Article about lack of hand flying skills - FAA concerned
What really interests me in this discussion is what the button-pushers are going to do when, one night, they turn up for work and are presented with an aeroplane that they might actually have to fly because it has no working autopilots or FDs for example. (This has happened to me but I only had to do 5 sectors at night before it got fixed).
They then consult the MEL looking for an excuse not to go and discover that the MEL says they can go.
The passengers want to get to their destination.
The management want the passengers to get to their destination.
So are you now going to admit that you can't actually fly the aircraft to any competent standard and refuse to go?
If so, how can you call yourself a professional pilot?
I know that if you are using at least one of the usual modern-day excuses not to practise your basic art such as "the passengers won't like it", then some of you are quite likely to end up in deep sh*t one day. You are fooling yourself if you think you can ace it when it all goes wrong and your entire poling experience actually consists of 250 hours on a Cessna 150.
Most of all, speaking as a professional pilot who stayed alive and never hurt a passenger for half a century, how can you actually live with yourself?
I couldn't and I never did.
They then consult the MEL looking for an excuse not to go and discover that the MEL says they can go.
The passengers want to get to their destination.
The management want the passengers to get to their destination.
So are you now going to admit that you can't actually fly the aircraft to any competent standard and refuse to go?
If so, how can you call yourself a professional pilot?
I know that if you are using at least one of the usual modern-day excuses not to practise your basic art such as "the passengers won't like it", then some of you are quite likely to end up in deep sh*t one day. You are fooling yourself if you think you can ace it when it all goes wrong and your entire poling experience actually consists of 250 hours on a Cessna 150.
Most of all, speaking as a professional pilot who stayed alive and never hurt a passenger for half a century, how can you actually live with yourself?
I couldn't and I never did.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yellow Brick Road
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411, reminds me of a time when I was stuck in an airliner on the tarmac for 3 hours somewhere in China. The captain repeatedly said he couldn't continue to our destination due to weather issues. An irate passenger starts screaming in the cabin threatening to sue the airline for potential losses to his business schedule. So the airline organises another captain who promptly announces he is able to continue. I was paxing as part of a delegation and it wasn't up to me to decide whether to go or not.
At least I survived to tell the tale. Should I criticise the first captain for being a coward or the second captain for being a fool ?
At least I survived to tell the tale. Should I criticise the first captain for being a coward or the second captain for being a fool ?
Last edited by ReverseFlight; 4th Sep 2011 at 17:41.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: -
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you remember the date and time and origin and destination, then one might try to look up the weather and see if it was bad enough to delay the flight. Otherwise there is no way to answer your question...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The remedy
From a local field known for airplanes with wood, fabric, and tailwheels:
Lee Bottom Flying Field is announcing the first ever "Teach an Airline Pilot to Fly" Day. Held everywhere in America, on September 17th, this day will be an occasion where taildragger pilots nation wide share the knowledge of basic flying skills with their airline buddies.
After years of making it impossible for airline pilots to keep their flying skills up to par and encouraging the expansion of 141 schools with their process-over-skills approach to flight training, the FAA and NTSB believes airline pilots are "forgetting" the basic skills they once had or were never taught. This day was created to address that concern.
If you know an airline pilot who has forgotten more than the FAA or NTSB will ever know, please show your concern for them with this gift of basic flying skills. Your contribution will go a long way towards saving these wayward aviators.
(Note: FAA regulations may prohibit you from participating in this event. If you are not an FAA certified flight instructor, you may not be smart enough to demonstrate basic flying skills to another pilot. Although, despite having forgotten everything he or she ever knew, if the airline pilot is a certified flight instructor with a distant tailwheel sign off, the flight may be legal.)
Lee Bottom Flying Field is announcing the first ever "Teach an Airline Pilot to Fly" Day. Held everywhere in America, on September 17th, this day will be an occasion where taildragger pilots nation wide share the knowledge of basic flying skills with their airline buddies.
After years of making it impossible for airline pilots to keep their flying skills up to par and encouraging the expansion of 141 schools with their process-over-skills approach to flight training, the FAA and NTSB believes airline pilots are "forgetting" the basic skills they once had or were never taught. This day was created to address that concern.
