Pilot handling skills under threat, says Airbus
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight International 9-15 Feb 2010. Page 20.
"The US Airline Pilots Association top safety official has echoed the view of US FAA administrator Rany Babbitt that airline pilots may need to spend more time hand flying aircraft to stave off the impacts of automation....United Airlines has had such guidelines in place for years, according to Captain Roy Kay the executive chairman of ALPA. ....Kay says that United actively encourages pilots to hand-fly whenever possible through verbiage in the flight operations manual. They understand that basic skills are eroding. The practice varies by carrier, with some recommending pilots to engage or disengage the autopilot systems as low as 1000 ft. Kay says he typically hand-flies below 18,000 ft.
So, United Airlines which is one of the world's largest airlines actively encourages pilots to hand-fly as much as possible. Obviously the airline is doing something positive about erosion of flying skills by pilots of automated aircraft. While in other parts of the world it remains automatics engaged asap after lift off and don't disengage until forced to on short final. Little wonder that pure flying skills are a thing of the past. And the world's regulators just look the other way while Loss of Control becomes the major cause of airline aircraft accidents.
"The US Airline Pilots Association top safety official has echoed the view of US FAA administrator Rany Babbitt that airline pilots may need to spend more time hand flying aircraft to stave off the impacts of automation....United Airlines has had such guidelines in place for years, according to Captain Roy Kay the executive chairman of ALPA. ....Kay says that United actively encourages pilots to hand-fly whenever possible through verbiage in the flight operations manual. They understand that basic skills are eroding. The practice varies by carrier, with some recommending pilots to engage or disengage the autopilot systems as low as 1000 ft. Kay says he typically hand-flies below 18,000 ft.
So, United Airlines which is one of the world's largest airlines actively encourages pilots to hand-fly as much as possible. Obviously the airline is doing something positive about erosion of flying skills by pilots of automated aircraft. While in other parts of the world it remains automatics engaged asap after lift off and don't disengage until forced to on short final. Little wonder that pure flying skills are a thing of the past. And the world's regulators just look the other way while Loss of Control becomes the major cause of airline aircraft accidents.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: under the sky
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Wiley and others who still are saying that going the old way through instructor then turbo prop before going to the big jets:
It is not because we do not want to go that way, for me that sounds pritty interesting and will be good experience to have on my shoulders BUT it is about economy and a little about time management since you have to pay back your training costs one day.
Why go through instructing and spend alot of money to get thr CFI? when you have 1000 plus hrs you still have to pay the ******* rating anyway and you are not very much closer to seal a job because all the airlines require hours on type NOT total hrs in a cessna.
Right now I am flying in an airline doing alot of visual approaches and non precision, handling skills are not to bad I think, and i can also finaly start to pay back my loan. I have a friend who have 1200 hrs of instructing hrs, he can not find a job so he is considering buying a rating of A320 or B737 but he dont have the cash. He is regreting he did not do that when he finished his commercial. I dont blame him.
DO NOT blame the pilots, blame the aviation Industry and the low cost airlines.
It is not because we do not want to go that way, for me that sounds pritty interesting and will be good experience to have on my shoulders BUT it is about economy and a little about time management since you have to pay back your training costs one day.
Why go through instructing and spend alot of money to get thr CFI? when you have 1000 plus hrs you still have to pay the ******* rating anyway and you are not very much closer to seal a job because all the airlines require hours on type NOT total hrs in a cessna.
Right now I am flying in an airline doing alot of visual approaches and non precision, handling skills are not to bad I think, and i can also finaly start to pay back my loan. I have a friend who have 1200 hrs of instructing hrs, he can not find a job so he is considering buying a rating of A320 or B737 but he dont have the cash. He is regreting he did not do that when he finished his commercial. I dont blame him.
DO NOT blame the pilots, blame the aviation Industry and the low cost airlines.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 78
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flyhigh85
as flight instructor your ability increases and deepens like no flight time can.
You are responsible for your performance, not the industry, and if it isn't affordable, you risk yourself and fulfilling your pilot responsibility. There are other occupations.
as flight instructor your ability increases and deepens like no flight time can.
You are responsible for your performance, not the industry, and if it isn't affordable, you risk yourself and fulfilling your pilot responsibility. There are other occupations.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Prague
Age: 48
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flyhigh85 said it just as I see it too.
