have seen many inexperienced pilots attempt to "make" the autopilot do something that was needed in a hurry. The real solution was to disconect everything (even for just a while) and sort it out the old fashioned way and then plug it back in. There is some very interesting research out recently about TCAS events handled badly. Specifically adjust vertical speed. This would not be so if the whole culture was more hands on friendly. It's got to be a happy medium between automatic and manual. We've gone too far towards the automatic. I've been at work and the autopilot is U/S. The MEL (and the company) quite rightly say "operate the aircraft". (Ok you may not be in RVSM airspace but you're still going).
Are you ready for that tomorrow?
Those with experience must demostrate to help those without. Good weather, not tired, blah, blah, etc., of course...
Are you ready for that tomorrow?
Those with experience must demostrate to help those without. Good weather, not tired, blah, blah, etc., of course...
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I turned everything off 40 miles out of CWL this evening having gone visual.
At the end of the day 74, 73, F27, G5, PA28...if you can't make it go where you want looking out the window, you oughta be home on the porch.
At the end of the day 74, 73, F27, G5, PA28...if you can't make it go where you want looking out the window, you oughta be home on the porch.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Ashbourne Co Meath Ireland
Age: 73
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Preparing for incoming
I did a project a while back with BAE, where they were doing research on secondary systems on airbus. As part of that project, we had to provide a reasonably accurate simulation of the aircraft, as they were going to be using line crews from a locally based operator to "fly" the sim, which is a non motion reasonable representation of the basics of an A320.
We did one exercise in a Level D sim to find out more about the extremes of the envelope. Pretty much everything was disabled on the automatics, so we were flying a "raw" 320. The plan was to try and discover what the "basic" aircraft handled like without the assistance of all the computer protections.
It was "interesting", in that the first sim we tried it on could not be flown in manual reversion, in that if it suffered a gross upset, it became totally unstable, and eventually departed stable flight. We decided that the best way forward was to try the same exercise on a different manufacturers sim, and we ended up having to go trans atlantic to do so (pre 9-11). This time, it responded in a more predictable and expected manner, so we were able to complete the testing.
This is where it gets interesting. There were 2 of us flying the thing, neither of us type rated on Airbus, but with reasonable testing experience. In that no one had told us any different, we'd got to the stage of flying in manual reversion, with only power, pitch trim and rudders operating, and were working for a landing in that configuration. At about 500 Ft, we didn't like what we were seeing, so threw it away, did a go around, still in manual reversion, and put it where we wanted it the next time round. We then took 5, as it had been a pretty intensive period. On the way out of the box, the instructor commented "I'm going to have to have a chat with the lads inside about that, we'd been told that a go around wasn't possible in manual reversion, and you two have just shown that it can be done"
OK, it wasn't pretty, and we were working VERY hard to make sure that it didn't depart.
Now, to the point. How many people reading this thread and flying the bus have ever done a manual reversion landing in the sim.
The reason I ask is that it's been suggested to me by several people that not all operators train to that level, as the beancounters have determined that the chances of it happening are so small there's no point spending money on training for a situation that will probably never happen.
I could mention other scenarios that we've flown in sims where we've found subsequently that line crews could not comfortably handle the scenario that we'd just done, as their training didn't go far enough out towards the edge of the envelope to allow them to be able to cope with the extremes.
Some of the things we were doing were at the edge of the envelope, but surely, that's the whole purpose of training, and simulation, to allow people to find out where the limits are, so that they can hopefully remain within them but using their capabilities when subsequently operating the aircraft.
If the limits are not probed, then the limits get closer to the centre. Equally, over time, if an instructor passes on (hopefully) 90% of what he knows about a type, after several generations of such passing on, the level of knowledge may well have been seriously eroded, because each pass is not passing on the whole knowledge. If to this we then add the concept that someone who wants to broaden their experience is possibly "trying to solve a problem they have with the type", instead of trying to broaden their knowledge, there's a real risk that the people that have a genuine interest in knowing more will be inhibited and prevented from learning more by the suspicion that their motives are not genuine.
All in all, I look at some of the trends I've seen in the last 15 or so years, and I will admit to some concerns, for the reasons I've given above.
At to the "real" validity of those concerns, I guess I'll never know, there's no way that the beancounters will ever admit to being anything other that "working for the best interest of the company", even when their results are shown later not to have been so.
Time for the coat, and probably some reinforced outer garments to repel incoming.
We did one exercise in a Level D sim to find out more about the extremes of the envelope. Pretty much everything was disabled on the automatics, so we were flying a "raw" 320. The plan was to try and discover what the "basic" aircraft handled like without the assistance of all the computer protections.
