FAA Head Concerned With Cockpit Experience
AirRabbit,
My assertion is that someone who would fight a stick pusher likely does not know what the pusher is trying to avert. Someone who bombed around as a CFI for 1600 hrs would have stalled enough airplanes to avoid that confusion. On the other hand, someone who was trained ab initio that the way out of a stall was to hold attitude and add power...
My assertion is that someone who would fight a stick pusher likely does not know what the pusher is trying to avert. Someone who bombed around as a CFI for 1600 hrs would have stalled enough airplanes to avoid that confusion. On the other hand, someone who was trained ab initio that the way out of a stall was to hold attitude and add power...
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
421dog
Again, if you refer to Colgan, review their training in the Bombardier.
At shaker the drill is to add power and maintain altitude, not at Stall.
Recovery from shaker is a different animal from Stall recovery, Renslow appears to have mistaken his attitude because of the a/p loss just prior to shaker. If he was (incorrectly) holding altitude, after all the a/p had been , (but with diminishing a/s) He may have mistaken 'a/p' means 'level'.
He may not have remembered his neglect of adding power at low pitch.
In any case, I don't see that this pilot didn't follow at least his advanced training re: shaker. He may have just not been aware of his noseup attitude. That probably led to Stall, and the need to immediately abandon his trained in shaker recovery and revert to Stall recovery. For whatever reason, it appears he didn't make the connection. Should Colgan train power and nose down at shaker? ?
Again, if you refer to Colgan, review their training in the Bombardier.
At shaker the drill is to add power and maintain altitude, not at Stall.
Recovery from shaker is a different animal from Stall recovery, Renslow appears to have mistaken his attitude because of the a/p loss just prior to shaker. If he was (incorrectly) holding altitude, after all the a/p had been , (but with diminishing a/s) He may have mistaken 'a/p' means 'level'.
He may not have remembered his neglect of adding power at low pitch.
In any case, I don't see that this pilot didn't follow at least his advanced training re: shaker. He may have just not been aware of his noseup attitude. That probably led to Stall, and the need to immediately abandon his trained in shaker recovery and revert to Stall recovery. For whatever reason, it appears he didn't make the connection. Should Colgan train power and nose down at shaker? ?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dual given as a CFI or CFII or MEI is great time. I learned more about flying from teaching than anything else.
I made my students go into real wx for instrument time.
I remember that C. Lindbergh said you don't know how to fly till you teach it!
The guy was right...if you stalled with a student (on purupose) you will be wide awake for the real thing in an airliner.
I made my students go into real wx for instrument time.
I remember that C. Lindbergh said you don't know how to fly till you teach it!
The guy was right...if you stalled with a student (on purupose) you will be wide awake for the real thing in an airliner.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hated instructing after I did it for a while. I liked multi engine instruction and instrument instruction because I was learning too, but Just wanted to fly my own plane. Charter flying was great because you were able to do that. Airline flying was great for the same reason. Stall recovery is such a simple fix it is hard to understand why these two people couldn't figure it out. With all the experienced people available, regionals still insist on the least expensive route. Hire unqualified people and hope you are lucky.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's just the wrong 90%
90% of what we do each day only takes 10% of our skill and attention. Even 'Eldar Kudrinsky' could fly an airplane on his very first (and last) flight. 'uneventful' doesnt mean 'safe' You roll the dice enough, eventually you are going to hit that 'Golden Flight' that demands ALL the skill you have -the full 100%. Will it be enough? it was for 'Sully'.. not for these two, perhaps doomed before they started, if not this flight, some other weary, bleary eyed trip. Who knows what difference a good nights sleep in a bed instead of two chairs and a 15 mile instead of an 800 mile commute may have made? or the financial security to turn down some paying work hours knowing you will still make your car payment or rent or food? Remember the big Chinese Lead and Heavy Metal toxic toys scare of a few years back? Mattel had precise specifications on color and GLOSS (shininess) AND a specific price that they would pay. THE ONLY way to meet those specifications w/o going bankrupt is to cheat and use heavy metals like lead, chromium and antimony in the paint. SOMETHING had to break - and in this case it did. I dont think we're done yet, either....
