FAA proposes to strengthen airline pilot training
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colgan had the lowest hiring requirements in the US. They wanted cheap help and got it. Starting out with them would be a disaster to master flying so you could get a real job somewhere. Normal pilots wouldn't have stalled, would have known how to recover by not bringing the nose up and wouldn't have aggravated it further by reducing flaps. After a few thousand stall recoveries both teaching and receiving it is such a simple procedure it could be done half asleep. We have had our few pilots that constantly fail check rides and are retrained to proficiency to get them through. They are still dangerous because you can't train high time dangerous pilots to proficiency. You just give up and lower the standards, sad.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Spunky Monkey
Your list is the priority, not the FAA approach of trying to strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
It is those items you list, plus scrupulous entry requirements that are required. Since "Company Requirements" are "Squishy" and dependent on compliance that is subject to off list "judgment", this (FAA) approach will not work. That's two of us know what the problem is.
Your list is the priority, not the FAA approach of trying to strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
It is those items you list, plus scrupulous entry requirements that are required. Since "Company Requirements" are "Squishy" and dependent on compliance that is subject to off list "judgment", this (FAA) approach will not work. That's two of us know what the problem is.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: germany
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nowhere have i ever been taught to pitch the nose down for a stall recovery because on checkrides you are to maintain 100 feet. Proceedure has always been to hold pitch and power through it.
My personal opiniion is that this proceedure is wrong for a full stall...we should perform all stall to full stall and be graded on proceedure, not altitude loss.
If colgan flight had lost three hundred feet in the recovery i am guessing everybody would still be alive however this would be a failure in a sim ride...go figure.
My personal opiniion is that this proceedure is wrong for a full stall...we should perform all stall to full stall and be graded on proceedure, not altitude loss.
If colgan flight had lost three hundred feet in the recovery i am guessing everybody would still be alive however this would be a failure in a sim ride...go figure.
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If colgan flight had lost three hundred feet in the recovery i am guessing everybody would still be alive however this would be a failure in a sim ride...go figure.
I have just done my 6 monthly check and had to practice the "new" procedure...
Boeing have re-written the manual and height loss is not the issue, un-stalling the wings is.
I've even heard that a large number of airline pilots have never experienced a fully-developed stall in anything - not even in a little spamcan puddlejumper...
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem is, checkrides were not stall recoveries - they were recovery from stall warning, initiated from shaker (or equivalent) and done at low altitude. So there was a lot of excess power, and the aircraft was still flying. So as a measure of piloting technique, "recovering" without undue loss of altitude was a fair thing to expect.
Problem is, that scenario has bugger all to do with a real stall condition, yet people were misled into thinking that the techniques required for this party-trick checkride item were appropriate for a REAL stall. When clearly they are not.
It appears we are now (painfully slowly) moving towards demonstration of recovery technique for a real stall - or certainly something a lot more like one.
As for the comment about the Boeing technique previously - I bet there wasn't one explicitly in the manuals - there's actually rules about what goes in the manuals that explicitly prohibit basic airmanship items - you're only supposed to put stuff specific to the type. The fact that OEMs are now putting stall recovery techniques and procedures into flight manuals ... well, draw your own conclusion from that.
Problem is, that scenario has bugger all to do with a real stall condition, yet people were misled into thinking that the techniques required for this party-trick checkride item were appropriate for a REAL stall. When clearly they are not.
It appears we are now (painfully slowly) moving towards demonstration of recovery technique for a real stall - or certainly something a lot more like one.
As for the comment about the Boeing technique previously - I bet there wasn't one explicitly in the manuals - there's actually rules about what goes in the manuals that explicitly prohibit basic airmanship items - you're only supposed to put stuff specific to the type. The fact that OEMs are now putting stall recovery techniques and procedures into flight manuals ... well, draw your own conclusion from that.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For many years I have been teaching TQ courses on Boeings. Where it said in FCTM for an approach to stall recovery, which is all that was required, "apply full power and reduce attitude (lower the nose)" I always emphasised the other way round; sep;erated by a split second. In an under-wing a/c if you did it the FCTM way, and were slow to counter the nose up pitch aggressively, you made the situation worse. By applying fwd elevator force a split second before the power you were ready for the rearing bronco, especially if doing this from idle power. OK, at approach to stall the wing is still flying, and it was an interesting demo to do it with the autopilot in ALT HLD. Increase power at stick shaker and let George try and hold on. At lower levels it generally manged, just. Never did try it at medium/high levels. Then I suspect it would disconnect or not remain at shaker for far too long.