I am now in the middle of ATPL and really demotivated by unclear situation. True, nobody cares of SEP/MEP time. I also would be happy to handfly, start with sth smaller and grow to be proficient. But one of the representatives of our major carrier told me that they always prefer pilots from integrated training rather than those with 1000plus hours on small airplanes. He explained that many former PPL istructors or agricultural pilots have bad habits and will never be really professionals with airlines. And gliders which I fly on competition level are good just for kids.
That man was a chief of hiring pilot department.
What is the way??
I am now in the middle of ATPL and really demotivated by unclear situation. True, nobody cares of SEP/MEP time. I also would be happy to handfly, start with sth smaller and grow to be proficient. But one of the representatives of our major carrier told me that they always prefer pilots from integrated training rather than those with 1000plus hours on small airplanes. He explained that many former PPL istructors or agricultural pilots have bad habits and will never be really professionals with airlines. And gliders which I fly on competition level are good just for kids.
That man was a chief of hiring pilot department.
What is the way??
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opherben
You are totally right. The only way to cram twice as much airplanes in the same airspace is making it all via FMS with AP ON, and probably enhanced surveillance and TCAS systems.
You are totally right. The only way to cram twice as much airplanes in the same airspace is making it all via FMS with AP ON, and probably enhanced surveillance and TCAS systems.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: INDIA
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yoke
I hope they don't replace the joy stick with the conventional yoke, I believe there is no much a diffrence, its been 4 and a half years since flying the bus, not once did i feel, that she is complacent to my response, as a matter of fact.......she is better than the yoke.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes
But it is not a joystick, please. It is a side stick.
Let's hope that in the future, they don't put a back stick, on the pilot seat... That would really be flying by the seat of the pants, while being fu**ed by the managment
Some would love it and call it the joystick, then. (not an homophobic joke, just a masochist one)
I wonder to what extent will this post be moderated...
But it is not a joystick, please. It is a side stick.
Let's hope that in the future, they don't put a back stick, on the pilot seat... That would really be flying by the seat of the pants, while being fu**ed by the managment
Some would love it and call it the joystick, then. (not an homophobic joke, just a masochist one)
I wonder to what extent will this post be moderated...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flyhigh85, re your post #317, I don't recall ever extolling the virtues of new pilots becoming instructors before moving on to jets, but I certainly believe that, unlike the product of airline cadet schemes or approved courses, a young pilot who has gained significant experience as a single pilot in light singles and twins - (what's commonly known as General Aviation in Australia, and I know is almost non-existent in Europe) - gains a far better breadth of aviation experience, (including a few scares and quite possibly having to make a few quite literally life and death decisions him (or her) self) at a young age. (That "him or herself" is the important phrase in that last sentence.)
The average ex-cadet is usually very good at flying an airliner, but the moment circumstances demand that he/she operate their aircraft outside that well defined path, (something that if it ever occurs, might not occur until he or she is in the left seat of an A320 or possibly a widebody), he or she is encountering whatever is confronting him or her for the very first time. (As an example, perhaps not a great one, I know a fellow in my last airline who made it to the left hand seat of a B777 and who proudly boasted that he'd never done a diversion - ever - in his career, [let alone, as the captain, have to deal with something a bit frightening].)
I honestly think the "GA pilots learn bad habits they can't be trained out of" argument is spurious. There's a lot of money to be made by flying schools conducting approved courses - and a lot of money to be saved by airlines - by insisting that new hires into airlines go through an approved course.
I accept that it's a different world today to the one I cut my aviation teeth in, and I accept the GA route is no longer as widely available (and never really was for most European pilots). I'm just saying "more's the pity".
The whole point of this thread is the fact that most of us (at least us Old Farts, but now we've been joined by Airbus Industries) are decrying the falling standards in piloting skills, and pilots who did 1500 hours or so in lighties before "making it" into an airline job, I think, were a better all round product than someone (the average today) who steps into the right hand seat of an airliner with 200 odd hours in an approved training school, (or with MPL, maybe 60 hours!!!) where the employer often as not insists on maximum use of automation.
The average ex-cadet is usually very good at flying an airliner, but the moment circumstances demand that he/she operate their aircraft outside that well defined path, (something that if it ever occurs, might not occur until he or she is in the left seat of an A320 or possibly a widebody), he or she is encountering whatever is confronting him or her for the very first time. (As an example, perhaps not a great one, I know a fellow in my last airline who made it to the left hand seat of a B777 and who proudly boasted that he'd never done a diversion - ever - in his career, [let alone, as the captain, have to deal with something a bit frightening].)
I honestly think the "GA pilots learn bad habits they can't be trained out of" argument is spurious. There's a lot of money to be made by flying schools conducting approved courses - and a lot of money to be saved by airlines - by insisting that new hires into airlines go through an approved course.
