NTSB update on Asiana 214
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BASIC AIRMANSHIP can and should be practiced on every flight and every simulator session.
IF you can't "CLICK" off the autopilot and fly the takeoff, climbout and trim for cruise (autopilot if a long flight in cruise is ok, but click it off once in awhile and see if you can hand fly at altitude)and then click off the autopilot and hand fly the descent , approach, landing and rollout, then IT IS YOUR OWN FAULT.
AND if your company says you can't turn the autopilot OFF, then speak up and demand more proficiency training.
Gliders may offer something, but it is probably because I can't think of one that has an autopilot.
Bubbers is right, we always did a dead stick landing in the sim, maybe from different KEY positions and we did them way before sully splashed
IF you can't "CLICK" off the autopilot and fly the takeoff, climbout and trim for cruise (autopilot if a long flight in cruise is ok, but click it off once in awhile and see if you can hand fly at altitude)and then click off the autopilot and hand fly the descent , approach, landing and rollout, then IT IS YOUR OWN FAULT.
AND if your company says you can't turn the autopilot OFF, then speak up and demand more proficiency training.
Gliders may offer something, but it is probably because I can't think of one that has an autopilot.
Bubbers is right, we always did a dead stick landing in the sim, maybe from different KEY positions and we did them way before sully splashed
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intruder #561
I mentioned that my glider training may have been of help for me with an engine problem on a low overshoot ( see 21 Dec 2013 #13 , 15 , 19).
I think that it enabled me to avoid stalling whilst getting the aircraft going the way that it should - trading loss of height for an increase in speed. My Chief Pilot said that I had reached Vmca ( or was it Vmcg ?)
Or it could have been my big left foot !
I mentioned that my glider training may have been of help for me with an engine problem on a low overshoot ( see 21 Dec 2013 #13 , 15 , 19).
I think that it enabled me to avoid stalling whilst getting the aircraft going the way that it should - trading loss of height for an increase in speed. My Chief Pilot said that I had reached Vmca ( or was it Vmcg ?)
Or it could have been my big left foot !
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF you can't "CLICK" off the autopilot and fly the takeoff, climbout and trim for cruise (autopilot if a long flight in cruise is ok, but click it off once in awhile and see if you can hand fly at altitude)and then click off the autopilot and hand fly the descent , approach, landing and rollout, then IT IS YOUR OWN FAULT.
Between the RNAV1 SIDs, RVSM cruise altitudes, and RNAV1 STARs in the US, it is difficult to find time where manual flight is allowed. While the FAA technically allows use of the Flight Director in lieu of autopilot on those SIDs and STARs, our company procedures do not. On many flights the only manual flight allowed is from takeoff roll to 1000' or so, and from the IAF to landing. Add Cat II weather, and the latter goes away, too...
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Writing to a congresscritter or editor would be a waste of time. All these rules are perceived by the public as making them safer, and the likelihood of rescinding these types of rules is VERY low. Flying lower is normally not an option, since fuel consumption would suffer significantly.
I fly non-RNAV SIDs and STARs when available, so I can hand-fly. I encourage my FOs to hand-fly whenever possible, and try to break them of their schoolhouse habits of keeping the automation on until short final.
I fly non-RNAV SIDs and STARs when available, so I can hand-fly. I encourage my FOs to hand-fly whenever possible, and try to break them of their schoolhouse habits of keeping the automation on until short final.
Long time since I've flown a glider, but I didn't see anything in the last one I flew that would help with an instrument scan, including of course the engine gauges.
Too much adverse yaw to help with basic handling and asymmetric handling practice not much in evidence either.
After Kegworth, it was found that prudent use of the automatics may have reduced the workload sufficiently to enable the crew to run through an effective decision making loop.
Too much adverse yaw to help with basic handling and asymmetric handling practice not much in evidence either.
After Kegworth, it was found that prudent use of the automatics may have reduced the workload sufficiently to enable the crew to run through an effective decision making loop.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is always interesting to read the comments of airline pilots, real or simulated pilots, to the prospect of flying an aircraft with engines U/S or never installed in the first place (gliders). You have to get the approach and landing right every time. From the moment that the instructor gets out of the back seat and tells you to get on with it, the only weapon to deal with an undershoot situation is to put away the Airbrakes (Spoilers). As did the Captain of the 777 at LHR when his engines declined to spool up at a critical moment.
