Pilot handling skills under threat, says Airbus
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 43
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you all know any scientific studies about degrading manual flying skills?
I’m doing a flight simulator experiment to explore and to describe this problem. So I’d like to find more information and documents.
I’m doing a flight simulator experiment to explore and to describe this problem. So I’d like to find more information and documents.
I don't intend to put a fine point on it but do you mean by "scientific", the proper investigation such as a cohort or cross-sectional study into the phenomenon with conclusions peer-reviewed and published, etc, etc?
If so, I know of none. That said, there are plenty of anecdotal works around but what I see is almost always informal.
The difficulty with citing an accident like Colgan is, we have Turkish at Amsterdam, and the difficulty in citing Spanair at Madrid is we have the FedEx MD11 landing accident at Tokyo. By this I mean, it is possible to attribute handling issues in some but not all cases so anecdotally, the premise is inconclusive even though it is a felt characteristic at the present time.
To me this is where data programs come into their own but privacy, protection and sharing issues as well as an increasing propensity to prosecute rather than learn, hobbles any such formal study. But the data is there - I know it.
If so, I know of none. That said, there are plenty of anecdotal works around but what I see is almost always informal.
The difficulty with citing an accident like Colgan is, we have Turkish at Amsterdam, and the difficulty in citing Spanair at Madrid is we have the FedEx MD11 landing accident at Tokyo. By this I mean, it is possible to attribute handling issues in some but not all cases so anecdotally, the premise is inconclusive even though it is a felt characteristic at the present time.
To me this is where data programs come into their own but privacy, protection and sharing issues as well as an increasing propensity to prosecute rather than learn, hobbles any such formal study. But the data is there - I know it.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once in a while you have to do a hand flown approach to know you can do one. A few times in your career, even now, you will end up with the controls in your hands and you have to land it. It really isn't that hard.
It really isn't that hard.
Appolo30, whilst not directly an aviation study, the research in 'The ironies of automation' identifies that physical skills may deteriorate when not used, particularly with the advent of automation. However, the skills are not lost.
Of greater concern is the loss of cognitive skills, which IMHO is the issue which should concern the industry and may be at the root of the perceived loss of handling skills.
Of greater concern is the loss of cognitive skills, which IMHO is the issue which should concern the industry and may be at the root of the perceived loss of handling skills.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cognitive skills and physical skills go together. One without the other in manual operation would be a disaster. I practiced flying only by standby instruments occasionaly to keep those skills active. If everything goes dark some night I would want to know I can still fly the airplane. If you never do that you will find out when it gets dark some night and find out if you can handle it.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 43
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi PEI 3721! Thanks, but Bainbridge is well known...
I'm looking for recent studies about this phenomenon. What's recent? In this case I'd define it as the last three or four years.
There are rumors, talks, forums, opinions that manual handling skills of pilots are declining because of different focus in simulator and flight training, similar or different reasons, but I'm looking for (rather...) scientific studis, because this is the only thing wich can be cited and helps to examine the causes.
I'm looking for recent studies about this phenomenon. What's recent? In this case I'd define it as the last three or four years.
There are rumors, talks, forums, opinions that manual handling skills of pilots are declining because of different focus in simulator and flight training, similar or different reasons, but I'm looking for (rather...) scientific studis, because this is the only thing wich can be cited and helps to examine the causes.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi PEI
What do you mean with loss of cognitive skills?
That pilots forget how to fly? or that their brain doesn't perform so well (like the atrophiated muscles of space station astrounauts)?
When I practice hand flying (no FD no ATHR) regularly I do it quite decently using a small % of my brain. When I haven't practiced for a long time, I have to use a much greater %, and then I make questions like "Have we been cleared to land yet?" or forget to call for the checklist or something.
That is why in my opinion hand flying skills should be practiced and kept in good shape, because it is not about hands, but about brain! And we should be able to have more brain available should things go bad one day.
What do you mean with loss of cognitive skills?
That pilots forget how to fly? or that their brain doesn't perform so well (like the atrophiated muscles of space station astrounauts)?
When I practice hand flying (no FD no ATHR) regularly I do it quite decently using a small % of my brain. When I haven't practiced for a long time, I have to use a much greater %, and then I make questions like "Have we been cleared to land yet?" or forget to call for the checklist or something.
