Emirates B777 gear collapse @ DXB?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the RAAS, does Boeing or E require mandatory GA on alert? (I am aware that with AB, if the predictive windshear alert system alarms, it is a mandatory GA)
I see a reliance on the automatics, but it has been shown that the winds measured by the aircraft on final, at/near the ground, in windshear and crosswind/crabbing conditions, are not accurate. What then, are the automatics using for windspeed and wind direction?
I see a reliance on the automatics, but it has been shown that the winds measured by the aircraft on final, at/near the ground, in windshear and crosswind/crabbing conditions, are not accurate. What then, are the automatics using for windspeed and wind direction?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We haven't changed the human very much but we sure have changed what they have to interact with by huge amounts.
Much talk on here about something described as 'muscle memory'? I would have to have that explained to me a little more. However it appears to suggest limb movement absent of conscious thought? I would strongly suggest that is no way to fly a modern jet! It is DEFINITELY and UNEQUIVICALLY not the way to cope with the 'startle effect'! Engage the wrong motor program, without conscious thought, and you could quickly end up dead!
Pilots today, are the same people as yesteryear. Not 'better' nor 'worse', they are just interacting with a completely different style of machine! Lessons learned on the Wright Flyer are unlikely to transfer easily to flying an A350!! One to the other in little more than a single lifespan!
These machines require excellent training to operate safely. But airlines (generally) try to reduce training to the absolute minimum. The a/c work well, when you operate them as designed. Pilots just need to be aware of the fragility of the human condition, and it's tendency to react instantly (the chimp) rather than more intelligently. There are traps!! Training needs to be better, and sadly for some, more expensive!
Coping strategies are also required, such as pre-briefing of threats. Sharing responsibilities are healthy, rather than the old 'man and dog' of previous generations, where "you don't touch that, because I'm the Captain"! Still sadly alive in some cockpits/airlines!
Emirates really dodged a bullet here. They are not an outlier! This could have been far worse.
Last edited by 4468; 17th Sep 2016 at 00:25.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KenV
How the pilot can press the TOGA switches and not feel the levers stay stationary and not advancing is beyond me.
What I don't get is how he can rotate without first feeling the thrust output ?
To me the situation had to be treated more like a touch and go than a GA, but was he trained for that ... ?
Or when did he rent a Cessna for the last time for a couple of touch and go maneuvers, just for the fun of it ?
td, the principle of tactile feedback is well established, but as with any good design the benefits can be circumvented by the method of use and the variability of human performance, particularly if influenced by conflicting advise;
E.g. always, always, use AT - as designed, as trained, as SOP, a fully automatic operation ... except when it isn't fully automatic.
Its the exceptions which usually get you
E.g. always, always, use AT - as designed, as trained, as SOP, a fully automatic operation ... except when it isn't fully automatic.
Its the exceptions which usually get you
We need to adapt the training and SOPs to prevent that circumvention.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4468
Further to the muscle memory myth I want to include the misuse of the word instinctual. Humans as specie have no instincts once they leave the ground. Flying is an acquired habit/skill. What we do in the air is habitual and not instinctual. Habits can be drilled into subconscious but they are not instincts. That is why in the air when a required aspect of that skill is found wanting no instinctual act comes to rescue and crashes happen. AF447, QZ8501 may well have been the results of being instinctual. We are taught as a first principle of instrument flying to ignore all bodily sensations and orientation clues human body creates. Why Boeing designed their FBW the way did has nothing to do with being instinctual but choosing a design philosophy that was more conventional i.e. speed stable and transitioning pilots were habitually used to it. Moving thrust levers was not designed for tactile feed back but was merely an improvement on the existing system of manual thrust control in B747 classics. First it was only capable of maintaining speed during approach then came the much celebrated FFRATS(Full Flight Regime Auto Throttle System). It continued on to 747 400 with FADEC/FMS and then on to 777. Both Boeing and Airbus chose their different design philosophies more to suite their commercial interest than anything else. Airbus was not a major player with conventional aircrafts. They offered the market something different, economical and safer for low experience level pilots. They have successfully created/added a segment that finds it difficult to move away from airbus . Boeing on the other hand wanted to keep its flock together so avoided the culture shock by keeping things conventional.
However the accidents in both the philosophies we keep discussing have generally come from lack of knowledge of automation and/or lack of manual flying skill. Acquiring skill in one may not replace the deficiency in the other. Statistics abundantly prove that automation has made flying easier and safer for pilots. Flying has become so safe that involving in an accident requires real bad luck. In the present case had the pilot not gone around could have added another accident free 10/15000 hrs. without having ever known how to execute a rejected landing.