Three times in my flying I have noticed completely unbelievable readings on the ASI. I followed the basic rule of flying number one, first of all, if the aircraft is still right side up, Do Nothing. Avoid panic. Think about it. Realising the problem (I had left the static ports covered with tape) the two options left were to fly by attitude, and the sound of the airflow. Being fortunate enough to have plenty of height, and experimenting gently with these remaining indications of airspeed, made presentable landings back at base.
A third problem that has occasionally brought down an airliner, was an inoperative control, namely my ailerons were frozen. Quite literally, as the tape on the wings got wet the previous night, and I was at 20,000 feet. (in wave, at Aboyne).
Same drill. Do Nothing, avoid panic, think about it. Solution, gentle turns with rudder alone, and descent to warmer air.
Its a shame that the beancounters and those dependent on engines don't realise how valuable the experience of basic flying in simple aircraft can prove. Of course sim training gets you accustomed to complex panels and alarm systems. Unfortunately in this training your butt is never truly in danger, only your coreer.....
Three times in my flying I have noticed completely unbelievable readings on the ASI. I followed the basic rule of flying number one, first of all, if the aircraft is still right side up, Do Nothing. Avoid panic. Think about it. Realising the problem (I had left the static ports covered with tape) the two options left were to fly by attitude, and the sound of the airflow. Being fortunate enough to have plenty of height, and experimenting gently with these remaining indications of airspeed, made presentable landings back at base.
A third problem that has occasionally brought down an airliner, was an inoperative control, namely my ailerons were frozen. Quite literally, as the tape on the wings got wet the previous night, and I was at 20,000 feet. (in wave, at Aboyne).
Same drill. Do Nothing, avoid panic, think about it. Solution, gentle turns with rudder alone, and descent to warmer air.
Its a shame that the beancounters and those dependent on engines don't realise how valuable the experience of basic flying in simple aircraft can prove. Of course sim training gets you accustomed to complex panels and alarm systems. Unfortunately in this training your butt is never truly in danger, only your coreer.....
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those advocating we opt to fly more manually in the sim must be working for exceptional companies. For the bulk of us, the sim is used more for checking than training, and with a career, house and family riding on the line, most simply can't put their neck on the block like that.
I have been fortunate that my employers have a checking day and a training day every other check, and previous employers had training days each check. Not all employers do this. Now, these training days are assessed too, so you still have to be careful during the sessions and that includes full, appropriate use of automatics, FMC and so on. However, these sessions over the years covered double engine failures, rudder hard-overs, ash clouds with erratic engine operation (including a flame out which self re-lit, but you lose the other which was running with no indication, and if you don't land within a very short time scale, a loss of the running engine too...), FMC failures, EFIS failure, manual reversion (all hydraulics) and lateral control failure, and more. So, all of our line pilots get to expand their experience. If we finish early, then it's play time, un-assessed - I had a go as a Sioux City/Baghdad scenario using just thrust to control a 737 from 400' on TO to landing, and it was all good stuff, but few get that opportunity and few feel they can take that chance on a "training" session that is recorded an assessed.
As for glider pilots' superiority - hogwash. I have flown with many, and while some are excellent, the majority are arrogant and cavalier. In the UK, it is commonplace for gliders to penetrate controlled airspace because they know they can't be seen on radar and they'll get away with it. That is their "airmanship". I fly with low hour cadets, experienced FOs and new FOs with GA instructor backgrounds. All I can say is that you have to judge each by their own merit - there is no pattern dictating which has better skill or judgement.
What can be done to improve things is for authorities to insist companies make clear in their manuals and training that raw data and manual flying practice are to be encouraged when circumstances permit, including unassessed periods in the sim, to increase our competence and confidence in flying the aircraft and not the manuals, and to stop harassing crews for petty SOP deviations that had good airmanship behind them. This is the bigger issue; SOP is now banded around as dogma, and anyone who uses airmanship is branded a heretic.
