NTSB update on Asiana 214
if the checks are actually done
I take your point but you can't legislate for idiots like the Helios crew who made so many basic errors that it is hard to believe they were qualified pilots almost. Just because someone reads a checklist does not always mean the action concerned has been correctly completed. In the case of the pre-start checks for that 737 it was clear that neither pilot looked at the pressurisation panel otherwise they would have seen a green light signifying manual pressurisation. Likewise they must have never looked at the pressurisation instruments which would have shown them the aircraft was unpressurised. Or if either pilot in fact did look at the pressurisation instruments as part of the after take off checks, then what they would have seen obviously meant nothing to them.
Scanning the flight instruments during manual flying would need only a flick of the eyes for a qualified competent pilot. Two seconds maximum to take in the whole picture. Surely that is not a work-load problem? After all, newly graduated instrument rated pilots can do that flying single pilot IMC. I think the term "increased work-load" while flying an airliner is over-used when you look back when pilots flew Lancaster bombers in action at night, in cloud and icing and being shot at - and yet they coped with the increased "work-load".
I recall flying a 737-400 German registered aircraft on a typical IT charter in Europe. The weather was perfect and I decided to hand fly for 10 minutes or so during cruise at 35,000 ft. The flight plan tracks were via VOR's and so I told the local first officer (an inexperienced 1000 hour lad) that I was about disengage the autopilot and hand fly maintaining the required VOR track.
I was quite unprepared for his reaction which was to sit up rigidly in his seat and I swear his face went white. "In that case" he said in a trembling voice, "Wait until I put my shoulder harness on." I don't know about his workload going up, but I felt so sorry for him that in the end I only did five minutes of hand flying. Before all that he was a real chatter box in the cockpit which irritated me after a while. When I started to hand fly he lapsed into frightened silence. When I re-engaged the automatics the colour returned to his face and his babbling started up again. I was tempted to hand fly again just to shut him up.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
centaurus makes a fine point.
Wasn't the Lancaster actually a single pilot plane? While it had other crewmembers there was only one pilot wasn't there?
Like anything Centaurus, if you do it enough, you should be getting good at it. Either that or you are superman! ;-)
I recall in the early days of the 707 that Charles Lindbergh was a passenger on a jet operated by the airline he was on the board of directors for. He was invited to the cockpit and allowed to take the controls. He clicked off the autopilot, and hand trimmed in all three axis and the speed increased by five knots, no change in power.
In your above post, you hit the nail on the head. The copilot had only 1000 hours. He simply had never had the chance to really develop hand flying skills coupled with multitasking. AS you probably know, hand flying single pilot IFR is tough, until you get good at it. Indeed there are special allowances for military pilots in single seat fighter jets as things can be a handful.
As to the helios crew, we must all remember that they heard the warning of excessive cabin altitude, did not recognize it as such and called on the radio to their mx control for advice.
That alone is telling.
So you don't really have to be superman. What you have to do is practice and maintain proficiency. Sadly, the modern economics of airline flying don't seem to allow for that, esp with new multi crew requirements and the like.
Wasn't the Lancaster actually a single pilot plane? While it had other crewmembers there was only one pilot wasn't there?
Like anything Centaurus, if you do it enough, you should be getting good at it. Either that or you are superman! ;-)
I recall in the early days of the 707 that Charles Lindbergh was a passenger on a jet operated by the airline he was on the board of directors for. He was invited to the cockpit and allowed to take the controls. He clicked off the autopilot, and hand trimmed in all three axis and the speed increased by five knots, no change in power.
In your above post, you hit the nail on the head. The copilot had only 1000 hours. He simply had never had the chance to really develop hand flying skills coupled with multitasking. AS you probably know, hand flying single pilot IFR is tough, until you get good at it. Indeed there are special allowances for military pilots in single seat fighter jets as things can be a handful.
As to the helios crew, we must all remember that they heard the warning of excessive cabin altitude, did not recognize it as such and called on the radio to their mx control for advice.
That alone is telling.
So you don't really have to be superman. What you have to do is practice and maintain proficiency. Sadly, the modern economics of airline flying don't seem to allow for that, esp with new multi crew requirements and the like.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Understood Centaurus. That was my point re the checks actually being done, in response to your requote "clearly never done your after takeoff checks correctly have you?". The recent 737 burning all the wing fuel but still having an untouched centre tank is another example of missed after take off checks. But we digress.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus and Glendalegoon
What BOTH of you are failing to understand, because you keep harping back to your glory days, is that workload does increase if you are busy hand flying an SID or a STAR. If you are being "brave " and hand flying in the cruise at 35,000 then there will be NO increase in workload. We are talking here of the PM having to do his normal duties and manipulate the FCU so that "your" FD's are giving you what you want. If you CANNOT understand that then there is no hope for you and NOWHERE has anyone said that the increase would be impossible to cope with. So READ what is being said and get rid of your prejudices and WIWO stories, we all have them just don't brag about them.
