Airline pilots 'lack skills to handle emergencies'
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Canada
Age: 68
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He has certainly got the edge [DL] on the rest of us, as he knows what caused the GF crash! The rest of us can only guess [and probably come to the same conclusion] but he has already put it in black and white.
However I do believe that he has it wrong about the GF crash as I do not believe that the emergency began until the Captain took control!
However I do believe that he has it wrong about the GF crash as I do not believe that the emergency began until the Captain took control!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Work
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There I was over the Bay of Biscay, the autopilot tripped out........ and luckily someone was there to make the machine keep on flying, close call if he had been on board but for the sake of everybody else on board we decided to complete the flight.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Somerset
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David Learmount does seem to be quite badly out of touch with reality, and does seem to need to spend much time on the jump seat of long and short-haul types in order to equip himself with the knowledge that he already professes to have.
He does however talk considerably more sense than the John Guntrip who the BBC insist on producing each time there is a major incident. His claim to fame? Well, he used to fly Britannia's old 737s (and in a leather jacket and shades aged 60!) Mr Cool? Well, he thought so.
He does however talk considerably more sense than the John Guntrip who the BBC insist on producing each time there is a major incident. His claim to fame? Well, he used to fly Britannia's old 737s (and in a leather jacket and shades aged 60!) Mr Cool? Well, he thought so.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gumbi,sky9,MPH,Hogwash,Big Buddha and Scimitar you all make very valid points.
Excuse me if I rant some more, but as I said the type of rubbish characterised by this article in The Independent and reinforced by the likes of Mr Learmount do get right up my nose.
A couple of points I just can't let slip by without comment.
Rongotai, with all due respect, I'm sure you're a very talented and much respected consultant as your wordy and erudite posting would obviously imply, but you contradict yourself! You state that over the next 20 years as the well trained and experienced "hands-on" guys retire, then accidents of the Gulf Air kind will increase. Did it ever occur to you that the commander on this flight was of the very age group that you're holding up as an example of "the good old days" of wonderfully experienced, incredibly skilled aircraft handlers?
Another quote from you - these older pilots can "easily and almost immediately access their deep level conceptual knowledge about the principles of flight." That will be of great help in an Airbus with an engine fire on take off.
I could keep going on this one but I'll resist.
Go with the flow, you say "surprising and as a non ATPL involved in another sphere of systematic risk prevention how insular some of the posts here appear". To be honest, I'm not sure what your point is, but it sounds to me very like "I always knew they just pushed buttons, when will they own up to the fact that they're simply overpaid bus drivers?"
Self Loading Freight, you say "it sticks in the craw when people say bloody journos...."etc. So let me get this straight...The Independent print what I believe to be a complete load of hogwash spouted by Mr Learmount, denigrating my and my colleagues professionalism, but you're the one feeling aggrieved because some of us chose to criticise this imprecise piece of second rate journalism? You then go on to do exactly the thing that gets our backs up in the first place - I quote "those who sit in their armchairs at the front of a Boeing....", once again perpetuating this myth that we're sitting in luxury at the front, dozing quietly in the warm comfort of sheepskin, pressing the odd button now and then, all the time reassured by the soft glow of the lights as the autopilot speeds us on our way. The reality is a sore arse from spending the last eight hours with a Boeing strapped to it, a sore gut from too much coffee drunk to keep the eyelids open after weeks of getting up at four in the morning for earlies, in dire need of a sh*t from crappy airline food but not wanting to use the far from private toilet, which is now awash with unmentionables after a long charter and whose noxious fumes fill the cockpit. Meantime there is the constant chatter of ATC in my ear while I try to brief the approach, and in the other ear the cabin crew have just told me they have a medical problem with one of the passengers. Finally their is the prospect of a diversion on arrival as the weather is closing in, followed by a hand flown approach in winds gusting to 50 kts with minimum fuel. A very strange armchair....Oh, and by the way, it seems to me an aviation journalist should have an expert knowledge of his field, in the same way he would expect me to have an expert knowledge of mine.