I accept that it's a different world today to the one I cut my aviation teeth in, and I accept the GA route is no longer as widely available (and never really was for most European pilots). I'm just saying "more's the pity".
The whole point of this thread is the fact that most of us (at least us Old Farts, but now we've been joined by Airbus Industries) are decrying the falling standards in piloting skills, and pilots who did 1500 hours or so in lighties before "making it" into an airline job, I think, were a better all round product than someone (the average today) who steps into the right hand seat of an airliner with 200 odd hours in an approved training school, (or with MPL, maybe 60 hours!!!) where the employer often as not insists on maximum use of automation.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Europe-the sunshine side
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nishant :
the difference is not in the yoke or side-stick, it's in the way the machine flies. And I think,from experience, that the main problme with erodated handling skills is when a bus pilot goes to a classic plane, like a 737.
I've known a pilot who almost did a CFIT due to , being so used with the point and go bus type of flying , tried that on a 737 while flying manually, by instinct. Scary output, I may say.
the difference is not in the yoke or side-stick, it's in the way the machine flies. And I think,from experience, that the main problme with erodated handling skills is when a bus pilot goes to a classic plane, like a 737.
I've known a pilot who almost did a CFIT due to , being so used with the point and go bus type of flying , tried that on a 737 while flying manually, by instinct. Scary output, I may say.
Psychophysiological entity
the difference is not in the yoke or side-stick, it's in the way the machine fly.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mandating auto approaches when weather is below a certain point is a management method of handling a threat. Since most management types have forgotten what it is like to fly or never knew, this seems reasonable to them.
But what is the pilot to do, when he has probably never flown a full approach, if the hydraulics are degraded, or an engine is shut down, or the crosswind is at 30 knots and the Flight Manual says an auto land is not allowed? having never done it when things are benign, he/she now has to perform like a hero in difficult conditions?
OK he has done it in the sim, but when it is for real it is a different type of pressure and not easy without the familiarity of practice.
But what is the pilot to do, when he has probably never flown a full approach, if the hydraulics are degraded, or an engine is shut down, or the crosswind is at 30 knots and the Flight Manual says an auto land is not allowed? having never done it when things are benign, he/she now has to perform like a hero in difficult conditions?
OK he has done it in the sim, but when it is for real it is a different type of pressure and not easy without the familiarity of practice.
Boofhead
I agree with your comments in many ways, the fact that basic raw data handling skills are not implemented in more benign weather for the possible occurance of someday requiring those skills is an issue. My gerneral thoughts on it come down to a law of averages that "management" deem as a suitable risk. The term "affordable safety" springs to mind.
The chances of numerous factors accumulating to the point which will stretch the capacity of the crew has probably been determined to be so remote and infrequent that its better to take that chance rather than expose the airline, pax and acft to a more "manual" way of currency. Does this sound stupid? King oath it does! however with the high threat environments we now fly in with RVSM, higher fatigue, poor ATC (not generalised), high traffic environments means automation "is" and "will" continue to be the governing trait in airline operation.
There are many scenarios such as EGPWS and TCAS manouevres, RTO's and depressurisations that cant be practised in real life in the aircraft either and they will certainly be a different experience to the sim as well. The interesting case of AF447 is a good example. It wasnt until the initial findings about the loss of primary instrumentation that our airline and many others started implementing training sessions directed at such an occurance. What may have occured if more adequate training was provided on how to deal with that issue in the aircraft type?? we wont ever know. The guys could have had 10000 hours flying IFR raw data in a C172 but that probably wouldnt have helped them very much because...well....its just different.
The buzz sorrounding TEM is like CRM when it was first introduced....its a great way to implement changes for the sake of changes and also. But with everything, decreasing one risk by identifying it as a threat will also in some way create a more benign threat that will sit there for weeks, months or even years until one day an accident will occur and in true management style will make another change to counter that threat as well.
I agree with your comments in many ways, the fact that basic raw data handling skills are not implemented in more benign weather for the possible occurance of someday requiring those skills is an issue. My gerneral thoughts on it come down to a law of averages that "management" deem as a suitable risk. The term "affordable safety" springs to mind.
The chances of numerous factors accumulating to the point which will stretch the capacity of the crew has probably been determined to be so remote and infrequent that its better to take that chance rather than expose the airline, pax and acft to a more "manual" way of currency. Does this sound stupid? King oath it does! however with the high threat environments we now fly in with RVSM, higher fatigue, poor ATC (not generalised), high traffic environments means automation "is" and "will" continue to be the governing trait in airline operation.