The losing 100' exercise should only have been if ground contact was a factor, surely. Use all the height you've got to survive, within traffic reason. At 10,000' and applying 5 degrees attitude it would lose between 3-500' depending on idle or 40% N1%. (cadets)
Now, after Turkish at AMS, Boeing have realised that gravity always wins and the laws of aerodynamics haven't changed that much, no matter how much umph you've got. I suspect that the tail mounted bretheren have a slightly easier time of it, as would the propellor brigade.
From the current turbo-prop people can you tell us what effect prop wash at full power has on stall recovery? compared to just areodynamic recovery with attitude? I'm assuming little pitch effect with power (not speed); is that correct? I suspect some effect on elevator as well?
The losing 100' exercise should only have been if ground contact was a factor, surely. Use all the height you've got to survive, within traffic reason. At 10,000' and applying 5 degrees attitude it would lose between 3-500' depending on idle or 40% N1%. (cadets)
Now, after Turkish at AMS, Boeing have realised that gravity always wins and the laws of aerodynamics haven't changed that much, no matter how much umph you've got. I suspect that the tail mounted bretheren have a slightly easier time of it, as would the propellor brigade.
From the current turbo-prop people can you tell us what effect prop wash at full power has on stall recovery? compared to just areodynamic recovery with attitude? I'm assuming little pitch effect with power (not speed); is that correct? I suspect some effect on elevator as well?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and here I thought LOFT was lack of flight training....
Mad...
Very good!
Look for a 20 thousand page manual in your future...
Mad...
As for the comment about the Boeing technique previously - I bet there wasn't one explicitly in the manuals - there's actually rules about what goes in the manuals that explicitly prohibit basic airmanship items - you're only supposed to put stuff specific to the type. The fact that OEMs are now putting stall recovery techniques and procedures into flight manuals ... well, draw your own conclusion from that.
Look for a 20 thousand page manual in your future...
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if the colgan pilots had let go of everything, the plane would have unstalled and hit the ground ''flying''. sure things would have been bad, but I'll bet that someone would have survived.
but they fought and kept it stalled right into the ground.
EVERY FREAKING PILOT should have to read: STICK AND RUDDER. the whole book constantly says IF YOU STALL PUSH THE STICK FORWARD (and remember in some spins your nose will already be DOWN).
unstall the wing and then recover to a climb, to level flight, to whatever you want...because once you are unstalled, you are flying.
I agree with the above post by RAT 5. It is one of the reasons I hate the underwing engine mounted jets. The engines can affect pitch.
On the DC9 and other tail mounted engine planes, you have a purer form of flying. they just push the plane along without major pitch change.
but they fought and kept it stalled right into the ground.
EVERY FREAKING PILOT should have to read: STICK AND RUDDER. the whole book constantly says IF YOU STALL PUSH THE STICK FORWARD (and remember in some spins your nose will already be DOWN).
unstall the wing and then recover to a climb, to level flight, to whatever you want...because once you are unstalled, you are flying.
I agree with the above post by RAT 5. It is one of the reasons I hate the underwing engine mounted jets. The engines can affect pitch.
On the DC9 and other tail mounted engine planes, you have a purer form of flying. they just push the plane along without major pitch change.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all know this is elementary airmanship on how to recover from a stall. You don't need any power if you can sacrifice altitude like these folks could. Adding power once you have begun lowering the nose means less altitude loss but who cares if nothing is below you? Starting your aviation career with basic airplanes and working up makes you much more prepared for an airline job than having Daddy pay your way into the right seat. I know the UK isn't doing this any more and CRM and procedures for checklists is the priority but I like the old way. Work your self up into the job with experience doing basic flying first.
I did it that way and enjoyed every minute of it. J3's, Pitts, B18, Citabrias, Supercubs crop dusting, Citations, Learjets, Jetstars, Falcons, then one lucky day got an airline job and retired. I only could get hired by that airline because I had over 5,000 hrs and 1,000 turbojet PIC. Yes, I was lucky because a lot of people were just as qualified as me. I knew the interviewer liked T6's.
