Thomas cook b757 incident, what a total mess
Oakape, I think what you said about a lack of respect for the seriousness of the job is quite important and is tied in with what I said in an earlier post about the top levels of management not understanding what it takes to be a skilled operator. Most top level airline management can't understand it because they have never been in charge of an airliner when a non-normal is playing out in nasty weather, they can imagine all they like but until you have held that responsibility you'l not completely understand the job.
The other comments you made about pilots wanting a 'cool job where they don't pay attention' is off the mark in my opinion. I, like yourself, understand the importance of controlling the thrust levers while I'm flying and will also often override them when the auto throttle is a bit slow to react, but I don't think all pilots are aware of the importance of being that ' integrated' with the flying of the machine......so why is that? You say it's because they are lazy or lack airmanship but I think it is because they simply don't understand that they need to continually use the brain circuitry responsible for these motor actions lest the circuits lose their myelin wrapping and fail to function when needed. As an industry we need to actively teach/train the importance of maintaining the circuitry, it's pretty simple really, the 777 into the sea wall would never have occurred if you were the PF so we need to make the average airline pilots brain more similar to yours by bolstering the appropriate circuits. How do we do that? Adding an hour of raw data circuits and approaches at the start of each sim as non assessed training would all but fix the problem I reckon, if it was mandated then all airlines would have to comply and the cost would simply pass to the passenger.
The other comments you made about pilots wanting a 'cool job where they don't pay attention' is off the mark in my opinion. I, like yourself, understand the importance of controlling the thrust levers while I'm flying and will also often override them when the auto throttle is a bit slow to react, but I don't think all pilots are aware of the importance of being that ' integrated' with the flying of the machine......so why is that? You say it's because they are lazy or lack airmanship but I think it is because they simply don't understand that they need to continually use the brain circuitry responsible for these motor actions lest the circuits lose their myelin wrapping and fail to function when needed. As an industry we need to actively teach/train the importance of maintaining the circuitry, it's pretty simple really, the 777 into the sea wall would never have occurred if you were the PF so we need to make the average airline pilots brain more similar to yours by bolstering the appropriate circuits. How do we do that? Adding an hour of raw data circuits and approaches at the start of each sim as non assessed training would all but fix the problem I reckon, if it was mandated then all airlines would have to comply and the cost would simply pass to the passenger.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi framer, from my post -
You will notice I said not trained correctly as well as including the other issues & also that there can be a combination of the various reasons.
The word I left out was 'some' in front of people. I am not saying that every one is in this category, but I have come across more than my fair share of them over the years, particularly the recent years.
From your post -
No, I say that these are two of the reasons. Two that, among others, have no real excuse.
Lack of training is the real big issue here. Cost pressures have mean that we now have a situation where training is now cut down to a price, where it ideally should be built up to a standard. The back stop for this has always been the professional pride taken by the pilot workforce in general, that has individuals doing the extra curricular work & reading & study in order to reach the high standard that was required. A lot of pilots, both young & old still have this approach to the job, but I do feel I am seeing more & more of those who do not. The training departments don't seem to require it anymore & that may be largely a reflection of management attitude.
Being an airline pilot was something that most of those with an interest in, & a love of, aviation aspired to. These days it sometimes seems that not many hold the job in that high a regard. In some cases it is simply a case of a good return on investment over the years, coupled with the mind-set that they have a god given right to the job, while putting in as little work as possible.
Most people seem to believe that all pilots are adequately trained & are highly motivated to do the best that they possibly can when on the job. Maybe I'm just getting jaded, but unfortunately I just don't subscribe to that position anymore.
Maybe, maybe not. I like to think not. However, I am just an average Joe & just as fallible as others. The thing is, my professional pride means I go to work each time with the intent of executing the perfect flight. I have never achieved it, but I still try. And I still get quite annoyed with myself over all the little errors & slips that occur. I still read as widely as I can & try to take lessons from all the accident reports that I manage to read. And I find it frustrating that as I age I get a little slower & make some silly mistakes on occasions. Mistakes that I would never have made in my younger years. So when I have a young guy sitting beside me who just doesn't give a damn, I get frustrated & annoyed. Frustrated & annoyed that he/she is not giving me the support that I should be able to expect; frustrated & annoyed that they seem to be more interested in one-up-manship than just doing their job; frustrated & annoyed that they put me & everyone on board at a slightly higher level of risk due to their attitude. And then I get concerned at just what the future holds for aviation.
