737 pitch attitude on final
Moderator
4Dogs,
As has been the case so often in the past, I think that we generally are in heated agreement.
Certainly, I don't advocate the seat/role swapping other than during the skills acquisition phases of endorsment training for the reasons you list. In the ideal world the training would always be done with an appropriate crew complement especially once one gets to the LOFT components of the program.
However, in the case of same status crew composition, the fact of the matter is that the guy in the "wrong" seat has to be able to perform in that seat's role to a level sufficient not to disadvantage the colleague in the other seat. I am of the view that that entails being able to role play effectively.
In the case of captain/captain, especially on initial upgrades combined with a new Type, the new captain has to have a pretty good knowledge of what his F/O is supposed to be doing if he is to exercise an appropriate level of supervision on the line and, at the end of the day, be able to look after his own interests .. recalling that, at the enquiry, the captain gets shot with a heavy calibre round, while the F/O takes the .22
Except for strict skills exercise repetition, it has been my observation that undue use of reposition is distracting for many pilots, myself included. While the instructor workload increases, I have always found it very satisfying and productive to adopt the flight test philosophy of minimising unproductive time and, for instance, structure tracking and altitude requirements so that one exercise can lead directly into the next with a sensible work flow for the crew and, when it works out nicely, there is very little routine need for freeze and reposition unless the instructor misjudges the gameplan and the crew becomes overloaded.
As has been the case so often in the past, I think that we generally are in heated agreement.
Certainly, I don't advocate the seat/role swapping other than during the skills acquisition phases of endorsment training for the reasons you list. In the ideal world the training would always be done with an appropriate crew complement especially once one gets to the LOFT components of the program.
However, in the case of same status crew composition, the fact of the matter is that the guy in the "wrong" seat has to be able to perform in that seat's role to a level sufficient not to disadvantage the colleague in the other seat. I am of the view that that entails being able to role play effectively.
In the case of captain/captain, especially on initial upgrades combined with a new Type, the new captain has to have a pretty good knowledge of what his F/O is supposed to be doing if he is to exercise an appropriate level of supervision on the line and, at the end of the day, be able to look after his own interests .. recalling that, at the enquiry, the captain gets shot with a heavy calibre round, while the F/O takes the .22
Except for strict skills exercise repetition, it has been my observation that undue use of reposition is distracting for many pilots, myself included. While the instructor workload increases, I have always found it very satisfying and productive to adopt the flight test philosophy of minimising unproductive time and, for instance, structure tracking and altitude requirements so that one exercise can lead directly into the next with a sensible work flow for the crew and, when it works out nicely, there is very little routine need for freeze and reposition unless the instructor misjudges the gameplan and the crew becomes overloaded.
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I see what alf5071h is driving at and I agree.
Looking closely at the information provided for flight with unreliable instruments indicates ball park figures are exactly that albeit a very handy lifeline to offer in the sim.
Could it be that the habit of sim instructors to load to a single convenient weight gives PWR + ATT =perf an undue simplicity in jet transport operations?
I liken this environmental capture, if you aren't offended by the term, to 75/76 sim instructors advancing the ease of elegant tracking on approach by placing the white line over the magenta. It only works in sims because they are frozen in all perpetuity regarding mag variation mapping. Sadly the magnetic pole continues to move for the rest of us mortals.
I'm in the sim every day - it works great in the sim - therefore it must work in real life. Sure, get them comfy and with something to grasp onto but get speed control rapidly into the loop and please, please start significantly varying the weights to re enforce this.
Come on folks, haven't we all been there? 'Standard fuel, trim is five on the wheel, the engines are running and I'm putting you at the end of the runway.'
Yep, a huge number of you are now running details from a printed 'scenario' but it seems pressure to get that beast up on the jacks leads to some, err, simplifying.
Regards
Rob
PS If this isn't anything resembling what alf5071h was trying to suggest please ignore everything after, 'I think.'
Looking closely at the information provided for flight with unreliable instruments indicates ball park figures are exactly that albeit a very handy lifeline to offer in the sim.
Could it be that the habit of sim instructors to load to a single convenient weight gives PWR + ATT =perf an undue simplicity in jet transport operations?
I liken this environmental capture, if you aren't offended by the term, to 75/76 sim instructors advancing the ease of elegant tracking on approach by placing the white line over the magenta. It only works in sims because they are frozen in all perpetuity regarding mag variation mapping. Sadly the magnetic pole continues to move for the rest of us mortals.
I'm in the sim every day - it works great in the sim - therefore it must work in real life. Sure, get them comfy and with something to grasp onto but get speed control rapidly into the loop and please, please start significantly varying the weights to re enforce this.
Come on folks, haven't we all been there? 'Standard fuel, trim is five on the wheel, the engines are running and I'm putting you at the end of the runway.'
Yep, a huge number of you are now running details from a printed 'scenario' but it seems pressure to get that beast up on the jacks leads to some, err, simplifying.
Regards
Rob
PS If this isn't anything resembling what alf5071h was trying to suggest please ignore everything after, 'I think.'
Last edited by PPRuNe Towers; 30th Jan 2004 at 02:37.