It was "interesting", in that the first sim we tried it on could not be flown in manual reversion, in that if it suffered a gross upset, it became totally unstable, and eventually departed stable flight. We decided that the best way forward was to try the same exercise on a different manufacturers sim, and we ended up having to go trans atlantic to do so (pre 9-11). This time, it responded in a more predictable and expected manner, so we were able to complete the testing.
This is where it gets interesting. There were 2 of us flying the thing, neither of us type rated on Airbus, but with reasonable testing experience. In that no one had told us any different, we'd got to the stage of flying in manual reversion, with only power, pitch trim and rudders operating, and were working for a landing in that configuration. At about 500 Ft, we didn't like what we were seeing, so threw it away, did a go around, still in manual reversion, and put it where we wanted it the next time round. We then took 5, as it had been a pretty intensive period. On the way out of the box, the instructor commented "I'm going to have to have a chat with the lads inside about that, we'd been told that a go around wasn't possible in manual reversion, and you two have just shown that it can be done"
OK, it wasn't pretty, and we were working VERY hard to make sure that it didn't depart.
Now, to the point. How many people reading this thread and flying the bus have ever done a manual reversion landing in the sim.
The reason I ask is that it's been suggested to me by several people that not all operators train to that level, as the beancounters have determined that the chances of it happening are so small there's no point spending money on training for a situation that will probably never happen.
I could mention other scenarios that we've flown in sims where we've found subsequently that line crews could not comfortably handle the scenario that we'd just done, as their training didn't go far enough out towards the edge of the envelope to allow them to be able to cope with the extremes.
Some of the things we were doing were at the edge of the envelope, but surely, that's the whole purpose of training, and simulation, to allow people to find out where the limits are, so that they can hopefully remain within them but using their capabilities when subsequently operating the aircraft.
If the limits are not probed, then the limits get closer to the centre. Equally, over time, if an instructor passes on (hopefully) 90% of what he knows about a type, after several generations of such passing on, the level of knowledge may well have been seriously eroded, because each pass is not passing on the whole knowledge. If to this we then add the concept that someone who wants to broaden their experience is possibly "trying to solve a problem they have with the type", instead of trying to broaden their knowledge, there's a real risk that the people that have a genuine interest in knowing more will be inhibited and prevented from learning more by the suspicion that their motives are not genuine.
All in all, I look at some of the trends I've seen in the last 15 or so years, and I will admit to some concerns, for the reasons I've given above.
At to the "real" validity of those concerns, I guess I'll never know, there's no way that the beancounters will ever admit to being anything other that "working for the best interest of the company", even when their results are shown later not to have been so.
Time for the coat, and probably some reinforced outer garments to repel incoming.
Paxing All Over The World
Irish Steve That is possibly the most fascinating post that I have read since I joined PPRuNe. If I was an inflammatory journo, I would use the word Terrifying but I shall stay with Remarkable. However, it all makes perfect [ghastly] sense.
I find it remarkable that any Bus operator does not train for Manual Reversion landing. Yes, I know there are three or five or seven computers but, one day they will all stop working and then you have to know how to make a reasonable descent towards the ground.
chucks I have worked in telecommunications and I.T. for 25+ years and the problem that I have seen in commerce is what you describe in the air! That is, that a company automate a process to make it easier and cheaper more often than they automate it to make the process better.
Nothing wrong in saving money but, in the UK, we have already seen the money saving process fail someway down the line. Best example, the state of maintenance on the national railway permanent way (the lines themselves). Too many years of politicians and Yes-men have broken the system and people have died.
One of the most common questions that a machine operator has when being taught a new function is, "Why is it doing that?" They then concentrate on trying to understand the machine. The best solution may well be to kick off the automatic and get to a safe place and then try to understand it. That safe place may be home base and even the SIM. But, if the operator/pilot does not know, or fully understand, what the machine is trying to accomplish in their name ...?
I find it remarkable that any Bus operator does not train for Manual Reversion landing. Yes, I know there are three or five or seven computers but, one day they will all stop working and then you have to know how to make a reasonable descent towards the ground.
chucks I have worked in telecommunications and I.T. for 25+ years and the problem that I have seen in commerce is what you describe in the air! That is, that a company automate a process to make it easier and cheaper more often than they automate it to make the process better.
Nothing wrong in saving money but, in the UK, we have already seen the money saving process fail someway down the line. Best example, the state of maintenance on the national railway permanent way (the lines themselves). Too many years of politicians and Yes-men have broken the system and people have died.
One of the most common questions that a machine operator has when being taught a new function is, "Why is it doing that?" They then concentrate on trying to understand the machine. The best solution may well be to kick off the automatic and get to a safe place and then try to understand it. That safe place may be home base and even the SIM. But, if the operator/pilot does not know, or fully understand, what the machine is trying to accomplish in their name ...?
