We have a call that should be made in case of incorrect action 'PITCH PITCH'

Airbus training in Toulouse does not train pitch and power at all in their syllabus.
They are very much FDs and Bird dependent. They also do not teach unusual attitude recovery. They only introduced stal recovery into their manuals after AF447 crash. Until than it was not thought at all. But I thought that the Boeing group training was much better as Boeing is not such a forgiving machine as an airbus with its protections. I am starting to realize that the airlines inability to teach basic "pitch and power equals performance" is a wide spread phenomenon through all airlines and types. Having said that, I have met few capable instructors in my flying carrier, who could teach the basics. But most airlines brush basic training off with the words, "They are airline pilots, they must know how to fly".
If pilots do not have basic scanning ability and in all their manual flying they only follow flight directors, while not seing through it the actual performance, how can we expect these
pilots, who were not exposed to proper training for years, to perform well while they are under stress, tired and at night? If the heads up display flight directors show them to dive down due to basting altitude constrain, of course they will blindly follow it. They are used to flight directors showing them the way. Flight director is the real PIC on the aircraft.
With few exception, every sim I teach, I have to revert to teaching basic attitude flying. I disregard the rest of syllabus until people can fly. And they usually improve quickly and within one hour they are proficient. But why am I the only guy as far as I know, who does that? Could somebody else incourage me and tell me they also teach basic raw data flying in airlines? Why do we constantly keep repeating the mantra: Fly Navigate And Communicate but do not teach flying skills? Why do most airline pilots who start to criticise me do not know the difference of scanning ability required for Raw data with FDs off and Authotrust off" as opposed to following flight directors with autothrust on? Those who are the once saying pilots must know how to fly are usually the once who cannot do it. And they usually take it out of the syllabus as they are the management.

PJ2

Good to see the return of your always professional, always useful, input on this forum. So many of the old time PPRuNers have given up on this site...

grizz

Perhaps it is time that pilots were run through a couple of simulator sessions after a prolonged period of wakefulness. The aim being to see how they react to problems while fatigued.

The sessions would be recorded and analysed after a decent period of rest.

Some reinforcement training could then be tailored to address any issues and a further test conducted.

While this might not solve all the problems, at least pilots would be aware of their individual limitations and potential problems that could arise when they were fatigued.

Time to go the FAA way. Before line 1500 hours if stick and rudder flying as FI or in GA.Too many theorist..too many useless briefings what saves the day u is often basic flying skills implanted in a well rested pilot.

Proper management,adherance to SOPs,understanding of your limits and those of your colleagues,being mentally ready for a go around especially when complex,clear and appropriate/relevant briefings ,and finally but not the least,manual skills that allow you to disengage the automatics when they are not doing what you commanded them to or expected them to,without shedding a sweat.

Notwithstanding that the pilots in the crash that prompted the US Congress decision (not the FAA) to go with the 1500hr rule (Colgan 3407) had the time before joining the airline, including one as a flying instructor. Doesn't matter what your background is, being fatigued out of your mind will cause your stick and rudder skills to be non existent when the proverbial hits the fan.

In my view, the problem is that the XAA the world over have taken a more distanced view from the pointy end. It's now a paperwork excercise and they audit the paperwork.
What about getting out on the line and talking to the crews and get under the skin of the operation and not just an arse covering paperwork excercise.

As for fatigue, I think certain airlines are testing new waters with regard to human endurance, like an airline version of the Japanese game show.

Legal or not, airlines do not care about fatigue in the real world as long as it's not on too much paperwork and the planes keep flying. Captain dies, hell just hire another.....
Some of my family where on a certain Middle East carrier recently and I was glad to hear they had landed, I know crew there and the hours they work.

Shocking really.

Pitch angle on Go Around
 

Adding new words in the standard and well established SOPs for the go-around might be an overkill - I agree with that.

Adding a few words with the same content and with the same intent in the approach brief would be much easier thing to implement and would serve the same purpose -
Example "... in case of a go -around ... I will pitch up to XX degrees and HOLD it there "- that would 'recharge' the PF's short term memory.

We get good at what we practise on a regular basis e.g. ILS approach.

How often do we fly an all engine Go Around?

That said an all engine Go Around flown by a well trained and current pilot should be a routine manoeuvre. But it's not down to one person. The monitoring pilot has a big role to play especially when the crew are not at their best due to fatigue etc and a well flown GA is more assured by good crew coordination/teamwork and planning/briefing.

Yes it should. But unfortunately, the mindset and SA is just not there is some folk, due primarily to lack of practice...

When I have to go around, I prefer manual, because depending on a lot of things, I know how much thrust I need to achieve the flightpath I want. Yes, I disconnect the AT and push to what I want. If I have an early GA it can be a very gentle manoeuvre, and it's under my control.

Blindly following SOP, and just pushing buttons removes the flexibility. Totally. It rains out the airmanship of generations past.