I have been fortunate that my employers have a checking day and a training day every other check, and previous employers had training days each check. Not all employers do this. Now, these training days are assessed too, so you still have to be careful during the sessions and that includes full, appropriate use of automatics, FMC and so on. However, these sessions over the years covered double engine failures, rudder hard-overs, ash clouds with erratic engine operation (including a flame out which self re-lit, but you lose the other which was running with no indication, and if you don't land within a very short time scale, a loss of the running engine too...), FMC failures, EFIS failure, manual reversion (all hydraulics) and lateral control failure, and more. So, all of our line pilots get to expand their experience. If we finish early, then it's play time, un-assessed - I had a go as a Sioux City/Baghdad scenario using just thrust to control a 737 from 400' on TO to landing, and it was all good stuff, but few get that opportunity and few feel they can take that chance on a "training" session that is recorded an assessed.
As for glider pilots' superiority - hogwash. I have flown with many, and while some are excellent, the majority are arrogant and cavalier. In the UK, it is commonplace for gliders to penetrate controlled airspace because they know they can't be seen on radar and they'll get away with it. That is their "airmanship". I fly with low hour cadets, experienced FOs and new FOs with GA instructor backgrounds. All I can say is that you have to judge each by their own merit - there is no pattern dictating which has better skill or judgement.
What can be done to improve things is for authorities to insist companies make clear in their manuals and training that raw data and manual flying practice are to be encouraged when circumstances permit, including unassessed periods in the sim, to increase our competence and confidence in flying the aircraft and not the manuals, and to stop harassing crews for petty SOP deviations that had good airmanship behind them. This is the bigger issue; SOP is now banded around as dogma, and anyone who uses airmanship is branded a heretic.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BASIC AIRMANSHIP can and should be practiced on every flight and every simulator session.
IF you can't "CLICK" off the autopilot and fly the takeoff, climbout and trim for cruise (autopilot if a long flight in cruise is ok, but click it off once in awhile and see if you can hand fly at altitude)and then click off the autopilot and hand fly the descent , approach, landing and rollout, then IT IS YOUR OWN FAULT.
AND if your company says you can't turn the autopilot OFF, then speak up and demand more proficiency training.
Gliders may offer something, but it is probably because I can't think of one that has an autopilot.
Bubbers is right, we always did a dead stick landing in the sim, maybe from different KEY positions and we did them way before sully splashed
IF you can't "CLICK" off the autopilot and fly the takeoff, climbout and trim for cruise (autopilot if a long flight in cruise is ok, but click it off once in awhile and see if you can hand fly at altitude)and then click off the autopilot and hand fly the descent , approach, landing and rollout, then IT IS YOUR OWN FAULT.
AND if your company says you can't turn the autopilot OFF, then speak up and demand more proficiency training.
Gliders may offer something, but it is probably because I can't think of one that has an autopilot.
Bubbers is right, we always did a dead stick landing in the sim, maybe from different KEY positions and we did them way before sully splashed
The FAA and Boeing response is to add yet another alert that speed is low but there right in the middle of the panel is an ASI showing that which the crew do not bother to monitor. When a human is in cognitive overload the first sense to be switched out is hearing, then vision tunnels onto what is deemed to be most important (it is called 'cognitive tunneling') and once in that state only haptic input (touch) has any effect - hence stick shakers.
But the real problem is failing to scan the instruments leading to lack of situational awareness. So perhaps sim runs ought not to drop you into 'dead stick' - more slowly decrease a value during a difficult approach to see when it is picked up, or even freeze and the instruments blank out and the instructor asks 'what was your speed? What was the altitude? what was the descent rate? etc. Simple checks that you were actually understanding what these values were rather than glancing and not taking in what the instruments were indicating.
My experience of the approach configuration stall scenario is that the rate of decrease of airspeed is initially quite slow from 220kts down to 160kts, then as gear and flap are lowered, the airspeed drops off at a much higher rate and if the rate of airspeed reduction is not arrested before Vref, then everything happens very quickly.
Assuming that nothing has been done to arrest the rate of decrease of speed, then the question should be "why are the crew not monitoring the airspeed?".
Well there are plenty of distractions during the final few miles on the approach such as ATC transmissions, other traffic, configuring the aircraft, running the landing checklist, preceding aircraft separation, especially if the approach has an element of high energy, etc.
