Below the GS at SFO again

[Coagie]

Many of the KAL crashes were at the hands of the 'Military trained pilots'

Defensive, just as expected!
Stilton, C'mon, in a lot of cases, newer airline pilots have never even flown a real stall and recovery!
I can't fly for you, because of a bout of madness, and what I did to that village, during the war.
Anyway, I did qualify my statement with "here in the US" or something like that, meaning the US military. There's going to be exceptions on both sides. You guys figure it out. When I wrote "Police Yourselves" I meant police yourselves, or you'll continue to atrophy from a heroic profession, to a mundane profession.

[Coagie]

Without getting too deep into the age-old Mil/Civ debate, Coagie actually makes some sound points.

Thanks Beamer! Even a broken clock is right twice in a 24 hour period!

[DozyWannabe]

Originally Posted by Coagie

Stilton, C'mon, in a lot of cases, newer airline pilots have never even flown a real stall and recovery!

Are you sure? Last time I checked it was impossible to get your PPL without having done so...

That said - up until recently, the industry had been lax on *recurrent* training regarding stalls, but as I understand it that's changing in the wake of recent events.

[Coagie]

Not necessarily disagreeing. But it is equally true that North America could be safer. Stuffing the nose wheel through the front of an aircraft is the sort of thing you expect from the occasional PPL student in a 172. The lack of 'pilotage skill' is on a par with someone who can't manage the aircraft's energy properly at 2-3 miles.

Of course most of us are, at best, making educated guesses about a number of issues.

Yep USA may be safer, but it could do better. I've been in aviation long enough to know that 'good enough' isn't good enough.

Cows getting bigger, Airline piloting skills have gone down world wide. I don't know the Southwest 737 pilot's background, whether she was ex-military or not. But we had the Colgan Air crash in New York State, and that craft was flown by pilots, who were not only non-military background, but didn't even make the wage of rookie ditch digger. I'm the last to say we don't have problems over here, as well. I think that Korea, and possibly other Asian nations, excepting Japan (I think some fine pilots there), has "cultural education" issues, where they learn everything by rote, rather than figuring it out real time, that may hold them back, but the rest of us aren't far behind!

[Una Due Tfc]

I'm not trying to make excuses for clowns who can't do a visual landing on a cavok day, don't get me wrong, I'm just of the opinion that we need as much redundancy as possible

[ice2x01]

I know this video. Look closely, and you'll see that it was the First Officer who was the PF for this approach - his hand is on the sidestick from start to finish. I don't think there's an edit - I suspect SFO approach control decided to switch them to an ILS on 28R of their own volition. The Captain as PNF was calling up the procedures for visual approach, then when the reassignment to ILS was given, he throws up his hands (though not aggressively) and puts the keyboard away.

I believe the captain is the PF: Auto-pilot 1 is engaged, he calls configuration commands, and the first officer is handling communication (PNF Duty). The first officer's hand is over the side-stick because he is using the PTT button located on the stick.

[DozyWannabe]

Originally Posted by ice2x01

I believe the captain is the PF: Auto-pilot 1 is engaged, he calls configuration commands, and the first officer is handling communication (PNF Duty). The first officer's hand is over the side-stick because he is using the PTT button located on the stick.

You could be right, I'm not familiar with LH's procedures, but calling up checklists as the Captain seems to be doing is a bit incongruous for PF, is it not?

[Coagie]

Are you sure? Last time I checked it was impossible to get your PPL without having done so..

DozzyWannabee, No, I don't know for sure, but last time I checked, years ago, not sure how many, the stall and recovery requirement for a PPL, was taken out, because the private aircraft industry, thought, if they made it easier, or less frightening, to become a private pilot, they'd be more private pilots to buy private aircraft, so they used their influence, to accomplish this change. I don't know what all countries may have changed, but I'm thinking of the US. Does anyone on the forum have current or more accurate info on this issue? Maybe it's the madness coming back?

[Una Due Tfc]

I did quite a few hours towards my ppl in Europe about 2 years ago and stall recovery was definitely part of the training i.e. you deliberately stalled the aircraft and recovered

[ice2x01]

You could be right, I'm not familiar with LH's procedures, but calling up checklists as the Captain seems to be doing is a bit incongruous for PF, is it not?