I agree with very litle else chuks has to say, but here he is spot on. I've flown with guys who knew tricks the FMC could do I never thought existed because they took a class on it at college.
As them to stay a dot high when hand flying because we are trailing a heavy and they can't. This aplies to a small percent, but damn they are a memorable few.
As them to stay a dot high when hand flying because we are trailing a heavy and they can't. This aplies to a small percent, but damn they are a memorable few.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This really should be two threads: 1 - Discussion of handflying and skills associated with all aircraft except the Airbus. 2 - Airbus !!
I have just converted onto the 32x series, with around 3000 hours on 757/767. I now have 300 hours on the mighty Bus and offer the following.
Firstly, you don't hand fly it, except in manual reversion as discussed earlier. It's pretty much control wheel steering which is an autopilot mode on many other aircraft. The same decisions and calculations have to be made (i.e., where to point it, how quickly and how high/low), but once you have established this, you take your hand off the stick, gently bumping it to correct deviations from your intended path.
This still requires the same skill and judgement as in other aircraft, but it's not a mighty display of crossed-controls and hundreds of little inputs on the column. Same result, different method, but I suspect after 3000 hours on the Bus, my conventional aircraft skills are going to be pretty much stuffed and I'll have to relearn how to fly every other type ! Pilots who have came straight out of flying college onto this thing are not going to have the stick 'n rudder skills that other pilots may have accumulated.
Secondly, the autopilot does a better job than we do in most normal scenarios. Sure, it doesn't cope well with extreme weather conditions, but overall you give your pax a more comfotable ride if you leave it in !
I feel a little programmed out of the loop with the Airbus. The auto-throttles, sorry, auto-thrust system doesn't move the levers, so I need to be heads-in to see what power setting I have. I can't think of another aircraft that doesn't couple the auto-thrott..thrust system to motors to give the pilots feedback. The distance of travel of the levers is too small to allow precise adjustments of power. It's exactly what someone else was saying earlier - these are not Dakotas with wire controls and I don't feel heroic turning off the FDs, the AT and poling it about.
Now, before I get accused of starting an off-topic, anti-Airbus thread... I'm not. The aircraft is just different from everything else, and achieves the same job in a different way, but I feel it is definitely biased towards being operated automatically; it can become a bit of a pain when you turn everything off....
I liked taking the automatics out on the Boeing. I knew that the deflection of the controls corresponded to the input I gave them. I could anticipate gusts and smooth out the ride. I could operate it to the manufacturers limit with confidence.
With the Airbus, I have no idea what the control surfaces are doing compared to stick input - the aircraft picks its own wing up for me in gusty conditions, not allowing me to really feel what's going on and I am always reacting 'after' the event, rather than anticipating it.
Perhaps this will change as I get more experienced on type, but I feel that the 32x series is designed to be flown on automatics. On the day that every computer system fails, you get a trim wheel and a rudder. Time to brief the cc for the crash and hope it's your lucky day.
Me, I'm going to buck the trend of the thread. Had this come round six months ago, I'd have been with y'all on the 'huzzah, FDs off, raw data NDB to minimas and home in time for tiffin', but I'm not sure now.
Think I'll leave the AP in on this machine. It seems to think it can do a better job than me, and it probably can.
It's not like I can practice manual reversion, is it.... ?
I have just converted onto the 32x series, with around 3000 hours on 757/767. I now have 300 hours on the mighty Bus and offer the following.
Firstly, you don't hand fly it, except in manual reversion as discussed earlier. It's pretty much control wheel steering which is an autopilot mode on many other aircraft. The same decisions and calculations have to be made (i.e., where to point it, how quickly and how high/low), but once you have established this, you take your hand off the stick, gently bumping it to correct deviations from your intended path.
This still requires the same skill and judgement as in other aircraft, but it's not a mighty display of crossed-controls and hundreds of little inputs on the column. Same result, different method, but I suspect after 3000 hours on the Bus, my conventional aircraft skills are going to be pretty much stuffed and I'll have to relearn how to fly every other type ! Pilots who have came straight out of flying college onto this thing are not going to have the stick 'n rudder skills that other pilots may have accumulated.
Secondly, the autopilot does a better job than we do in most normal scenarios. Sure, it doesn't cope well with extreme weather conditions, but overall you give your pax a more comfotable ride if you leave it in !
I feel a little programmed out of the loop with the Airbus. The auto-throttles, sorry, auto-thrust system doesn't move the levers, so I need to be heads-in to see what power setting I have. I can't think of another aircraft that doesn't couple the auto-thrott..thrust system to motors to give the pilots feedback. The distance of travel of the levers is too small to allow precise adjustments of power. It's exactly what someone else was saying earlier - these are not Dakotas with wire controls and I don't feel heroic turning off the FDs, the AT and poling it about.