If you know an airline pilot who has forgotten more than the FAA or NTSB will ever know, please show your concern for them with this gift of basic flying skills. Your contribution will go a long way towards saving these wayward aviators.
(Note: FAA regulations may prohibit you from participating in this event. If you are not an FAA certified flight instructor, you may not be smart enough to demonstrate basic flying skills to another pilot. Although, despite having forgotten everything he or she ever knew, if the airline pilot is a certified flight instructor with a distant tailwheel sign off, the flight may be legal.)
You as a paying passenger should not have a worry in the world that the crew are highly qualified to look after you and should have no concerns.
Nowadays, I think we are involved in a lottery and I am very happy that I have discovered the joys of cruising on large ships.
Let's face it, we didn't lose too many Titanics!
Did we?
Nowadays, I think we are involved in a lottery and I am very happy that I have discovered the joys of cruising on large ships.
Let's face it, we didn't lose too many Titanics!
Did we?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After many years of flying Twin Beaches, twin Cessnas and dozens of other aircraft single pilot with no autopilot IFR being dispatched with a B737 with no autopilot and an FO to handle the radio and checklist was a cakewalk. From what I read here it can't be done any more. Tell me this is not true.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Forest
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Automation and Handling
Just for the record, I have 13k+ hours, mostly military and shorthaul plus training with a major airline. I converted to the B757 virtually at its introduction and was delighted to find a flight director which was actually of benefit (as opposed to the extraordinary instrument which used to dance all over ones AH). My colleagues and I were extremely skeptical of a TV presentation as opposed to the old steam driven panel but we were converted almost overnight.
At my next sim check, the awful truth struck home. F/D was turned off and A/T was available only at the training captain’s whim. Bearing in mind that these had only been an occasional addition up to the conversion (only 6 months previously), the abrupt degradation of my (and the other crew member’s) skills was an appalling eye-opener and one which I have impressed just AS HARD AS I CAN on the younger generation I have had the honour to try to teach. I have always begged them to turn off both F/D and A/T at least once a week (captain permitting –and I hope he would) and also to practice non-precision approaches as often as vis permits. I know that modern teaching rather sidelines NDB’s etc, but there are plenty of strange (to our Authority) parts of the world where such approaches are very necessary. Without an instinctive knowledge of how to conduct (and maybe even, heaven forfend, actually FLY) such an approach, disaster will soon bite your b@m!
Happy handling, Prober
At my next sim check, the awful truth struck home. F/D was turned off and A/T was available only at the training captain’s whim. Bearing in mind that these had only been an occasional addition up to the conversion (only 6 months previously), the abrupt degradation of my (and the other crew member’s) skills was an appalling eye-opener and one which I have impressed just AS HARD AS I CAN on the younger generation I have had the honour to try to teach. I have always begged them to turn off both F/D and A/T at least once a week (captain permitting –and I hope he would) and also to practice non-precision approaches as often as vis permits. I know that modern teaching rather sidelines NDB’s etc, but there are plenty of strange (to our Authority) parts of the world where such approaches are very necessary. Without an instinctive knowledge of how to conduct (and maybe even, heaven forfend, actually FLY) such an approach, disaster will soon bite your b@m!
Happy handling, Prober
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@bubbers, of course you can still dispatch a 737 with an inop autopilot. You just can't enter RVSM as you need automatic altitude holding capability. So everything up to FL280 (in europe) is fair game.
@Prober, flying a non precision approach is nowadays exactly the same as an ILS, both in presentation and basic procedures on the 737. Read up on IAN which i believe is also standard in the 748 and 787. Apart from that i can't agree more. Regular manual flying is the only way to keep basic flying skills up, and i'm grateful that my companies OPS manual recognizes that and promotes raw data manual flight.