If by calling up you mean requesting, then no... it is perfectly normal for PF to request a checklist and the PNF to read said checklist, then PF to confirm.

[captplaystation]

Some have said "unbelievable", unfortunately it is way TOO believable.

Most of the improvement in the safety record of carriers like EVA/Korean / Asiana (yes, feel free to lambast me as a racist, I don't give a
"flying - - - -" ) . . . have come courtesy of the "ease of operation" (in "normal" ops ) achieved by Boeing/Airbus & maybe (just maybe ) a little due to the influx of foreigners in the cockpit - mandated by the insurance companies.

Remove the "foreigners -onboard" & Boeing /Airbus safety net . . and here we are gentlemen "another night in Shanghai". . sorry, politically incorrect it may be, but that is the fact of the matter. Same logic applies to African/Arabic/ Former USSR/ S. American etc etc carriers. . c'mon guys, don't be afraid to tell it like it is. . . . we all have a squint at the carrier when we buy an airticket right ?

Yes Air France (OK I will stop there) BA /Lufthansa etc have something on the slate, but it doesn't take a Masters Degree in risk reduction (merely a cursory glance at the accident database of the last 10 years ) to realise that none of this should be either a surprise , or "off bounds". . it sure as hell isn't in any bar-discussion between pilots, so lets stop pussying around & tell it like it is. Oh BTW, what the hell were those "Rednecks" in SWA doing last week ?

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by Coagie

the stall and recovery requirement for a PPL...... I don't know what all countries may have changed, but I'm thinking of the US.

UK PPL skill test requires three types of stall, plus of course all the training for these.

It's appropriate to be writing about PPL, because if SFO have taken away the ILS and the PAPIs on this runway for the summer, they have effectively put it back to the level of a grass field - or worse, because my own PPL field has PAPIs. I know there are those on this thread sniggering up their sleeves at others who have difficulty with the approach, but it reminds me of people who despise seat belts in their cars because they feel they are "good drivers".

It is surely inappropriate for the FAA to be making any comment on this, when it is the same FAA's plan for runway works which decided to withdraw the landing aids on this runway for seemingly the whole summer, and then carry on using it as if nothing had changed. Do they really believe that landing aids are somehow a waste of money ?

Finally, if we are going to write about professionalism, we can also ask the SFO fire team how they managed with all their training and world-beating equipment to run over and kill, with a fire truck, one of the pax who had just evacuated from the Asiana aircraft, during their whoop-de-do, gung-ho response to the incident, which I can't recall ever happening at any aircraft accident scene before - see here :

BBC News - Asiana flight 214 victim killed by fire engine

[slacktide]

I don't know for sure, but last time I checked, years ago, not sure how many, the stall and recovery requirement for a PPL, was taken out....

Entry into, and recovery from fully developed Power-On and Power-Off stalls is a PTS requirement in the US. Should include accelerated stalls as well, as the base-to-final turning stall is most likely to kill a PPL.

www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test.../FAA-S-8081-14B.pdf‎

Task B: Power-Off Stalls (ASEL and ASES)
References: FAA-H-8083-3; AC 61-67; POH/AFM.
Objective: To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits satisfactory knowledge of the elements related to power-off stalls.
2. Selects an entry altitude that allows the task to be completed no lower than 1,500 feet AGL.
3. Establishes a stabilized descent in the approach or landing configuration, as specified by the examiner.
4. Transitions smoothly from the approach or landing attitude to a pitch attitude that will induce a stall.
5. Maintains a specified heading, ±10°, if in straight flight; maintains a specified angle of bank not to exceed 20°, ±10°; if in turning flight, while inducing the stall.
6. Recognizes and recovers promptly after a fully developed stall occurs.
7. Retracts the flaps to the recommended setting; retracts the landing gear, if retractable, after a positive rate of climb is established.
8. Accelerates to VX or VY speed before the final flap retraction; returns to the altitude, heading, and airspeed specified by the examiner.