Now, before I get accused of starting an off-topic, anti-Airbus thread... I'm not. The aircraft is just different from everything else, and achieves the same job in a different way, but I feel it is definitely biased towards being operated automatically; it can become a bit of a pain when you turn everything off....
I liked taking the automatics out on the Boeing. I knew that the deflection of the controls corresponded to the input I gave them. I could anticipate gusts and smooth out the ride. I could operate it to the manufacturers limit with confidence.
With the Airbus, I have no idea what the control surfaces are doing compared to stick input - the aircraft picks its own wing up for me in gusty conditions, not allowing me to really feel what's going on and I am always reacting 'after' the event, rather than anticipating it.
Perhaps this will change as I get more experienced on type, but I feel that the 32x series is designed to be flown on automatics. On the day that every computer system fails, you get a trim wheel and a rudder. Time to brief the cc for the crash and hope it's your lucky day.
Me, I'm going to buck the trend of the thread. Had this come round six months ago, I'd have been with y'all on the 'huzzah, FDs off, raw data NDB to minimas and home in time for tiffin', but I'm not sure now.
Think I'll leave the AP in on this machine. It seems to think it can do a better job than me, and it probably can.
It's not like I can practice manual reversion, is it.... ?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a friend who flies RJs now who used to fly the 1900D. He told me that the hand flying hours he accumulated on the Beechcraft were invaluable and that he enjoyed that a/c a lot. Most airlines have taken the 1900 off the line at this point. In the US, handflying at an airline seems to be disappearing more and more.
I see a consistent argument here and when hangar flying when this subject comes up. Yes, the AP does provide for a better ride than when hand flying. My counter is that somewhere, sometime the AP has to come off. Be it deferred, turbulence kicks it off, SOP requires, etc.
You still have to maintain some semblance of handflying skills to cover those occasions. If there are a few whitecaps in the coffee in first class to maintain your proficiency, then so be it.
You still have to maintain some semblance of handflying skills to cover those occasions. If there are a few whitecaps in the coffee in first class to maintain your proficiency, then so be it.
Irish Steve: quite interesting. Pardon the comparison to a totally different aviation subject, but thinking of stupid policies and desk pilots reminded me of something. It wast the stupidity of whichever generals in the US Pentagon Air Force Department never wanted to install standby artificial horizons in the C-130 Hercules, at least for many years. I'm told that they never installed them (is this true?). My father suffered TWO total electrical failures (in A and E models: the Colorado Springs squadron ALMOST lost a B model over Hawaii-the AC definitely had the skills, had extended the landing gear at high speed to limit the speed in the spiral, and they came out of the clouds in time...) in night IMC! Two flightcrews owed their lives, TWICE, to very professional and quite knowledgeable career Flight Engineers (and pilots) who knew how to reset multiple generators etc! The first thing the FE did was to shine his flashlight on the AC's horizon (ADI)...In the 70's, The Aircraft Commander's (my Dad's) horizon was at about a 15 degree bank when the gyros spun up after being re-powered. If my information is valid about the C-130 A throught H models, then what STUPID clowns in the Air Force allowed this cheap, chicken-s**t budget advantage to go forward for decades? Zantop lost a logair Lockheed Electra over Utah when an FE made an error on the electrical panel-the "grandfather clause" in civilian Part 121 regs also never required the Electra to have a standby.
Deperado: you have described the Airbus versus Boeing (or Douglas) much better than anyone I've ever read, or listened to! Now things seem to make sense, when I ask guys how high they hand-fly the "airplane": some give me a blank look and can't seem to remember. Those throttles must be challenging, with so little movement. Never mind the crosswinds. How could the design engineers take so much feedback away from the pilots? Maybe the 777 and Air Force C-17 pose similar new challenges for pilots? How about the F-16 and F-18? Maybe the Airbus stories will make sense one day. Whenever I transition to the Airbus in the future (I like the 60's technology too much to give it up, and lose lots of seniority in my seat now), I will remember your observations, however, quite honestly, I would rather not ever go back to an FMC aircraft
unless Somebody will let me fly, a little bit, in at least a small single-engine REAL plane as a hobby: and I'm not kidding about this. FMC-flying is not quite real flying, in my opinion. Real real flying might be in an old round-motor plane, but a classic F-27, 737 or DC-9 is much more real work and a challenge than any FMC Maschine. After another extortionate pay cut, I would never even consider renting a plane (have not in many years).
