Airblue down near Islamabad
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is value in discussing publically the safety status of CTL procedures. It may be worthwhile to use the vocabulary and concepts which technical safety analysts generally use.
For example, there is no worthwhile division into "safe" and "unsafe"; as in "CTL manoeuvres are safe"/"CTL manoeuvres are unsafe", for there are no generally-accepted criteria which allow such a binary distinction. The pertinent question is that of risk: how risky is CTL manoeuvring?
Let us grant that, as well argued by many here, CTL is defined by a set of procedures that, if followed to the letter using well-trained, almost-perfect judgement, is extremely unlikely to result in an accident. However, it may be one of the few instrument-flying manoeuvres which is intuitively more risky in large transport aircraft than in Cherokees (I bet the numbers don't bear this out, though).
Specific questions of human reliability /engineering psychology then come into play. How risky is it for your airline, with your pilots, not faceless licence-holders but Bill, Andreas, Ahmed and Soo Li, to engage in CTL at airports X, Y, Z? That generally cannot be answered, but the question is well-posed. The question, and the corresponding judgement, is one of risk.
Some argue here that CTL is not more risky than other manoeuvres, for competent/well-trained pilots, for competent airlines with good training regimes and other caveats which in other contexts are called ceteris paribus conditions.
OK, but do those ceteris paribus conditions obtain generally? In The July 2010 edition of AeroSafety World there is an article by Michael W. Gillen on a study of the performance of 30 pilots flying for U.S. carriers on 5 standard manoeuvres (pp 30-33). The mean performance on all 5 manoeuvres was below that required for ATPL (4 on a scale of 5). Two of the manoeuvres had a mean which was below that required for "basic instrument flying" (below 3 on the scale of 5).
A CTL manoeuvre was not one of the five. If you are running an airline's safety program, however, it seems you would be unwise to assume that all your pilots perform at least to minimal ATPL levels on standard instrument manoeuvres. You would probably be unwise to completely trust your flight crew's unanimous assurances that they are all capable of performing and competent to perform CTL manoeuvres, given the conditions under which they are generally used. You might well be advised to test them specifically, to be sure.
But of course testing uses resources, which might be scarce (money for salaries during non-revenue activities such as training and assessment; use of scarce simulation facilities, or money to hire them; use of training captains and other personnel). You might well choose to recommend your airline prohibit CTL manoeuvres in general, and only allow them to be performed at airports at which you judge them to be both necessary and less risky (for example, with no high ground or obstacles in the vicinity) by pilots who have repeatedly and recently demonstrated their competence at the manoeuvre.
Should you decide differently? What would be the argument to do so?
PBL
For example, there is no worthwhile division into "safe" and "unsafe"; as in "CTL manoeuvres are safe"/"CTL manoeuvres are unsafe", for there are no generally-accepted criteria which allow such a binary distinction. The pertinent question is that of risk: how risky is CTL manoeuvring?
Let us grant that, as well argued by many here, CTL is defined by a set of procedures that, if followed to the letter using well-trained, almost-perfect judgement, is extremely unlikely to result in an accident. However, it may be one of the few instrument-flying manoeuvres which is intuitively more risky in large transport aircraft than in Cherokees (I bet the numbers don't bear this out, though).
Specific questions of human reliability /engineering psychology then come into play. How risky is it for your airline, with your pilots, not faceless licence-holders but Bill, Andreas, Ahmed and Soo Li, to engage in CTL at airports X, Y, Z? That generally cannot be answered, but the question is well-posed. The question, and the corresponding judgement, is one of risk.
Some argue here that CTL is not more risky than other manoeuvres, for competent/well-trained pilots, for competent airlines with good training regimes and other caveats which in other contexts are called ceteris paribus conditions.
OK, but do those ceteris paribus conditions obtain generally? In The July 2010 edition of AeroSafety World there is an article by Michael W. Gillen on a study of the performance of 30 pilots flying for U.S. carriers on 5 standard manoeuvres (pp 30-33). The mean performance on all 5 manoeuvres was below that required for ATPL (4 on a scale of 5). Two of the manoeuvres had a mean which was below that required for "basic instrument flying" (below 3 on the scale of 5).
A CTL manoeuvre was not one of the five. If you are running an airline's safety program, however, it seems you would be unwise to assume that all your pilots perform at least to minimal ATPL levels on standard instrument manoeuvres. You would probably be unwise to completely trust your flight crew's unanimous assurances that they are all capable of performing and competent to perform CTL manoeuvres, given the conditions under which they are generally used. You might well be advised to test them specifically, to be sure.
But of course testing uses resources, which might be scarce (money for salaries during non-revenue activities such as training and assessment; use of scarce simulation facilities, or money to hire them; use of training captains and other personnel). You might well choose to recommend your airline prohibit CTL manoeuvres in general, and only allow them to be performed at airports at which you judge them to be both necessary and less risky (for example, with no high ground or obstacles in the vicinity) by pilots who have repeatedly and recently demonstrated their competence at the manoeuvre.
