Pilot handling skills under threat, says Airbus
Psychophysiological entity
If there were a Post of the Year Award, my nomination would be NSF's post (#5)
It melds well with Davis' impassioned plea at the end of his (later editions), for crews to hone their basic flying skills. If I remember correctly, he extends this concept to pilots having training aircraft made available to them, since the cost of modern wide-body aircraft makes throwing them round the circuit a financial impossibility.
It melds well with Davis' impassioned plea at the end of his (later editions), for crews to hone their basic flying skills. If I remember correctly, he extends this concept to pilots having training aircraft made available to them, since the cost of modern wide-body aircraft makes throwing them round the circuit a financial impossibility.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacques actual statement was “of the 900 hours flown each year only 3 hours are manually flown. Typically these 3 hours consist of minor corrections of < 1 degree below 1000 ft . Airbus are reviewing their training programs to take this into account“.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What skills?
Captain Drappier assumes these pilots have any real skills to begin with. The batch of pilots I've flown with over the last few years couldn't fly their way out of a wet paper bag. There are a few expections to this rule and I do mean few. Most Airbus FO's would never find the runway unless they get a vector to final. Throw them a curveball and they have no clue what to do.
Hence the worst part of this whole problem. When you try to "teach" them, they would have none of it. Their attitude is that they are an Airbus pilot and they already know everything they need to know. I learned from some really good pilots when I was sitting in the right seat. Heck, I'm still learning.
In a race to get as many "push button" pilots in the cockpit, airlines have forgotten what is most important.
Hence the worst part of this whole problem. When you try to "teach" them, they would have none of it. Their attitude is that they are an Airbus pilot and they already know everything they need to know. I learned from some really good pilots when I was sitting in the right seat. Heck, I'm still learning.
In a race to get as many "push button" pilots in the cockpit, airlines have forgotten what is most important.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Monaco
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever happened to pilots learning their craft up the ladder from air taxi to turboprop to junglejet to medium-haul single-aisle and onwards. Oh I forgot its to save airlines money because they can recruit cheap labour into the rhs and forgot about putting someone with a bit of experience in that position. Sure there will be people fully reliant upon all the automatics,even some of us with grey hair, but maybe those in a training position ought to push for the recruitment of pilots up the career ladder with a bit of experience rather than who has the biggest checkbook at the b737/a320 sim door ? Food for thought ?
Monza girls are hot.....
Jenson.
Monza girls are hot.....
Jenson.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree with post number 5!
I think that the place to train basic handling skills is in the airplane, conditions permitting (weather, traffic density, fatigue...). One sim a year would not be enough because skills like that have to be practiced, that is: repeated frequently. Frequent sims are out of the question, since that would be too expensive and create rostering difficulties.
I have myself felt rusty or skilled depending on how often I practice. When I am rusty I don't feel as confident as I do when I am skilled. Should some failure occur such that I had to hand fly when I am rusty would mean an added difficulty, and a big stressor, too.
Of course, practicing in the long-haul is difficult because you fly fewer times and in few of those you have plenty of airspace with no ATC stres, and you are fresh and weather is fine and your mate doesn't mind you to disconnect APs, or even FDs... And ATHR (why that fear?).
As someone pointed out, many recent FOs not only need to practice the basic skills, but they have to learn it, first!
In the JAA syllabus there is absolutely nothing regarding flying technique. There are lesson plans for each flight, but there is not a subject on flying technique as such. It was amazing to me. I suffered myself a deficient training in all aspects (in a suposedly good shcool).
Each student knowledge depends on his instructor ability to teach during briefings, if any. His instructor learnt the same way, and so on... It's a good thing I had an old instructor at home and that I love books!
I think that the place to train basic handling skills is in the airplane, conditions permitting (weather, traffic density, fatigue...). One sim a year would not be enough because skills like that have to be practiced, that is: repeated frequently. Frequent sims are out of the question, since that would be too expensive and create rostering difficulties.
I have myself felt rusty or skilled depending on how often I practice. When I am rusty I don't feel as confident as I do when I am skilled. Should some failure occur such that I had to hand fly when I am rusty would mean an added difficulty, and a big stressor, too.
Of course, practicing in the long-haul is difficult because you fly fewer times and in few of those you have plenty of airspace with no ATC stres, and you are fresh and weather is fine and your mate doesn't mind you to disconnect APs, or even FDs... And ATHR (why that fear?).