JT we are using the same hymn sheet (how to fly an aircraft), but I was wondering whether crews now-days use attitude as the control parameter instead of airspeed. Attitude is a good stabilizing (damping) parameter with good feed back (response) to control input, but the input was made to effect a change in the primary control parameter – speed, altitude, etc. This is not to question the basics of aerodynamics, debate stick vs throttle, or discuss speed on elevator or speed on thrust; it’s just to observe that the techniques used in modern aircraft appear to have changed from those used in less sophisticated types.
However I would be concerned if the apparent reduced speed awareness became be a problem on EFIS speed tape equipped aircraft when the FD / AT are off; then the attitude airspeed loop is vital with conscious effort required to relate the direction of pitch change vs speed change (rabbit hole, not for debate). Try a night take off with engine failure at rotate without FD and AT in the sim, use non standard weights, then reconsider the Ops requirements for the MEL !
4dogs I trust I have not miss understood your point, but PWR + ATT = PERF is only correct for a given speed; thus you first require the correct speed to achieve the performance. Thus PWR + ATT = PERF a not sound measure of speed awareness, you have to look at the ASI for that; remember the days when flight was visual using attitude for stability (airspeed a second order effect of attitude) and you had to look inside to check speed? That’s speed awareness.
Many light twin aircraft accidents, following engine failure, occurred because the crew flew a fixed attitude (as taught in some countries) without reference to airspeed.
Taking this thread, IMHO, beyond the overemphasis of attitude due to human laziness and ease of flying new aircraft (a simplification of PPRuNe’s points), has the industry also forgotten the basic instrument scan? Pilots were probably taught a ‘radial’ or sequential scan of the instruments; has this been adapted with the introduction of FDs and vector displays to become an over focus on a ‘primary’ parameter. What has this change done to the instrument scan during fully automatic flight? Obviously the needs of an ‘autos’ scan differs from that when flying on raw instruments; but who changes their scan pattern when on autos, and if so what is it?
However I would be concerned if the apparent reduced speed awareness became be a problem on EFIS speed tape equipped aircraft when the FD / AT are off; then the attitude airspeed loop is vital with conscious effort required to relate the direction of pitch change vs speed change (rabbit hole, not for debate). Try a night take off with engine failure at rotate without FD and AT in the sim, use non standard weights, then reconsider the Ops requirements for the MEL !
4dogs I trust I have not miss understood your point, but PWR + ATT = PERF is only correct for a given speed; thus you first require the correct speed to achieve the performance. Thus PWR + ATT = PERF a not sound measure of speed awareness, you have to look at the ASI for that; remember the days when flight was visual using attitude for stability (airspeed a second order effect of attitude) and you had to look inside to check speed? That’s speed awareness.
Many light twin aircraft accidents, following engine failure, occurred because the crew flew a fixed attitude (as taught in some countries) without reference to airspeed.
Taking this thread, IMHO, beyond the overemphasis of attitude due to human laziness and ease of flying new aircraft (a simplification of PPRuNe’s points), has the industry also forgotten the basic instrument scan? Pilots were probably taught a ‘radial’ or sequential scan of the instruments; has this been adapted with the introduction of FDs and vector displays to become an over focus on a ‘primary’ parameter. What has this change done to the instrument scan during fully automatic flight? Obviously the needs of an ‘autos’ scan differs from that when flying on raw instruments; but who changes their scan pattern when on autos, and if so what is it?
Moderator
.. doesn't it come down to using ALL the various bits of information to come up with a big picture ? .. and then play with the beast as necessary to achieve the aim ?
Basic scan is critical and at risk as the cockpit presentation simplifies ... hence the need for intensive I/F work in the endorsement phase .. as, in many cases, this is the only time where there can be made time to do it ... ?
There may be a variety of personal preference and emphasis ... however, if the basics are well grounded, then the result is going to be similar.
As for me, if I didn't fly the ball principally, then just the airspeed didn't work anywhere near as well ..
Apart from the sometimes quite different panel presentation .. does there need to be a fundamental difference in scan pattern ? .. restricting my comments to the aircraft with which I have a familiarity, it always appeared that the pilot who looked through the F/D, eg, to the ball information beyond, flew far smoother than the automatics slave.
As is often said ... each of the gadgets gives a bit of the puzzle's answer, albeit that we might emphasis this or that gadget's information a little at different phases of flight ...
Basic scan is critical and at risk as the cockpit presentation simplifies ... hence the need for intensive I/F work in the endorsement phase .. as, in many cases, this is the only time where there can be made time to do it ... ?
There may be a variety of personal preference and emphasis ... however, if the basics are well grounded, then the result is going to be similar.
As for me, if I didn't fly the ball principally, then just the airspeed didn't work anywhere near as well ..
Apart from the sometimes quite different panel presentation .. does there need to be a fundamental difference in scan pattern ? .. restricting my comments to the aircraft with which I have a familiarity, it always appeared that the pilot who looked through the F/D, eg, to the ball information beyond, flew far smoother than the automatics slave.
As is often said ... each of the gadgets gives a bit of the puzzle's answer, albeit that we might emphasis this or that gadget's information a little at different phases of flight ...