And then we get to The Guvnor. Guvnor, again with all due respect, you state that when the time comes for us to earn our lifetime's salary in the space of a minute or two, the chances are it will not be something we've practised in the sim.....well, sorry to disagree, but quite obviously, statistically, it will be. Events like Sioux City do happen, but they are statistically insignificant. It is testimony to the success of modern training and the skills of pilots that the more likely events such as engine failures and depressurisations are dealt with successfully in the majority of cases when they occur. Of course these do not make good news copy.
You also state that it's highly questionable if, in your words, "younger pilots" had been at the controls, whether the outcome of Sioux City would have been as favourable. It seems to me this is a red herring - if they have experience of this type, then who knows? If flying new equipment, then they will have the skills to cope in that.
I feel drained now.........ho hum
I just found this topic and due to fatigue only scanned part of it.
411A and numerous others stated that we must hand fly very often, or at least steer the autopilot knobs, using vertical speed and steering knobs-not just push an autopilot button while pushing VNAV, LNAV, execute buttons etc.
How much of YOUR Aircraft Operating Manual, which describes checklist "flows", and normal procedures etc, is written by pilots who rarely fly "the line"?
If each aircraft Fleet Program Manager flew very often, maybe fewer would recommend using all of "the magic" all of the time, with the exception on our 757s. They wanted us to do one autoland per month (to check systems in case of the need for a Cat 2 or 3), but guys rarely used it: hand flying the plane was more rewarding.
Back on a "steam-gauge" airplane, few passengers might realize that any smooth flight is partly the result of careful use of the control yoke and the autopilot knobs (which WE move), along with the manual pushing/pulling of the throttles. We pilots here in the US almost never call them power levers, but the so-called "industry experts" who are often quoted in the media actually think that they understand what we do and say.
And some of the public still believe that many airliners have navigators. On the Gulf Coast we do have 'gators, so they are partly correct.
411A and numerous others stated that we must hand fly very often, or at least steer the autopilot knobs, using vertical speed and steering knobs-not just push an autopilot button while pushing VNAV, LNAV, execute buttons etc.
How much of YOUR Aircraft Operating Manual, which describes checklist "flows", and normal procedures etc, is written by pilots who rarely fly "the line"?
If each aircraft Fleet Program Manager flew very often, maybe fewer would recommend using all of "the magic" all of the time, with the exception on our 757s. They wanted us to do one autoland per month (to check systems in case of the need for a Cat 2 or 3), but guys rarely used it: hand flying the plane was more rewarding.
Back on a "steam-gauge" airplane, few passengers might realize that any smooth flight is partly the result of careful use of the control yoke and the autopilot knobs (which WE move), along with the manual pushing/pulling of the throttles. We pilots here in the US almost never call them power levers, but the so-called "industry experts" who are often quoted in the media actually think that they understand what we do and say.
And some of the public still believe that many airliners have navigators. On the Gulf Coast we do have 'gators, so they are partly correct.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wellington
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankyou for your response, Maximum.
I, in turn, am slightly puzzled by what you say, feeling it to be contradictory.
I made no comment on who or who was not flying the Gulf Air flight. I merely said that accidents of that type are likely to increase as a proportion of all accidents.
Nor do I believe in 'the good old days'. It is certainly the case that 'good old pilots' are likely to have more problems adjusting to glass cockpits than young pilots who have known nothing else. If I confused that issue by the way I wrote, then I apologise.
However I stand by my proposition that regardless of the technological level of the aircraft, deep level knowledge of the principles of flight are an essential asset -including and possibly especially when an Airbus experiences an engine fire on take off.
I agree entirely with you, and disagree entirely with the Guv'nor, on the subject of pilots viewed as 'systems monitors'.
But the main problem for me is not that. While I understand what is involved in navigating into a busy TMA (I have jump seated into Gatwick on 6 occasions, and my son does it 10 times a week from the LHS)that is a normal expectation of the job.
For me what defines the professionalism of pilots is what they hope never to need to demonstrate operationally - the management of critical incidents which exceed the technical capabilities of the aircraft to self correct. And for those, purely technical competence is not enough by definition. Such occasions will never be totally eliminated by technical solutions because the cost of eliminating the last few scenarios is too high. Hence - no planes without pilots when there are passengers aboard.
Given the foregoing I never want to be a passenger on an aircraft where the pilot's training is such that s/he can do everything in the manual perfectly, and can handle everything that the simulator can throw up, but can't improvise when all else fails. It does not matter to me that such occasions are becoming statistically less common.
