Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Having a bone to pick with commercial aviation

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Having a bone to pick with commercial aviation

Old 6th Apr 2019, 21:41
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 158
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Well said glofish.

I would add:

A mandated standard for FMA mode annunciation. Too many Auto Throttle/Vnav mode annunciations (Boeing), consequences of mode (at least when I flew an Airbus 20 years ago)annunciations too subtle (Airbus), and throw into the pot two smaller manufactuers (Embraer and Bombardier) and that equates to too many ways to tell the crew what’s going on.

Now throw into that equation a carrier that operates two or more (or perhaps in the case of my contract employer) all four types and that becomes a flight safety hazard for pilots converting from type to type.

Oh, and make the on/off switches move in the same direction. I never cared which way the on or off function was, just make it the same across all the manufacturers.

Commander Taco is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2019, 05:13
  #22 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Commnader taco :
Oh, and make the on/off switches move in the same direction. I never cared which way the on or off function was, just make it the same across all the manufacturers.
Wishful thinking unfortunately . and I fear that will never happen since manufacturers comes from different countries with many different regulations . For instance harmonisation of standards between RTCA and EUROCAE is going on but not easy, as it has become a A versus B issue.
But even within the same country differences exists , think FMS logic turn anticipations , A vs B again .. ,
And then you have the British that always wants yo do things differently ... for those who flew the Chipmunk remember the mixture !
The mixture works in the opposite sense to modern convention, with back for rich and forward to lean. The rationale here is that the throttle and mixture levers are interconnected in such a way that closing the throttle automatically enriches the mixture.
You really have to think hard to avoid accidentally lean (and cut) the engine as you fully open the throttle!

That said , super text Glofish !
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2019, 19:13
  #23 (permalink)  

the lunatic fringe
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As a ex 747-400/ 737/ A320 Trainer, and now retired playing golf... your post for me is "preaching to the choir."

1. Manufacturers: Airbus makes claims its aircraft cannot achieve. The A320 in wind-shear and a strong crosswind is a real handful. The fly by wire is always a beat behind, and it is like flying via an elastic band. The classic 737 was bomb proof in a crosswind. Boeing and the 737 Max have dropped the ball. Sadly in aviation it is not until people die in a messy accident does real change happen. Now we will have change, but it will cost Boeing an enormous amount of money and good will.

2. Innovation: I would add GPS to your group. Having scratched my way round a visual circuit, at night into Nairobi pre GPS in a 747-200... GPS is an absolute god send of safety. In Africa (and India or the middle of nowhere) to actually know where you are was a novelty. My pet hate was the non moving thrust lever on the A320. No visual queues apart from the stealthy "cyan arc." As for the side stick... the student is busily stirring in a dark corner, you have no feedback, and you cannot see what the hell is going on. The side stick is a dog turd. If you have to touch it, touch it for the shortest time possible...

3. Pilot training: The young boys and girls that came to me were excellent. Bright, intelligent and hard working. Ask them to go off piste and fly a visual circuit was mostly a step too far. The worst never hand flew unless they had to. The best... practiced whenever was appropriate. Handling skills in general were woefully inadequate. I know the trope that we should let the auto pilot take the strain, and free up capacity, but on a dark dirty night when the chips are down and chaos has unfolded, it is your handling skills that will save the day. I grew up flying single crew night mail in Scotland with no auto pilot. There is nowhere left that will give anyone that sort of baptism into aviation. So the solutions are better training, and a system that encourages pilots to practice and get better. And that cost money...

4. Automation: Back to training... and that costs money. On a day to day basis it is all very easy. Now put the same pilots into JFK at 3am in blowing snow, and then ask them to do the Canarsie to 13L with a hefty crosswind off the bay, and then the autopilot fails to capture a level off height. Now automation is trying to get you killed. If it is not simple, reliable and understandable, it should not be on an aeroplane.

5. Protections: The autopilot/ auto throttle disconnect should do what it says. Disconnect, and put the pilot in charge of a flyable aeroplane.

Those are my thoughts, and I agree with all you have said, and now I am off to play some very bad golf.

Last edited by L337; 8th Apr 2019 at 18:58.
L337 is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2019, 03:01
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 158
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
ATC Watcher:
And then you have the British that always wants yo do things differently ... for those who flew the Chipmunk remember the mixture !
I flew the Chippie, albeit in Canada but can’t remember the mixture being setup like that, though I do remember the brake setup rather well!

On the subject of standardization, I recall a working group was formed in the Eurozone approximately 12 years ago with a view to standardize Transition Altitudes/Levels throughout the Eurozone. Still waiting......
Commander Taco is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2019, 03:17
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What he said.
George Glass is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2019, 08:21
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 801
Received 24 Likes on 15 Posts
Posts 1 and 24 superb----Thank you.