I did it that way and enjoyed every minute of it. J3's, Pitts, B18, Citabrias, Supercubs crop dusting, Citations, Learjets, Jetstars, Falcons, then one lucky day got an airline job and retired. I only could get hired by that airline because I had over 5,000 hrs and 1,000 turbojet PIC. Yes, I was lucky because a lot of people were just as qualified as me. I knew the interviewer liked T6's.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sevenstrokeroll, yes, I have the book Stick and Rudder along with Flying the big Jets. Learned a lot from both I wouldn't have learned anywhere else. I didn't think there were pilots that didn't know how to recover from a simple stall until Colgan. Starting your aviation career in the right seat is insane. How can the captain teach you how to fly if you have no experience? I know you went through all phases before getting your first 121 airline job but I enjoyed every minute of it.Starting in the right seat of an Airbus would not have been satisfying to my career. Bet you agree with that.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bubbers...I learned a great deal coming up the hard way. Especially as a CFIIMEI...you can't KNOW SOMETHING until you can TEACH IT to someone else.
I learned from flying bank checks in crappy little planes that were poorly maintained...started that job when the controllers went on strike and I felt like lindbergh flying the mail "contact" style.
I learned alot in my first jet (NA Rockwell Sabreliner) and in one of the most demanding planes I ever flew (MU2). By the time I went through three regionals (we called them commuters then) I knew my craft to be ready on the first day on the line as a DC9 copilot flying into airports I had never seen before.
I would have liked more money as pay while as a CFIIMEI but I learned alot.
I learned from flying bank checks in crappy little planes that were poorly maintained...started that job when the controllers went on strike and I felt like lindbergh flying the mail "contact" style.
I learned alot in my first jet (NA Rockwell Sabreliner) and in one of the most demanding planes I ever flew (MU2). By the time I went through three regionals (we called them commuters then) I knew my craft to be ready on the first day on the line as a DC9 copilot flying into airports I had never seen before.
I would have liked more money as pay while as a CFIIMEI but I learned alot.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSR, I forgot to add the MU2 to my list. I also had all of those instructor ratings and was learning along with my student, Steve Hinton, famous race pilot at Chino for one. He returned the favor by giving me a couple of adventurous rides in a P51. I had to pay for the gas. My buddy and I were reading the flight manual on the MU2 flying across the US checking ourselves out in it. It was a handfull. Just lowering the gear or flaps was challenging. We landed on an ice slick runway in the midwest and it took both of us to keep it on the centerline. When we parked at the ramp we were afraid it was going to slide down the ramp off the ice. I flew a twin Navion a few times. I counted 76 types I flew but how many flew a twin Navion? How about a Bailey Bitty Bipe because only one was made.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bubbers...isn't it funny how things work out? you flew the P51 a bit and you also flew the twin navion...both made by North American (I briefly flew the North American Sabreliner) and the navion had pieces from the P51 in it?!!!!
Imagine the modern pilot...what planes did you fly? I flew a Pa 28, a PA 44 and the Airbus and that's it...funny huh?
and here would be the real kicker...how many REAL hours do you have? the new kind of pilot would say...what do you mean? REAL...not on autopilot!
He would look at his logbook...at the end of his career...maybe 100 hours in pipers, 100 in simulators, five minutes on each five hour airbus flight...Maybe 400 hours total!!!!
how can someone LEARN to fly on autopilot??????????
Imagine the modern pilot...what planes did you fly? I flew a Pa 28, a PA 44 and the Airbus and that's it...funny huh?
and here would be the real kicker...how many REAL hours do you have? the new kind of pilot would say...what do you mean? REAL...not on autopilot!
He would look at his logbook...at the end of his career...maybe 100 hours in pipers, 100 in simulators, five minutes on each five hour airbus flight...Maybe 400 hours total!!!!
how can someone LEARN to fly on autopilot??????????
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Avon, CT, USA
Age: 68
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a dead master CFI told me, if you stall for real (not practice) it most likely will kill you as it took you by suprise (Colgan).
He died in a car crash as someone else missed a stop sign.
He died in a car crash as someone else missed a stop sign.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've even heard that a large number of airline pilots have never experienced a fully-developed stall in anything - not even in a little spamcan puddlejumper...
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can the captain teach you how to fly if you have no experience?
Starting your aviation career in the right seat is insane...
Today we are talking about airline pilots with lots of experience handling the big jets (Airbus and Boeing) loosing their basic pilot skill and ... what's going on ... because the market dictate so, we are just putting on the right seat of a 737 or 320 a kid with zero experience, zero pilot skill, zero airmanship, zero situational awareness, but with a big bag full of daddy's money and a big attitude! And after an accident we are surprised do find out a pilot is not able to recover from a stall!
We need to do a big pull to cage and reset the entire airline pilots market world!