I, in turn, am slightly puzzled by what you say, feeling it to be contradictory.
I made no comment on who or who was not flying the Gulf Air flight. I merely said that accidents of that type are likely to increase as a proportion of all accidents.
Nor do I believe in 'the good old days'. It is certainly the case that 'good old pilots' are likely to have more problems adjusting to glass cockpits than young pilots who have known nothing else. If I confused that issue by the way I wrote, then I apologise.
However I stand by my proposition that regardless of the technological level of the aircraft, deep level knowledge of the principles of flight are an essential asset -including and possibly especially when an Airbus experiences an engine fire on take off.
I agree entirely with you, and disagree entirely with the Guv'nor, on the subject of pilots viewed as 'systems monitors'.
But the main problem for me is not that. While I understand what is involved in navigating into a busy TMA (I have jump seated into Gatwick on 6 occasions, and my son does it 10 times a week from the LHS)that is a normal expectation of the job.
For me what defines the professionalism of pilots is what they hope never to need to demonstrate operationally - the management of critical incidents which exceed the technical capabilities of the aircraft to self correct. And for those, purely technical competence is not enough by definition. Such occasions will never be totally eliminated by technical solutions because the cost of eliminating the last few scenarios is too high. Hence - no planes without pilots when there are passengers aboard.
Given the foregoing I never want to be a passenger on an aircraft where the pilot's training is such that s/he can do everything in the manual perfectly, and can handle everything that the simulator can throw up, but can't improvise when all else fails. It does not matter to me that such occasions are becoming statistically less common.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Front Seat
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The guts of the argument is, When passengers are prepared to fly on aircraft knowing that there are no pilots up front, then and only then will pilots be redundant.
Secondly the likes of the gentleman mentioned will only continue to be quoted by the media because the media are unable to do their own in depth investigations and gain the required knowledge and experience to be accepted. It is more an indictment of the media than an acceptance of the importance of the aforesaid "gentleman".
Secondly the likes of the gentleman mentioned will only continue to be quoted by the media because the media are unable to do their own in depth investigations and gain the required knowledge and experience to be accepted. It is more an indictment of the media than an acceptance of the importance of the aforesaid "gentleman".
Guest
Posts: n/a
Maximum - I'm differentiating between the 'normal' emergencies which one trains for as a matter of course - such as depressurisations, system and engine failures (which frankly come as part of the job) - and the much rarer emergencies such as Sioux City, the Gimli Glider and the Aloha 'convertible'. In the latter cases, the lack of sim training for such emergencies means that it is only those with the best flying skills that would be able to get the aircraft down safely ... and, as I'm sure you will agree, much of that does come from long experience. In those cases, the pilots do indeed make their lifetime's salaries in a matter of minutes - because they are venturing into the unknown and they have nothing, other than their experience and skills, to get the aircraft down.
If anyone other than Al Haynes had been commanding the United DC10, it's highly unlikely that anyone would have survived. After the incident, United replicated it on their simulators - and as I understand it, no-one was able to get the aircraft down.
Equally, with the Gimli Glider, if Bob Pearson hadn't been a top-ranking glider pilot - and Maurice Quintal hadn't known the location of Gimli - then it's also highly unlikely that the aircraft could have been landed in one piece.
My view is that it's only really those pilots that have had extensive hands on flying experience with both light aircraft and especially the older generations of airliners - the pistons and the early jets - that really have learnt the advanced flying skills that will save their lives along with their fellow crew members and passengers when the chips are down.
The latest generation of FBW aircraft are entirely dependent on computers to keep them in the air - not the pilots. If all of the computer systems fail, there's not a chance that the aircraft can be brought down safely because - regardless of what the manufacturers claim - you can't fly an aircraft without any control surfaces or power (don't forget that the engines are FADEC controlled). A number of the military aircraft around today - such as the F117A - are inherently areodynamically unstable and again it's thanks to the computers that the aircraft gets from A to B.
Next, I'm still not too sure why some people, such as Rongotai (to pick someone at random - sorry mate!) - view the description of 'system monitors' as being somehow derogatory. It isn't - it's simply a factual description of what the overwhelming majority of a flight is spent doing.