There are many scenarios such as EGPWS and TCAS manouevres, RTO's and depressurisations that cant be practised in real life in the aircraft either and they will certainly be a different experience to the sim as well. The interesting case of AF447 is a good example. It wasnt until the initial findings about the loss of primary instrumentation that our airline and many others started implementing training sessions directed at such an occurance. What may have occured if more adequate training was provided on how to deal with that issue in the aircraft type?? we wont ever know. The guys could have had 10000 hours flying IFR raw data in a C172 but that probably wouldnt have helped them very much because...well....its just different.
The buzz sorrounding TEM is like CRM when it was first introduced....its a great way to implement changes for the sake of changes and also. But with everything, decreasing one risk by identifying it as a threat will also in some way create a more benign threat that will sit there for weeks, months or even years until one day an accident will occur and in true management style will make another change to counter that threat as well.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: A few degrees South
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot help it, but I see a lot of people in the sim, and sometimes, when things go haywire, they tend not to be able to handle basics. Many of my old friends flying senecas on a private licence would do a better job.
And I train Airline Pilots.
Your part A and your S.O.P.s are only guidelines. They do not teach you flying, or even the basics.
I prefer real pilots, even if they forget once to set 1013.2 exactly at Transition ALt
But maybe I am outdated.
My two pennies..
And I train Airline Pilots.
Your part A and your S.O.P.s are only guidelines. They do not teach you flying, or even the basics.
I prefer real pilots, even if they forget once to set 1013.2 exactly at Transition ALt
But maybe I am outdated.
My two pennies..
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lateonite, quite a few of the old but not bold here would agree with you completely. Your comments made me re-read my last post and conclude that where I said: "The average ex-cadet is usually very good at flying an airliner",
I probably would have been more accurate to have said: "The average ex-cadet is usually very good at operating an airliner".
A subtle, but in this particular debate, perhaps quite important differentiation.
I probably would have been more accurate to have said: "The average ex-cadet is usually very good at operating an airliner".
A subtle, but in this particular debate, perhaps quite important differentiation.
latetonight, Wiley;
9/11 taught us that flying an airliner can be quickly and easily trained but no operations people have taken that lesson to it's logical concluson wherein flying an aircraft is, or should be, a very small part of the job.
Those who think that manipulating the controls and pushing the buttons in the right order is "airline flying" don't know what they don't know.
It's the same as thinking and believing that holding a scalpel is being a doctor.
Come to think of it, why don't medical schools adopt the airlines' and the Regulators' lead, do away with long and expensive Intern programs and start graduating "doctor cadets" who will be given 240hrs simulation and then issued MDML's...- Multi-Doctor Medical Licences, so they can be part of the team in the O.R. for real but only with another doctor around?
"The average ex-cadet is usually very good at flying an airliner",
I probably would have been more accurate to have said: "The average ex-cadet is usually very good at operating an airliner".
I probably would have been more accurate to have said: "The average ex-cadet is usually very good at operating an airliner".
Those who think that manipulating the controls and pushing the buttons in the right order is "airline flying" don't know what they don't know.
It's the same as thinking and believing that holding a scalpel is being a doctor.
Come to think of it, why don't medical schools adopt the airlines' and the Regulators' lead, do away with long and expensive Intern programs and start graduating "doctor cadets" who will be given 240hrs simulation and then issued MDML's...- Multi-Doctor Medical Licences, so they can be part of the team in the O.R. for real but only with another doctor around?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: southwest
Age: 78
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off thread, a bit...
Does anyone know whether your local GP / MD has to undergo regular proficiency checks?
Is there an enforced retirement age for medics? If not maybe I'll give it a go.
Is there an enforced retirement age for medics? If not maybe I'll give it a go.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very clever and very droll PJ2 - thanks for that. Point well taken [I think .....].
There's an excellent article in today's WSJ by an M.D. who expresses annoyance at the frequent comparisons being made these days between commercial pilot training/ops and medical doctor training/ops. His message was basically (and I paraphrase freely), OK then, let me have a separate support team (FO-equivalent, FAs-equivalent, etc) for every single patient I attend in the hospital. After all, every patient is as big of a problem/challenge for me as is a flight for a commercial pilot .... [
].
That would make about 30 teams in all for this doc at any one time, or so he suggested. Writ large, we'd be spending about 75% of GDP on medicine in that case.
He also pointed out that every patient is the equivalent of an aircraft doomed to crash at some time or other - without fail.
hmmmm, that wouldn't look so good on a commercial pilot's record tho' would it?