It's not everyone by a long shot, but the percentage seems to be increasing as the years go by. Some of my flying buddies & I joke that when we retire we will only feel safe travelling by ship. That or just stay home. The trouble is that it is becoming less & less of a joke & more & more of a serious consideration.
they are not trained correctly, or...... Or a combination of all of those things.
The reality is that people have got lazy & think they can have a cool job
From your post -
You say it's because they are lazy or lack airmanship
Lack of training is the real big issue here. Cost pressures have mean that we now have a situation where training is now cut down to a price, where it ideally should be built up to a standard. The back stop for this has always been the professional pride taken by the pilot workforce in general, that has individuals doing the extra curricular work & reading & study in order to reach the high standard that was required. A lot of pilots, both young & old still have this approach to the job, but I do feel I am seeing more & more of those who do not. The training departments don't seem to require it anymore & that may be largely a reflection of management attitude.
Being an airline pilot was something that most of those with an interest in, & a love of, aviation aspired to. These days it sometimes seems that not many hold the job in that high a regard. In some cases it is simply a case of a good return on investment over the years, coupled with the mind-set that they have a god given right to the job, while putting in as little work as possible.
Most people seem to believe that all pilots are adequately trained & are highly motivated to do the best that they possibly can when on the job. Maybe I'm just getting jaded, but unfortunately I just don't subscribe to that position anymore.
the 777 into the sea wall would never have occurred if you were the PF
It's not everyone by a long shot, but the percentage seems to be increasing as the years go by. Some of my flying buddies & I joke that when we retire we will only feel safe travelling by ship. That or just stay home. The trouble is that it is becoming less & less of a joke & more & more of a serious consideration.
Last edited by Oakape; 18th Oct 2014 at 05:45.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, msbbarratt, I believe you. Perhaps by the time it comes for me to give the game away it will be better if I just stay home.
Perhaps it is a 21st century thing, not just an aviation thing. I was asking my wife just the other day 'when did near enough became good enough'. The quest for the almighty dollar seems to have become the mantra of these times & everything else is of secondary or no importance.
Management has a large responsibility here as well. It's not all the responsibility of the guy on the street. Like kids, they will follow the example of those above them, particularly if the rewards are perceived as being so great.
Anyway, perhaps that is enough philosophy for now.
Perhaps it is a 21st century thing, not just an aviation thing. I was asking my wife just the other day 'when did near enough became good enough'. The quest for the almighty dollar seems to have become the mantra of these times & everything else is of secondary or no importance.
Management has a large responsibility here as well. It's not all the responsibility of the guy on the street. Like kids, they will follow the example of those above them, particularly if the rewards are perceived as being so great.
Anyway, perhaps that is enough philosophy for now.
These pilots who do not monitor the speed; what are they looking at on approach??
On the 777 and Airbus FBW family, the speed tape is right next to and on the same screen as the AI, so if pilots are not watching the speed tape then they cannot be watching the AI or the altitude tape either. WTF? As several have said, speed is a very basic parameter of the most fundamental airmanship.
A visual approach means that the tracking/navigation is done by looking out of the window, but a pilot still needs to regularly look at the other instruments to check speed, altitude, vertical speed, N1, etc.
Oakape; I mostly agree with you but I don't think most pilots are lazy or can't be bothered, it is simply that we seem to be entering a very dangerous training philosophy, where the latest SOP change or fuel saving initiative is taking preference in the SIM over the practising of motor skills.
Whoever just said that there should be an hour of manual flying practise at the beginning of a SIM without jeapordy is spot on! This is something I have said myself: Let each pilot do 5 EFATO's, 5 manually flown go arounds, and 5 go arounds using the automatics before anything else is done.
Take a musician's instrument away for 6 months and then give it back and ask them to play something complicated, and get it right first time with no practise. Would they be able to do that? Err, no. What do bands do before a tour? They book into a studio for a couple of weeks to rehearse all their material.
We can't practise go arounds on the line with passengers, but how about as well as us doing and recording a certain number of Autolands in every 6 month period, our training manager should require that we all do the same with manually flown, raw data approaches with no flight directors and manual thrust - obviously in appropriate conditions?
If nothing else, this might help keep our instrument scans and manual flying up to scratch.