Chuks-one of our "Ninja (Turtle) Captains" (young guys who had "super-seniority":"the annointed") years ago on the 757 suddenly asked me to 'build' him a "Chinese glideslope" on the FMC, about 12 miles north of Orlando (MCO)-because the runway (18L?) had no glideslope, maybe no VASI or PAPI lights. Maybe we were already cleared for a visual approch. Maybe it was my first or second time to create this artificial glideslope using the runway elevation etc. To me, that seemed ludicrous but I tried to quickly "build" it. It is easy to be too high and fast on the 757 to be under the max speed for the final flap selection. Go-arounds are quite possible if pilots comply with the stable approach criteria.
The so-called "Chinese glideslope" was thought of as a good visual back-up, but we could have made a serious mistake as we were near the corporate airport in Orlando and one half of the c0ckp1t crew had his head down for a while, punching on buttons without a good reason (in my opinion).
Why not just slow the airplane down and use your eyeballs (over flat terrain) and when on final approach speed, check the IVSI sink rate + the recommended 1.05 EPR to estimate one's approach angle, possibly ask the other pilot how it looks when no VASI or PAPI is visible?
Just be very careful about aiming for the first section of runway with an airplane which has a long fuselage-a flat approach could easily allow the main gear to hit the runway edge or approach lights etc. 
Deperado: you have described the Airbus versus Boeing (or Douglas) much better than anyone I've ever read, or listened to! Now things seem to make sense, when I ask guys how high they hand-fly the "airplane": some give me a blank look and can't seem to remember. Those throttles must be challenging, with so little movement. Never mind the crosswinds. How could the design engineers take so much feedback away from the pilots? Maybe the 777 and Air Force C-17 pose similar new challenges for pilots? How about the F-16 and F-18? Maybe the Airbus stories will make sense one day. Whenever I transition to the Airbus in the future (I like the 60's technology too much to give it up, and lose lots of seniority in my seat now), I will remember your observations, however, quite honestly, I would rather not ever go back to an FMC aircraft
unless Somebody will let me fly, a little bit, in at least a small single-engine REAL plane as a hobby: and I'm not kidding about this. FMC-flying is not quite real flying, in my opinion. Real real flying might be in an old round-motor plane, but a classic F-27, 737 or DC-9 is much more real work and a challenge than any FMC Maschine. After another extortionate pay cut, I would never even consider renting a plane (have not in many years).Chuks-one of our "Ninja (Turtle) Captains" (young guys who had "super-seniority":"the annointed") years ago on the 757 suddenly asked me to 'build' him a "Chinese glideslope" on the FMC, about 12 miles north of Orlando (MCO)-because the runway (18L?) had no glideslope, maybe no VASI or PAPI lights. Maybe we were already cleared for a visual approch. Maybe it was my first or second time to create this artificial glideslope using the runway elevation etc. To me, that seemed ludicrous but I tried to quickly "build" it. It is easy to be too high and fast on the 757 to be under the max speed for the final flap selection. Go-arounds are quite possible if pilots comply with the stable approach criteria.
The so-called "Chinese glideslope" was thought of as a good visual back-up, but we could have made a serious mistake as we were near the corporate airport in Orlando and one half of the c0ckp1t crew had his head down for a while, punching on buttons without a good reason (in my opinion).
Why not just slow the airplane down and use your eyeballs (over flat terrain) and when on final approach speed, check the IVSI sink rate + the recommended 1.05 EPR to estimate one's approach angle, possibly ask the other pilot how it looks when no VASI or PAPI is visible?
Just be very careful about aiming for the first section of runway with an airplane which has a long fuselage-a flat approach could easily allow the main gear to hit the runway edge or approach lights etc.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 27th Aug 2005 at 05:26.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a nice left-handed compliment!
When it comes to politics and the state of the United States then West Coast and I will probably just have to agree to disagree. But it may be that we are reading from the same page when it comes to the trend in aviation and perhaps in society in general.
There is a general run-down of pride in being an old-fashioned master of one's trade right across society that carries into the cockpit. Well, aviation has expanded so quickly that it may have lost something of its heritage.
I have been spending a couple of weeks pottering around the hacienda, doing small maintenance tasks as a way of getting my mind right for another spell of work in West Africa.
I had asked a fellow at the local garage (non-franchise) to drill and re-tap a sink fitting for me, a fairly basic task for anyone equipped with basic metal-working skills and tools. Result: nothing! He kept the thing for a while and then gave up without even trying, handing it back as unrepairable. (Of course one can forget sourcing repair parts for something more than ten years old!) I ended up fixing it myself using basic hand tools.
This made me think of some of my un-met expectations when flying. For instance, I seem to be coming across as unreasonably demanding to expect that someone should be ready to respond to a TCAS alert with an immediate hand-flown response rather than a nice long look at the mode selectors before putting in the VS mode and then dialling in an appropriate number.