Poor situational awareness leads to overload and a breakdown in the scan, with possibly one crewmember running the landing checklist which may reduce the ability to monitor the pilot flying and the instruments.
Add in some presson-itis and life gets quite difficult.
It is difficult to recognise the onset of crew overload and there is no "pilot overload" warning lamp on the panel to alert us.
I was told by a very good TC that if you can't remember the wind direction and speed given with the landing clearance, then you're overloaded.
Manual handling is important, but it should be stressed that manual flying will not necessarily reduce overload and nor will it increase situational awareness since the workload on the pilot monitoring will normally increase.
Experience helps, since it will aid recognition of a crew overload situation developing and allow time to reduce the workload and regain situational awareness.
Gliding skills? Naaah.
Assuming that nothing has been done to arrest the rate of decrease of speed, then the question should be "why are the crew not monitoring the airspeed?".
Well there are plenty of distractions during the final few miles on the approach such as ATC transmissions, other traffic, configuring the aircraft, running the landing checklist, preceding aircraft separation, especially if the approach has an element of high energy, etc.
Poor situational awareness leads to overload and a breakdown in the scan, with possibly one crewmember running the landing checklist which may reduce the ability to monitor the pilot flying and the instruments.
Add in some presson-itis and life gets quite difficult.
It is difficult to recognise the onset of crew overload and there is no "pilot overload" warning lamp on the panel to alert us.
I was told by a very good TC that if you can't remember the wind direction and speed given with the landing clearance, then you're overloaded.
Manual handling is important, but it should be stressed that manual flying will not necessarily reduce overload and nor will it increase situational awareness since the workload on the pilot monitoring will normally increase.
Experience helps, since it will aid recognition of a crew overload situation developing and allow time to reduce the workload and regain situational awareness.
Gliding skills? Naaah.
All ranting aside, dead stick landing skills won't be needed if the 777 crew had simply maintained the airspeed (137kts IIRC) on speed during the approach.
From a post before the bickering began ...
This seems a cogent point.
If one has passed a check ride, how does on stay both current and proficient in necessary skills until the next check ride?
From a post before the bickering began ...
Those advocating we opt to fly more manually in the sim must be working for exceptional companies.
For the bulk of us, the sim is used more for checking than training, and with
a career, house and family riding on the line, most simply can't put their neck
on the block like that.
For the bulk of us, the sim is used more for checking than training, and with
a career, house and family riding on the line, most simply can't put their neck
on the block like that.
If one has passed a check ride, how does on stay both current and proficient in necessary skills until the next check ride?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reminder - in case you haven't read it lately:
NTSB says Asiana captain worried about visual landing | Fox News
Very difficult? Really? On a CAVU day, no obstacles?
NTSB says Asiana captain worried about visual landing | Fox News
Very difficult? Really? On a CAVU day, no obstacles?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Squared, I soloed at an airport where the runway was used as a drag strip one day a week. I doubt a drag race was happening when the AC 767 landed. Other than their fuel management they did one hell of a job that hopefully any qualified pilot could do.
But that was then and now it probably wouldn't happen. We have a different breed of pilots that prefer to push buttons than aviate.
But that was then and now it probably wouldn't happen. We have a different breed of pilots that prefer to push buttons than aviate.
it should be stressed that manual flying will not necessarily reduce overload and nor will it increase situational awareness since the workload on the pilot monitoring will normally increase.
Either way the PM will be keeping an eye on the flight path whether the other pilot is using the automatics or hand flying for the conditions. Let's face it, watching the other pilot pole the aircraft isn't exactly a life threatening job, so how on earth does this increase the work load on the PM?
After all even the youngest inexperienced flying instructor has a high workload concentrating on watching his student pilot trying to do cross wind landings. If an airline pilot workload is getting right up to his upper limit by watching the other bloke flying, then he will quickly blow a brain gasket if a simple generator failure or a fire warning occurs and he has to find the appropriate QRH page.
Claims that watching manual flying increases the other pilots work load to an intolerable amount leading to a flight safety problem on the flight deck, is really laughable. IMHO
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus
You seem to forget that in a lot of the cases of "manual" flight the PF requires the FD's to be giving the required information. That is where the increased workload on the PM comes from, as well as performing his "normal" duties and MONITORING. If the PF is not using the FD's then yes there will be no corresponding large increase in workload. Some companies may also require the use of FD's for certain operations even when hand flying.