Should you decide differently? What would be the argument to do so?
PBL
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BOAC
"You might well be advised to test them specifically, to be sure." - in my experience they are, routinely. Initial and recurrent..
PBL
Join Date: May 2005
Location: In some Marriott
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PBL, thanks for the post. I felt there was something missing from the current CTL discussion but I couldn't put my finger on it - For me, at least, you did.
Best,
GC
Best,
GC
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No accounting needed. After suitable retraining, if they are not up to standard, termination of employment is the only option. FAA doing anything about the airlines concerned?
It would have been useful to know figures for CTL. Sounds like a few US guys are not all they thinkl they are.
It would have been useful to know figures for CTL. Sounds like a few US guys are not all they thinkl they are.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: In some Marriott
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a few US guys are not all they thinkl they are
I'm not disagreeing with you - yet -
Just curious about your perspective on this.Best,
GC
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no idea, but based on what I have seen I would not expect the same results in CAA licensed crews! Based purely on "30 pilots flying for U.S. carriers" ie FAA licensed.
I don't think I will use 4.6mb of my contract allowance to be 'unsurprised' (based on the 'odd' contributor here........)
I don't think I will use 4.6mb of my contract allowance to be 'unsurprised' (based on the 'odd' contributor here........)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: In some Marriott
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no idea, but based on what I have seen I would not expect the same results in CAA licensed crews! Based purely on "30 pilots flying for U.S. carriers" ie FAA licensed.
I don't think I will use 4.6mb of my contract allowance to be 'unsurprised' (based on the 'odd' contributor here........)
I don't think I will use 4.6mb of my contract allowance to be 'unsurprised' (based on the 'odd' contributor here........)
I lead a sheltered life and fly with the same four guys 98% of the time. I usually get paired with someone different at the schoolhouse, but that's only twice a year. I was paired with someone from the Middle-East last time. He was very good, but I found the cultural differences on CRM fascinating in the sim(!)
It does seem there may be a regional difference on CTL. An FAA ATP issued with a "no circling approach" restriction seems commonplace but I gather this is not the case in Europe.
Best,
GC
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dortmund
Age: 54
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think I will use 4.6mb of my contract allowance to be 'unsurprised' (based on the 'odd' contributor here........)
Originally Posted by BOAC
This heading 'bug' was present on early 737s but was 'softwared' out so the a/c maintained the initial turn direction. Any input from AB pilots on this please?
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
Apparently you haven't spent much time in the tropics or you would know the great difference between Brit (or Southern California) stratus and tropical rain coupled with strong winds and terrain around.
You don't read real carefully. The hills were the issue for orographic lift, thus upslope increasing rain and osbsuration.
Pure speculation on my part, didn't I make that clear previously?
You apparently didn't follow the recent thread where I became an outcast for bemoaning the lack of hand-flying, basic skills.
What is the 40 years you speak of?
"monsoonal rain conditions" - nasty, but don't carry on when you lose sight of where you are - exactly the same on a damp 'stratusey' day in the UK. - look - no monsoon!
"Those hills" - forget them! The CTL goes nowhere near them. Orographic stratus is not part of this equation. Had the crew flown a sensible DOWNWIND heading the hills could have been covered in snow or skyscrapers for all the difference it would have made.
Once again you have avoided answering questions. What were the "areas "unfriendly" to overflight" of which you speak?
40 years is a long time out of it. All these glitzy approaches of which you speak are terrific, but let's not take away the requirement to be able to fly sensibly? You almost post as if you believe that when something requires a basic flying skill that cannot be achieved with an autopilot or computer it should be stopped.
What is the 40 years you speak of?
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bus Junkie:
I was no where near that issue.
Sounds like aterpster is one of the guys whose recommendations led to the depreciation of the US major airline pilot's certificate.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you noske. That paper fits quite neatly in my thread http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-...-aviation.html. We certainly do appear to be at a fork in the road.
I was thinking this morning of circuit flying. Many, like me, over their careers have flown and taught thousands of circuits in different aircraft types, at all sorts of landing sites and at all sorts of heights, directions and entry points. Have we now reached the stage where the 21st century pilot sees real jet circuits only, what, 6/7 times on base training, and CTL only in a sim with frontal visual only (ie very little ability to maintain visual with the airfield environment plus requiring a 'nudge' for 'abeam the threshold') and possibly only occasionally seeing these for real with a Captain able to fly such? How will they feel x years later when in the left seat about these manoeuvres?
Solutions?
1) Restrict visual circuits and CTL to certain pilots?
2) Change/improve training?
It may well be possible that this high-hour Airblue (?ex PIA long-haul was he?) Captain had minimal experience of such basic manoeuvres and may well have had zero awareness of where he was.
100% - thanks. Certainly casts doubt on the veracity of the information.