The reality is that as our skies get more and more crowded, then computer systems will be delegated more control because they can react much faster than humans can. And, at the end of the day, that means that the Captain and First Officer will go the way of the Navigator, Radio Officer and Flight Engineer.
We've already come a trememdous way, when one considers that powered flight is still less than 100 year old (Kitty Hawk was 1903). If we've come this far in 100 years, imagine how far we can go in the next 100?
And hopefully nothing will go wrong ... go wrong ... go wrong... 
If anyone other than Al Haynes had been commanding the United DC10, it's highly unlikely that anyone would have survived. After the incident, United replicated it on their simulators - and as I understand it, no-one was able to get the aircraft down.
Equally, with the Gimli Glider, if Bob Pearson hadn't been a top-ranking glider pilot - and Maurice Quintal hadn't known the location of Gimli - then it's also highly unlikely that the aircraft could have been landed in one piece.
My view is that it's only really those pilots that have had extensive hands on flying experience with both light aircraft and especially the older generations of airliners - the pistons and the early jets - that really have learnt the advanced flying skills that will save their lives along with their fellow crew members and passengers when the chips are down.
The latest generation of FBW aircraft are entirely dependent on computers to keep them in the air - not the pilots. If all of the computer systems fail, there's not a chance that the aircraft can be brought down safely because - regardless of what the manufacturers claim - you can't fly an aircraft without any control surfaces or power (don't forget that the engines are FADEC controlled). A number of the military aircraft around today - such as the F117A - are inherently areodynamically unstable and again it's thanks to the computers that the aircraft gets from A to B.
Next, I'm still not too sure why some people, such as Rongotai (to pick someone at random - sorry mate!) - view the description of 'system monitors' as being somehow derogatory. It isn't - it's simply a factual description of what the overwhelming majority of a flight is spent doing.
The reality is that as our skies get more and more crowded, then computer systems will be delegated more control because they can react much faster than humans can. And, at the end of the day, that means that the Captain and First Officer will go the way of the Navigator, Radio Officer and Flight Engineer.
We've already come a trememdous way, when one considers that powered flight is still less than 100 year old (Kitty Hawk was 1903). If we've come this far in 100 years, imagine how far we can go in the next 100?
And hopefully nothing will go wrong ... go wrong ... go wrong...
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Before or After Defection?
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When flying into CFU on a bad night CB's everywhere, 30 deg offset approach folowed by a circle to land, 10 other aircraft in the area, the automatics are a godsend.
DL should be on the jumpseat then, and then he will realise that there is alot more to flying aeroplanes than being able to hand fly.
In fact, if all you had to do was fly then it would be an easy job but the hard part is the flight deck management. The use of automatics make that a lot easier and SAFER.
There are relatively less accidents now than there used to be so things must be moving in the right direction.
DL should be on the jumpseat then, and then he will realise that there is alot more to flying aeroplanes than being able to hand fly.
In fact, if all you had to do was fly then it would be an easy job but the hard part is the flight deck management. The use of automatics make that a lot easier and SAFER.
There are relatively less accidents now than there used to be so things must be moving in the right direction.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Far East
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE
The latest generation of FBW aircraft are entirely dependent on computers to keep them in the air - not the pilots. If all of the computer systems fail, there's not a chance that the aircraft can be brought down safely because - regardless of what the manufacturers claim - you can't fly an aircraft without any control surfaces or power (don't forget that the engines are FADEC controlled). A number of the military aircraft around today - such as the F117A - are inherently areodynamically unstable and again it's thanks to the computers that the aircraft gets from A to B.
UNQUOTE
That piece is not factually correct. On the A340, you could lose all 5 Flight Control computers...Prim 1,2,3 and Sec 1,2...and still put the a/c down gently onto a runway. Airbus calls it "flight with Mechanical Backup" i.e. with manual trim and rudder only. It's quite easy, really...on a clear cloudless day. On worse days, it can be a handful, but i would have earned my salary for life if i landed the 'bus in a howling 28kt crosswind and 350m RVR, with that config. As for DL, i have a padded room ready for him....