That is why in my opinion hand flying skills should be practiced and kept in good shape, because it is not about hands, but about brain! And we should be able to have more brain available should things go bad one day.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, I think PEI 3712 has it just about right. Of course, there is almost nothing very complex in life that can be summed into a few cogent sentences. But, he is correct that without an adequate cognitive basis, the psychomotor application is going to suffer. Factually, the first part of it to suffer is almost always the fact that we forget just how hard it is to do the job – by that I mean, for example, in flying a simple ILS approach – by hand (w/o FD) the following areas are critically important—
The 1st Level: recognize the amount of correction required – in what direction the correction is needed – what controls are used – and in what order – including the amount of control deflection – the associated control required (i.e., rudder application with aileron use; thrust application with nose up elevator displacement, etc. and what input leads or lags) – recognize the change in the aircraft flight path (a very subtle recognition) – recognizing when and how to remove the correction – how much of the correction to remove – is trim going to be required before, during, and/or after the control adjustments.
But this becomes very highly dependent on the “preparation” or foundation knowledge:
The 2nd Level: the myriad of “pieces” you need to remember, consider, apply correctly, and in the correct order in order to know what needs to take place in the 1st level. For example, how heavy is the airplane, what headwind, tailwind, or crosswind exists that will affect the adjustments to localizer, glide path, and airspeed adjustments; maintenance of situational awareness (i.e., is the aircraft ahead still on the runway; what is the communication from ATC and does it affect you; does your aircraft “feel” like you thought it was going to “feel;” what is the position of your hands, feet, arms – are they where you expected them to be; does it “sound” correct; and if any of the above causes a question, what is it and should you continue the approach.
Of course, both of the above lists are pathetically limited, but this should provide an idea of the kinds of things that can get lumped into the cognitive sense area and provide some understanding as to how the cognitive and psychomotor areas are inexorably linked. The cognitive area generally consists of knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation – in that order. And this is what I was attempting to point out in the “2nd Level” as a basis for being able to perform at the “1st Level,” even though the 1st Level has included what many believe are “cognitive” pieces … and they’re NOT altogether wrong. It’s a very close differentiation between knowing (cognitive) and doing (motor)– that’s why it’s called “psycho” and “motor” (which means “motor action directly proceeding from mental activity”).
When someone gets to be routinely used to using automation, almost any automation, the basis for understanding may still be present – but dragging it back to the surface for immediate application varies from individual to individual.
Also, I whole-heartedly agree with those here who make it a point to jump on those who want to “play” or “have fun” experimenting with the airplane with passengers on board. That is a supreme NO NO. While simulators are not airplanes … we have to admit that they are a very good approximation of airplanes – and they’re getting better at doing so, every day. My position is to use the training equipment to practice, play, and learn. Yes, it can be fun – and it should be. But because all of us are capable of making mistakes – let’s make sure that we use every opportunity to minimize the mistakes we make with passengers on board. Let’s make sure that we practice and experiment in the simulated environment. Once we have developed the skills to operate the airplane using the systems available – then we can operate the airplane using what we've learned and practiced.
The 1st Level: recognize the amount of correction required – in what direction the correction is needed – what controls are used – and in what order – including the amount of control deflection – the associated control required (i.e., rudder application with aileron use; thrust application with nose up elevator displacement, etc. and what input leads or lags) – recognize the change in the aircraft flight path (a very subtle recognition) – recognizing when and how to remove the correction – how much of the correction to remove – is trim going to be required before, during, and/or after the control adjustments.
But this becomes very highly dependent on the “preparation” or foundation knowledge:
The 2nd Level: the myriad of “pieces” you need to remember, consider, apply correctly, and in the correct order in order to know what needs to take place in the 1st level. For example, how heavy is the airplane, what headwind, tailwind, or crosswind exists that will affect the adjustments to localizer, glide path, and airspeed adjustments; maintenance of situational awareness (i.e., is the aircraft ahead still on the runway; what is the communication from ATC and does it affect you; does your aircraft “feel” like you thought it was going to “feel;” what is the position of your hands, feet, arms – are they where you expected them to be; does it “sound” correct; and if any of the above causes a question, what is it and should you continue the approach.
Of course, both of the above lists are pathetically limited, but this should provide an idea of the kinds of things that can get lumped into the cognitive sense area and provide some understanding as to how the cognitive and psychomotor areas are inexorably linked. The cognitive area generally consists of knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation – in that order. And this is what I was attempting to point out in the “2nd Level” as a basis for being able to perform at the “1st Level,” even though the 1st Level has included what many believe are “cognitive” pieces … and they’re NOT altogether wrong. It’s a very close differentiation between knowing (cognitive) and doing (motor)– that’s why it’s called “psycho” and “motor” (which means “motor action directly proceeding from mental activity”).