Further to the muscle memory myth I want to include the misuse of the word instinctual. Humans as specie have no instincts once they leave the ground. Flying is an acquired habit/skill. What we do in the air is habitual and not instinctual. Habits can be drilled into subconscious but they are not instincts. That is why in the air when a required aspect of that skill is found wanting no instinctual act comes to rescue and crashes happen. AF447, QZ8501 may well have been the results of being instinctual. We are taught as a first principle of instrument flying to ignore all bodily sensations and orientation clues human body creates. Why Boeing designed their FBW the way did has nothing to do with being instinctual but choosing a design philosophy that was more conventional i.e. speed stable and transitioning pilots were habitually used to it. Moving thrust levers was not designed for tactile feed back but was merely an improvement on the existing system of manual thrust control in B747 classics. First it was only capable of maintaining speed during approach then came the much celebrated FFRATS(Full Flight Regime Auto Throttle System). It continued on to 747 400 with FADEC/FMS and then on to 777. Both Boeing and Airbus chose their different design philosophies more to suite their commercial interest than anything else. Airbus was not a major player with conventional aircrafts. They offered the market something different, economical and safer for low experience level pilots. They have successfully created/added a segment that finds it difficult to move away from airbus . Boeing on the other hand wanted to keep its flock together so avoided the culture shock by keeping things conventional.
However the accidents in both the philosophies we keep discussing have generally come from lack of knowledge of automation and/or lack of manual flying skill. Acquiring skill in one may not replace the deficiency in the other. Statistics abundantly prove that automation has made flying easier and safer for pilots. Flying has become so safe that involving in an accident requires real bad luck. In the present case had the pilot not gone around could have added another accident free 10/15000 hrs. without having ever known how to execute a rejected landing.
Last edited by vilas; 17th Sep 2016 at 06:02.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12L has a 9kts tailwind component to a 28 kt tailwind gust, moving to a 18/21kt headwind along the runway. Why wasnt 12R with headwinds better?
ATC reported winds from 340 degrees, 11 kts. Where is the AWOS located?
Look at the crazy METAR from 110 degrees 15 kts, variable from 60 to 150 degrees with temp wind from 350 degrees 15 kts.
Originally Posted by Vilas
However the accidents in both the philosophies we keep discussing have generally come from lack of knowledge of automation and/or lack of manual flying skill.
Acquiring skill in one may not replace the deficiency in the other.
Acquiring skill in one may not replace the deficiency in the other.
Originally Posted by Vilas
If you keep using manual skills in RVSM and CAT3 you will lose your job.
Originally Posted by Vilas
Airlines don't hire you to keep surviving from ignorance.
The Airbus pilots in AF447 and Air Asia crashed, not after a few seconds like EK521, but after some minutes flopping around the sky in the seemingly "something different, economical and safer for low experience level pilots" Airbus (your words). To continue to beat the Automation drum is ignorance (your word) IMO.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs
I am all for manual skills. But manual skill and knowledge of automation are not exchangeable in modern aircraft. yes in a DC3 if you didn't know about the AP it didn't matter. Any pilot who knows his automatics poorly is a hazard in RVSM and CAT3. Manual skill requirement may not arise at all in cruise but ignorance of automation can kill you. The manual skill you are talking about is more required during approach landing phase doing a raw data approach, handling EFATO or handling strong gusty crosswinds but CAT3 regime is all automation. In Airbus FBW flying raw data approach or OEI on take off or GA is not that big a deal, many 200hrs. CPLs do it extremely well. In a field that is getting automated by the hour there is no justification for not knowing automation of your machine. SFO, Bangalore, Paphos all came out of ignorance of automation. Bangalore guys were experienced B737 200 pilots they knew very well how to do a visual approach with manual thrust but didn't know how to get the A320 ATHR in speed mode. Some aircrafts manual skills are difficult and need more practice in some others they are not that difficult but you need to know well their automation because that is their design philosophy. And no! I would not higher a pilot in Airbus who is unable to understand automation. I would definitely higher him for flying a twin otter for island hopping in Indonesia.
I am all for manual skills. But manual skill and knowledge of automation are not exchangeable in modern aircraft. yes in a DC3 if you didn't know about the AP it didn't matter. Any pilot who knows his automatics poorly is a hazard in RVSM and CAT3. Manual skill requirement may not arise at all in cruise but ignorance of automation can kill you. The manual skill you are talking about is more required during approach landing phase doing a raw data approach, handling EFATO or handling strong gusty crosswinds but CAT3 regime is all automation. In Airbus FBW flying raw data approach or OEI on take off or GA is not that big a deal, many 200hrs. CPLs do it extremely well. In a field that is getting automated by the hour there is no justification for not knowing automation of your machine. SFO, Bangalore, Paphos all came out of ignorance of automation. Bangalore guys were experienced B737 200 pilots they knew very well how to do a visual approach with manual thrust but didn't know how to get the A320 ATHR in speed mode. Some aircrafts manual skills are difficult and need more practice in some others they are not that difficult but you need to know well their automation because that is their design philosophy. And no! I would not higher a pilot in Airbus who is unable to understand automation. I would definitely higher him for flying a twin otter for island hopping in Indonesia.
Last edited by vilas; 17th Sep 2016 at 07:52.
The irony, Vilas, is that in both Air France 447 and Air Asia 8501, there was no automation involved. And they crashed. Superior knowledge of the automation isn't much help when it isn't working and it "gives" the aeroplane back to you, for whatever reason. This industry bias towards automation is now unnecessarily causing fatal accidents. This is not a case of this or that. Pilots must now be good at this and that.