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Fredericton
Age: 75
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Superfast upgrade
If you guys are uncomfortable with a 300 hour type rated MPL holder as your F/O, think about this. In Korean Air there is a recently hired B744 skipper who was a mere B737 first officer in Europe less than 5 years back! New outfits like Jade cargo hired B737 skippers with dodgy credentials as non-rated B744 DECs and, wallah presto! , within a year they wriggled out of contract AND GET IN KOREAN AIR. It ain't nice deadheading on KAL when things go pear shape!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I once experienced flight instructors doing instructing in Cessna 152's just to collect the needed 1500 hours... once they got that, they were gone and I needed a new instructor (and their instructing style was needless to say NOT very motivating!).
My ex started flight training at 18 yrs. old... starting with the usual Beech Barons and Aztecs. At 21 he got his ATPL.. that was 1969 and I have no idea how many hours he had. He went directly to co-pilot flight training on 737's (I believe it was 3 weeks or so in Portugal with REAL 737's!) and went on line with a major airline (which he had been training with).... at 21! He flew the 737's, then transfered to co on 707's and international flights. He always said what great hands-on training those birds were!
With 26 he went back to 737's.... as CAPTAIN! He was the youngest captain at the time. As a captain on 737's, he got all the newbees and it was part of his job to share his experience with them.... like an instructor. I think THAT is what the FAA is talking about! He often mentioned, too, that many newbees were good at computer programing but no longer had the feeling for flying.
After about 15 yrs. on the 737 he went into captain training for 747-400's (he hated leaving the 737's, which is why he waited so long to advance). That was 1992. He just retired last year at 60 yrs. old.
So, as you see, it is NOT necessarily a matter of hours. I think it is more the type of training that's important. In a similator you can learn a lot, but not everything.
My ex started flight training at 18 yrs. old... starting with the usual Beech Barons and Aztecs. At 21 he got his ATPL.. that was 1969 and I have no idea how many hours he had. He went directly to co-pilot flight training on 737's (I believe it was 3 weeks or so in Portugal with REAL 737's!) and went on line with a major airline (which he had been training with).... at 21! He flew the 737's, then transfered to co on 707's and international flights. He always said what great hands-on training those birds were!
With 26 he went back to 737's.... as CAPTAIN! He was the youngest captain at the time. As a captain on 737's, he got all the newbees and it was part of his job to share his experience with them.... like an instructor. I think THAT is what the FAA is talking about! He often mentioned, too, that many newbees were good at computer programing but no longer had the feeling for flying.
After about 15 yrs. on the 737 he went into captain training for 747-400's (he hated leaving the 737's, which is why he waited so long to advance). That was 1992. He just retired last year at 60 yrs. old.
So, as you see, it is NOT necessarily a matter of hours. I think it is more the type of training that's important. In a similator you can learn a lot, but not everything.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 421dog
AirRabbit,
My assertion is that someone who would fight a stick pusher likely does not know what the pusher is trying to avert. Someone who bombed around as a CFI for 1600 hrs would have stalled enough airplanes to avoid that confusion. On the other hand, someone who was trained ab initio that the way out of a stall was to hold attitude and add power..
My assertion is that someone who would fight a stick pusher likely does not know what the pusher is trying to avert. Someone who bombed around as a CFI for 1600 hrs would have stalled enough airplanes to avoid that confusion. On the other hand, someone who was trained ab initio that the way out of a stall was to hold attitude and add power..
I have always had a sore spot about the regulatory requirement for stall recovery that required "minimum loss of altitude." And I only say that because, that statement was interpreted to mean exceptionally little or no altitude loss - primarily because, as pilots, we each look for "perfection," and if losing 75 feet is OK, then losing only 25 feet is better, and the perfect solution would be to lose "zero." That's not what the requirement says, I don't believe its what the authors originally intended, but it is clear that is the way it's been interpreted.
Off the top of my head I can give you several accident references where the flight crew attempted to "fly out of the stall," trying to keep the altitude loss to a minimum, when merely pushing forward on the controls would have been sufficient. The most prominent is probably the ABX DC-8 in Virginia. The cost of pushing forward on the controls would have been some altitude loss - but not the amount it eventually cost those folks - in that case, 17,000 feet. However, when it's in-grained (over, and over, and over again) that you just don't do that, when you first are subjected to a real stall ... almost everyone will immediately do what they've been trained to do. If I were a betting person, I'd bet that we'll see a change in the stall recovery regulations that will say something like "airspeed or altitude loss not required for recovery should be avoided" - and that one change just may have significant impact on how that particular set of piloting tasks will be addressed in future training programs.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The wording and training scenarios may be a problem.