What I am getting at is the parallel of getting to grips rather directly with a problem, I suppose. What used to be called, 'Killing your own rats.' The essence of flying is to fly, just as the essence of having a workshop is to fix things, yes? You hold an idea in your mind, the Platonic ideal of whatever it is you see yourself doing and then you damn' well do it!
Nowadays it often seems to be 'This is not in my job description!' rather than 'Let us get on with the job!' It is as if people are coming into the wide field of aviation with a very narrow set of expectations, and perhaps a narrow set of skills as well.
The trend, what with cost-cutting and legislation-driven risk-avoidance, seems to be that many of the old skills and mind-sets are either not learnt or else discarded today. If we maintain that the basics of aviation have not changed then this means they shall have to be re-learnt and re-acquired later.
There is a general run-down of pride in being an old-fashioned master of one's trade right across society that carries into the cockpit. Well, aviation has expanded so quickly that it may have lost something of its heritage.
I have been spending a couple of weeks pottering around the hacienda, doing small maintenance tasks as a way of getting my mind right for another spell of work in West Africa.
I had asked a fellow at the local garage (non-franchise) to drill and re-tap a sink fitting for me, a fairly basic task for anyone equipped with basic metal-working skills and tools. Result: nothing! He kept the thing for a while and then gave up without even trying, handing it back as unrepairable. (Of course one can forget sourcing repair parts for something more than ten years old!) I ended up fixing it myself using basic hand tools.
This made me think of some of my un-met expectations when flying. For instance, I seem to be coming across as unreasonably demanding to expect that someone should be ready to respond to a TCAS alert with an immediate hand-flown response rather than a nice long look at the mode selectors before putting in the VS mode and then dialling in an appropriate number.
What I am getting at is the parallel of getting to grips rather directly with a problem, I suppose. What used to be called, 'Killing your own rats.' The essence of flying is to fly, just as the essence of having a workshop is to fix things, yes? You hold an idea in your mind, the Platonic ideal of whatever it is you see yourself doing and then you damn' well do it!
Nowadays it often seems to be 'This is not in my job description!' rather than 'Let us get on with the job!' It is as if people are coming into the wide field of aviation with a very narrow set of expectations, and perhaps a narrow set of skills as well.
The trend, what with cost-cutting and legislation-driven risk-avoidance, seems to be that many of the old skills and mind-sets are either not learnt or else discarded today. If we maintain that the basics of aviation have not changed then this means they shall have to be re-learnt and re-acquired later.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the rumour that BA are cutting their SIM recurrent training/checking from 4 hour sessions to 3 hour sessions.
Thus allowing the simulator to do 8 sessions a day rather than 6.
Thus allowing the simulator to do 8 sessions a day rather than 6.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My grandfather was a coach driver, one dark and dirty night he had a horse throw a shoe, no torch of course just a candle. Even when torches were invented he wouldn’t use one ‘battery might run out’. Eventually he had to admit that maybe automobiles were the way forward but he always ‘kept his hand in’, never really trusted this ‘damn fangled’ new technology. How many traditional skills and trades have followed his into the history books? There was always a backlash of course, a rearguard action rejecting progress and trying to stop the clock, might as well try holding back the tide. The technology already exists to operate aeroplanes in three dimensions to an accuracy of inches without the need to ‘see out’. More accidents are caused by pilots practising their skills and playing ‘Top Gun’ than by the automatics, human error is still the most significant factor in accidents and near misses. As has been pointed out the Airbus has already made traditional skills redundant and this process will continue. The present limitations on manoeuvring will be overcome. I’d rather be a pax in an aircraft with an automatic TCAS than let the pilots run into each other, I’d like to see Airbus go one step further and stop pilots flying visual circuits into the sea. Already you are unable to take direct control of engines as the computerised FCU’s don’t give you a direct link, likewise with controls. Mode S on the SSR will aim to prevent the increasing number of level busts and eventually allow direct ATC intervention. The writing is on the wall boys, if you don’t like it go back to crop dusting.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One could argue that flying an aircraft into the sea points to poor hand-flying skills rather than over-emphasis of this skill-set!
Point taken about the crew being the cause of most of the accidents, but what to do about that? When you look at some of the recent accidents it would seem the crew is often a bit lost when the automatics kick off. Yet, on the other hand, it's a lot easier to train and evaluate on the use of said automatics than on some rather indefinable ability to 'make the airplane do what you want it to.' So you are right about the way the trend is going, but what about the larger question of whether that is a Good Thing?
I think things will have to go a bit further before we may see a return to basics. I could be wrong about that, of course.
One thing I used to get a laugh out of was people calling me a 'bush pilot,' as if that was a bad thing.