@Prober, flying a non precision approach is nowadays exactly the same as an ILS, both in presentation and basic procedures on the 737. Read up on IAN which i believe is also standard in the 748 and 787. Apart from that i can't agree more. Regular manual flying is the only way to keep basic flying skills up, and i'm grateful that my companies OPS manual recognizes that and promotes raw data manual flight.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Republika Ng Pilipinas
Age: 61
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly most airlines now aren't in favor of pilots flying without the FDs and A/Ts...the SOP is to use the automation to the fullest to achieve the most economical and efficient operation. God forbid if there is a FOQA and it is found that the pilot had been operating non SOP by not using the automation to the fullest. Most chief pilots are now yellow bellied fellas who are not going to risk supporting any line captains who run into trouble with their f/os inadvertantly making some excursions ( whether related or unrelated ) through not using the automatics.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: A quiet backwater
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may have mentioned this before.....
IF you hire people with no experience at all in airplanes, you CAN train them to very high standards. The military does it all the time in some countries. Some airlines do it quite well.
BUT:
If you chose your candidates based on intangibles such as docility (ie doing what they are told and not being a s*** stirrer), who their parents are, ethnic background (OUR airline is piloted by kids from OUR country), or a past that involves no problems at all - in other words, the candidate has never learned risk assessment
AND:
You train (and haze) them for 300 hours in a 172, put them through an intense GROUND school, and then stick them in the right seat of a B777 or other large airplane.
Do not allow them to make cross wind landings.
Use a fear based program so that they are terrified of making mistakes, so much so that when they near Captain upgrade they decline landings.
Give them 10 years of twiddling the heading knob on inter-continental flights hand-flying perhaps 5-6 minutes on each of their legs - maybe an average of 3 per month. You figure how much actual flying time that gives them.
Fire them if anything happens.
Never let them fly with the autothrottles off.
THEN:
Upgrade them to Captain and give them an equally well qualified FO.
What do you think is going to happen the night an engine tanks on a winter Pacific Rim flight when the only en-route alternate is some windswept, desolate, and forbidding ice-covered Siberian "airport"?
The only option is to continue to destination because neither pilot can hand-fly the aircraft. Don't think it hasn't happened.
IF you hire people with no experience at all in airplanes, you CAN train them to very high standards. The military does it all the time in some countries. Some airlines do it quite well.
BUT:
If you chose your candidates based on intangibles such as docility (ie doing what they are told and not being a s*** stirrer), who their parents are, ethnic background (OUR airline is piloted by kids from OUR country), or a past that involves no problems at all - in other words, the candidate has never learned risk assessment
AND:
You train (and haze) them for 300 hours in a 172, put them through an intense GROUND school, and then stick them in the right seat of a B777 or other large airplane.
Do not allow them to make cross wind landings.
Use a fear based program so that they are terrified of making mistakes, so much so that when they near Captain upgrade they decline landings.
Give them 10 years of twiddling the heading knob on inter-continental flights hand-flying perhaps 5-6 minutes on each of their legs - maybe an average of 3 per month. You figure how much actual flying time that gives them.
Fire them if anything happens.
Never let them fly with the autothrottles off.
THEN:
Upgrade them to Captain and give them an equally well qualified FO.
What do you think is going to happen the night an engine tanks on a winter Pacific Rim flight when the only en-route alternate is some windswept, desolate, and forbidding ice-covered Siberian "airport"?
The only option is to continue to destination because neither pilot can hand-fly the aircraft. Don't think it hasn't happened.
Last edited by Plectron; 5th Sep 2011 at 17:59.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Plectron
you got it!
... and this will be the only good reason to get rid of us (or at least one of us) and to remotely control/monitor the airplane from any GCS (Ground Control Station).
you got it!
... and this will be the only good reason to get rid of us (or at least one of us) and to remotely control/monitor the airplane from any GCS (Ground Control Station).
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Mordor
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trying to solve the problem not blame!
Having just read the whole of this thread, I must say that a few years of stick and rudder commercial flying would be so advantageous for all pilots before jumping into a modern airliner.
I myself have been flying the stick out on the dark continent for several years and I am currently (and still) attempting to make it into the airline industry, mainly for stability and the better assurance of a paycheck each month.
Many pilots out here (and other places similar) manage to fly unautomated machines into some of the worst weather on the planet without the aid of WXradars and other equipment and encounter problems and emergencies frequently. NDB approaches are common for annual checks and I myself only the other day did a couple because I felt like it.