PS I think the Lancaster had TWO pilots!
What BOTH of you are failing to understand, because you keep harping back to your glory days, is that workload does increase if you are busy hand flying an SID or a STAR. If you are being "brave " and hand flying in the cruise at 35,000 then there will be NO increase in workload. We are talking here of the PM having to do his normal duties and manipulate the FCU so that "your" FD's are giving you what you want. If you CANNOT understand that then there is no hope for you and NOWHERE has anyone said that the increase would be impossible to cope with. So READ what is being said and get rid of your prejudices and WIWO stories, we all have them just don't brag about them.
PS I think the Lancaster had TWO pilots!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Forest
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check Lists
The recent posts re Check Lists re-awakens one of my bugbears as a contract training captain. I was brought up on the basis of "Who does it, reads it". Some companies' SOPs insisted on the other way round which, to my mind, is a recipe for mistakes (or even disasters). If you are on the fourth sector (or if you are just downright lazy and unprofessional), and someone asks you if you have done something or set something, the temptation could easily be to say "Check" without even bothering to look (because you are sure you have). I can only hope Check Lists are not read that way by any operators in this day and age.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iceman 50, we understand workload increases, but is it so hard to actually do? If it is, wow, that's all I can say.
Workload. It is almost always increased in the terminal environment. It is to be expected.
Gee bubbers, what did we do when we had to have the copilot set a heading bug and manipulate the wx radar?
we are lucky to be here.
And won't iceman 50 feel better when a Brit tells him about the Lancaster! Or he could go out and rent the film, "Dam Busters"
Workload. It is almost always increased in the terminal environment. It is to be expected.
Gee bubbers, what did we do when we had to have the copilot set a heading bug and manipulate the wx radar?
we are lucky to be here.
And won't iceman 50 feel better when a Brit tells him about the Lancaster! Or he could go out and rent the film, "Dam Busters"
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gee bubbers, what did we do when we had to have the copilot set a heading bug and manipulate the wx radar?
we are lucky to be here.
we are lucky to be here.
Most aviators I know have had their OMG moments, and came away realising how close they came to being terminal, and how lucky they were to be here (still).
I guess the only mistake you ever made was thinking you made a mistake.
Re Lancasters - only one qualified pilot, but crews usually made sure another crew member had the necessary skill to bring it home should the worse happen. Some Lancasters did have duals for training purposes, and those used for passenger transport (Lancastrian), so Iceman is only partially incorrect.
Last edited by Brian Abraham; 6th Mar 2014 at 23:12.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are you dissing each other so hard the screen starts to flicker?
In the early days of aviation planes fell from the sky because of poor aerodynamics and bad construction. Some pilots were surely too cocky and managed to faceplant their aircraft even then.
In the period after WW2 planes fell from the sky because those stickandrudder-guys got things wrong. Of course there were some really bad planes out there too.
In the jet era planes continues to fall from the sky due to weather, politics (DC10 anyone?), mixed aircraft failures and of course the guy behind the yoke messing up.
So, aircraft manufacturer gets tired of seeing perfectly fine planes smashing to pieces and introduces FBW. Now aircraft seems to fall out of the sky a little less often than in the "good old days" which some are referring to as superiour in some kind of way - but the FBW systems just introduced the opportunity for pilots to screw up in a different way than before.
All in all - accident rates per flown km has decreased. All good ol' stick-and-rudder-guys are not among us anymore... some of them may lie under a heap of scrambled metal because they didn't know how to react to a sudden downdraft (or any other peculiar thing - pick your choice).
Sure, I would LOVE to have an experienced and well trained stick-and-rudder pilot at the pointy end of my aircraft.. BUT the FBW can be a huge advantage if you're in an emergency. Sullenberger himself used the Airbus FBW very cleverly to his advantage when those geese decided to taste engine oil.
Please stop picking at eachother because nothing good can come of this. Hand flying IS important, and any GOOD pilot would be crazy to not try it as often as possible. But the computers are there for a reason. All "good ol' guys" from the "good ol' days" just screwed up too many times for aircraft manufacturers and flying public to be completely satisfied.
My personal opinion, if anyone cares, is that hand flying is a serious skill that should be trained regularly. Why don't YOU, Capt, let your FO get some hands-on experience next trip? If you are up to the challenge, I guess your FO wouldn't mind if he is a true pilot.
But while the hand flying is important as a last resort in case everything fails there is equal importance in knowing what the computers can do for you (like, not stall when trying to land on the Hudson). The two goes hand in hand.
Can you please remember what the thread is about, really?
In the early days of aviation planes fell from the sky because of poor aerodynamics and bad construction. Some pilots were surely too cocky and managed to faceplant their aircraft even then.
