Pilot handling skills under threat, says Airbus
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Learning the basics
I was in discussion with some flying buddies the other day and the conversation drifted on to reminiscences of the 'good old days' when we used to fly manually, before the advent of automated flight decks.
The comment was made by my two friends (one CFI and one former airline training captain) that the pilots coming through training today - and ending up in the airlines - don't know the 'basics' regarding aircraft handling and airmanship, let alone the 'trade' of the commercial pilot.
I have never been an advocate of the 'learn to drive in a week' philosophy and, it seems, the 'learn to fly in a year' is, in some respects, no better.
It takes time to absorb not just the theory and practice, but the environment in which you operate (whether driving or flying).
Although we're all trained for simulated emergencies (and in most sim checks know what to expect - V1 cut, emergency descent and the like) I wonder what would happen if completely random emergencies were thrown in to the mix?
I know this won't happen because the airlines would not want to risk failing pilots by making recurrency training too difficult, so we all get the same standard (regulatory) tests - predicable or pre-briefed.
As an instructor, flying light aircraft, when I have thrown an un-briefed emergency on to a student or PPL (briefed there would be an 'emergency' but not what it would be) the results have generally created the 'panic' of the real world as people are not primed.
How about simulating some 'real' un-briefed emergencies with the inexperienced pilots - such as the BA BAC1-11 incident - pilot incapacitation, emergency descent, diversion etc. NO WAY the airlines would say - too expensive, too time consuming and pilots might fail ...
The airline industry has settled into a 'comfortable' routine of training and testing - a production line of pilots all tested to the same standard in the same way. Not a bad system, just predictable and routine - something aviation, by its very nature, certainly is not.
Maybe, with the reliability of modern aircraft, engines and systems, that's all that's required?
Maybe it might also mean that when things go badly wrong it's almost certain to be a lottery whether the crew as a whole has that 'wealth of experience' to pull one out of the bag?
SITW
The comment was made by my two friends (one CFI and one former airline training captain) that the pilots coming through training today - and ending up in the airlines - don't know the 'basics' regarding aircraft handling and airmanship, let alone the 'trade' of the commercial pilot.
I have never been an advocate of the 'learn to drive in a week' philosophy and, it seems, the 'learn to fly in a year' is, in some respects, no better.
It takes time to absorb not just the theory and practice, but the environment in which you operate (whether driving or flying).
Although we're all trained for simulated emergencies (and in most sim checks know what to expect - V1 cut, emergency descent and the like) I wonder what would happen if completely random emergencies were thrown in to the mix?
I know this won't happen because the airlines would not want to risk failing pilots by making recurrency training too difficult, so we all get the same standard (regulatory) tests - predicable or pre-briefed.
As an instructor, flying light aircraft, when I have thrown an un-briefed emergency on to a student or PPL (briefed there would be an 'emergency' but not what it would be) the results have generally created the 'panic' of the real world as people are not primed.
How about simulating some 'real' un-briefed emergencies with the inexperienced pilots - such as the BA BAC1-11 incident - pilot incapacitation, emergency descent, diversion etc. NO WAY the airlines would say - too expensive, too time consuming and pilots might fail ...
The airline industry has settled into a 'comfortable' routine of training and testing - a production line of pilots all tested to the same standard in the same way. Not a bad system, just predictable and routine - something aviation, by its very nature, certainly is not.
Maybe, with the reliability of modern aircraft, engines and systems, that's all that's required?
Maybe it might also mean that when things go badly wrong it's almost certain to be a lottery whether the crew as a whole has that 'wealth of experience' to pull one out of the bag?
SITW
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Between FL280 and FL410
Age: 56
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well , this has always been the story : the 20000hr/ 30 yr flying experience pilot complaining to the world about the old days.
No , in my company there are certainly less experienced pilots , however all the guys i fly with are competent for the job.
Regularly I get questions to confirm if ''I would do the same'' , giving me a strong impression that the younger guys are really thinking about possible ( combination ) of failure's
No , no-one can have the overall experience of having seen it all , but I am truly happy to fly with as well the youngsters as the older guys
No , in my company there are certainly less experienced pilots , however all the guys i fly with are competent for the job.
Regularly I get questions to confirm if ''I would do the same'' , giving me a strong impression that the younger guys are really thinking about possible ( combination ) of failure's
No , no-one can have the overall experience of having seen it all , but I am truly happy to fly with as well the youngsters as the older guys
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Perth
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well , this has always been the story : the 20000hr/ 30 yr flying experience pilot complaining to the world about the old days.