The latest generation of FBW aircraft are entirely dependent on computers to keep them in the air - not the pilots. If all of the computer systems fail, there's not a chance that the aircraft can be brought down safely because - regardless of what the manufacturers claim - you can't fly an aircraft without any control surfaces or power (don't forget that the engines are FADEC controlled). A number of the military aircraft around today - such as the F117A - are inherently areodynamically unstable and again it's thanks to the computers that the aircraft gets from A to B.
UNQUOTE
That piece is not factually correct. On the A340, you could lose all 5 Flight Control computers...Prim 1,2,3 and Sec 1,2...and still put the a/c down gently onto a runway. Airbus calls it "flight with Mechanical Backup" i.e. with manual trim and rudder only. It's quite easy, really...on a clear cloudless day. On worse days, it can be a handful, but i would have earned my salary for life if i landed the 'bus in a howling 28kt crosswind and 350m RVR, with that config. As for DL, i have a padded room ready for him....
Guest
Posts: n/a
It seems to me that, whether or not we choose to face up to it, David is right on the button here. An excellent example of the verisimilitude of his claim can be found at the following AAIB website:
http://www.aaib.detr.gov.uk/bulletin/aug01/gbydn.htm
I do not post this to in any way criticise the crew in question, merely to illustrate that it has become increasingly difficult in today's environment to maintain certain basic flying skills and to employ them when under extreme pressure. Which is, of course, the real point made by DL.
http://www.aaib.detr.gov.uk/bulletin/aug01/gbydn.htm
I do not post this to in any way criticise the crew in question, merely to illustrate that it has become increasingly difficult in today's environment to maintain certain basic flying skills and to employ them when under extreme pressure. Which is, of course, the real point made by DL.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Marko Ramius - I suspect that what Tilii's talking about here is the fact that although the crew did a good job, they lost the plot a bit which led to the problem in the first place - as is confirmed in the 'Conclusions' section of the report:
Locgreen - and what happens when the FADEC computers fail as well due to nil interface with the main systems? I suspect that things might go rather quiet!
[ 16 August 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]
Following the initial restriction of elevator movement, probably due to ice accretion on the servo capstan, which was overcome by the use of extreme force on the control column, the crew de-selected AP2. Both crewmembers remained unaware of the subsequent inadvertent selection of AP1. When the AFCS components, were removed from the aircraft and tested no defect was found that would have caused the AP1 to engage without normal selection by a crewmember. Whilst the crew had initially experienced a genuine control restriction, at a critical time of flight in a busy terminal area, the selection of AP1 with the apparent continuation of control difficulties increased their concerns and workload. The information on the status of AP1 was available on the PFD, but the pilots’ preoccupation with trying to maintain control of the aircraft meant that this was not noted. This is not altogether surprising since human factor studies have shown that, at times of heavy workload and in emergency situations, it is possible for pilots to be unaware of both visual and aural alerting devices.
[ 16 August 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Flingstoneland
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing can clearly be abstracted from all this. Which is: We need more training. I dos not have to be in the aircraft, the simulator is quiet capable. But what is not normal is that, at least in my case, I only go to practice emergencies in the simulator once every 5 or 6 months for my LPC. Its ridiculous. We should train in the simulator at least once a month. At least you would have the confidence of being able to handle any situation. I guess that this might be to much to bear for the airlines.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree! We could do with more sim time, even if it's to play in and experiment a little with the aircraft.
re Hand flying. There's a time and place for that- certainly not in the London TMA. Autopilot in 1000AGL thanks!
If DL think it's all about sitting back pressing buttons- he should see just how hard we can work- especially under Italian ATC!
re Hand flying. There's a time and place for that- certainly not in the London TMA. Autopilot in 1000AGL thanks!
If DL think it's all about sitting back pressing buttons- he should see just how hard we can work- especially under Italian ATC!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Guv'nor said:
"We've already come a trememdous way, when one considers that powered flight is still less than 100 year old (Kitty Hawk was 1903). If we've come this far in 100 years, imagine how far we can go in the next 100?"
Actually, I don't think we've come that far in the last 50, certainly not when compared with the first 50. By the end of the first 50 years we had jet fighters and a 4-engined jet transport - the Comet - which cruised at speeds and levels not dissimilar to todays, err, 4-engined jet transports (Concorde apart - but that was a 60s aeroplane anyway).
Sure, modern airliners are much more reliable, cheaper to run, and more environmentally friendly. But these and the other differences are just development, not basic innovation.