I ended up in a simulator with the Instructor from Hell, a very keen young woman who wanted to strip off 15 years of what I had learnt as 'best practice,' in a Citation 500 Initial Course. We were not as one in our approach to this profession of ours, shall we say?
It was all frou-frou and how to check this or that system, rather than just keeping the damn' thing pointed in the right direction while handling a systems failure single-pilot. I pointed out that if I made it safely back to base then the engineers could check out the systems for me, but meanwhile I had a complex airplace to fly safely!
Then we had a period of about five minutes 'in transit' between emergencies. At the end of it She Who Must Be Obeyed turned to me and said, 'Okay, take the autopilot off now.'
'What autopilot?' came the answer. I guess she never saw anyone do five minutes straight and level before? One for the 'bush pilots' there! Try a bit of 'crop dusting' before you diss it, is my advice.
Point taken about the crew being the cause of most of the accidents, but what to do about that? When you look at some of the recent accidents it would seem the crew is often a bit lost when the automatics kick off. Yet, on the other hand, it's a lot easier to train and evaluate on the use of said automatics than on some rather indefinable ability to 'make the airplane do what you want it to.' So you are right about the way the trend is going, but what about the larger question of whether that is a Good Thing?
I think things will have to go a bit further before we may see a return to basics. I could be wrong about that, of course.
One thing I used to get a laugh out of was people calling me a 'bush pilot,' as if that was a bad thing.
I ended up in a simulator with the Instructor from Hell, a very keen young woman who wanted to strip off 15 years of what I had learnt as 'best practice,' in a Citation 500 Initial Course. We were not as one in our approach to this profession of ours, shall we say?
It was all frou-frou and how to check this or that system, rather than just keeping the damn' thing pointed in the right direction while handling a systems failure single-pilot. I pointed out that if I made it safely back to base then the engineers could check out the systems for me, but meanwhile I had a complex airplace to fly safely!
Then we had a period of about five minutes 'in transit' between emergencies. At the end of it She Who Must Be Obeyed turned to me and said, 'Okay, take the autopilot off now.'
'What autopilot?' came the answer. I guess she never saw anyone do five minutes straight and level before? One for the 'bush pilots' there! Try a bit of 'crop dusting' before you diss it, is my advice.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lausanne
Age: 47
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
d246:
I rather prefer sitting in an acft with a pilot in front who has extremely good hand flying skills and is perfectly able to execute a visual approach when landing e.g. in Greece where most airports have non-precision approaches, terrain, and heavy crosswinds + ws.
Moreover, most autopilots have difficulties at crosswinds exceeding 10kts.
And as a computer scientist let me tell you something about the way those things are implemented in FMCs. Once you have the specification what the system should do, there are very safe ways to implement it and function accordingly to the system specification. However, who tells you that the specification is correct and covers all eventualities, only God can. The Lufthansa Warsaw rwy overrun is a "classic" for bad system specification because the stupid computer did not let the pilots use the entire breaking power available.
I rather prefer sitting in an acft with a pilot in front who has extremely good hand flying skills and is perfectly able to execute a visual approach when landing e.g. in Greece where most airports have non-precision approaches, terrain, and heavy crosswinds + ws.
Moreover, most autopilots have difficulties at crosswinds exceeding 10kts.
And as a computer scientist let me tell you something about the way those things are implemented in FMCs. Once you have the specification what the system should do, there are very safe ways to implement it and function accordingly to the system specification. However, who tells you that the specification is correct and covers all eventualities, only God can. The Lufthansa Warsaw rwy overrun is a "classic" for bad system specification because the stupid computer did not let the pilots use the entire breaking power available.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
d246
And just how do you propse that aircraft are flown into airports in the Greek islands ?
Most airports have only one NP approach....... do we just not go to these places if the wind is in the wrong direction ?
From your post I can only conclude that you don't have a clue about flying in the charter business or you have only just got out of the Magenta line kindergarden.
Most airports have only one NP approach....... do we just not go to these places if the wind is in the wrong direction ?
From your post I can only conclude that you don't have a clue about flying in the charter business or you have only just got out of the Magenta line kindergarden.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd keep the autopilot in for this field myself:
Out of interest, I do not accept (until proven to the contrary) that, as mentioned by a previous poster, whilst it may be asserted that
this affords one the luxury of inferring that use of the automatics in the same situation would have saved them.
Human error may continue to be a major factor in the loss of commercial hulls, but I am not aware that this has been correlated with a failure to use the automatics. As I understand it, more pertinent in many cases is compromised decision making skills, loss of SA, incorrect pressure settings, information overload, incorrect failure diagnosis, distraction...
I stand to be corrected.