This is not an ego post or looking for sympathy but to show there are still pilots carrying out this work before making the 'jump up'. It is not directed at anyone either.
I find it shocking that worldwide there are programmes inplace putting fresh pilots from school into the RHS of a automated jet. I remember the day I got my CPL and being told its a license to learn. Well there hasn't been much learning for many pilots in that case (in terms of stick and rudder).
However some of us stick and rudder guys are frowned upon when applying for jobs in the airline field as we don't have '1000 hours on type' or '2000 hours greater than 20 tonnes'. I actually find this quite insulting. By the end of say a TR course and eventually been released to the line, there is little differnce between someone like myself and a newbie CPL aprt from one thing. My manual skills and will be much more honed and refined than the latter, and when s**t hits the fan, I know which one I would trust more.
So to sum it up I completely agree that more effort needs to go into manual flying training and personally believe every pilot should go and actually FLY for a while before hitting the big birds . If your company doesn't allow this then next time you find yourself on leave, why not go and rent a 152 (maybe take the wife or kids too for fun) and go get some stick practice. If the airline doesn't want to be responsible then YOU must be. At the end of the day if something goes wrong up there you might find it could save your life and everyone elses.
This is just my opinon and not intended for any slanging matches.
I myself have been flying the stick out on the dark continent for several years and I am currently (and still) attempting to make it into the airline industry, mainly for stability and the better assurance of a paycheck each month.
Many pilots out here (and other places similar) manage to fly unautomated machines into some of the worst weather on the planet without the aid of WXradars and other equipment and encounter problems and emergencies frequently. NDB approaches are common for annual checks and I myself only the other day did a couple because I felt like it.
This is not an ego post or looking for sympathy but to show there are still pilots carrying out this work before making the 'jump up'. It is not directed at anyone either.
I find it shocking that worldwide there are programmes inplace putting fresh pilots from school into the RHS of a automated jet. I remember the day I got my CPL and being told its a license to learn. Well there hasn't been much learning for many pilots in that case (in terms of stick and rudder).
However some of us stick and rudder guys are frowned upon when applying for jobs in the airline field as we don't have '1000 hours on type' or '2000 hours greater than 20 tonnes'. I actually find this quite insulting. By the end of say a TR course and eventually been released to the line, there is little differnce between someone like myself and a newbie CPL aprt from one thing. My manual skills and will be much more honed and refined than the latter, and when s**t hits the fan, I know which one I would trust more.
So to sum it up I completely agree that more effort needs to go into manual flying training and personally believe every pilot should go and actually FLY for a while before hitting the big birds . If your company doesn't allow this then next time you find yourself on leave, why not go and rent a 152 (maybe take the wife or kids too for fun) and go get some stick practice. If the airline doesn't want to be responsible then YOU must be. At the end of the day if something goes wrong up there you might find it could save your life and everyone elses.
This is just my opinon and not intended for any slanging matches.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jw411
Good point
I once showed up late for an early EDI-CDG-EDI as I 'd crashed me car.#
Our illustrious Capt (I was a humble FO) said 'no worries, we ain't going anyways as the AP is u/s' "anyways" he says " you've been in a crash"
We flew the sectors by hand and it was no problemo (ERJ-145)
Good point
I once showed up late for an early EDI-CDG-EDI as I 'd crashed me car.#
Our illustrious Capt (I was a humble FO) said 'no worries, we ain't going anyways as the AP is u/s' "anyways" he says " you've been in a crash"
We flew the sectors by hand and it was no problemo (ERJ-145)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: A quiet backwater
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack - I suggested that many times- politely phrased, of course. Something like: Next time you go on vacation why not go to Arizona or Florida and get a check-out in a C180 or a 310 instead of buying another $15,000 watch or treating yourself to all that expensive "entertainment" on overnights? You might just save your job or even your life some day...
Zero interest. They thought I was out of my mind.
Zero interest. They thought I was out of my mind.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This problem is not really as hard to solve as some believe, except getting the airlines to go along with it and to put up the cash to fund it.
