Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Pilot handling skills under threat, says Airbus

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Pilot handling skills under threat, says Airbus

Old 9th Aug 2011, 11:32
  #401 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by JJFFC
After : no more pilot in the plane but a plane fully monitored from the ground like a drone.
NEVER it will happen ... keep at least one guy up you can blame the crash on ...
CONF iture is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2011, 11:42
  #402 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The day some latter day Michael O'Leary clone can get a pilotless commercial passenger aircraft approved for service - and then, most importantly, offer seats $10 or more cheaper than a piloted aircraft - the punters will flock to fill the seats.
Wiley is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2011, 12:02
  #403 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There will always be pilots. If a pilotless Airbus crashes Airbus Industre will never blame their system. What to do?
How about a qualified person on site to take the blame for any unforseen oversights in the design phase? Brilliant Pierre Trebles all round!
Kingfisher is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2011, 12:32
  #404 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Brilliant. They could therefore send in retired Grannies.

Wasn't Airbus the company who boasted that their aircaft were so safe and easy to fly, even Grannies could do it?

I know it sounds stupidly sarcastic. But it is such arrogance that leads to where we are today.

You reap what you saw.
Gretchenfrage is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2011, 12:49
  #405 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,186
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 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.
It is the lack of instrument pure flying skill in IMC that has caused the vast majority of loss of control from unusual attitudes. Physiological disorientation has nothing to do with it. If it were, there would hundreds of crashes every month from aircraft carriers on catapulted take off's.
Centaurus is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2011, 21:52
  #406 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Upset training devices

Airbus has recommended that upset recovery training should not be conducted in a flight simulation training device because simulator motion does not accurately represent aircraft motions in unusual attitudes and there is a lack of validated flight envelope model data at extreme conditions.
In addition, most simulator upset recovery training is conducted with the motion on, which may not increase the value of the training. Current devices can only simulate 1g flight, a fleeting condition in the early stages of an upset recovery.
Simulation may even provide strong negative training, as was the case in the crash of American Airlines flight 587 in New York in 2001. Inappropriate aggressive rudder usage to counter wake turbulence-generated rolling motions caused the Airbus A300's vertical stabiliser to snap off. At the time American Airlines had been teaching the use of rudder to help in upset recovery. While the A300 simulator may have accurately represented aircraft response to rudder inputs, it was not an engineering loads simulator and the crews would not have be alerted to the excessive structural loads their inputs were generating.


from flight global:

Getting back in the envelope with CAE/APS upset training
angelorange is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2011, 07:28
  #407 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
At the time American Airlines had been teaching the use of rudder to help in upset recovery.
That had nothing to do with simulator fidelity pe se. It was faulty training by the company instructors. The main factor in unusual attitude recovery training in simulators is interpretation of the flight instrument indications. The recovery action from an unusual attitude is basically the same for all aeroplanes. It is taught during initial instrument rating training on single and twin engine trainers .

It is when that recovery is in IMC where instrument interpretion is the vital factor. Whether or not in the simulator it is with or without motion doesn't matter. The flight instrument indications are the same.

In USA there are specialised flying schools that teach unusual attitude training on dual seat single engine jet trainers or turbo-props. That training has excellent value even though these aircraft do not handle like a big jet. Does that mean this training is therefore negative because the feel does not accurately reproduce a 737 or Airbus? Of course not. Because the accent is always on instrument scan and interpretation - not control forces.
sheppey is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2011, 10:57
  #408 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some guys seem to think the '1 pilot and a dog' cockpit is just around the corner. Doubt it. I'm sure the pax would not feel comfortable. However, MOL said C/A's could fly a plane. So there you have it; any problems during the drinks service and hostie Annie will instantly become Superwoman and save the day. Now what would they do about the lock cockpit door policy? No-one in there; all pilots in the cabin. Hm?
(For younger viewers the dog is to bite the pilot if he touches anything, and the pilot is to feed the dog.)
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2011, 16:07
  #409 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Gurgaon, India
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The more you automate, the more idiots you produce!
wingstwo is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2011, 16:21
  #410 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SLF, living somewhere East in the West
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"This is not just an Airbus problem but a problem related to all new aircraft types (B777, B787, A380 etc, etc). Increasingly we as pilots are becoming systems managers - and it is absolutely vital we have a full grasp of those systems. "

Wouldn't it almost make sense to put two people together up front, one that is better at hand flying than at systems management and the other vice versa. If the **** hits the fan the appropriate person can take over, the other assist. Of course, if one gets incapacitated...