When someone gets to be routinely used to using automation, almost any automation, the basis for understanding may still be present – but dragging it back to the surface for immediate application varies from individual to individual.
Also, I whole-heartedly agree with those here who make it a point to jump on those who want to “play” or “have fun” experimenting with the airplane with passengers on board. That is a supreme NO NO. While simulators are not airplanes … we have to admit that they are a very good approximation of airplanes – and they’re getting better at doing so, every day. My position is to use the training equipment to practice, play, and learn. Yes, it can be fun – and it should be. But because all of us are capable of making mistakes – let’s make sure that we use every opportunity to minimize the mistakes we make with passengers on board. Let’s make sure that we practice and experiment in the simulated environment. Once we have developed the skills to operate the airplane using the systems available – then we can operate the airplane using what we've learned and practiced.
I am simply astounded by some of the stuff that I am reading here. I first got involved in "really automatic" aeroplanes (triplex autoland) in 1972 after having already flown for 12 years of professional aviation. I retired at the age of 65 in 2006.
I would not expect to sit as a passenger in the back of an aircraft behind anyone who could not hand fly the thing using raw data down to minimas with one engine out and then complete a circling approach procedure and land safely.
If you can't do that then you are deluding yourself in thinking that you are a professional pilot and I can tell you that you are going to be as much use as tits on a bull when the sh*t hits the fan.
The closest I have got to death in aeroplanes is when the bizarre happens. In other words, when you find yourself in a situation that you don't have time to consult the QRH, (FCOM, call it what you will) and even if you did, it gives you no guidance whatsoever. Believe me, that has happened to me a couple of times.
I am pleased to report that I manage to survive my long flying career thanks to the excellent teaching of the Royal Air Force and many other notables thereafter to retire and enjoy a final salary scheme pension unscathed. I was still teaching in the simulator until recently and I simply would not sign anyone off unless they could meet the above requirements.
Not only that, but I would expect them to display similar skills in the real aeroplane during line training.
Interestingly enough, it is my understanding that Ryanair crews do more non-precision approaches and circling approaches into "minor airfields" than any other operator in Europe (excluding Russia perhaps).
Now, that is my sort of flying, where every day is a challenge. I always loved the old NDB approach from Cheung Chau to Stonecutters and then to the Checker Board to 13 at Kai Tak (not the cissie thing that came along later - I think they called it the IGS).
Getting one of Mrs Windsor's Argosys into Bait-al-Falaj when I had been told that it was impossible was also good fun and the Carnasie VOR approach to JFK in a DC-10 made an otherwise dull day just a bit more satisfying.
My advice; when the weather is sh*t, ALWAYS use the automatics and exercise your LVP skills. For example, if the weather is close to CAT 1 limits, set up for a CAT 2/3 approach and then you will never be surprised.
If the weather is reasonable then use EVERY opportunity to hand fly and use raw data as OFTEN as you can - don't get lazy - you can't afford it.
I would not expect to sit as a passenger in the back of an aircraft behind anyone who could not hand fly the thing using raw data down to minimas with one engine out and then complete a circling approach procedure and land safely.
If you can't do that then you are deluding yourself in thinking that you are a professional pilot and I can tell you that you are going to be as much use as tits on a bull when the sh*t hits the fan.
The closest I have got to death in aeroplanes is when the bizarre happens. In other words, when you find yourself in a situation that you don't have time to consult the QRH, (FCOM, call it what you will) and even if you did, it gives you no guidance whatsoever. Believe me, that has happened to me a couple of times.
I am pleased to report that I manage to survive my long flying career thanks to the excellent teaching of the Royal Air Force and many other notables thereafter to retire and enjoy a final salary scheme pension unscathed. I was still teaching in the simulator until recently and I simply would not sign anyone off unless they could meet the above requirements.
Not only that, but I would expect them to display similar skills in the real aeroplane during line training.
Interestingly enough, it is my understanding that Ryanair crews do more non-precision approaches and circling approaches into "minor airfields" than any other operator in Europe (excluding Russia perhaps).
Now, that is my sort of flying, where every day is a challenge. I always loved the old NDB approach from Cheung Chau to Stonecutters and then to the Checker Board to 13 at Kai Tak (not the cissie thing that came along later - I think they called it the IGS).