But what troubles me even more, is the apparent lack of self preservation that would have a pilot react to a stick shaker event by pulling back on the stick instead of stiff arming it as the power comes on against all that adverse trim. I might expect a student pilot, unfamiliar with the regime of flight to react that way. But not a fully qualified and experienced ATP in the left seat of an airliner.
But what troubles me even more, is the apparent lack of self preservation that would have a pilot react to a stick shaker event by pulling back on the stick instead of stiff arming it as the power comes on against all that adverse trim. I might expect a student pilot, unfamiliar with the regime of flight to react that way. But not a fully qualified and experienced ATP in the left seat of an airliner.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well sure, I can understand momentary disbelief due to the loss of situational awareness. But we are paid to react correctly in such situations and the reaction when it came was a mixture of the good and bad. He got the power up, but failed to stiff arm the yoke and inexplicably pulled back aggressively enough to initiate an actual stall. Are you positing that the disbelief extended to the pusher too?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a recent “beta test” conducted by the Boeing Training organization, Alteon, in Australia, ab initio pilots were trained using MPL and the average student completing the course completed with between 380 and 450 hours of training – note training – of which only about 50 – 60 hours were in an airplane. When placed in the cockpits of airliners, a good share of Captains had rather high praise for the education, knowledge, attitude, and willingness to learn demonstrated by these recent graduates … but the interesting part is that the competence of these graduates was universally noted as being quite acceptable. I would still have a lot of questions about the differences between the posited number (240 – 250 hours) and the reality (380 – 450 hours) as well as the training continuity and what, if any, other licenses were issued. But the fact remains that the first such “beta test” seems to show promising results.
But what about throwing them into a shoestring operation whose senior Captains have, at best, 3 sets of seasons under their belts (and often less)? And after two years will these pilots be Captain material?
The quality of the operation, its leadership and its cadre of Captains has to be considered first before looking at what makes a suitable FO. The Colgans of the world are not Lufthansa, something that I suspect the bean squeezing MBAs in headquarters might be proud of.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This would be, in my mind, fine if the pilots were going to work for the Lufthansa’s and KLMs of the world.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: edge of reality
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all the wannabees here who think that ''willingness to learn" and competant a/c handling skills in the sim make a good pilot... think again... it may LEAD someone into becoming a good pilot but pilots are not created in flightschools they're created over many years of hard won experience... there are no shortcuts. Quoting low logbook time airforce/army pilots as being competant doesn't hack it... Those people are chosen for exceptional qualities and every hour in the book is an intense training experience in a tough environment... and the majority of initial applicants fail to make it .. those that do are not the average FO found in any small or commuter airline. For those of us with more modest talents we become decent safe pilots by learning more slowly in the dark cold real world of icing/storm fronts/embedded CBs/hundreds of approaches to minima with fuel guages threatening to undo us before reaching position #1 at our alternate and having to explain to ops directors why we chose to override the fuel recommended by the computer and take an extra ton or so. All this comes over years of trying to get right seemingly minor decisions that have to be made at 0800 that can kill you at 1600 ...
Like it or not.. a smart uniform being marched through the a/p terminal does not automatically indicate a competant pilot... even if it has four rings sewn on each sleeve.
Like it or not.. a smart uniform being marched through the a/p terminal does not automatically indicate a competant pilot... even if it has four rings sewn on each sleeve.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with everything mungop has said above, but would add the following observations.
As I walk from the from the car park or hotel into the airport terminal every day, I remind myself that every accident or serious incident that ever affected a crew, did so on a day that started just like this one. The great danger is complacency. In this respect it doesn't matter whether you have 200 hours or 20,000 hours. Complacency simply takes a different form. On any given day there has to be a determination to sharpen your own self awareness, and on some days that takes more effort than others. Part of this self awareness is an understanding of the combined resources available to you on any given day, and understanding how the operation may need to be adjusted or modified to take into account the variables. A lot of the variables can be subtle. It is in these subtleties that experience should be a highly valuable asset.