On the 777 and Airbus FBW family, the speed tape is right next to and on the same screen as the AI, so if pilots are not watching the speed tape then they cannot be watching the AI or the altitude tape either. WTF? As several have said, speed is a very basic parameter of the most fundamental airmanship.
A visual approach means that the tracking/navigation is done by looking out of the window, but a pilot still needs to regularly look at the other instruments to check speed, altitude, vertical speed, N1, etc.
Oakape; I mostly agree with you but I don't think most pilots are lazy or can't be bothered, it is simply that we seem to be entering a very dangerous training philosophy, where the latest SOP change or fuel saving initiative is taking preference in the SIM over the practising of motor skills.
Whoever just said that there should be an hour of manual flying practise at the beginning of a SIM without jeapordy is spot on! This is something I have said myself: Let each pilot do 5 EFATO's, 5 manually flown go arounds, and 5 go arounds using the automatics before anything else is done.
Take a musician's instrument away for 6 months and then give it back and ask them to play something complicated, and get it right first time with no practise. Would they be able to do that? Err, no. What do bands do before a tour? They book into a studio for a couple of weeks to rehearse all their material.
We can't practise go arounds on the line with passengers, but how about as well as us doing and recording a certain number of Autolands in every 6 month period, our training manager should require that we all do the same with manually flown, raw data approaches with no flight directors and manual thrust - obviously in appropriate conditions?
If nothing else, this might help keep our instrument scans and manual flying up to scratch.
Last edited by Uplinker; 18th Oct 2014 at 10:49.
Adding an hour of raw data circuits and approaches at the start of each sim as non assessed training would all but fix the problem I reckon,
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SV Marie Celeste
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately is not just laziness. Working days are much longer now than they used to be. At my outfit 12 hour 4 sector days with 30 minute turn arounds are the order of the day. AT the best of times you are knackered and keeping the automatics is sometimes a way to keep workload (and fatigue) down.
I personally do at least one full raw data, manual thrust approach every few days but I have to admit that after one of those I am more tired.
Fatigue and automation dependency feed of each other
I personally do at least one full raw data, manual thrust approach every few days but I have to admit that after one of those I am more tired.
Fatigue and automation dependency feed of each other
Perversely flying a/c like the B737-200 there was more to keep you occupied which helped to keep you mentally awake.
Fatigue is an issue but is the relatively low level of alertness required in normal operations a double edged sword?
Fatigue is an issue but is the relatively low level of alertness required in normal operations a double edged sword?
centaurus writes
I think people learn more when they are not being tested, you learn during the lesson and regurgitate what you have learned during the test.
It is not just pilots that have become over reliant on automation, ATC requires us to be RVSM and BRNAV/PRNAV compliant, companies need efficient FMC routings and profiles to be flown, safety departments require that we operate with EGPWS and WXRDR displayed alongside all the other distractions, all taking their own slice out of our mental capacity and situational awareness.
Prescriptive SOPs require us to make all the right calls and selections at the right moment, with no backup procedures to follow if the wrong button is pressed or the wrong callout made.
Flying the aircraft, free from all the above distraction is clearly what we should be doing more of during the recurrent training
why make it non-assessed training?
It is not just pilots that have become over reliant on automation, ATC requires us to be RVSM and BRNAV/PRNAV compliant, companies need efficient FMC routings and profiles to be flown, safety departments require that we operate with EGPWS and WXRDR displayed alongside all the other distractions, all taking their own slice out of our mental capacity and situational awareness.
Prescriptive SOPs require us to make all the right calls and selections at the right moment, with no backup procedures to follow if the wrong button is pressed or the wrong callout made.
Flying the aircraft, free from all the above distraction is clearly what we should be doing more of during the recurrent training
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: FL410
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just reading and nodding my head to the many recent opinions here when I was reminded of my last sim. As part of the Routine schedule for that session we had to fly a visual circle to land in accordance with our company SOP ' S. I'm sure that ours are much the same as most and involve the usual elements of 45 degree angles and counting seconds in various directions whilst remembering to add on/take off degrees and seconds for wind not to mention remembering to descend at a given rate depending on height whilst using various flight director modes as a back up!! My somewhat convoluted point here is that, without disregarding the obvious dangers inherent with a procedure like this (as highlighted by accident numbers), it seems to me that our industry has totally over complicated this manoeuvre. I haven't even drawn attention to the circle to land mist approach procedure which, from any position after late down wind is ridiculously confusing (far more so than the Newcastle case of this thread).