Getting one of Mrs Windsor's Argosys into Bait-al-Falaj when I had been told that it was impossible was also good fun and the Carnasie VOR approach to JFK in a DC-10 made an otherwise dull day just a bit more satisfying.
My advice; when the weather is sh*t, ALWAYS use the automatics and exercise your LVP skills. For example, if the weather is close to CAT 1 limits, set up for a CAT 2/3 approach and then you will never be surprised.
If the weather is reasonable then use EVERY opportunity to hand fly and use raw data as OFTEN as you can - don't get lazy - you can't afford it.
Microburst, et al, my interpretation would not exclude the cognitive / physical skills loop, but in preference considers the wider spread of cognitive skills used in ‘flying’.
I am intrigued by the degradation of physical skills vs the loss of cognitive skills; e.g. you don’t loose the physical skill of flying – you know ‘automatically’ how to use the stick and rudder, but perhaps are not able to ‘finesse’ quite as well (high gain situations). Yet how we think about situations, the abilities to assess, plan and choose ‘automatically’ might have disappeared.
A skill is a process which with practice has become an ‘unconscious’ activity – automatic. Why do the physical skills only degrade, but the wider cognitive aspects disappear – a question for the researchers?
I don’t think that ‘lost’ in this sense means you cannot asses, decide, etc, but the automaticity – the skill and thus ease of conducting these thinking activities has changed.
Perhaps this is similar to the transition from a novice to an expert, but in this instance having to revert back to novice thinking – we have to follow DECIDE instead of being able to choose naturally. This suggests a ‘loss of expertise’, which requires more thinking effort – higher workload, lack of attentional resource.
I agree with much of what JW411 says – we come from the same era, and have a similar background and training. Thus, I wonder if age / experience are factors.
The more senior pilots probably cite rigorous training and situation exposure during military / in depth civil training. Perhaps the majority of these people have managed the transition to ‘automation’ because their cognitive expertise was well formed and had been developed throughout their careers (there was a good foundation and a lot to loose); also because they have developed the skills of thinking, particularly of thinking about their thinking (metacogniton or mindfulness).
Alternatively those pilots trained with the advent of automation may not have had the advantages of deep training; not because of automation, but because of the commercial cut back from the perceived benefits of automation – “you don’t need in depth training”.
With time, this has evolved with the students of the era becoming trainers today – a self generating decline. In addition, there is less time to train or opportunity to gain experience, exposure to unusual situations, etc, etc. Finally, there is a culture driven by commercial pressure of hurry-up, rush, no time to think.
How often do crews debrief in depth, learn the lessons – good or bad from each flight? Thus, modern aviation may have inadvertently reduced training of how to think, and how to turn this thinking into a skill with practice and refreshing.
Used correctly, automation provides opportunity to think about the situation, but to use that opportunity requires will power and knowledge of thinking; how to think, what about, when, and why.
The cognitive capabilities of humans.
“Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse.”
Training for Advanced Cockpit Technology.
I am intrigued by the degradation of physical skills vs the loss of cognitive skills; e.g. you don’t loose the physical skill of flying – you know ‘automatically’ how to use the stick and rudder, but perhaps are not able to ‘finesse’ quite as well (high gain situations). Yet how we think about situations, the abilities to assess, plan and choose ‘automatically’ might have disappeared.
A skill is a process which with practice has become an ‘unconscious’ activity – automatic. Why do the physical skills only degrade, but the wider cognitive aspects disappear – a question for the researchers?
I don’t think that ‘lost’ in this sense means you cannot asses, decide, etc, but the automaticity – the skill and thus ease of conducting these thinking activities has changed.
Perhaps this is similar to the transition from a novice to an expert, but in this instance having to revert back to novice thinking – we have to follow DECIDE instead of being able to choose naturally. This suggests a ‘loss of expertise’, which requires more thinking effort – higher workload, lack of attentional resource.
I agree with much of what JW411 says – we come from the same era, and have a similar background and training. Thus, I wonder if age / experience are factors.
The more senior pilots probably cite rigorous training and situation exposure during military / in depth civil training. Perhaps the majority of these people have managed the transition to ‘automation’ because their cognitive expertise was well formed and had been developed throughout their careers (there was a good foundation and a lot to loose); also because they have developed the skills of thinking, particularly of thinking about their thinking (metacogniton or mindfulness).
Alternatively those pilots trained with the advent of automation may not have had the advantages of deep training; not because of automation, but because of the commercial cut back from the perceived benefits of automation – “you don’t need in depth training”.