TacomaSailor is dead on correct. As an IT professional for over 30 years, I've participated in automating a number of different physical processes (including some aviation processes), and his description of skills erosion due to automation could not have been stated more succinctly, and this clearly applies to aviation as well.
Pilot's are being trained to understand and respond to the automation system's hardware and software that they manage, but not enough training is being provided for the pilot to understand and correctly operate the "physical-ware" the automation is controlling. In my opinion if you don't understand and can't operate the physical-ware, you don't really understand the automation system controlling it either.
The solution lies is the airlines owning a very small fleet of low cost (to acquire and operate) suitable aircraft, where line pilots can hand fly and practice various hand flying skills such as stall prevention, stall recovery, upset recovery, and high altitude work to name a few. These aircraft could also allow some basic interaction and failure mode training between various on-board automation systems and the physical-ware of the aircraft. This would keep the hand flying skills current, and unexpected systems and physical-ware interactions specific to a type could then be practiced in that type's sim. In other words, the low cost aircraft would focus training mainly on hand flying the physical-ware and some basic automation failure interactions, while a type's sim would focus training mainly on that type's specific system failure modes and aircraft interactions.
Getting the airlines to go along with this kind of solution and funding it is the hard part of this solution.
TacomaSailor is dead on correct. As an IT professional for over 30 years, I've participated in automating a number of different physical processes (including some aviation processes), and his description of skills erosion due to automation could not have been stated more succinctly, and this clearly applies to aviation as well.
Pilot's are being trained to understand and respond to the automation system's hardware and software that they manage, but not enough training is being provided for the pilot to understand and correctly operate the "physical-ware" the automation is controlling. In my opinion if you don't understand and can't operate the physical-ware, you don't really understand the automation system controlling it either.
The solution lies is the airlines owning a very small fleet of low cost (to acquire and operate) suitable aircraft, where line pilots can hand fly and practice various hand flying skills such as stall prevention, stall recovery, upset recovery, and high altitude work to name a few. These aircraft could also allow some basic interaction and failure mode training between various on-board automation systems and the physical-ware of the aircraft. This would keep the hand flying skills current, and unexpected systems and physical-ware interactions specific to a type could then be practiced in that type's sim. In other words, the low cost aircraft would focus training mainly on hand flying the physical-ware and some basic automation failure interactions, while a type's sim would focus training mainly on that type's specific system failure modes and aircraft interactions.
Getting the airlines to go along with this kind of solution and funding it is the hard part of this solution.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: A quiet backwater
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Safety is correct. The automation is not understood. The FOs are landing in crosswinds, albeit using "outside procedures", with the Captain's acquiescence IF an autoland is made. The fact that the autoland feature is for low visibility and NOT strong & gusty crosswinds is not part of the "briefing". It isn't really necessary to say that that point will clearly be made by Boeing at the hearing.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Mordor
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barbiesboyfriend,
If and when I get that interview, I will pledge not to touch a thing and in the event of an emergency let Mr Airbus (example, could be any manufacturer) take over my human and bush pilot instict to save my own bacon.
OR I could send a robot/android, a physical replica of myself of course, to do the interview for me. Infact I think I might stand a better chance that way.
A friend gave me something to think about last week. Burn all your logbooks, paperwork and change your name. Apply for a cadet program and then you might be in with a chance!
If and when I get that interview, I will pledge not to touch a thing and in the event of an emergency let Mr Airbus (example, could be any manufacturer) take over my human and bush pilot instict to save my own bacon.
OR I could send a robot/android, a physical replica of myself of course, to do the interview for me. Infact I think I might stand a better chance that way.
A friend gave me something to think about last week. Burn all your logbooks, paperwork and change your name. Apply for a cadet program and then you might be in with a chance!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AJ, I retired 8 years ago at 60 and it wasn't that way then in my airline. We handflew a lot to be proficient at our jobs. We knew we couldn't trust the autopilot so when it threw us the airplane in a bank 100 ft above minimums we were not surprised but just recovered and landed the airplane. If you maintain your flying skills life is good, if you don't, good luck. Air France and others apparently don't agree with that logic.