In the period after WW2 planes fell from the sky because those stickandrudder-guys got things wrong. Of course there were some really bad planes out there too.
In the jet era planes continues to fall from the sky due to weather, politics (DC10 anyone?), mixed aircraft failures and of course the guy behind the yoke messing up.
So, aircraft manufacturer gets tired of seeing perfectly fine planes smashing to pieces and introduces FBW. Now aircraft seems to fall out of the sky a little less often than in the "good old days" which some are referring to as superiour in some kind of way - but the FBW systems just introduced the opportunity for pilots to screw up in a different way than before.
All in all - accident rates per flown km has decreased. All good ol' stick-and-rudder-guys are not among us anymore... some of them may lie under a heap of scrambled metal because they didn't know how to react to a sudden downdraft (or any other peculiar thing - pick your choice).
Sure, I would LOVE to have an experienced and well trained stick-and-rudder pilot at the pointy end of my aircraft.. BUT the FBW can be a huge advantage if you're in an emergency. Sullenberger himself used the Airbus FBW very cleverly to his advantage when those geese decided to taste engine oil.
Please stop picking at eachother because nothing good can come of this. Hand flying IS important, and any GOOD pilot would be crazy to not try it as often as possible. But the computers are there for a reason. All "good ol' guys" from the "good ol' days" just screwed up too many times for aircraft manufacturers and flying public to be completely satisfied.
My personal opinion, if anyone cares, is that hand flying is a serious skill that should be trained regularly. Why don't YOU, Capt, let your FO get some hands-on experience next trip? If you are up to the challenge, I guess your FO wouldn't mind if he is a true pilot.
But while the hand flying is important as a last resort in case everything fails there is equal importance in knowing what the computers can do for you (like, not stall when trying to land on the Hudson). The two goes hand in hand.
Can you please remember what the thread is about, really?
Mr. Snuggles
Excellent post. This thread generates the same old macho posturing that doesn't, in my humble opinion, add anything to our understanding of the accident in question.
One of my trainers puts it very well. He says there's a time to be John Wayne ie hand fly and there's a time not to! It's knowing when to use the automation to free up your own mental resources and when it's better to get in there and point it where you want the aeroplane to go. I'm all for hand flying when I can but there's a time and a place eg the difference between making an approach to a Caribbean airfield in good weather compared to a miserable early morning into the UK winter when you've been awake all night.
Automation has undoubtedly made flying safer and as you say there never was a halcyon age when airliners didn't fall out of the sky. However, there's an industry wide realisation that perhaps training hasn't kept up with the challenges posed by a generation of pilots who have only flown highly reliable jets where failures are, thankfully, very rare. It's a man-machine interface problem I believe. The machine does a great job for 99.99% of the time so how easy is it for the pilot(s) to reengage if the systems fail or malfunction. I believe we are being reminded that when all is said and done we still have to "mind the ship" since that's what we're paid for. If you don't like what the automatics are doing then by all means take manual control or even revert to a lower level of automation eg level change as opposed to Vnav.
Lastly, in the context of this particular accident it comes back to what we learned in our first few hours ie speed is everything! Why a modern well equipped airliner crashed in such a way is what I'm interested in.
Excellent post. This thread generates the same old macho posturing that doesn't, in my humble opinion, add anything to our understanding of the accident in question.
One of my trainers puts it very well. He says there's a time to be John Wayne ie hand fly and there's a time not to! It's knowing when to use the automation to free up your own mental resources and when it's better to get in there and point it where you want the aeroplane to go. I'm all for hand flying when I can but there's a time and a place eg the difference between making an approach to a Caribbean airfield in good weather compared to a miserable early morning into the UK winter when you've been awake all night.
Automation has undoubtedly made flying safer and as you say there never was a halcyon age when airliners didn't fall out of the sky. However, there's an industry wide realisation that perhaps training hasn't kept up with the challenges posed by a generation of pilots who have only flown highly reliable jets where failures are, thankfully, very rare. It's a man-machine interface problem I believe. The machine does a great job for 99.99% of the time so how easy is it for the pilot(s) to reengage if the systems fail or malfunction. I believe we are being reminded that when all is said and done we still have to "mind the ship" since that's what we're paid for. If you don't like what the automatics are doing then by all means take manual control or even revert to a lower level of automation eg level change as opposed to Vnav.
Lastly, in the context of this particular accident it comes back to what we learned in our first few hours ie speed is everything! Why a modern well equipped airliner crashed in such a way is what I'm interested in.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Almost never, only one single cause for an accident.
To my mind, the most important change in ensuring safe arrival of passenger jets is the emphasis on CRM. Those crusty old timers of vast experience may have seen it all before, but some have contempt for the newbies who tremble at the very thought of hand flying. Without doubt the old timers are more likely to suffer brain shutdown when everything goes tits up, if only because reflexes in the aged slow us down. I admit it, I have slowed down.