With time, this has evolved with the students of the era becoming trainers today – a self generating decline. In addition, there is less time to train or opportunity to gain experience, exposure to unusual situations, etc, etc. Finally, there is a culture driven by commercial pressure of hurry-up, rush, no time to think.
How often do crews debrief in depth, learn the lessons – good or bad from each flight? Thus, modern aviation may have inadvertently reduced training of how to think, and how to turn this thinking into a skill with practice and refreshing.
Used correctly, automation provides opportunity to think about the situation, but to use that opportunity requires will power and knowledge of thinking; how to think, what about, when, and why.
The cognitive capabilities of humans.
“Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse.”
Training for Advanced Cockpit Technology.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think JW411 means the pilot should be able to do the single engine, missed approach and return to landing with no autopilot. Those were our standards when we were flying. Why can,t we expect those standards now? People forgot how to fly?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes bubbers44, some people have forgotten how to fly.
But even more worrying, is that some people on airliner flight decks today haven't forgotten anything - they simply don't know how to fly! This is because they have never been taught how to fly.
They have been taught to recite standard calls by rote, without really understanding why the calls are made; they have been taught to follow SOP's mechanically & blindly, without due consideration of the situation to hand; & they have been taught to use the autopilot from the instant the aircraft limitations allow them to, to a moment before those same limitations require them to disconnect it.
They are half trained systems operators, not pilots. And systems operators usually don't know what to do when the system breaks down or can't deal with an unusual situation. They generally push their chair back, put their feet up & call for the technician. Unfortunately that doesn't work too well when you are at the pointy end of a metal tube travelling at 800kph & you need to get it safely back on the ground.
There are many weaknesses in aviation & a poorly trained pilot is just one of them. A poorly trained pilot with a low aptitude for the job is an even greater weakness. However I do not agree with the philosophy in many areas of the industry, that the pilot is the weakest link in modern aviation. A well trained, motivated pilot, with a high level of aptitude, knowledge & professional discipline is far more of an asset than a liability, and always will be.
But even more worrying, is that some people on airliner flight decks today haven't forgotten anything - they simply don't know how to fly! This is because they have never been taught how to fly.
They have been taught to recite standard calls by rote, without really understanding why the calls are made; they have been taught to follow SOP's mechanically & blindly, without due consideration of the situation to hand; & they have been taught to use the autopilot from the instant the aircraft limitations allow them to, to a moment before those same limitations require them to disconnect it.
They are half trained systems operators, not pilots. And systems operators usually don't know what to do when the system breaks down or can't deal with an unusual situation. They generally push their chair back, put their feet up & call for the technician. Unfortunately that doesn't work too well when you are at the pointy end of a metal tube travelling at 800kph & you need to get it safely back on the ground.
There are many weaknesses in aviation & a poorly trained pilot is just one of them. A poorly trained pilot with a low aptitude for the job is an even greater weakness. However I do not agree with the philosophy in many areas of the industry, that the pilot is the weakest link in modern aviation. A well trained, motivated pilot, with a high level of aptitude, knowledge & professional discipline is far more of an asset than a liability, and always will be.
Last edited by Oakape; 19th Jan 2010 at 10:38.
I would not expect to sit as a passenger in the back of an aircraft behind anyone who could not hand fly the thing using raw data down to minimas with one engine out and then complete a circling approach procedure and land safely.
It is not going to be pretty.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did a sim - it must be 10 years ago at least - where we were given a double ADIRU failure, which left us with a basic aeroplane to fly - no AP, no FD, no speed tapes, nothing but the basic instruments - but a full panel, with AI, ND available.
It's always been my habit to let the FO fly during non-normals (after the initial actions) and I handle the emergency procedures, talk to the cabin crew etc. However, in this case, my FO, (an ex cadet who went straight from his initial training to the 777), was totally unable to hand fly the aircraft.
I had to take over - from what was approaching an unusual attitude - and have the FO handle the checklist while I flew the aeroplane.
I'd be guessing that today, there are an ever increasing number of newer pilots who fly the line today who'd be in a similar situation to my ex-cadet FO. And not just new ones. The Adam Air captain 'lost it', putting the aircraft into a spiral dive in less than 30 seconds when trying to fly on the standby instruments.
It's always been my habit to let the FO fly during non-normals (after the initial actions) and I handle the emergency procedures, talk to the cabin crew etc. However, in this case, my FO, (an ex cadet who went straight from his initial training to the 777), was totally unable to hand fly the aircraft.