We as pilots should all be able to fly a VISUAL circuit and perhaps even without over complicating it with numbers and angles. It is the first thing I learned in a C152. The whole idea is that one keeps an eye out of the window at the runway and flys the plane how ever big or complicated it may be. Perhaps this SOP over complication (and I realise that there must be a SOP) optimises the whole modern approach to our job. Too many words and procedures and not enough back to basics...
We as pilots should all be able to fly a VISUAL circuit and perhaps even without over complicating it with numbers and angles. It is the first thing I learned in a C152. The whole idea is that one keeps an eye out of the window at the runway and flys the plane how ever big or complicated it may be. Perhaps this SOP over complication (and I realise that there must be a SOP) optimises the whole modern approach to our job. Too many words and procedures and not enough back to basics...
We as pilots should all be able to fly a VISUAL circuit and perhaps even without over complicating it with numbers and angles. It is the first thing I learned in a C152. The whole idea is that one keeps an eye out of the window at the runway and flys the plane how ever big or complicated it may be. Perhaps this SOP over complication (and I realise that there must be a SOP) optimises the whole modern approach to our job. Too many words and procedures and not enough back to basics...
If airlines spell out in minute detail how to do everything and the pilots screw it up then the managements can say "nothing to do with us mate - we told the pilots how to do it in the manuals".
SOPs are important to safe operation but sometimes you seem to spend more time trying to recall the latest instruction in the manual rather than applying common sense and airmanship.
Also there is a big difference between telling pilots "what" to do instead of teaching them "how" to do it.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hooraah. B to B. Recurrent training is a sticking plaster on the wound caused by lack of basic training. I feel there needs to be an operation. IMHO it is where the root cause is; at the beginning. Obviously Encore is a modern pilot as he trained on a C152 and not a C150. (there are others who trained on a C130, and that is the biggest Cessna I've ever seen. I digress, sorry)
But it is true; us old farts were brought up on B732 & DC-9's etc. It was Mk.1 eyeball out the window with hand and feet on everything. We knew what parameters to set in power/attitude. We knew speed v distance v height = energy. We kew how to control the a/c to achieve the required task. Simple. KISS as much as possible. That was an SOP.
I still advocate the beginning of jet training should a continuance of flight school training on basic a/c. First learn to fly the basic a/c and then learn to operate and manage it. In modern jet training and MPL courses the emphasis is on the SOP MPL operation of the a/c and not how to fly it and make it do what you want in any given scenario. This could be via manual control or AFDS. Then, when you are caught by surprise with an unusual manoeuvre out of the blue you just do what is necessary using your knowledge. Yes, practice may be necessary, but that was a daily matter on B732. If you never had the knowledge in the first place then you had only the SOP manual to revert to. That is too often the case after a modern jet TQ course. That is not being a pilot in control of the situation. The SOP manual can not cover every eventuality.
I'm sure the Apollo 13 guys didn't have an SOP manual for their "up the creek" moment. There has been many an occasion when an SOP did not exist. Neil Williams's inverted approach with his wing folding up comes to mind. The Sioux City DC-10 and the latest Qantas A380, also. Sadly, there have been other avoidable smoking holes if the basics had been adhered to, but they had lost in the mashed pulp of 'operating automatic SOP's' which permeated through the TQ course.
2 sessions of basic flying; no FD no A/T just Mk.1 brain, hands & feet. Then add the AFDS, then the autopilot, then the NNC scenarios. Build the foundations first, solid, then the structure will not fall down at the first puff of wind. Add the curtains and furniture after the roof is on and windows closed.
But it is true; us old farts were brought up on B732 & DC-9's etc. It was Mk.1 eyeball out the window with hand and feet on everything. We knew what parameters to set in power/attitude. We knew speed v distance v height = energy. We kew how to control the a/c to achieve the required task. Simple. KISS as much as possible. That was an SOP.
I still advocate the beginning of jet training should a continuance of flight school training on basic a/c. First learn to fly the basic a/c and then learn to operate and manage it. In modern jet training and MPL courses the emphasis is on the SOP MPL operation of the a/c and not how to fly it and make it do what you want in any given scenario. This could be via manual control or AFDS. Then, when you are caught by surprise with an unusual manoeuvre out of the blue you just do what is necessary using your knowledge. Yes, practice may be necessary, but that was a daily matter on B732. If you never had the knowledge in the first place then you had only the SOP manual to revert to. That is too often the case after a modern jet TQ course. That is not being a pilot in control of the situation. The SOP manual can not cover every eventuality.
