Loss of Control In-Flight solutions
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: edge of reality
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unusual Attitudes..
I can't help but think we're departing from the essentials here...
Focusing on one pilot's failure during a check-ride is not advancing the subject.
However...
***Was the simulator placed in the unusual attitude using the automated instructor station selections which then freeze the simulator for discussion only? The recovery exercise then being carried out when freeze was released with no pass/fail criteria attached. Pilot collective bargaining organizations have been known to favor this to protect their members from a potentially strictly subjective assessment.
No... this was a check-ride.. not a training event... the candidate had undergone training over the previous few days which had included this very event.. and had performaed satisfactorily during training.
***Did the instructor/evaluator 'fly' the simulator into the UA and at some point say, "Recover"? As if the checkee were PNF but for some indeterminate reason not able to respond sooner?
The NFP 'flew' the a/c into the UA and the instruction to recover was given at the appropriate moment by the check-airman.
***Did the 'checkee' fly the simulator into the UA himself? (Intentionally or inadvertantly?) Was he in the dynamic loop continuously so as to experience the handling cues leading to the upset & UA?
No.. see above.. And the capt of aforementioned 737 was also not 'in the loop having mistakenly thought that the A/P was flying the a/c. So this is not an unrealistic scenario. With the emphasis on encouraging people to 'fly' aircraft through the systems this will not be the last event of a similar nature.
Was the simulator recovered without exceeding the 'CRASH' threshold? Do most other pilots NOT exceed VNE from those conditions?
Please give us credit for knowing how to train/test our crews. 150+ a/c and been around for 50+yrs. The candidate exceeded VNE to the point where even if he had finally retarded the thrust levers (and there was no indication that he was about to) any attempt at pulling up would have pulled the wings off. The a/c was effectively lost.
Did the upset correspond to an event which could actually occur in the real world? Should every pilot be evaluated in exactly the same manner using the same events? Or is there latitude to use any of these type setups and achieve the same transfer of learning goals trainingwise?
Yes it was potentially a real world event. No two events are likely to be exactly the same.. what does that matter ? The pilot has to deal with the situation as it happens... in real life especially.
None of the above is especially important... the focus needs to remain on training.. which even if given does not guarantee that someone will react correctly in the real world event but does go a long way to helping.
I've spent enough years both in a/c and simulators to know that a pilots actions can never be 100% forecast... even the best have surprised me on occasion. This pilot screwed up on the day in a way that would have been impossible to predict. Next time I'm sure he'll perform well. He elected not to continue with the C/Ride...
Focusing on one pilot's failure during a check-ride is not advancing the subject.
However...
***Was the simulator placed in the unusual attitude using the automated instructor station selections which then freeze the simulator for discussion only? The recovery exercise then being carried out when freeze was released with no pass/fail criteria attached. Pilot collective bargaining organizations have been known to favor this to protect their members from a potentially strictly subjective assessment.
No... this was a check-ride.. not a training event... the candidate had undergone training over the previous few days which had included this very event.. and had performaed satisfactorily during training.
***Did the instructor/evaluator 'fly' the simulator into the UA and at some point say, "Recover"? As if the checkee were PNF but for some indeterminate reason not able to respond sooner?
The NFP 'flew' the a/c into the UA and the instruction to recover was given at the appropriate moment by the check-airman.
***Did the 'checkee' fly the simulator into the UA himself? (Intentionally or inadvertantly?) Was he in the dynamic loop continuously so as to experience the handling cues leading to the upset & UA?
No.. see above.. And the capt of aforementioned 737 was also not 'in the loop having mistakenly thought that the A/P was flying the a/c. So this is not an unrealistic scenario. With the emphasis on encouraging people to 'fly' aircraft through the systems this will not be the last event of a similar nature.
Was the simulator recovered without exceeding the 'CRASH' threshold? Do most other pilots NOT exceed VNE from those conditions?
Please give us credit for knowing how to train/test our crews. 150+ a/c and been around for 50+yrs. The candidate exceeded VNE to the point where even if he had finally retarded the thrust levers (and there was no indication that he was about to) any attempt at pulling up would have pulled the wings off. The a/c was effectively lost.
Did the upset correspond to an event which could actually occur in the real world? Should every pilot be evaluated in exactly the same manner using the same events? Or is there latitude to use any of these type setups and achieve the same transfer of learning goals trainingwise?
Yes it was potentially a real world event. No two events are likely to be exactly the same.. what does that matter ? The pilot has to deal with the situation as it happens... in real life especially.
None of the above is especially important... the focus needs to remain on training.. which even if given does not guarantee that someone will react correctly in the real world event but does go a long way to helping.
I've spent enough years both in a/c and simulators to know that a pilots actions can never be 100% forecast... even the best have surprised me on occasion. This pilot screwed up on the day in a way that would have been impossible to predict. Next time I'm sure he'll perform well. He elected not to continue with the C/Ride...
Last edited by MungoP; 30th Jan 2012 at 20:24. Reason: sp
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: with the magical bunnies of the sandy jellygum tree forest - yay!!
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Purposeful attempts to specifically induce spacial disorientation was never part of the exercise although spinning on limited panel `under the hood` was part of the military training syllabus and this certainly could cause disorientation
My next door neighbour now nearly 80, is a former RAF Canberra pilot. He learned to fly on Harvards. He told me instrument flying was done from the back seat with a cover over the complete cockpit so the student could not have a sneak look outside. I asked him did he have to close his eyes and put chin on chest?
He looked astonished and said what the hell for - I couldn't see outside. Spacial disorientation practice? He'd never heard of it...
Probably hadn't heard of it because he learnt to fly 60 years ago? CRM in those days meant Captains right mate! Times change!
When I was a younger cockney geezer undergoing elementary flying training, the instructor would get you to close your eyes and chin in chest. Next he would manouevre the aircraft in various ways and ask you what attitude the aircraft was in I would think (using my internal human body gyros) & then say we were in a steep turn but alas upon opening my eyes we were S&L, several more disorientation examples of why you can't trust your internal gyros to orientate yourself followed. This disorientation technique was then coupled with an unusual attitude for me/student to rectify back to S&L.
Spatial disorientation practice - now you've heard of it!
Purposeful attempts to specifically induce spacial disorientation was never part of the exercise although spinning on limited panel `under the hood` was part of the military training syllabus and this certainly could cause disorientation
My next door neighbour now nearly 80, is a former RAF Canberra pilot. He learned to fly on Harvards. He told me instrument flying was done from the back seat with a cover over the complete cockpit so the student could not have a sneak look outside. I asked him did he have to close his eyes and put chin on chest?
He looked astonished and said what the hell for - I couldn't see outside. Spacial disorientation practice? He'd never heard of it...
Probably hadn't heard of it because he learnt to fly 60 years ago? CRM in those days meant Captains right mate! Times change!
When I was a younger cockney geezer undergoing elementary flying training, the instructor would get you to close your eyes and chin in chest. Next he would manouevre the aircraft in various ways and ask you what attitude the aircraft was in I would think (using my internal human body gyros) & then say we were in a steep turn but alas upon opening my eyes we were S&L, several more disorientation examples of why you can't trust your internal gyros to orientate yourself followed. This disorientation technique was then coupled with an unusual attitude for me/student to rectify back to S&L.
Spatial disorientation practice - now you've heard of it!
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as the criteria for being a pilot these days is being willing to pay for your type, do what your told, no matter, how immoral, and learn how to run an autopilot, we will have more and more loss of life.