The further irony is your comment about CPLs doing EFATOs etc well; that would be expected, given their lack of reliance on the automation at that point of their careers!
The further irony is your comment about CPLs doing EFATOs etc well; that would be expected, given their lack of reliance on the automation at that point of their careers!
Much talk on here about something described as 'muscle memory'? I would have to have that explained to me a little more. However it appears to suggest limb movement absent of conscious thought? I would strongly suggest that is no way to fly a modern jet!
Sharing responsibilities are healthy, rather than the old 'man and dog' of previous generations, where "you don't touch that, because I'm the Captain"! Still sadly alive in some cockpits/airlines!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is how you drive your car and how you walk
What you are describing is commonly referred to in neurological circles as 'automaticity'. Which is precisely how I described 'muscle memory'. It is limb/digit movement without conscious thought/monitoring. Luckily typists have spell checkers, and if I make a hash of tying my shoes, I just swear and start again with a little more concentration!
But it's generally a BAD idea when operating complex machinery, in which informed choice of precise action is invariably necessary.
Indeed, here in Dubai, we have the perfect example of the 'chimp' eliminating conscious thought and selecting the WRONG motor program, which then ran automatically! (They shouldn't even have pressed the TOGA buttons! We don't yet know if they did?) The problem wasn't lack of automaticity per se. Nobody needs to 'remember' how to push the thrust levers forward if that becomes necessary!! Nor are we required to do that in 99% of go-arounds! It's also difficult for the human brain to 'monitor' what our actions have achieved, when we are simultaneously, actively engaged in exercising a manual skill involving a cognitive process. Particularly so, when the picture we are seeing, is not what we were expecting.
The issue here had nothing whatsoever to do with automaticity. It's just that the wrong actions (motor programs) were hurriedly selected by the chimp. That may be due to lack of pre-briefing, lack of training, or (highly unlikely) lack of ability/knowledge!
It could possibly be a combination of such things, but I have little doubt, in the current climate, many of us (both old and bold, AND magenta line!) could easily have fallen into the same trap.
Last edited by 4468; 17th Sep 2016 at 14:08.
Area of Responsibility. Biggest furphy out.
4468, nose goes up on a GA, throttles go up. Nothing "operating complex machinery" about that. If you did that 50 times in the last year, what do you reckon your chances of doing it on this occasion would be? Why? Muscle Memory (or Familiarity or Auto-whatever you called it or "been there done that"). If you don't have muscle memory, you have to think while you act. That's when you sometimes forget.
4468, nose goes up on a GA, throttles go up. Nothing "operating complex machinery" about that. If you did that 50 times in the last year, what do you reckon your chances of doing it on this occasion would be? Why? Muscle Memory (or Familiarity or Auto-whatever you called it or "been there done that"). If you don't have muscle memory, you have to think while you act. That's when you sometimes forget.
More stick and rudder (in the Sim for Vilas 
) , which must be regulated by the XAAs! That is the only way to drag the kicking and screaming beancounters to the reality that our manual flying skills are going down (unfortunately, literally) way before the pilotless airliner is ready.
) , which must be regulated by the XAAs! That is the only way to drag the kicking and screaming beancounters to the reality that our manual flying skills are going down (unfortunately, literally) way before the pilotless airliner is ready.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The irony, Vilas, is that in both Air France 447 and Air Asia 8501, there was no automation involved
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capn Bloggs
You've flown 50 go-arounds in the last year?
Wow
As a long haul pilot, I doubt I've flown more than about 30 take offs and landings in that period! Very probably less?
All part of the issues in play here!
Nothing "operating complex machinery" about that. If you did that 50 times in the last year, what do you reckon your chances of doing it on this occasion would be?
Wow
As a long haul pilot, I doubt I've flown more than about 30 take offs and landings in that period! Very probably less?
All part of the issues in play here!
Well Vilas, we are going to have to agree to disagree. You can be the autowhizz, or the autocripple. But if you can fly, none of those 5 prangs would have occurred. Airbus Golden Rules all require one skill when all else fails: the ability to fly the aeroplane. The automatons are driving that skill out of the industry.
Nonsense. Unless you practise, over and over, you may get it wrong. You can have all you like in your nice (electronic) manuals but if you expect Joe Bloggs to pull out a procedure that he may have seen/used once in a blue moon and do it successfully, you do not have a grip on reality.
The price of being human? Even if he did, his offsider, if suitably exposed/trained and re-current, would much more readily pick up what he did wrong (the FO here did actually work out something was wrong when he called "speed". If you're familiar with something, then you've got spare brainspace to use on other stuff, like checking the power is actually up when the nose comes up on a rejected landing. The workload is immediately noticeable to me whenever we start doing weird stuff in the Sim (or the pressure comes on airborne); surely you have felt the same, if not you, in your students?
Did I say that? No. I was merely using it as an example of the development of muscle memory.
Originally Posted by Vilas
Had the EK pilot read about the GA after touch down or been told during his training he wouldn't have done what he did.
Originally Posted by Vilas
Unless he made a one off mistake that can happen it is the price off being human
Originally Posted by 4468
You've flown 50 go-arounds in the last year?