We on the left seats must learn to adapt with times, to highlight according to the way that will work with the new generation. No point just lamenting about it while letting them "heads down" and never help to give them a slight pull. Like it or not, from this part of the world (Asia), the young guys are coming through this way, straight from prop equipment to most aviators' dream jets.
Interesting to note, through some feedback, a lot of times the older guys (be it local or expat) are the ones that are not so keen on allowing the disconnection of automation for fear of workload (or at least that's the general excuse given). To which I will always encourage the FOs not to give up just because of couple of rejections. If all the conditions are manageable, we should all make it a point to practice manual flying with the real thing; as much as we can, it's never enough when these days we have to manage automation 95% of the time.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Durham
Age: 62
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drummer and safecracker
PJ2
Richard Feynman, now theres a man who had both an intellect which could work out both theoretical physics (Particles actually going back in time! How preposterous!) and also had the insight as to not only why Challenger blew up but the underlying causes.
I recall Prof Feynman reviewing the diameters of the solid fuel boosters of the shuttle. Management inisisted that three rods of equal length should be inserted into the booster to determine if the circumference of the booster was a complete circle. If the three rods were inserted into the booster casing and the total error was less than specified by management specifications then that section of the booster was to be passed. Feynman pointed out that the test could mean that the rods could be inserted and the result be totally accurate but the circumference be anything but a precise circle. Feynman had the insight to ask specific questions of the staff who performed the test and they knew that the test was invalid but until Feynman pointed it out to senior NASA officals the view was not taken seriously.
Feynman illustrated much more in the review of the Challenger accident but most impressively, he did it in a manner which was not antagonistic. ( He may have learnt a little from the numerous security incidents he caused by unlocking the Manhattan project documents at Alamagordo and leaving a note saying " Guess who")
All in all the man was an inspiration for me.
Richard Feynman, now theres a man who had both an intellect which could work out both theoretical physics (Particles actually going back in time! How preposterous!) and also had the insight as to not only why Challenger blew up but the underlying causes.
I recall Prof Feynman reviewing the diameters of the solid fuel boosters of the shuttle. Management inisisted that three rods of equal length should be inserted into the booster to determine if the circumference of the booster was a complete circle. If the three rods were inserted into the booster casing and the total error was less than specified by management specifications then that section of the booster was to be passed. Feynman pointed out that the test could mean that the rods could be inserted and the result be totally accurate but the circumference be anything but a precise circle. Feynman had the insight to ask specific questions of the staff who performed the test and they knew that the test was invalid but until Feynman pointed it out to senior NASA officals the view was not taken seriously.
Feynman illustrated much more in the review of the Challenger accident but most impressively, he did it in a manner which was not antagonistic. ( He may have learnt a little from the numerous security incidents he caused by unlocking the Manhattan project documents at Alamagordo and leaving a note saying " Guess who")
All in all the man was an inspiration for me.
Originally Posted by mercurydancer
drummer and safecracker; All in all the man was an inspiration for me.
His use of a small clamp and a short piece of O-ring he 'found' at Morton-Thiokol is the stuff of legends, focussing in one tiny glass of ice-water the millions of words and thousands of pages of engineering work, policy-and-procedures manuals, emails and testimony and pointing directly at the cause of the accident. It was for others, especially people like sociologist Diane Vaughan, to put into words why in an organization dedicated to flight safety that, through the normalization of deviance, nobody "saw" and therefore never considered what untested cold temperatures would do to a mission-critical rubber seal. "I'll see it when I believe it" implies a cognitive connection between belief and apprehension by the senses. Part of Feynman's genius was in making such connections visible to those who didn't believe in the first place and that is inspiring.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember his "bricks of energy", and also his memoirs about the Manhattan project and that couple who were spying for the soviets. I wonder, by the way, if that was bad or good for the world.
So he is still alive?
So he is still alive?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My hands on
As a bus driver I would agree but that's because doing LHR arrivals all day is not that challenging. The charter boys doing daily visual circuits into the Greek islands etc have more hands on time and that's vital.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take offs, climb outs, descents and approaches in busy terminal areas are about achieving and maintaining a good situational awareness, and automation is a great tool for that.
A good sit awareness during those phases in non busy airspaces require much less "brain megas and megahertzs". Hand flying cannot reduce your situational awareness. It can even improve it, actually.
If you have to handfly in the busy terminal area (automation u/s) you will either do it fine without losing any of your situational awareness or do it with less. It depends on how much you have practiced.
Besides, it is the crew situational awareness that matters. Not only yours when you are flying (hand or automated). So we should be used to practice both handflying and assisting a hand flying PNF.
How can this be dangerous?