I'm sure the Apollo 13 guys didn't have an SOP manual for their "up the creek" moment. There has been many an occasion when an SOP did not exist. Neil Williams's inverted approach with his wing folding up comes to mind. The Sioux City DC-10 and the latest Qantas A380, also. Sadly, there have been other avoidable smoking holes if the basics had been adhered to, but they had lost in the mashed pulp of 'operating automatic SOP's' which permeated through the TQ course.
2 sessions of basic flying; no FD no A/T just Mk.1 brain, hands & feet. Then add the AFDS, then the autopilot, then the NNC scenarios. Build the foundations first, solid, then the structure will not fall down at the first puff of wind. Add the curtains and furniture after the roof is on and windows closed.
When I joined my company my type rating consisted of seven sessions plus a check ride. I commented that there was a lot to learn in the time available, the instructor told me he had watched it come down over the years from 14 sessions and a check. During this time new SOP's had been added that needed training. I'm not sure how many sessions new hires get now. So why did the number of sessions reduce? Is it because the calibre of recruits has steadily increased and less time is required to meet the airlines high standards? We all know that several non-pilots sat around a table and discussed how they can compete with the ever intensifying competition and decided their was some fat in the training department. The cuts were made, safety played second fiddle to competition, and the savings were passed on to Joe Public in the form of $39 one way fares to wherever.
Where does it stop? The way the system works it will only stop when legislation changes so that all companies are equally effected and the cost of training is passed on to Joe Public through a $41 one way fare to wherever. Until the regs change mandating certain basic flying training, it won't happen and we will see more and more instances of pilots unable to pilot as the skills leave the airline through retirement.
I think Rat5 that your idea of back to basics is part one of the solution, parts two three and four will be needed to ensure the skills remain.
Where does it stop? The way the system works it will only stop when legislation changes so that all companies are equally effected and the cost of training is passed on to Joe Public through a $41 one way fare to wherever. Until the regs change mandating certain basic flying training, it won't happen and we will see more and more instances of pilots unable to pilot as the skills leave the airline through retirement.
I think Rat5 that your idea of back to basics is part one of the solution, parts two three and four will be needed to ensure the skills remain.
Sadly it is all down to money, and ever lower ticket prices. WTF? Of course we should be taught to fly every aircraft manually and with raw data first, followed by a gradual feeding in of the automatics, but that would use up too much of the profits. And it's not the workers who are benefiting from this money saving. It is the owners or the shareholders who are fast asleep in bed, raking in the profits while you and I are mincing around doing our 4th sector in the middle of the night in bad weather, carrying MEL issues and delays. (Or flying to countries with Ebola). CAA/ICAO should be more pro-active in checking airlines for responsible engineering support, responsible training, responsible crew compliment, sensible SOP's, etc.
Meanwhile, the management think it's all fine because Johnny Newboy with their MPL can fly perfectly well using the automatics and the SOP's.
(I am not having a go at 'Johnny Newboy'. It's not their fault either).
Meanwhile, the management think it's all fine because Johnny Newboy with their MPL can fly perfectly well using the automatics and the SOP's.
(I am not having a go at 'Johnny Newboy'. It's not their fault either).
Last edited by Uplinker; 19th Oct 2014 at 10:28.
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 is the owners or the shareholders who are fast asleep in bed, raking in the profits while you and I are mincing around doing our 4th sector in the middle of the night in bad weather, carrying MEL issues and delays.
Meanwhile, the management think it's all fine because Johnny Newboy with their MPL can fly perfectly well using the automatics and the SOP's.