I had to take over - from what was approaching an unusual attitude - and have the FO handle the checklist while I flew the aeroplane.
I'd be guessing that today, there are an ever increasing number of newer pilots who fly the line today who'd be in a similar situation to my ex-cadet FO. And not just new ones. The Adam Air captain 'lost it', putting the aircraft into a spiral dive in less than 30 seconds when trying to fly on the standby instruments.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's cost, pure & simple. I heard that one major player discourages visual approaches, and if they are contemplated, then they are flown using VNAV/LNAV and perhaps the automatics. The visual approach is there to same time/fuel/money, but there have been so many cock-ups that the subsequent G/A cost much more than it might have saved. Solution is to let the VNAV guide you to the threshold and correct height & speed. In the past the solution was training. It was the common thing on the line, especially the Greek islands, to use Mk.1 eyeball and hand fly. The VNAV was in your brain. This was on the job training. Now, the cost of such training in the sim, and then taking it to the line is too expensive. not enough crews anyway. The cost of on the job experience is too many G/A's or incidents. Solution is the lowest cost one (and some would say safest), avoid the scenario alltogether.
Then comes the scenarios that JW411 and others talk off. The manure has hit the air-con and it's left to smarty pants to sort it out. The first part is to understand that it's going to worms, perhaps understand why, and then chose a good option. After that, some hand flying skills might be useful. Often, with less total experience up front than was required just for command, and a career of robotic zombie trained monkey stuff, I have my doubts of the outcome of such an event. In a couple of generations the captains will not have the ability to demonstrate on the job training and the circle of decline will be complete. RIP piloting. Space Cowboys should be compulsory viewing for all CAA's and HOT's. (If anyone has a link to Tommy Lee Jones polling the shuttle down to land, please send it to this thread.)
If the airlines satisfy the minimum training requirement laid down by CAA's they will. We all know it is always a mixture of minimums & maximums. Any improvement has to come from the top down. Don't hold your breath.
Then comes the scenarios that JW411 and others talk off. The manure has hit the air-con and it's left to smarty pants to sort it out. The first part is to understand that it's going to worms, perhaps understand why, and then chose a good option. After that, some hand flying skills might be useful. Often, with less total experience up front than was required just for command, and a career of robotic zombie trained monkey stuff, I have my doubts of the outcome of such an event. In a couple of generations the captains will not have the ability to demonstrate on the job training and the circle of decline will be complete. RIP piloting. Space Cowboys should be compulsory viewing for all CAA's and HOT's. (If anyone has a link to Tommy Lee Jones polling the shuttle down to land, please send it to this thread.)
If the airlines satisfy the minimum training requirement laid down by CAA's they will. We all know it is always a mixture of minimums & maximums. Any improvement has to come from the top down. Don't hold your breath.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Birmingham
Age: 39
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm. Im flying for a large european carrier and i never saw such poor abilities which were described in this post. If i was asked, i´d say that 80% of my approaches are flown raw data by hand with automatics off in about F100. Moreover I try to fly nonprecision as much as i can. Well, as i said, there are guys next to me but they are all good. never had a captain with poor flying skills.
But i must say that im doing a lot of simulator work at home. Flying raw data flying different approaches. I think practise is good. It´s weird because i fly as a business and enjoy the microsoft flight simulator in my free time
Howdy
But i must say that im doing a lot of simulator work at home. Flying raw data flying different approaches. I think practise is good. It´s weird because i fly as a business and enjoy the microsoft flight simulator in my free time
Howdy
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PEI 3721
thank you very much for the clarification and the links
RAT 5
I don't know how the hell cut a movie and do a link or upload it to youtube.
But If a movie had to be mandarory to be seen by student pilots, that is "The Right Stuff". There is a moment I like, when all the astronauts begin to argue and then one of them says that they should stop arguing and realise that "we are the monkey!". After that, they unite and make Von Braun change a lot of things in the capsule, renaming it spacecraft, to begin with, and including some means of manual control.
great movie!
thank you very much for the clarification and the links
RAT 5
I don't know how the hell cut a movie and do a link or upload it to youtube.
But If a movie had to be mandarory to be seen by student pilots, that is "The Right Stuff". There is a moment I like, when all the astronauts begin to argue and then one of them says that they should stop arguing and realise that "we are the monkey!". After that, they unite and make Von Braun change a lot of things in the capsule, renaming it spacecraft, to begin with, and including some means of manual control.
great movie!