To go from Kittyhawk to the Comet in less than 50 years is nothing short of amazing. To go from the Comet to where we are today is.... nothing like as amazing IMHO.
SSD
"We've already come a trememdous way, when one considers that powered flight is still less than 100 year old (Kitty Hawk was 1903). If we've come this far in 100 years, imagine how far we can go in the next 100?"
Actually, I don't think we've come that far in the last 50, certainly not when compared with the first 50. By the end of the first 50 years we had jet fighters and a 4-engined jet transport - the Comet - which cruised at speeds and levels not dissimilar to todays, err, 4-engined jet transports (Concorde apart - but that was a 60s aeroplane anyway).
Sure, modern airliners are much more reliable, cheaper to run, and more environmentally friendly. But these and the other differences are just development, not basic innovation.
To go from Kittyhawk to the Comet in less than 50 years is nothing short of amazing. To go from the Comet to where we are today is.... nothing like as amazing IMHO.
SSD
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right Shaggy. We also went from Kitty Hawk to Outer Space in 60 years but not much further since. At the same rate of progress I should have been posting this from Alpha Centauri by now!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sky9 and others
For your background info, Barrie Clement, the Independent journalist who "quotes" me didn't speak to me at any stage. I didn't even know he was going to publish the article.
He based the article, perfectly legally and validly, on a brief presentation that I gave to a Royal Aeronautical Society flight simulation and training seminar way back on 13 May. My main question to him is: what took you so long?
Most of what he says is a reasonable representation, given that he was writing for for a non-aviation audience, of some of what I said. Inevitably, however, other things that Mr Clement says are his interpretation of the issue.
For example I didn't say at any stage that pilots push a button at the beginning of the take-off run and sit back with arms folded until the landing. Nor did I say anything remotely like that.
My theme was the challenges facing those who manufacture simulators and those who use them for the pilot training task.
The presentation looked at what simulators can do and what they can't. It also looked at the different needs in today's (and the future's) pilot recurrent training as flight decks become progressively more automated and aircraft become more complex, giving pilots less hands-on time but demanding more - not less - systems knowledge and understanding.
At no point was I denigrating pilots and their skills. On the contrary, I was pointing out that in today's world with today's equipment the task is actually becoming more complex, and that pilots' training needs to reflect this.
I could go on, but if you're really interested you'll get the stuff from the RAeS anyway.
Sky9 (you made your request for a reply on the neighbouring thread about Flight), thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. It's clear that not everyone who commented on this thread stops to think, as you did, that even a journalist can be either misinterpreted or misquoted by another journalist.
And finally, I'm not slagging off Barrie Clements. The message, as a whole, was well reported, given the medium he was working in.
David L
For your background info, Barrie Clement, the Independent journalist who "quotes" me didn't speak to me at any stage. I didn't even know he was going to publish the article.
He based the article, perfectly legally and validly, on a brief presentation that I gave to a Royal Aeronautical Society flight simulation and training seminar way back on 13 May. My main question to him is: what took you so long?
Most of what he says is a reasonable representation, given that he was writing for for a non-aviation audience, of some of what I said. Inevitably, however, other things that Mr Clement says are his interpretation of the issue.
For example I didn't say at any stage that pilots push a button at the beginning of the take-off run and sit back with arms folded until the landing. Nor did I say anything remotely like that.
My theme was the challenges facing those who manufacture simulators and those who use them for the pilot training task.
The presentation looked at what simulators can do and what they can't. It also looked at the different needs in today's (and the future's) pilot recurrent training as flight decks become progressively more automated and aircraft become more complex, giving pilots less hands-on time but demanding more - not less - systems knowledge and understanding.
At no point was I denigrating pilots and their skills. On the contrary, I was pointing out that in today's world with today's equipment the task is actually becoming more complex, and that pilots' training needs to reflect this.
I could go on, but if you're really interested you'll get the stuff from the RAeS anyway.
Sky9 (you made your request for a reply on the neighbouring thread about Flight), thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. It's clear that not everyone who commented on this thread stops to think, as you did, that even a journalist can be either misinterpreted or misquoted by another journalist.
And finally, I'm not slagging off Barrie Clements. The message, as a whole, was well reported, given the medium he was working in.
David L