Add to that FTL that seems to think it is OK to roster 4 Transatlantic sectors with minimum rest B2B or LON-CPT overnight, one night in hotel then early start next morning to operate the day flight back to LON...
rog747 is online now  
Old 8th Apr 2019, 08:21
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,545
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
then ask them to do the Canarsie to 22L
I think even a few of the old hands might have to give that a bit of thought ..
wiggy is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2019, 11:10
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,831
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Glofish. A big Thumbs Up for that post👍🏻 Sadly we’re seeing many failing the type rating courses here now as they just don’t have the skills or experience!!!!!
White Knight is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2019, 13:15
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 57
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Uplinker
Basic fundamental flying skills and scans are not learned and coded into ‘motor programs’ in the brain - hence the AF447 F/O holding full backstick and deep stalling. Any airliner you do that to will stall.


AF447 is an accident that I have spent a lot of time reading and thinking about. I (kind of) disagree with your above statement. If I recall correctly (without unwinding the whole sequence of events), the A/C's computers switched form "normal law" to "direct law" following pitot sensor problems.

The very fact that the F/O kept full back on the stick can only be explained by two things:
1) he might have been unaware of that "law" switch, or
2) he did not understand what "direct law" meant.

Before that accident, it was said that it was impossible to stall an Airbus, due to it's protection mechanisms in "normal law". And that might even be true. But what does that lead to? Pilots get used to doing things like full back stick in order to signal to the A/C: maximum possible nose up. Which is exactly what the A/C will do, under normal circumstances....But woe on you when the protections cut out.

This is an extremely broad topic: Not so much on automation itself, but on the human / machine interface. I come from the IT side of things, and where ever I look, I see terrible user interfaces. Websites, smart phones, cars, and aircraft. Increasingly, you have to have an (abstracted) model of the software's workings, in order to anticipate its behaviour. That is an unforgivable design blunder.

Add to that bad ergonomic design (starting with "good-looking" websites that use light-gray text on a white background, to fonts that are so small that even the "retina display" won't save you if your eyesight is not 120/120...or minuscule amber text messages about AoA disagree in the 737 MAX's displays. And even that is only optional...)

The whole industry has to re-evaluate the way it designs machines. We currently have a generation of engineers that seem to have missed out on a paramount issue: usability and predictability.

Engineering disasters like the 737 MAX MCAS are bad enough - but do you think the engineers designing the controls & software for new nuclear power plants are any better?

I hope accidents like these two will be a wake-up call not just to the aviation industry, but to the whole automation field. Then, the victim's deaths will at least have had a worthy result.
Cheers,
Sri
Sriajuda is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2019, 14:07
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The OP is very well put and illustrates the de-professionalising and de-skilling of so many key jobs across swatches of industry in design, manufacturing, testing, operations, IT, even marketing, and indeed management across the piece (not just in aviation). We have moved to a world run by accountants who see fit to load company balance sheets with colossal amounts of debt in the name of 'efficiency', which puts ever increasing pressure on those down the corporate food chain to ever increase turnover and margins, create new profit centres and cut costs far past the bone, and certainly as far as the business can get away to stay compliant and viable, and to do so as quickly as possible. Preferably last month, or last year.

As with so many things, in the end it comes down to cold hard cash.
  • Design, R&D and IT is expensive, good design, R&D and IT is very expensive and time consuming.
  • Training (air crew, designers, IT developers, management, what have you) costs money, good training cost alot of money.
  • Experience is expensive; those who have been there/done that, cost alot more to employ and are less willing to just unquestioningly do what they're told, than young, cheap, yes-persons hoping to build a career by 'finding solutions' to keep their boss happy and in turn theirs and so on.
  • Testing, testing, and more testing is expensive and takes time. You boss asks (ie demands), can you just get it out...now!
Above all, do nothing that sucks up cash flow and takes profits off the bottom line. So, much of senior management is too remote from the actuality to even begin to understand the consequences of the decisions they make and instructions they give (not just in aviation). Worse still, a great many simply don't care because all they care about is themselves. Their pay and bonus. Their position. Who they mix with. How much time they spend on their yacht or play golf. Which brings me to this comment;

Originally Posted by YGBSM
When I retire I won't give a flying f&%k what happens. Go play some golf
This sentiment was brought to the silver screen in the great 1950s British film 'I'm Alright Jack'. A remake should be made, but this time staged at a fictitious aircraft manufacturer... You can imagine the rest.
RTM Boy is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2019, 21:37
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 158
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
LR337:
1. Manufacturers: Airbus makes claims its aircraft cannot achieve. The A320 in wind-shear and a strong crosswind is a real handful. The fly by wire is always a beat behind, and it is like flying via an elastic band.
Agreed. Other than the Beech 18, the worst aircraft I ever flew in a gusty crosswind.
Commander Taco is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.