When training in 2 rapidly expanding and financially successful LoCo's we questioned the length & depth of the TQ training and general daily line operation philosophy. The reply was that the emphasis was on a successful growth of the company. Nothing wrong with that. The next comment was that SOP's had to be rigid and followed. The companies had not yet reached critical mass, i.e. they could not afford an accident. It would spell ruin. The only way was strict adherence to a simple SOP formula. Too many crews were out of sight all over the region. I understand very well the rational of this attitude. It has proved successful. Add to this that the students are paying for their training. Another 4 sim sessions in the TQ would be very expensive. The argument is that LT will put some meat on the bones; the intense sector flying will create a steep and fast learning curve; the modern technology/reliability will add a strong level of safety. It's a compelling argument, but when the holes start to line up perhaps more than the basic requirements are needed to close them off. Add to all that the level of experience on the modern short-haul captain and it can be discussed that safety levels have been trimmed to bare minimums. In days gone by the old fart in the LHS could put a calming hand on the trembling pulse. Not any more with only 3000/4 years experience sitting there. Hence the rigid, no discretion, SOP model. It seems to have worked in the majority of cases; it's when the untoward happens and it gets messy; that's when the weakness of this philosophy is exposed. However, making a risk assessment of this over all the short-haul sectors flown every day, what is the true level of the risk? It may be considered extremely minute and acceptable. As a purist I'd still prefer the more in depth training of basic piloting skills and more in depth training of use of the automatics. My first airline was started by pilots. The MD was a pilot and all the management were pilots. The pilot corps were real hands on operators. Now, there are very few, if any, large airlines who are managed by pilots. Indeed the opposite; I know of airlines where the first level in management where you find a pilot is C.P. Even the DFO is not an aviator. This explains how the culture is so driven by finance and not flying standards. Modern a/c are no longer machines to be flown; they are profit generating instruments and the crews, engineers, rosterers etc are a pain in the rear-end costs. Regulations are not helpful so they try and dilute those. If the job can be reduced to rigid following of rules as to when to press which button then who in management cares? But I still doubt we'll see a passenger pilotless a/c in my lifetime: well not one with pax on it. And those pax still expect us to save their bacon when necessary and not jeopardise it.
It is said that the skilful pilot is one who avoids situations where they need to use their skill to escape. That might be true, but then you need those skills to make that judgement. I fear that the general knowledge of many crews today is devoid of that skill base. If they then find themselves out of their comfort zone, and have not enough skill to fall back on, a bad hair day will ensue.
Meanwhile, the management think it's all fine because Johnny Newboy with their MPL can fly perfectly well using the automatics and the SOP's.
When training in 2 rapidly expanding and financially successful LoCo's we questioned the length & depth of the TQ training and general daily line operation philosophy. The reply was that the emphasis was on a successful growth of the company. Nothing wrong with that. The next comment was that SOP's had to be rigid and followed. The companies had not yet reached critical mass, i.e. they could not afford an accident. It would spell ruin. The only way was strict adherence to a simple SOP formula. Too many crews were out of sight all over the region. I understand very well the rational of this attitude. It has proved successful. Add to this that the students are paying for their training. Another 4 sim sessions in the TQ would be very expensive. The argument is that LT will put some meat on the bones; the intense sector flying will create a steep and fast learning curve; the modern technology/reliability will add a strong level of safety. It's a compelling argument, but when the holes start to line up perhaps more than the basic requirements are needed to close them off. Add to all that the level of experience on the modern short-haul captain and it can be discussed that safety levels have been trimmed to bare minimums. In days gone by the old fart in the LHS could put a calming hand on the trembling pulse. Not any more with only 3000/4 years experience sitting there. Hence the rigid, no discretion, SOP model. It seems to have worked in the majority of cases; it's when the untoward happens and it gets messy; that's when the weakness of this philosophy is exposed. However, making a risk assessment of this over all the short-haul sectors flown every day, what is the true level of the risk? It may be considered extremely minute and acceptable. As a purist I'd still prefer the more in depth training of basic piloting skills and more in depth training of use of the automatics. My first airline was started by pilots. The MD was a pilot and all the management were pilots. The pilot corps were real hands on operators. Now, there are very few, if any, large airlines who are managed by pilots. Indeed the opposite; I know of airlines where the first level in management where you find a pilot is C.P. Even the DFO is not an aviator. This explains how the culture is so driven by finance and not flying standards. Modern a/c are no longer machines to be flown; they are profit generating instruments and the crews, engineers, rosterers etc are a pain in the rear-end costs. Regulations are not helpful so they try and dilute those. If the job can be reduced to rigid following of rules as to when to press which button then who in management cares? But I still doubt we'll see a passenger pilotless a/c in my lifetime: well not one with pax on it. And those pax still expect us to save their bacon when necessary and not jeopardise it.
