Young ATPL F.O. 200Hrs TT on right seat.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Young ATPL F.O. 200Hrs TT on right seat.....
Self explanatory....Not so much how he handles the situation, but rather how he hands over the controls to his captain in total disbelief, in 2 years time this FO could well become a captain....
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Europe, Planet Earth
Age: 55
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have had 200 hours F/O for decades. 23 years ago I was one of them, as hundreds of others joining the majors at the time all over Europe. No dramatic increase of accidents came out of that, AFAIK. IMO, it is not a matter of increasing the TT requirements to join, it is a matter of what you train and how you train it.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a start they wouldn't be an ATPL.
Secondly, it's all too easy to blame age/hours/experience.
I saw numerous screw-ups in my time as a LoCo skipper, and trust me, the majority were by Senior FO's!
Secondly, it's all too easy to blame age/hours/experience.
I saw numerous screw-ups in my time as a LoCo skipper, and trust me, the majority were by Senior FO's!
. Why the smiley face? Recovered this time!
UK investigators have reiterated the need to understand aircraft behaviour in various modes after the stall-protection system intervened on an EasyJet Airbus A320 during a visual approach to Paphos.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typical sensationalism from OP, every FO that makes a mistake has 200 hrs and this is the root of all evil...
From the AAIB report:
From the AAIB report:
The co-pilot had 2,800 hours of experience on Airbus A320 series aircraft
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, or the 777 in SFO or the near catastrophe involving a 737 in Bournemouth. There's also Sharm, Rostov, Douala, Kazan and Perm which probably wouldn't have happened in an Airbus. If anyone thinks because they're in a Boeing that they're some how superior or somehow safer should maybe consider hanging up their hat and seeking pastures new as eventually you'll kill someone with that attitude.
Although this example involves a particular airline, it has happened several times before. AF at TLV - again a visual approach gone wrong culminating in alpha floor. U2 are also one of the biggest A32S operators in the world, fly an awful lot of flights every day and have more than their fair share of challenging places so they will likely have more incidents, but on a per 1000 flight basis are extremely low.
Although this example involves a particular airline, it has happened several times before. AF at TLV - again a visual approach gone wrong culminating in alpha floor. U2 are also one of the biggest A32S operators in the world, fly an awful lot of flights every day and have more than their fair share of challenging places so they will likely have more incidents, but on a per 1000 flight basis are extremely low.
This is the classic Airbus trap that has historically not been understood nor trained to understanding on conversion courses etc. The Airbus autothrust needs logically to be in 'speed' mode when flying a visual approach. This is achieved by turning both flight directors off. The A380 automation has recognised this potential trap by incorporating only 1 f/d. I am disappointed that after 25 years of airbus fbw operation this is still not properly understood. If I am going to apportion 'blame' I would cite training departments.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had exactly this situation recently. PM's F/D remained on, with subsequent speed decay in THR IDLE. Notably it was also due to distraction from the radio. All it takes is one missed call. The error was trapped, however, by the PM, performing his primary task of monitoring, and thrust was increased as PF corrected under Airbus golden rules.
My point is that it only takes one small break down in communication or procedure for this situation to arise. For it to result in protection activation and approach to stall, however, requires a lack of FMA awareness, sufficient monitoring from the NHP, and aircraft control from the PF.
For reference, FO with 1600hrs Airbus.
My point is that it only takes one small break down in communication or procedure for this situation to arise. For it to result in protection activation and approach to stall, however, requires a lack of FMA awareness, sufficient monitoring from the NHP, and aircraft control from the PF.
For reference, FO with 1600hrs Airbus.
Everyone keeps talking about particular traps that various types have and how you need to be trained to be aware of them. I think this is missing the larger point. As far as I'm aware every aircraft type is still capable of being flown with one hand on the yoke and the other on the thrust levers controlling attitude and power/thrust manually. What these incidents seem to show is a failure of the pilot flying to be a pilot flying. There is something fundamentally wrong when a pilot can sit and realise the speed is low but not take full manual control and fix it. The traps shouldn't matter, if it's not doing what you want it to be doing, remove the automation and fix it. The protections shouldn't matter, if it's not doing what you want it to be doing, remove the automation and fix it. If you get to a point where protections either kick in and save the day or don't kick in because they're not available in that particular mode then you have already gone way past the point of royally screwing things up. You should have never ever allowed the situation to develop to that point.