You seem to forget that in a lot of the cases of "manual" flight the PF requires the FD's to be giving the required information. That is where the increased workload on the PM comes from, as well as performing his "normal" duties and MONITORING. If the PF is not using the FD's then yes there will be no corresponding large increase in workload. Some companies may also require the use of FD's for certain operations even when hand flying.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Increased workload? INCREASED WORKLOAD!
Oh my, what if the autoflight system failed? Imagine the poor PM (prefer term NFP) actually having to do a number of things at the same time.
Sad.
A friend said: you aren't really an instrument rated pilot until you can hand fly an ILS to minimums on one engine while eating a hamburger.
somewhere being a lame pilot became acceptable. (lame in the teenager sense of the word)
Oh my, what if the autoflight system failed? Imagine the poor PM (prefer term NFP) actually having to do a number of things at the same time.
Sad.
A friend said: you aren't really an instrument rated pilot until you can hand fly an ILS to minimums on one engine while eating a hamburger.
somewhere being a lame pilot became acceptable. (lame in the teenager sense of the word)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MA, USA
Age: 54
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off-thread, but:
http://cdn.damninteresting.com/wp-co.../11/gimlix.jpg
?Gimli Glider? pilot recalls heroic landing of 767 | National Post
I doubt a drag race was happening when the AC 767 landed. Other than their fuel management they did one hell of a job that hopefully any qualified pilot could do.
?Gimli Glider? pilot recalls heroic landing of 767 | National Post
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was the case, a few years ago, and not that long, when an upgrade command check required an ILS on SBY instruments: those pokey little thingies no-one ever looks at. That is what they were there for, the final back up. If you knew the attitude and power settings, and could manipulate the controls in a manner akin to driving on ice rather than ploughing a field, it was quite possible. Even on B733 classics, B757/B767 with a Loss of AC it was necessary, but I wonder how many upgrade courses demanded it. Perhaps the XAA's should have done so. (Indeed, now there is a thread creep: how much input do they have into commander's upgrade syllabus, or do they just rubber stamp the airlines internal course?)
Back to the plot: along comes the B737NG and an option is a PFD + MAP on SBY. Great for safety, of course. So why still have the SBY's? except for analysing the rogue instrument when a disagree is seen, perhaps.
An occasional raw data ILS in the sim as a recurrency is all well and good, but it is not a pass/fail. Should it be? Should a captain be able to fly a mini-SBY ILS on 2 engines? Yes. It's basics. These manoeuvres are the crux of being in control. All this gliding dead-stick stuff is great for the bar, but as likely to happen as a pay rise/pension plan in a LoCo. However, training, testing, exhibiting basic skills which could and should be used every day is another matter. It would raise the bar back to somewhere whence it once was and put some fun back into for the dreamers. It'll make the pax feel better knowing there is a real pilot up front. As a CP it would also make me feel more comfortable knowing my guys could most likely get themselves out of whatever hole they had found themselves in without digging deeper first.
Back to the plot: along comes the B737NG and an option is a PFD + MAP on SBY. Great for safety, of course. So why still have the SBY's? except for analysing the rogue instrument when a disagree is seen, perhaps.
An occasional raw data ILS in the sim as a recurrency is all well and good, but it is not a pass/fail. Should it be? Should a captain be able to fly a mini-SBY ILS on 2 engines? Yes. It's basics. These manoeuvres are the crux of being in control. All this gliding dead-stick stuff is great for the bar, but as likely to happen as a pay rise/pension plan in a LoCo. However, training, testing, exhibiting basic skills which could and should be used every day is another matter. It would raise the bar back to somewhere whence it once was and put some fun back into for the dreamers. It'll make the pax feel better knowing there is a real pilot up front. As a CP it would also make me feel more comfortable knowing my guys could most likely get themselves out of whatever hole they had found themselves in without digging deeper first.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Finsbury Park
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly, the current teaching at my Company for the ATPL upgrade, raw data ILS is to bring the ND into the scan in order to monitor tracking and reduce the tendency to needle chase.
So it's not really raw data is it?
So it's not really raw data is it?