As someone pointed out, many recent FOs not only need to practice the basic skills, but they have to learn it, first!
In the JAA syllabus there is absolutely nothing regarding flying technique. There are lesson plans for each flight, but there is not a subject on flying technique as such. It was amazing to me. I suffered myself a deficient training in all aspects (in a suposedly good shcool).
Each student knowledge depends on his instructor ability to teach during briefings, if any. His instructor learnt the same way, and so on... It's a good thing I had an old instructor at home and that I love books!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ditto on #5!
Airbus is urging the aviation industry to confront the issue of how to ensure long-haul airline pilots maintain basic flying skills in the face of ever-increasing aircraft reliability and cockpit automation.
As we have seen, airlines are NOT going to implement many safety devices unless they are mandated or come pre-installed by the manufacturer.
Feebly calling for 'x' and 'y' does no good. It needs to be built in. How many people, after buying a car, are going to go shopping for seat belts? Or advanced breaking systems...or air bags?
AOA (Angle of Attack) indicators should be STANDARD not optional devices to be wished for when things start to go ape****, for as superior as the Goodrich probes are, they arent infallible and there are easily conceivable situations where even they would fail, regardless.
what I am calling for is a return to hand flying in an intrinsic sense, not in an ad-hoc "lets try it without the AP for a minute" but a consistent well planned and executed daily endeavor!
Simply,
1) we reverse the role of the computerized systems.
The pilot ALWAYS flies the aircraft and is ALWAYS at the controls. Instead of "Auto -Pilot" we have "Auto-Co Pilot/Monitor" where the computers do what computers do best: monitor boring data streams and offer advice when they detect deviation. The pilot punches in 'auto pilot parameters, course heading etc as before' - BUT THEN PROCEEDS TO FLY THE AIRPLANE with the "Auto-Copilot/Monitor" providing constant aural and tactile feedback along the execution of that flight segment. 'bank deviates a bit from norm?' a slight buzz on the left or right hand side, as appropriate.
This data could be stored and scored to identify the pilots best able to fly the most 'economical flight behavior'
2) More analog devices in the cockpit.
I'm thinking of "drag panels" affixed at slight angles to the airflow directly connected to the pilot and copilot chairs (with appropriate dampers) that allow your to 'feel' the aircraft moving through the air. This analogue data provider would not even need electrical power to function. How would you 'certify it' - I'm not even sure if you would have to! It would simply provide another sensory subjective experience, just like looking out the window does.
3) Perimeter visibility.
I'm thinking of two.
A non powered periscope type system that allows the pilot to visually see the sides of the airplane and a camera based system that can be fed to the LCD that does the same thing.*
* I just want it: leave me alone! lol
Last edited by cessnapuppy; 12th Sep 2009 at 20:51. Reason: added clarification
Never been happy about using tha A/C to practice for the SIM. Unfortunately I remember when SIMS were invented. Their invention was to allow us to practice for the real thing. Funny old world, if only the public new that the pilot was practicing with them.
Actually IMHO this needs to be sorted or the bodies on the end of "
runways" will be increasing.
Actually IMHO this needs to be sorted or the bodies on the end of "
runways" will be increasing.
The primary reason why I believe that it is imperative to have a diverse background is that a pilot moves up gradually to increasingly complex tasks and increasingly complex systems and becomes gradually more at ease at flight management tasks that all pilots must accomplish on every flight
And why it is especially good to become a flight instructor/GA commercial pilot for at least 1500 hrs before moving to airlines is because the monitoring ability of a flight instructor is extremely high. this helps later with CRM ---monitoring the other pilot while simultaneously managing with traffic lookout, weather, communications etc. and all the while flying with pilots of different abilities and knowledge levels.
Flying simpler airplanes for a while as a GA commercial pilot is also excellent as you learn to deal with passengers and accept responsibility as a PIC then when moving to airline ops perhaps the candidate's basic skills [instrument scan] will be much easier to refresh and their ability to participate in the CRM process is greatly enhanced
further more there might be a greater acceptance to having to revert to basics.
Jets are just another type of nice airplane
if you read carefully yes, I am on topic!