Task C: Power-On Stalls (ASEL and ASES)
NOTE: In some high performance airplanes, the power setting may have to be reduced below the practical test standards guideline power setting to prevent excessively high pitch attitudes (greater than 30° nose up).
References: FAA-H-8083-3; AC 61-67; POH/AFM.
Objective: To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits satisfactory knowledge of the elements related to power-on stalls.
2. Selects an entry altitude that allows the task to be completed no lower than 1,500 feet AGL.
3. Establishes the takeoff or departure configuration as specified by the examiner. Sets power to no less than 65 percent available power.
4. Transitions smoothly from the takeoff or departure attitude to the pitch attitude that will induce a stall.
5. Maintains a specified heading, ±10°, if in straight flight; maintains a specified angle of bank not to exceed 20°, ±10°, if in turning flight, while inducing the stall.
6. Recognizes and recovers promptly after a fully developed stall occurs.
7. Retracts the flaps to the recommended setting; retracts the landing gear if retractable, after a positive rate of climb is established.
8. Accelerates to VX or VY speed before the final flap retraction; returns to the altitude, heading, and airspeed specified by the examiner.

[JRBarrett]

Originally Posted by Coagie

DozzyWannabee, No, I don't know for sure, but last time I checked, years ago, not sure how many, the stall and recovery requirement for a PPL, was taken out, because the private aircraft industry, thought, if they made it easier, or less frightening, to become a private pilot, they'd be more private pilots to buy private aircraft, so they used their influence, to accomplish this change. I don't know what all countries may have changed, but I'm thinking of the US. Does anyone on the forum have current or more accurate info on this issue? Maybe it's the madness coming back?

At present, stalls are definitely still part of the U.S. PPL training syllabus - power off, power on and accelerated stalls must be logged/practiced in training, and demonstrated on the check ride.

You may be thinking of spin training, which was indeed eliminated from the U.S. PPL training regimen quite a few years ago.

[DozyWannabe]

Originally Posted by WHBM

...because if SFO have taken away the ILS and the PAPIs on this runway for the summer...

I think things have been a bit garbled. As I understood it, the PAPIs were in service until the Asiana B777 took them out. I'd be surprised if they hadn't been replaced before the runway was allowed to re-open.

[Contacttower]

To my knowledge full stall and recovery have never been taken out of the US PPL or indeed any other country's. No idea where that idea came from...

Spin has been taken out yes but I don't think anyone could really argue for its reintroduction.

Accelerated stall is in the US commercial test.

[The Ancient Geek]

You may be thinking of spin training, which was indeed eliminated from the U.S. PPL training regimen quite a few years ago.

Intentional spins were removed from the UK PPL sylabus after the CAA figured out that more pilots were killed in spin training than in unintentional spins. Nowadays training only goes as far as recognition and recovery from an incipient spin. With, of course, a heavy dose of "never get into this situation".

Intentional spins are an aerobatic manoever and part of aerobatics training.

[Coagie]

I did quite a few hours towards my ppl in Europe about 2 years ago and stall recovery was definitely part of the training i.e. you deliberately stalled the aircraft and recovered

Una Due tfc, I'm relieved to hear that! I know you did because, how could you forget? Thanks.

[perantau]

Real pilots don't need aids. Real ATC achieve high traffic flow rates. Real airports are for real pilots & ATC. ICAO & the rest of us are amatuers.

[Coagie]

To my knowledge full stall and recovery have never been taken out of the US PPL or indeed any other country's. No idea where that idea came from...

Spin has been taken out yes but I don't think anyone could really argue for its reintroduction.

Accelerated stall is in the US commercial test.

Contacttower, I must be mixed up with spin. Isn't that just let go, and it will right itself? Anyway, I remember there was some controversy, and certainly, more students killed by it, than pilots, is a pretty good argument against it. As hard as it is to imagine, stall and recovery being taken out, isn't that far fetched, when you think of lobbiests, politicians, and bureaucrats, are the ones making up the rules! I guess AF447 made me think it wasn't part of the commercial, shake and bake, pilot training any longer. Was it on France's commercial pilot training just prior to AF447?