It is said that the skilful pilot is one who avoids situations where they need to use their skill to escape. That might be true, but then you need those skills to make that judgement. I fear that the general knowledge of many crews today is devoid of that skill base. If they then find themselves out of their comfort zone, and have not enough skill to fall back on, a bad hair day will ensue.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Kent
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this is a very poorly titled thread & highlights the lack of professionalism in our industry today .
I know I've made many mistakes over the years , some I've got away with , others have bitten me hard.
It's very easy for us all to read a report like this & be astonished at the chain of events but I don't know one friend in the industry who hasn't driven home at leat once thinking theyve just got away with an event.
Thomas Cook strike me as a very professional outfit who will/have provided the correct back up training for the crew , end of discussion , it all lies in the training.
The job is changing , the move from manual flying to a smoother management of automated systems is a move in the right direction & is providing a better safer more situationally aware environment. The 'macho' must fly manual approach to fly properly really should be a thing of the past , good management of these highly efficient systems is a much better alternative to the poorly flown often uncomfortable manual approach & correctly flown will keep your scan as health as ever.
I think we should leave this crew alone & all discussions should be with your own training Dept's.
I know I've made many mistakes over the years , some I've got away with , others have bitten me hard.
It's very easy for us all to read a report like this & be astonished at the chain of events but I don't know one friend in the industry who hasn't driven home at leat once thinking theyve just got away with an event.
Thomas Cook strike me as a very professional outfit who will/have provided the correct back up training for the crew , end of discussion , it all lies in the training.
The job is changing , the move from manual flying to a smoother management of automated systems is a move in the right direction & is providing a better safer more situationally aware environment. The 'macho' must fly manual approach to fly properly really should be a thing of the past , good management of these highly efficient systems is a much better alternative to the poorly flown often uncomfortable manual approach & correctly flown will keep your scan as health as ever.
I think we should leave this crew alone & all discussions should be with your own training Dept's.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finger trouble
Just read the AAIB report which basically amounts to a case of itchy finger trouble.
Well rested crew, all well outbound and all well until ATC rightly and properly calls for G/A shortly thereafter all goes for a ball of chalk and stress levels go exponential.
The only excuse a shrink comes up with is a Captain worried about impending demotion and that we all suffer with an itchy right thumb. I say, what would have happened if first officer was PF, would he have had an itchy left thumb. The RAF joke used to be Left and Right written on the white chami gloves. Should we now add A/T on the right thumb.
I am afraid whichever way one looks at this incident it is an inescapable conclusion that it was all down to the crew.
Well rested crew, all well outbound and all well until ATC rightly and properly calls for G/A shortly thereafter all goes for a ball of chalk and stress levels go exponential.
The only excuse a shrink comes up with is a Captain worried about impending demotion and that we all suffer with an itchy right thumb. I say, what would have happened if first officer was PF, would he have had an itchy left thumb. The RAF joke used to be Left and Right written on the white chami gloves. Should we now add A/T on the right thumb.
I am afraid whichever way one looks at this incident it is an inescapable conclusion that it was all down to the crew.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'macho' must fly manual approach to fly properly really should be a thing of the past , good management of these highly efficient systems is a much better alternative to the poorly flown often uncomfortable manual approach & correctly flown will keep your scan as health as ever.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we should leave this crew alone & all discussions should be with your own training Dept's.
good management of these highly efficient systems is a much better alternative to the poorly flown often uncomfortable manual approach & correctly flown will keep your scan as health as ever
Firstly; no-one, sensible, is hammering this crew. We are discussing a general dilution of skills of all us across the industry due to various factors. This crew are not the only ones in the world to have found themselves in this predicament, and they will not be the last. We are discussing the root cause of why they found themselves in an uncomfortable position.
Your 2nd statement needs reply. "Good management…. of the automatics…." again that is exactly the point we are discussing. The lack of training in their full potential. Rigid SOP's teaches only a % of the options. I know only a tiny % of how to use my I-phone 4s. Once I know how it works to do the jobs I want I am happy until I reach a point where I need to do more; or I see someone else with magic fingers performing the most amazing feats. I then want to know more. Up until hen I was content. SOP's are similar. Enough to do the daily job in an ideal world; but is there a full understanding, and confidence, to use the system the way it was designed, in full?