They're just aeroplanes. They're just big Cessna 172s with some extra engines, a bit more weight, a bit faster, and crucially, various levels of automation designed to help YOU, the pilot, FLY THE AEROPLANE.
I had a discussion with someone recently after they flew a visual approach using automation in an aeroplane that doesn't have very good automation. It was done with a lack of finesse and we started out with a VS that was a bit higher than necessary and consequently we got low on profile. Because the automation is poor in this type and you can't select an exact VS or easily change it once you've got it, there's a tendency to wait and see how things pan out for a lot longer than you should. I told him afterwards that if he'd been hand flying the approach he would have naturally adjusted the attitude and speed to stay on profile but that he'd become a little trapped by the automation. He knew it wasn't doing what he wanted, he knew we were getting low on profile but it seemed that disconnecting the automation was like admitting defeat, when it should just be a natural response to a level of automation being inappropriate for the current task.
If ever it's not doing what you want it to be doing, then remove the automation and fly the bloody aeroplane yourself! The automation is there to help you, not the other way around, whenever there is a time that you can do a better job than the automatics, get rid of them.
They're just aeroplanes. They're just big Cessna 172s with some extra engines, a bit more weight, a bit faster, and crucially, various levels of automation designed to help YOU, the pilot, FLY THE AEROPLANE.
I had a discussion with someone recently after they flew a visual approach using automation in an aeroplane that doesn't have very good automation. It was done with a lack of finesse and we started out with a VS that was a bit higher than necessary and consequently we got low on profile. Because the automation is poor in this type and you can't select an exact VS or easily change it once you've got it, there's a tendency to wait and see how things pan out for a lot longer than you should. I told him afterwards that if he'd been hand flying the approach he would have naturally adjusted the attitude and speed to stay on profile but that he'd become a little trapped by the automation. He knew it wasn't doing what he wanted, he knew we were getting low on profile but it seemed that disconnecting the automation was like admitting defeat, when it should just be a natural response to a level of automation being inappropriate for the current task.
If ever it's not doing what you want it to be doing, then remove the automation and fly the bloody aeroplane yourself! The automation is there to help you, not the other way around, whenever there is a time that you can do a better job than the automatics, get rid of them.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
with all due respects, when the automatics are mishandled or go bollocks, I would not trust modern age pilots to handle any phase of flight manually.
Decades ago a/c had to be flown, experience was needed and average pilots were easy to spot, Today how can you sort out an inadequate pilot from an average one ? The training may have a bearing, but there are pilots who simply should not be sitting in a cockpit, they lack the basics and fear manual flying.
Fear which leads to panic, is the leprosy of aviation.
It is at the origin of so many accidents. Aviation has never been so safe thanks to computers, but does that justify loss of life due to mishandling of perfectly recoverable situations degenerating into disasters due to incompetence or lack of training of crews ?
This is a matter which will never be resolved, let's live with it...I fly the airlines twice a month, and wish nothing will ever go wrong, because if it does, it will be a lottery...
Decades ago a/c had to be flown, experience was needed and average pilots were easy to spot, Today how can you sort out an inadequate pilot from an average one ? The training may have a bearing, but there are pilots who simply should not be sitting in a cockpit, they lack the basics and fear manual flying.
Fear which leads to panic, is the leprosy of aviation.
It is at the origin of so many accidents. Aviation has never been so safe thanks to computers, but does that justify loss of life due to mishandling of perfectly recoverable situations degenerating into disasters due to incompetence or lack of training of crews ?
This is a matter which will never be resolved, let's live with it...I fly the airlines twice a month, and wish nothing will ever go wrong, because if it does, it will be a lottery...