Originally Posted by me post #1
We need the crew to be able to revert to this basic instrumentation and make a reasonable fist out of descending away from performance limiting altitudes where they can take time and try to 'reboot' all the gismos at a more leisurely pace. We need basic skills, as demonstrated by the AMS, PGF and Buffalo accidents and far less 'over-confidence' in the magic.
2 tasks then, as I see this. One is for the manufacturer/regulators/operators to ensure something usable remains, and not to be seduced into glittery-eyed fascination with how clever everything is. The second for the pilot fraternity to press hard for a change in the philosophy and application of training and recurrent testing. Learning how to programme and push the buttons is important, but more important is to be able to pick up the pieces. These requirements WILL impact on the bean-counters. The question is how do we get it done?
2 tasks then, as I see this. One is for the manufacturer/regulators/operators to ensure something usable remains, and not to be seduced into glittery-eyed fascination with how clever everything is. The second for the pilot fraternity to press hard for a change in the philosophy and application of training and recurrent testing. Learning how to programme and push the buttons is important, but more important is to be able to pick up the pieces. These requirements WILL impact on the bean-counters. The question is how do we get it done?
Solutions?
1) Restrict visual circuits and CTL to certain pilots?
2) Change/improve training?
It may well be possible that this high-hour Airblue (?ex PIA long-haul was he?) Captain had minimal experience of such basic manoeuvres and may well have had zero awareness of where he was.
100% - thanks. Certainly casts doubt on the veracity of the information.
Last edited by BOAC; 27th Aug 2010 at 07:46.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite simple, really.
All US majors that type rate their pilots seem to have a no circling restriction on their certificates.
..but funnily enough their contract training for non employed pilots did not have this restriction.
Solutions?
1) Restrict visual circuits and CTL to certain pilots?
1) Restrict visual circuits and CTL to certain pilots?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: In some Marriott
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least a few, not only in the U.S. but in the U.K., and everywhere else.
Thanks for posting the link; timely and relevant.
Best,
GC
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes - I'd be there too. As I said, though, I don't think the bean-counters (or in fact the system) would permit.
The other option is, as bus junkie posted, rate the new pilots as 'non-circling' (and presumably, therefore, 'no visual circuits') although again once the diversions build up .........................
Even if we move towards the brave new world of GPS etc random approaches, there are going to be aircraft that 'no-can'do'. I guess if it is only the 'US Majors' that are issuing these 'no CTL' ratings, the second/third level carriers will be able to get on with it in the older metal
The other option is, as bus junkie posted, rate the new pilots as 'non-circling' (and presumably, therefore, 'no visual circuits') although again once the diversions build up .........................
Even if we move towards the brave new world of GPS etc random approaches, there are going to be aircraft that 'no-can'do'. I guess if it is only the 'US Majors' that are issuing these 'no CTL' ratings, the second/third level carriers will be able to get on with it in the older metal
BOAC;
Not your view I know, but I can't believe that "CTL - certified pilots" etc, as such, is even seriously contemplated. The objections both professionally and technically are so obvious that I won't waste space with them here. A pilot who calls him/her self by that title, should be able to fly the airplane as well as the autopilot, period.
The standard should be, If you can get from fully automated flight to fully manual and back to fully automated without anyone noticing, you probably understand the system, and when you can fly an airliner like a Cub or a Fleet, which means you understand energy levels, mass, aerodynamics, maneuvering capabilities/requirements at the theoretical and the 'artistic' level, and can fly a circling approach and a visual circuit like you were riding a bike, then you're a real pilot.
There is simply no excuse for non-competency in these areas and if the bean-counters object they should be placed in the cockpit a few times a month until they "get it", which means they come to know what adrenaline is. You'll never get that kind of crucial aviation understanding from looking at a spreadsheet.
Without that kind of understanding on the part of accountants, leaders and CEOs, the industry will continue to make headlines without knowing why.
PJ2
Not your view I know, but I can't believe that "CTL - certified pilots" etc, as such, is even seriously contemplated. The objections both professionally and technically are so obvious that I won't waste space with them here. A pilot who calls him/her self by that title, should be able to fly the airplane as well as the autopilot, period.
The standard should be, If you can get from fully automated flight to fully manual and back to fully automated without anyone noticing, you probably understand the system, and when you can fly an airliner like a Cub or a Fleet, which means you understand energy levels, mass, aerodynamics, maneuvering capabilities/requirements at the theoretical and the 'artistic' level, and can fly a circling approach and a visual circuit like you were riding a bike, then you're a real pilot.
There is simply no excuse for non-competency in these areas and if the bean-counters object they should be placed in the cockpit a few times a month until they "get it", which means they come to know what adrenaline is. You'll never get that kind of crucial aviation understanding from looking at a spreadsheet.
Without that kind of understanding on the part of accountants, leaders and CEOs, the industry will continue to make headlines without knowing why.
PJ2