Out of interest, I do not accept (until proven to the contrary) that, as mentioned by a previous poster, whilst it may be asserted that
crew are the cause of most of the accidents
Human error may continue to be a major factor in the loss of commercial hulls, but I am not aware that this has been correlated with a failure to use the automatics. As I understand it, more pertinent in many cases is compromised decision making skills, loss of SA, incorrect pressure settings, information overload, incorrect failure diagnosis, distraction...
I stand to be corrected.
Last edited by SR71; 6th Sep 2005 at 05:58.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I correct in drawing these conclusions?
Automation compromises at least two sets of flying skills:
1. Motor skills - the basic stick 'n rudder if you will. This is your eye hand coordination variety, such as scanning, as well as motion perception...they body's sense of what the a/c is doing on the 3 axis (which can become confused in IFC....one reason we have autopilots).
2. Mental navigational and situational awareness skills. This is the sort of 3D spacial awareness a pilot has in his/her head about direction, distance from terrain, and relationship to NAVAIDS and airports, and even being able to point out one's location on a chart at all times. Nonprecision approaches also require this sort of awareness of location of markers and AGL altitude and location of obstacles...towers...mountains near the field.
I know one could break it down to more subcatagories, but these are skills needed to get the ratings in the first place.
I've heard of pilots who don't even pay attention to the FMC information provided in MAP and VOR modes and don't know in their head where the divert fields are...they are just along for the ride. If both FMCs suddenly went down and there was smoke and no radios...would they know where to divert?
Two accidents...I'm sure there are more, remind us of the danger of overdependence on the computers and the failure to maintain s/a. Both occured during the approach phase. Both times the crew pressed on despite a loss of s/a. If they had been in less automated a/c, would they have been more focused on reviewing charts and conducting more briefings?
1. AA 757 accident in Cali, Columbia. It was mountainous, at night, and the local controllers had minimal english skills. When the approach was changed to direct to make up of for lost time the crew was unfamiliar with the area and lost s/a. At one point the F/O asked the captain "where are we?" CFIT.
2. Korean Air 747 accident in Guam. Glideslope was closed at the field. The crew performed a nonprecision descent with outdated map and got messed up on the altitudes at the markers. CFIT.
Even if 90% of the time the computer takes the flight right up to the ILS intercept, if the crew doesn't maintain awareness of landmarks and navaids as if there was no computer, then s/a has already been compromised.
Automation compromises at least two sets of flying skills:
1. Motor skills - the basic stick 'n rudder if you will. This is your eye hand coordination variety, such as scanning, as well as motion perception...they body's sense of what the a/c is doing on the 3 axis (which can become confused in IFC....one reason we have autopilots).
2. Mental navigational and situational awareness skills. This is the sort of 3D spacial awareness a pilot has in his/her head about direction, distance from terrain, and relationship to NAVAIDS and airports, and even being able to point out one's location on a chart at all times. Nonprecision approaches also require this sort of awareness of location of markers and AGL altitude and location of obstacles...towers...mountains near the field.
I know one could break it down to more subcatagories, but these are skills needed to get the ratings in the first place.
I've heard of pilots who don't even pay attention to the FMC information provided in MAP and VOR modes and don't know in their head where the divert fields are...they are just along for the ride. If both FMCs suddenly went down and there was smoke and no radios...would they know where to divert?
Two accidents...I'm sure there are more, remind us of the danger of overdependence on the computers and the failure to maintain s/a. Both occured during the approach phase. Both times the crew pressed on despite a loss of s/a. If they had been in less automated a/c, would they have been more focused on reviewing charts and conducting more briefings?
1. AA 757 accident in Cali, Columbia. It was mountainous, at night, and the local controllers had minimal english skills. When the approach was changed to direct to make up of for lost time the crew was unfamiliar with the area and lost s/a. At one point the F/O asked the captain "where are we?" CFIT.
2. Korean Air 747 accident in Guam. Glideslope was closed at the field. The crew performed a nonprecision descent with outdated map and got messed up on the altitudes at the markers. CFIT.
Even if 90% of the time the computer takes the flight right up to the ILS intercept, if the crew doesn't maintain awareness of landmarks and navaids as if there was no computer, then s/a has already been compromised.
Last edited by TurningFinal; 26th Aug 2005 at 16:17.
I can't agree with point number two. Having a map of your position directly in front of you improves SA. I agree with your first point however. The best approach is a blend of new and old.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your'e history fellas. Autoland sysytems handle at least 15 Kts and do a better job than most pilots and will of course be developed further. Greek Islands, we have the technology to do three dimensional approaches anywhere, to Cat 3. We have global mapping to prevent CFIT, GPS to give accurate mapping etc etc. Try matching smart weapons or stealth technology', it's on its way lads.