6,500ft Approach platform towards an ILS and a 6,600ft Go around altitude. What if you miss the GS and need to discontinue? I've seen very confused folk pushing the TOGA button and expecting to go for it.... Only they're at F5 and level.....

Absolutely no idea what to do, and that's totally a result of training and lack of experience.

How to combat this kind of outcome? That is the question. Beasts me. I left them to it.... and got the hell out of Dodge!

(I don't know about 'incredibly' but certainly dynamic).....

Since FZ evidently utilize HGS at times I'll add another comment about about HGS use here in TOGA that fits with the pitch attitude 'call' discussion.

For both takeoff and go-around the HUD displays a dashed line that represents target pitch attitude for the maneuver so the raw information is already there.....however command steering (flight director 'ball') is for the FPV not the 'attitude symbol', i.e. 'boreline'), both 'ball in the FPV' and 'boreline on the dashed line' theoretically resulting in the same flight profile.

Normal phases of flight the FPV sits about 2-6 degrees below the pitch symbol. At 0.0-0.2g the FPV might end up slightly above or nearly aligned with the pitch attitude symbol. I've observed various responses to this.....

OK465, re your comment, "I've observed various responses to this.....", I'll bet you have! In fact at one time the Airbus FCOM did not permit the use of the FPV on the go-around due to possibly-confusing/conflicting data (due to aircraft inertia), that may inadvertently be followed in a manual go-around.

I believe that's changed and now when the thrust levers are set (or moved to TOGA to trigger the GA programming then brought back), the FD automatically switches to the SRS, (Speed Reference System) mode. The manual further emphasizes that lag in the FD system may initially occur and that pitch attitude is the primary parameter for the go-around manoeuvre.

Very interesting comments on HUD flying. I have precisely zero HUD experience, as I imagine is the same for the vast majority of non-military pilots.

How is it trained? What sort of material is available to flight crews to assist them?

I know of colleagues moving to the 787 who are not keen on the ball/bird flight director presentation as it reduces flying to even more of a computer game with more distractions than a PFD with cross bars.

I believe it was RAT 5 in discussing the Air Asia accident who came up with the excellent suggestion of flying with FDs off whenever the autopilot is in use to facilitate knowledge and monitoring of normal pitch attitudes and I think it merits serious consideration.

Your definition of low energy is a bit wanting.TOGA thrust and GA configuration is hardly "low energy".I never suggested any pull ups.There might have been a pitch mistrim,stab runaway or jammed stab (if icing was a scenario) which coupled with TOGA thrust and vertical windshears sll might have produced a pronounced pitch up and fighting that by pushing the control column or overtrimming downward ("flying by trim" as primary input..which is non recommended procedure.Ref to link: Pitch trim - poorly understood? ) might have caused a further upsupset.No FDR and no CVR leads to no useful conclusion no.msyter how many hours some of you here claim to have on 73NG.This is an accident that demands expert analysis.Let us be patient..word will surface..given time.

Yes, that's the way it worked when I was last in the box. And I believe they've added/made available FMGEC software for a TOGA to managed Nav capability for lateral nav on the missed now with SRS still the vertical mode and a switch to dual cue bars if the FPV/FPD was used on the approach prior to TOGA. So the whole Airbii CAT3 process is automated for either the auto-land or any complicated, circuitous missed track.

The original impetus for HGS was non-automated hand-flown CAT3A to either the landing or missed. So theoretically it provided all necessary capability and was to be used on the missed after that decision was made. HUD's been around on airliners since the 80s but as AFAIK a single HUD installation has never been certified as a primary flight instrument. I believe the 787 has dual HUDs so this may have changed. I'm out of the business now so take what I say with a grain of salt.

I would not presume to know if this Captain was utilizing the HGS at the time, but if he was, theoretically the whole maneuver could have been completed sucessfully on the HGS. And actually, barring malfunctions, theoretically it could have been completed successfully in a number of ways.

You've hit the nail on the proverbial head - The Go Around on the HUD can be a challenge for the exact reasons you've outlined. I've seen a number of people nearly stall the aircraft in initial HGS Sim training. Competent pilots with thousands of hours in the aircraft doing their Command course (no HUD on the right side, so it's their first real exposure to using the symbology. Unless theyre coming from HUD equipped military aircraft).

Some pilots prefer to look away from the HUD, and instead use the PFD for the initial pitch up during the Go Around. Especially if they're new to the HGS or ..... tired

CAT IIIB with a single HUD installed is both approved and in use. 500 RVR for takeoff and 600 RVR (50' RA) for landing.

I agree. The only problem is you risk being flayed alive at some airlines if you dare to switch off the flight director for whatever reason. It's all recorded on the QAR. FD addiction is potentially dangerous yet you see very little about this problem in flight safety research papers

FD commanding pitch up throughout the AF447 stall may well explain why the PF maintained the pitch up input on his sidestick for the entire duration!