You say "correctly flown approach" will keep your scan healthy. There i must take issue because of observation in the real world. Flown is not something using automatics: that is managed or monitored. Healthy scan when the automatics are doing the job, usually reliably, can be very scant and cause pilots often to be passengers in the cockpit. They sit and watch, but they don't think ahead and anticipate. They don't scan the raw data performance instruments. I've asked F/O's what the attitude is as they accelerate to retract the flaps: upto FL100 250kts: at FL250: at FL350 and what is the crz N1%. No idea. If you don't watch what the automatics do then how will you know what to do when in manual control? How do you know when it's all turning to worms and noticing that the automatics are not doing the correct thing? Let the a/c teach you how it want to fly and then emulate. A number of stall incidents over the past couple of centuries could have been avoided by looking at the attitude and asking what the hell was going on. AND taking over.
It takes a special attitude to be content to monitor automatics. The more you know how to fly manually the more you might be content to watch George. If you don't know the basics you don't look but you don't see.
good management of these highly efficient systems is a much better alternative to the poorly flown often uncomfortable manual approach & correctly flown will keep your scan as health as ever
Firstly; no-one, sensible, is hammering this crew. We are discussing a general dilution of skills of all us across the industry due to various factors. This crew are not the only ones in the world to have found themselves in this predicament, and they will not be the last. We are discussing the root cause of why they found themselves in an uncomfortable position.
Your 2nd statement needs reply. "Good management…. of the automatics…." again that is exactly the point we are discussing. The lack of training in their full potential. Rigid SOP's teaches only a % of the options. I know only a tiny % of how to use my I-phone 4s. Once I know how it works to do the jobs I want I am happy until I reach a point where I need to do more; or I see someone else with magic fingers performing the most amazing feats. I then want to know more. Up until hen I was content. SOP's are similar. Enough to do the daily job in an ideal world; but is there a full understanding, and confidence, to use the system the way it was designed, in full?
You say "correctly flown approach" will keep your scan healthy. There i must take issue because of observation in the real world. Flown is not something using automatics: that is managed or monitored. Healthy scan when the automatics are doing the job, usually reliably, can be very scant and cause pilots often to be passengers in the cockpit. They sit and watch, but they don't think ahead and anticipate. They don't scan the raw data performance instruments. I've asked F/O's what the attitude is as they accelerate to retract the flaps: upto FL100 250kts: at FL250: at FL350 and what is the crz N1%. No idea. If you don't watch what the automatics do then how will you know what to do when in manual control? How do you know when it's all turning to worms and noticing that the automatics are not doing the correct thing? Let the a/c teach you how it want to fly and then emulate. A number of stall incidents over the past couple of centuries could have been avoided by looking at the attitude and asking what the hell was going on. AND taking over.
It takes a special attitude to be content to monitor automatics. The more you know how to fly manually the more you might be content to watch George. If you don't know the basics you don't look but you don't see.
Last edited by RAT 5; 21st Oct 2014 at 14:29.
Brilliant ponts Ratty! When I first converted from steam to glass decades ago, there was so much information in our lovely brand new Glass Cockpit that neither I or the FO knew where to look and what we were looking at/for. Clever Sim guy suggested something right at the beginning of the Simulator part of the course that helped enormously - we put the autopilot in and watched an approach from 2000' right down to an autoland. We noted attitudes, power settings, auto calls and all the other parts of a new machine (744 vs 747-200) including what the automatics did on the actual flare/landing/rollout etc. Don't just admire the automatics - scrutinise them and learn.
As you said Ratty, how many accidents could have been prevented by just setting a 'deck angle and a power setting' first and then - slowly - with one crew member just 'flying the plane' - try to troubleshoot.
As you said Ratty, how many accidents could have been prevented by just setting a 'deck angle and a power setting' first and then - slowly - with one crew member just 'flying the plane' - try to troubleshoot.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi A.D. Your suggestion of an 'auto demo' is one I follow. I also get my guys to fly a raw data NPA using autopilot, but no F.D. Thus they do not get tunnel vision on something which will be a perfect cross all the time. It might not be in the correct place, though, as they are controlling HDG & V/S. Remove it and they quickly realise it wasn't helping them anyway. It takes their eyes out to the side of the PFD. And they enjoy the challenge.
I also demo stalls with/without FD's. That is also a shock, that the FD does not save them. Anything to get their heart and mind ahead of the a/c and keep them there.
I also demo stalls with/without FD's. That is also a shock, that the FD does not save them. Anything to get their heart and mind ahead of the a/c and keep them there.