There's an excellent article in today's WSJ by an M.D. who expresses annoyance at the frequent comparisons being made these days between commercial pilot training/ops and medical doctor training/ops. His message was basically (and I paraphrase freely), OK then, let me have a separate support team (FO-equivalent, FAs-equivalent, etc) for every single patient I attend in the hospital. After all, every patient is as big of a problem/challenge for me as is a flight for a commercial pilot .... [
]. That would make about 30 teams in all for this doc at any one time, or so he suggested. Writ large, we'd be spending about 75% of GDP on medicine in that case.
He also pointed out that every patient is the equivalent of an aircraft doomed to crash at some time or other - without fail.
hmmmm, that wouldn't look so good on a commercial pilot's record tho' would it?
SDFlyer - glad you caught the tongue-in-cheek intent; both satire and satire's poor cousin sarcasm have some basis in truth and motivation to alter circumstances.
That said, the MD who's message was as you paraphrased observing the kind of teamwork and support which exists in the cockpit perhaps cites a much larger issue regarding resources than he intends, given the comparison of fatality rates in both professions.
If he is tired of the comparison with aviation perhaps an examination of why the comparison is being embraced by more and more medical professionals in terms of examining why fatality rates remain stubbornly high.
I hasten to add, as I have offered in other posts, that medicine is nowhere near the exacting and definitive enterprise that flying airplanes safely is and a team approach works generally more smoothly where the mix of human factors and mechanical responses is shifted further towards human factors in medicine. (Though the more I read what I write, the more I disagree with what I've written...)
Although time-compression is common between the two, one is dealing with the notion/concept/phenomenon of "diagnosis" which is in most cases either available but unrequited through lack of training, ability or perception, or in rare cases obscure until it is too late, while in the far more human enterprise of medicine I suspect the complexity and not the inability to assess/troubleshoot may mask original causes.
Agree with you on the cost relative to the GDP even at a possible prevention of perhaps 100,000 deaths per year in the U.S. for medicine. I'm bearing in mind that aviation isn't dealing with health issues either where some fatilities are inevitable due to disease and age - aviation's "patients" are almost 100% healthy.
This is a factor in aviation I know but if nothing else, "House" has at least made such a phenomenon more understandable...
BTW, in the early years I and I suspect many of us here flew with guys like House. I'll take CRM team work with a leadership component any day.
The automobile industry, which kills a B747-planeload of people about every 3 days in the U.S., is a different story and comparisons are difficult.
Big topics, all.
That said, the MD who's message was as you paraphrased observing the kind of teamwork and support which exists in the cockpit perhaps cites a much larger issue regarding resources than he intends, given the comparison of fatality rates in both professions.
If he is tired of the comparison with aviation perhaps an examination of why the comparison is being embraced by more and more medical professionals in terms of examining why fatality rates remain stubbornly high.
I hasten to add, as I have offered in other posts, that medicine is nowhere near the exacting and definitive enterprise that flying airplanes safely is and a team approach works generally more smoothly where the mix of human factors and mechanical responses is shifted further towards human factors in medicine. (Though the more I read what I write, the more I disagree with what I've written...)
Although time-compression is common between the two, one is dealing with the notion/concept/phenomenon of "diagnosis" which is in most cases either available but unrequited through lack of training, ability or perception, or in rare cases obscure until it is too late, while in the far more human enterprise of medicine I suspect the complexity and not the inability to assess/troubleshoot may mask original causes.
Agree with you on the cost relative to the GDP even at a possible prevention of perhaps 100,000 deaths per year in the U.S. for medicine. I'm bearing in mind that aviation isn't dealing with health issues either where some fatilities are inevitable due to disease and age - aviation's "patients" are almost 100% healthy.
This is a factor in aviation I know but if nothing else, "House" has at least made such a phenomenon more understandable...
BTW, in the early years I and I suspect many of us here flew with guys like House. I'll take CRM team work with a leadership component any day.
The automobile industry, which kills a B747-planeload of people about every 3 days in the U.S., is a different story and comparisons are difficult.
Big topics, all.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The difference between a doctor and a pilot after screwing it up:
Dr: "oops! ****... Dead. What a shame. Well, next one will survive, I'm sure"
Pilot: "(whoop whoop pull...UP) ****... what the...?"[end of Voice Recorder]
Dr: "oops! ****... Dead. What a shame. Well, next one will survive, I'm sure"
Pilot: "(whoop whoop pull...UP) ****... what the...?"[end of Voice Recorder]