And why it is especially good to become a flight instructor/GA commercial pilot for at least 1500 hrs before moving to airlines is because the monitoring ability of a flight instructor is extremely high. this helps later with CRM ---monitoring the other pilot while simultaneously managing with traffic lookout, weather, communications etc. and all the while flying with pilots of different abilities and knowledge levels.
Flying simpler airplanes for a while as a GA commercial pilot is also excellent as you learn to deal with passengers and accept responsibility as a PIC then when moving to airline ops perhaps the candidate's basic skills [instrument scan] will be much easier to refresh and their ability to participate in the CRM process is greatly enhanced
further more there might be a greater acceptance to having to revert to basics.
Jets are just another type of nice airplane
if you read carefully yes, I am on topic!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My company encourages manual flying, conditions permitting. It even says so in the OPS manual. Its widely accepted and I never had a cockpit companion being unhappy about me handflying.
On the odd occasion when circumstances or unserviceabilities of airborne or ground equipment call for a the use of secondary approach aids or (gasp!) even hand flying, pilots of my generation who once used such skills on an everyday basis can usually dredge up something from somewhere to cope with the situation, (but, I'll be the first to admit, nowhere near as smoothly as we once could).
I fear this won't always be the case for younger pilots, the majority of whom, after completing their initial flying training, will never have had exposure to using a VOR or (gasp! again), an ADF, let along flying a full visual circuit with a high crosswind.
I have a friend who is quite senior with a regulating authority. He recently told me of an incident where an examiner switched off the GPS in a light business jet during a check ride. Everything else on board remained serviceable - twin VORs, ILS, DME etc... However, the crew completely lost situational awareness and were unable to complete an approach because they quickly became completly lost, even though all the information they needed, (indeed, all the information any pilot would have had on any flight fifteen years ago), was available to them.
An extra sim. ride is a move in the right direction, but nowhere near sufficient to maintain skills which one day any one of us may be called upon to use in circumstances similar - or even more dire - than Capt Sullenberger and his FO found themselves so unexpectedly in a few short months ago in New York.
I'll stick my neck out now and at the risk of offending some, perhaps many, say that I believe that, thanks in large part to these 'maximum use of automation' rules, there are quite a few people out there wearing four gold or silver bars on their forearms who wouldn't know where to start should they find themselves in a position where they had to fly the aircraft in the most basic modes, particularly if that involved finding an unfamiliar airport and conducting a full procedural non precision approach in IMC to or near the minima.
In my experience, back in the days when we were allowed to hand fly on occasion, those who did so frequently didn't need to, (I wonder why?), while those who never did really should have done so.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if the inventor of the escalator warned people about the loss of stair climbing skills?
The airbus is a step towards a pilotless plane. Management would love that. Passengers won't and flight attendants would hate it. Who would buy them dinner, the autopilot?
IF I WERE KING, I would demand that sim sessions be once every 90 days instead of once a year as we have gone to.
The tragic loss of the Air France plane out of brazil is due to the odd situation...computers work great...until they don't work, and pilots who haven't kept up their skills are next to worthless (my view based on what we now know).
Good luck to us all.
I am proud to have flown the last pilot's airliner.
The airbus is a step towards a pilotless plane. Management would love that. Passengers won't and flight attendants would hate it. Who would buy them dinner, the autopilot?
IF I WERE KING, I would demand that sim sessions be once every 90 days instead of once a year as we have gone to.
The tragic loss of the Air France plane out of brazil is due to the odd situation...computers work great...until they don't work, and pilots who haven't kept up their skills are next to worthless (my view based on what we now know).
Good luck to us all.
I am proud to have flown the last pilot's airliner.
N4790P
It really is a pity this is turning into an A vs B willy waving contest. If some people are naive enough to believe that a B777 can be manually and normally flown without (AIMS) computers or the B787 can be manually flown without computers – dream on.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Philippines
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If what Jacques says is true, many airline pilots are not doing enough stick time to keep a private pilots license current.
Maybe QANTAS had the right idea in the early days of jets.
They had two HS125's configured instrumentally and avionically like a 707 for training as well as simulators.
Maybe a business opportunity for T7 and 330 equipped VLJ's for honing skills.
Maybe QANTAS had the right idea in the early days of jets.
They had two HS125's configured instrumentally and avionically like a 707 for training as well as simulators.