Rather like patting a strange dog. Neither a child nor an adult would approach a growling dog. An adult with far greater experience would however detect other subtle behaviour in a non growling dog, that might make them far more wary or cautious than would a child, who risks being bitten to a far greater degree.
Experience should bring with it a history of lessons learned. Imparting the information, benefits and dangers of those lessons , should be the natural teaching / learning process that is the responsibility of each generation to pass on to the next. Certainly not all of the lessons will be learned, nor fully appreciated or remembered, but some will. Conversely experience doesn't compensate for routine errors, mistakes, omissions, impatience and lapses of attention. In these aspects, the safety benefits of two people cross checking and monitoring each other, requires little experience to be of significant effectiveness.
It is in the mix of these ingredients, of experience, self awarness, competence and attitude that the recipes are formulated for success or a lack of it, and in the worst cases disaster. Experience is certainly a vital part of the successful mix, and that experience comes in a wide spectrum of quality. The administrator appears to be properly advocating the necessity of pilots to ensure the benefits of their own experience are properly taught and integrated into the daily operation of flights conducted by these pilots, and that a better and heightened awareness of all of the available resources is understood by all pilots.
Without doubt this is an observation to be applauded, my concern is that many of the weaknesses inherent within the system, exist and have been encouraged by a lazy and ineffective attitude within the regulatory environments on both sides of the Atlantic, and no doubt elsewhere.
As I walk from the from the car park or hotel into the airport terminal every day, I remind myself that every accident or serious incident that ever affected a crew, did so on a day that started just like this one. The great danger is complacency. In this respect it doesn't matter whether you have 200 hours or 20,000 hours. Complacency simply takes a different form. On any given day there has to be a determination to sharpen your own self awareness, and on some days that takes more effort than others. Part of this self awareness is an understanding of the combined resources available to you on any given day, and understanding how the operation may need to be adjusted or modified to take into account the variables. A lot of the variables can be subtle. It is in these subtleties that experience should be a highly valuable asset.
Rather like patting a strange dog. Neither a child nor an adult would approach a growling dog. An adult with far greater experience would however detect other subtle behaviour in a non growling dog, that might make them far more wary or cautious than would a child, who risks being bitten to a far greater degree.
Experience should bring with it a history of lessons learned. Imparting the information, benefits and dangers of those lessons , should be the natural teaching / learning process that is the responsibility of each generation to pass on to the next. Certainly not all of the lessons will be learned, nor fully appreciated or remembered, but some will. Conversely experience doesn't compensate for routine errors, mistakes, omissions, impatience and lapses of attention. In these aspects, the safety benefits of two people cross checking and monitoring each other, requires little experience to be of significant effectiveness.
It is in the mix of these ingredients, of experience, self awarness, competence and attitude that the recipes are formulated for success or a lack of it, and in the worst cases disaster. Experience is certainly a vital part of the successful mix, and that experience comes in a wide spectrum of quality. The administrator appears to be properly advocating the necessity of pilots to ensure the benefits of their own experience are properly taught and integrated into the daily operation of flights conducted by these pilots, and that a better and heightened awareness of all of the available resources is understood by all pilots.
Without doubt this is an observation to be applauded, my concern is that many of the weaknesses inherent within the system, exist and have been encouraged by a lazy and ineffective attitude within the regulatory environments on both sides of the Atlantic, and no doubt elsewhere.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well I've long since retired from military flying but this talk about the competance of low time military aviatiors vis a vis civilian pilots got me thinking about my own early days out of military flight school and the scrapes I got into and survived because god protects fools and beginners. With all of our great training I lost a number of acquaintances not so lucky who died in military crashes that didn't garner a lot of attention because each crash didn't have a couple of hundred dead civilian passengers added to the mix.
The point I'm making is that in the military flight community experienced aviators tried to watch out for us low time guys because we were low time guys, military flight training notwithstanding. IMHO there is no substitute for experience.
The point I'm making is that in the military flight community experienced aviators tried to watch out for us low time guys because we were low time guys, military flight training notwithstanding. IMHO there is no substitute for experience.