No, they are not big Cessnas. The Airbus fbw family was designed to be operated by using the automation features for economic and efficiency reasons. The automation does come with 'traps' that have been misunderstood and / or poorly trained. If you are saying that Airbuses ( or Boeings!) can be flown in a similar fashion to a light aircraft - i.e. all automation, including A/T switched off for a e.g. visual approach, I agree. The reality is more complicated than the "it's just an airplane" brigade traditionalists would state. The situation in the incident under discussion is the classic, F/D not off, Open Descent and A/T on and a manually flown visual approach which leaves the A/T in 'IDLE'. This particular scenario caused a well documented crash in India with significant loss of life in the early days of the A320. It is essential that new converts to Airbus fbw types understand this in order to avoid these incidents. Manual flying: I am all for it for handling currency. However, is it 'halfway house' manual flying with A/T on or off? The operational and technical nuances need to be understood in order to fly an Airbus 'like a Cessna'. I still blame the training department because it is unacceptable that line pilots do not understand the automation features.
Cheers
Cheers
Last edited by olster; 16th Aug 2016 at 10:04. Reason: grammar!
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all about the training. If a person is well trained they can fly anything well and should be able to handle the unexpected. They don't need thousands of hours to achieve this. But if you try to cut corners by hiring and training inexperienced pilots and treating them like experienced pilots it doesn't end well.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sussex
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time for a title change I fear as the OP is likely to be 100% wrong...
Young ATPL F.O. - Speculative or is it known for fact?!? (it's not on the report)
200Hrs TT - Proved wrong
on right seat.... - Maybe the only correct thing in the title?
Young ATPL F.O. - Speculative or is it known for fact?!? (it's not on the report)
200Hrs TT - Proved wrong
on right seat.... - Maybe the only correct thing in the title?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not the number of hours that count. It is the quality of those hours that makes the difference. It is an unfortunate fact of modern aviation life that too many companies make flying without the automatics and/or visual approaches too onerous. As a result, too many pilots are ending up with 10 hours of experience, thousands of times over. Their flying repertoire is so small that the merest hiccup floors them (and the aircraft). The solution is not rocket science but it will take time.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Down south
Age: 69
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely right about young ATPL, 200 TT Golf Juliet papa,
But I may not be too far off, as after 2-3 years FO's become captains.....At least a few of them I know....No offense whatsoever, however I state a case which is often the norm in low cost airlines, given the rapid growth and shortage of pilots.
I know of students and instructors who should never had ended up in a cockpit of a commercial airliner, due to their lack of basic skills and fear of flying out of their restricted confort zone, though they are wizards at managing systems. I believe most, not all of them if they had invested in further training which in my view is the basis of profesionalism, they would have done much better, but for the big majority the minimum training to get the signature and stamp on the licence is the goal. Sad.
Likewise I know of some better students and instructors who failed the selections.
Go figure.
By the way I am an old chap, who got to fly and own the best aerobatic aircraft around, and had never had nothing to do with the airlines, so hold no grudge against nobody, It's just am not confident at current crews managing emergencies, should these ever happen, and I fly very very often with these airlines....
But I may not be too far off, as after 2-3 years FO's become captains.....At least a few of them I know....No offense whatsoever, however I state a case which is often the norm in low cost airlines, given the rapid growth and shortage of pilots.
I know of students and instructors who should never had ended up in a cockpit of a commercial airliner, due to their lack of basic skills and fear of flying out of their restricted confort zone, though they are wizards at managing systems. I believe most, not all of them if they had invested in further training which in my view is the basis of profesionalism, they would have done much better, but for the big majority the minimum training to get the signature and stamp on the licence is the goal. Sad.
Likewise I know of some better students and instructors who failed the selections.
Go figure.
By the way I am an old chap, who got to fly and own the best aerobatic aircraft around, and had never had nothing to do with the airlines, so hold no grudge against nobody, It's just am not confident at current crews managing emergencies, should these ever happen, and I fly very very often with these airlines....
Last edited by markkal; 16th Aug 2016 at 11:49.