Maybe a business opportunity for T7 and 330 equipped VLJ's for honing skills.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Above 30,000 ft
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZFT:
The issue is maintaining a good level of scanning, eye-hand co-ordination, proper anticipation & "feel" of the airplane (responsiveness at differing weights, effect of changing wind components at various altitudes...). You can do this only with the A/P, A/T & F/D OFF.
Even though the 777 is also a FBW airplane, it won't prevent your from "over-banking" if your scanning has deteriorated greatly. Granted that this is a very extreme example, but the point is that what's important is the human-brain-cognizance performance, not the electrical wiring or that "Windows" platform hiding behind the switch on the overhead panel. In this respect, i submit that you definitely do better at keeping yourself up-to-speed on Boeing FBW.
If some people are naive enough to believe that a B777 can be manually and normally flown without (AIMS) computers or the B787 can be manually flown without computers – dream on.
Even though the 777 is also a FBW airplane, it won't prevent your from "over-banking" if your scanning has deteriorated greatly. Granted that this is a very extreme example, but the point is that what's important is the human-brain-cognizance performance, not the electrical wiring or that "Windows" platform hiding behind the switch on the overhead panel. In this respect, i submit that you definitely do better at keeping yourself up-to-speed on Boeing FBW.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While jumpseating on longhaul sectors with my company (myself still working shorthaul), even the old CPT's on longhaul would switch off the automatics before FAF from time to time. I mean, we are pilots, arent we?
In our company, hand flying is the norm, below FL150, old Captains (and yes I am most certainly one of those
) and young First Officers, as well.Hand flying skills, use 'em of lose 'em.
Psychophysiological entity
Yes, but the problem is:
The company I worked for until very recently enforces quite the opposite rule - they insist on the use of the highest level of automation available at all times.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: PA USA
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It really is a pity this is turning into an A vs B willy waving contest. If some people are naive enough to believe that a B777 can be manually and normally flown without (AIMS) computers or the B787 can be manually flown without computers – dream on.
This has nothing to do with which company builds a better aircraft, it has everything to do with design philosophy.
Example. My company does not do steep turns in training in the Airbus. The reason is, what is the point? The maneuver is so easy, they have decided that it is not worth doing. The Boeing aircraft this basic maneuver is still done.
That directly relates to airmanship and skills, that will deteriorate.
I think that is the point trying to be made.
"
I'm sure the passengers notice the difference with the automatics off, and some regular flyers will start questioning why things aren't as smooth as they normally are.
Pilots could be rostered for an hours manual flying in the sim once a month, but that would cost money..........
"
I'm sure the passengers notice the difference with the automatics off, and some regular flyers will start questioning why things aren't as smooth as they normally are.
Pilots could be rostered for an hours manual flying in the sim once a month, but that would cost money..........
"
Sims are great training aids, but in the end, they can't simulate the fine essence of handling the actual jet they simulate when it comes to the true beauty and art of flying. For a crude comparison, although my sauve, debonair self wouldn't know precisely, but I'd guess they rank somewhere like that of using an inflatable doll to simulate time with a lady versus using the real thing. Great for procedures, but somewhat lacking in enjoying the true experience.
As for passengers noticing the automatics off, well, not on my jet. I've always felt that with the smoothness of any passenger turbine aircraft, one should strive to have the passengers unaware of what phase of flight they are in between gear up and gear down. It can be done with proper handling and finesse. Despite what some professional aviators claim on this board, it is possible to fly smoother than the automatics on most jets, and my experience is from flying the F100, B757/767, B777 and the B737NG*(which I know isn't saying much, since a blind, epileptic chimp on Meth could fly smoother than that piece of crap autopilot
) It's just my personal opinion, but I feel that any jet airline pilot should have the piloting skills to pull the thrust levers to idle at F390, and properly manage their energy so that the next time they touch the thrust levers is at the final approach fix with the gear extending. I feel that I'm lucky to practice this in the Caribbean, and totally understand the limitations that many of us face with near zero chance to practice on the sectors they fly. A 20 minute hold at Ockham after a night of little sleep puts a little damper on manual flown hijinks, especially with a B777 1000' above and a B747 1000' below
.
Last edited by WhatsaLizad?; 13th Sep 2009 at 05:27.
They should never have done away with tail wheels, that's where the skill level began to deteriorate. Most pilots today are dependent on tricycle gear and wouldn't be able to keep a tail dragger on the runway, let alone the centre line.