As long as you have two competent pilots in the front who have been trained to respect each other and to speak up forcefully when the airspeed decays, thats about as good as we will get these days. Captain, Airspeed! Captain, Go Around. Captain, I HAVE CONTROL!
To my mind, the most important change in ensuring safe arrival of passenger jets is the emphasis on CRM. Those crusty old timers of vast experience may have seen it all before, but some have contempt for the newbies who tremble at the very thought of hand flying. Without doubt the old timers are more likely to suffer brain shutdown when everything goes tits up, if only because reflexes in the aged slow us down. I admit it, I have slowed down.
As long as you have two competent pilots in the front who have been trained to respect each other and to speak up forcefully when the airspeed decays, thats about as good as we will get these days. Captain, Airspeed! Captain, Go Around. Captain, I HAVE CONTROL!
Without doubt the old timers are more likely to suffer brain shutdown when everything goes tits up, if only because reflexes in the aged slow us down.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fireflybob - Please stop the nit picking.
marymeagher IS correct. There is scientifical evidence that older people generally DO have slower reaction times than younger people. (Equally, we have fewer taste buds and poorer eye sight, just to mention a few things that deteriorate as we grow older.)
Mind you, this is only GENERALLY speaking. And a slower reaction time might very well be compensated for by using the amount of aquired experience in order to react -correctly- to a given situation.
So please, again.... what is this thread REALLY about?
marymeagher IS correct. There is scientifical evidence that older people generally DO have slower reaction times than younger people. (Equally, we have fewer taste buds and poorer eye sight, just to mention a few things that deteriorate as we grow older.)
Mind you, this is only GENERALLY speaking. And a slower reaction time might very well be compensated for by using the amount of aquired experience in order to react -correctly- to a given situation.
So please, again.... what is this thread REALLY about?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to his post number 539 on this thread, Firefly Bob did his B707 conversion training, complete with aerobatics in the aircraft (well done, Bob!)
in the year 1971. That was, let me see, 44 years ago? Assuming he is now well experienced on many types of aircraft, he is now approaching 70, and still completely ready for any emergency.
I am no longer approaching 70, it is getting farther away all the time. I have alas had to recognise that my brain is not so agile as in former years.
And so I have had to step down from instructing and solo flying. As it is nearly impossible to say at what age this decay sets in, an arbitrary number of years must be the rule, when other people's lives are at risk.
in the year 1971. That was, let me see, 44 years ago? Assuming he is now well experienced on many types of aircraft, he is now approaching 70, and still completely ready for any emergency.
I am no longer approaching 70, it is getting farther away all the time. I have alas had to recognise that my brain is not so agile as in former years.
And so I have had to step down from instructing and solo flying. As it is nearly impossible to say at what age this decay sets in, an arbitrary number of years must be the rule, when other people's lives are at risk.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are missing the point here. Stalls don't just happen. So it is most unlikely that the lack of reflexes that caused this incident. Likely candidates are ridiculous company rules, poor standards and training and dreadful CRM (due to cultural attitudes). Evidence of the latter can be experienced first hand in any crew centre in the world. If it wasn't so lethal it would be funny.
Couple the above to an aircraft designed, in both technical and operational terms, by Westerners to be flown by Westerners and you have a disaster waiting to happen whenever people with differing cultural values get behind the controls.
Couple the above to an aircraft designed, in both technical and operational terms, by Westerners to be flown by Westerners and you have a disaster waiting to happen whenever people with differing cultural values get behind the controls.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: farmm intersection, our ranch
Age: 57
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without doubt the old timers are more likely to suffer brain shutdown when everything goes tits up, if only because reflexes in the aged slow us down.
Reaction time is irrelevant compared to being ahead of the airplane.
Originally Posted by Mr Snuggles
All good ol' stick-and-rudder-guys are not among us anymore ...
a certain Asiana flight ...
a 737 in Russia recently ...
AF 447 ...
You may be on to something here.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MrSnuggles
Hand flying IS important, and any GOOD pilot would be crazy to not try it as often as possible. But the computers are there for a reason
Assuming he is now well experienced on many types of aircraft, he is now approaching 70, and still completely ready for any emergency.
fireflybob - Please stop the nit picking.
When someone makes such a sweeping generalisation, do you really think that should go unchallenged?
It all depends on the individual. I have flown with some pilots in their forties who were hardly in a physical condition to be ahead of their game. On the other hand I have flown with pilots in their sixties who would beat the forty year olds hands down!
Last edited by fireflybob; 7th Mar 2014 at 22:18.
I agree with Mary. I no longer fly but I know my reflexes have slowed down. My appreciation of confusing situations when driving takes just a little longer and therefore I drive accordingly. Some of us are good right into old age, but most of do slow down around 70, if not a little earlier.