A good sit awareness during those phases in non busy airspaces require much less "brain megas and megahertzs". Hand flying cannot reduce your situational awareness. It can even improve it, actually.
If you have to handfly in the busy terminal area (automation u/s) you will either do it fine without losing any of your situational awareness or do it with less. It depends on how much you have practiced.
Besides, it is the crew situational awareness that matters. Not only yours when you are flying (hand or automated). So we should be used to practice both handflying and assisting a hand flying PNF.
How can this be dangerous?
and assisting a hand flying PNF
Surely a competent pilot does not need "assistance" to hand fly his aircraft unless of course he is lacking situational awareness and hasn't a clue about basic flying skills. Then he may need coaching but he should never be in that situation in the first place.
Feynman
Yes, he died of stomach cancer many years ago. My one claim to fame is that he once smiled at me in the street. I must have looked even more miserable than usual. I believe he did have some second thoughts about Challenger though: think he though he had been manipulated.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PIilot assistance
In airline flying, there can be specific functions and duties for both pilots. If one pilot is ''hand flying'' the other pilot may set heading bugs, run the radio, copy clearances and a myriad of things.
AS for single pilot IFR...I've done it and without an autopilot to boot...You are busy and you either get good or die.
Jets are harder to hand fly at high altitude...and a little help isn't out of order.
AS for single pilot IFR...I've done it and without an autopilot to boot...You are busy and you either get good or die.
Jets are harder to hand fly at high altitude...and a little help isn't out of order.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Forest of Caledon
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Handling skills?
No ****!
How 'bout a captain with 180 hours total time on type and doing only 10 hours a month to keep "current"?
We're not talking cruisin' & snoozin' here. We're talkin' front line hotshot fighter pilot in Betty's flying club.
Read this report to see what I'm talking about.
How 'bout a captain with 180 hours total time on type and doing only 10 hours a month to keep "current"?
We're not talking cruisin' & snoozin' here. We're talkin' front line hotshot fighter pilot in Betty's flying club.
Read this report to see what I'm talking about.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today it is the automation takes you to the stall and then lets go. If you're training is narrowly based on set Simulator senarios, your SA degraded and your basic aerodynamic knowledge lacking, heaven help you.
TOM 737:
http://www.**********/forum/viewtopi...49842503deebc6
Turkish 1951:
Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
AF447:
AF447 crew not trained for high-altitude stall: investigators
BEA releases chilling transcript of AF447 crew fight to save aircraft
TOM 737:
http://www.**********/forum/viewtopi...49842503deebc6
Turkish 1951:
Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
AF447:
AF447 crew not trained for high-altitude stall: investigators
BEA releases chilling transcript of AF447 crew fight to save aircraft
'Do you mind if I fly the aircraft manually today, I've got a sim coming up....?'
The mind boggles.....not only a generation of pilots without raw handling skills but also a generation of trainers who have also been taught to fly by numbers !
The mind boggles.....not only a generation of pilots without raw handling skills but also a generation of trainers who have also been taught to fly by numbers !
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The simulator does not produce the physiological disorientation that a real aeroplane does. Until this can be simulated accurately, instrument flying and unusual attitude recovery exercises in a simulator are a waste of time.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: PARIS
Age: 62
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One pilot deck
At this point, it seems that it would be more interesting for the industry to have a fully automated flight (no hand flight at all) and only one human supervisor very well trained in a very accurate sim.
I"m sure it will be the case.
After : no more pilot in the plane but a plane fully monitored from the ground like a drone.
I"m sure it will be the case.
After : no more pilot in the plane but a plane fully monitored from the ground like a drone.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny, I've been saying this for years: that the air-transport aircraft of the foreseeable future will have a single relatively low-paid systems monitor, like a subway motorman, in the cockpit. Once in every billion miles, he or she will have to get on the PA and say, "Folks, I'm sorry to say this, but we're all gonna die. I haven't the faintest idea how to actually fly this thing, and all of our computers have gone mammaries-up. Oh, and by the way, are there any Cessna pilots among our passengers--anybody who actually knows how to hand-fly an airplane? Just askin'..."
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus does not recommend encouraging manual flight (Aerosafety World)
Drappier, the Airbus representative, added, Airbus does not recommend encouraging airline pilots dto fly the airline manually (during line operations) because the airline passengers have paid to get the maximum level of safety. Most of the time, the autopilot is the best route. That makes FSTDs the most appropriate practice environment, he said
Airbus is cleary against hand flying. Even after all the loss of control events, they think it is better not to hand fly.
Passengers pay to get the maximum level of safety: safe airplanes with safe pilots who are proficient in automation and hand flying. But he forgets the last part, the madafaka.
Why do they hate us so much?