Edit: Best would be of course to have TWO people up front good at both, hand flying and systems mana... - oh well, I'll take my had
grimmrad is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2011, 18:11
  #411 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If anyone can find the scene, and link it to here, from Space Cowboys where Tommy Lee Jones switches off all the computers and lands the Shuttle raw data, it would be fun to watch again. When asked by his nervous colleagues, Clint E, James G, Donald S. etc "WHY the hell are you not letting the gizmos do it all as SOP?" he replied that one day those gizmos would fry up and he didn't want to die for want of having lost piloting skills.
The techno answer is to add more and more backups and fail safes. OK, that's all fine, but when they do fry up, or some mouse has chewed the wiring, or ice gets where it ain't supposed to get, (nature always has a way of fighting back), even real bugs get where they ain't supposed to, the the fare paying pax expect us to sort it out and get them home safe. They don't expect a frenzied guessing game at what has gone wrong and more guessing about what to do about it. There have been so many incidents, that became accidents, which were not in the QRH. Flying a/c hit the deck. Perhaps that's why they deteriorated into accidents. The subtle slow failures. Just think of the Air Trans A330. Great flying after, perhaps, not too much thinking and monitoring had caused the problem in the first place. (OK, the root cause was an engineering screw up).
Sadly, I don't think we'll see a reversal in policy for a long time. I hope this topic only applies to the big jet jockies. I hope the regional turbo/piston guys can still pole it around like a good'n. I was amazed to hear that none of my recently qualified F/O's, from integrated courses, had been upside down in their training. There is the time to learn spacial dis-orientation, in the flying school. I did U.P's before aero training. Close your eyes and the QFI would lurch the a/c into who knows what attitude, and you had to open eyes and recover. It was fun, and then onto some real aeros. All that has gone. All training is now not to go anywhere near those places. But what a lost opportunity in those early days of training.
The skillful pilot is one who uses his skill to avoid situations where he needs to be ace of the base; BUT is also able to handle it when put there by forces not under his control.
It's been a long, much repeated, circular discussion over many threads. It will re-appear again, and continue on its circular path. I do not see where the motivation and driving force will come from to change anything.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2011, 02:53
  #412 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Philippines
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hope I am not getting int repetition, but in manila have not been able to get into pprune for a couple of weeks, just error messages.
To my point if I may.
Going back to the famous or infamous Emirates event in Melbourne, one glaring point came out in my opinion.
At one stage it was stated that an Emirates crew would do two out and return flights per month.
That equates to four take-offs and landings to be shared (undoubtedly not equally) between four cockpit crew.
That produces a total of 8-10 hours of hands on flying at whatever share per pilot.
Its hardly enough to keep ones PPL current.
I believe that where airlines have long haul and short haul operations, it would not be such a bad idea to have monthly changeovers, as short haul do much more "flying".
May cost more in training etc. but after AF447, a change in training methods appears inevitable.
chase888 is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2011, 03:32
  #413 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bravo Mr. Fletcher

A lot of what you say is spot on. With just a bit of elaborations with regard to the "Systems Manager" approach to moving an aircraft from point A to point B, one can see that being a pilot in a modern aircraft is not so much about flying as managing.

The problem is when the excerement impinges upon the rotating members of the air handling unit, a pilot is needed to put the aircraft on the ground with the least possible damage and loss of life. It is more than actuarial tables and probabilities.

Imagine an Airbus pilot of today "managing" UA232. I shudder at the thought.

I learned in a Cessna 140 and worked to a Beech 18 and various RW types. I have flown in glass cockpits and although they are reliable, I still like my "steam gauges." I understand the principles and reasons an aircraft flies (or beats the air into submission), although I don't think I am a Systems Manager.....

I guess that what it has come to...but I will buy another old one and fly for fun anyway.
CWO4 is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2011, 04:13
  #414 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yellow Brick Road
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Airbus Golden Rule #1: The aircraft can be flown like any other aircraft.
Except no one remembers how to fly an aircraft any more.
ReverseFlight is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2011, 05:06
  #415 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 594
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Or maybe put two pilots who could fly the machine and one bod who knows the systems and could find a way around malfunctions with his knowledge of the aircraft systems...... They could call him a Flight Engineer..... Oh thats right the two winged master race didnt want us any more!!!!!
fergineer is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2011, 06:00
  #416 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Oh thats right the two winged master race didnt want us any more!!!!
(my bold)

I assume you mean airline management? It's my impression that pilots of that day were more than happy to have FEs aboard, they just didn't want to have to BE one in order get a pilot seat. PFEs were greatly respected. As they should be.
westhawk is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2011, 11:30
  #417 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,186
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
That produces a total of 8-10 hours of hands on flying at whatever share per pilot.
But it is not hands-on flying at all. It is automatic pilot flying. The actual hands-on would be less than five minutes per sector.

Those that advocate more accent on automation skills to keep pilots out of trouble are like someone saying I won't teach you how to swim but I will teach you how not to go near the water - and then you will be safe...
Centaurus is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2011, 12:32
  #418 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,167
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Sorry but I laughed when I saw this topic, Airbus concerned!!

Ah funny considering you NEVER HAND FLY A FBW AIRBUS.

You move the Sidestick and it decides what it's going to do.

So it's basically always on A/P, with you making commands via a stick instead of the FCU.
nitpicker330 is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2011, 12:47
  #419 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 776
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
nitpicker330: What a fatuous comment! You could happily say the same about every single FBW controlled aircraft around, of which very many are military.
Meikleour is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2011, 15:22
  #420 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: 8degN
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pointless

Having some decent experience on 737 and A320 on the LHS I don't quite understand the point of this discussion about hand-flying vs. safety. Accidents happen because some stupid pilots ignore world-wide SOPs, don't practice CRM and come in High&Hot with a deep landing on a short wet runway.
Nothing to do with hand-flying.
And Re: the previous post, captaincy is exactly that: if it's the water that poses a danger to you it is your job as Captain to stay away from it. However great a swimmer you are...
Outofhere
AirbusPhp is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.