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: netherlands
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never thought that my question would result in this healthy discussion.
To stay current in a particular skill you will need to practice it until you retire. I keep track of the way I fly (auto/manual/autoland) approaches in my logbook. For me it is a way to stay away from doing the same routine everyday and forgetting the other. Complacency kills, and in current operations it is very easy to get complacent.
Thanks for all your reactions.
To stay current in a particular skill you will need to practice it until you retire. I keep track of the way I fly (auto/manual/autoland) approaches in my logbook. For me it is a way to stay away from doing the same routine everyday and forgetting the other. Complacency kills, and in current operations it is very easy to get complacent.
Thanks for all your reactions.
Moderator
... applies to all professions .. I can recall querying my AMO (whom I knew quite well) during a licence medical as to why he bothered pummelling my body when he knew that there was no problem ... to which he replied in like vein ... " if I don't keep the practice up .. I lose the skill "
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do Instructors seek for the instinctive flying capabilities of the student, in a case of no instruments available, or just expect the student to follow a pre-programmed guideline to achieve the main goal of getting back safely?
The point of this naive question is to know how instructors deal with different types of "brain power" from the students, as they move trough the exercises, to the expected level of expertise.
One of the sim exercise example presented on this thread put one poor soul whith a dark cockpit even darker just after v1, as I recall, and at that particular point in time the guy at the wheel has to "squeeze" the brain for the info needed just to fly the damned thing; Do Instructors have a somehow "standard" aproach, a magic mnemonic, for everybody to deal with those situations ? or do they let the emotional intelligence of the student solve the problem on a "trained/tamed" instint basis?
Best regards
GDL
The point of this naive question is to know how instructors deal with different types of "brain power" from the students, as they move trough the exercises, to the expected level of expertise.
One of the sim exercise example presented on this thread put one poor soul whith a dark cockpit even darker just after v1, as I recall, and at that particular point in time the guy at the wheel has to "squeeze" the brain for the info needed just to fly the damned thing; Do Instructors have a somehow "standard" aproach, a magic mnemonic, for everybody to deal with those situations ? or do they let the emotional intelligence of the student solve the problem on a "trained/tamed" instint basis?
Best regards
GDL
Moderator
Except, perhaps, for those infrequently encountered gifted souls who seem to have been born with a joystick in hand (I have encountered just two such pilots .. and don't they make mere mortals such as me envious) .. the majority of us have to work hard at acquiring and maintaining skills ..
I don't think that instinct has much of a role to play. For such as us, the aim is to move as much workload as is reasonable to the automatic cognitive level so that what little brainpower is left is maximised and available for thinking on the run .. hence the usefulness of simulator repetition skills exercises.
The sorts of exercises to which you refer are just that . .. and are intended to
(a) build skills .. both manipulative and planning
(b) expose the student to a bit of workload extension (and the majority relish this opportunity to test themselves a bit in a non-threatening cockpit environment)
(c) build confidence in the student's ability to handle high workload and unusual situations.
When it all turns to custard we are not looking for elegance (except from the aforementioned gifted pilots) .. rather a workmanlike and repeatable way of recovering from the situation.
Generally
(a) there are no magic formulae (although we all develop codified sets of "rules of thumb" to help us get by),
(b) we look for some understanding of what is going on
(c) there should be an emphasis on a healthy dose of risk management and mitigation to maximise the chances of a satisfactory recovery.
Often there are several ways to recover from a given situation .. the aim is not necessarily to demonstrate incredible prowess .. rather a "sensible" approach to managing and recovering from the problem. Sometimes a particular strategy fails, giving the student the opportunity to analyse what was planned against what was achieved with a view to obtaining a better result on the next try.
A good example of this is in the typical standby power emergency sometime after takeoff. Provided that the instructor doesn't give in to expediency and freeze and reposition for a practice approach ... but lets the student run with the problem, the student gets a close look at the quite significant difficulties associated with time management in the AC fail situation under non-visual conditions.
Your point about brain power (spare cognitive capability) is very important and the instructor bears a high responsibility not to overload the student to more than what he/she can reasonably handle. This may mean that the performance level in extension exercises has to be reduced, or the student given more time, etc. .. I suggest that this is an area where one glove does not fit all ....
I neglected to respond to one of Rob's comments in his earlier post ... the use of "standard" weight/cg operations in the sim is a bit silly, I suggest, and denies the student one of the sim's great values in exploring various areas of the operating envelope. While acknowledging that a sim is not an aircraft and the validity/fidelity question needs to be considered throughout, there is much benefit to be had in exposing the student to the range of weights from MTOW/max forward to minimum weight/max aft.
I don't think that instinct has much of a role to play. For such as us, the aim is to move as much workload as is reasonable to the automatic cognitive level so that what little brainpower is left is maximised and available for thinking on the run .. hence the usefulness of simulator repetition skills exercises.
The sorts of exercises to which you refer are just that . .. and are intended to
(a) build skills .. both manipulative and planning
(b) expose the student to a bit of workload extension (and the majority relish this opportunity to test themselves a bit in a non-threatening cockpit environment)
(c) build confidence in the student's ability to handle high workload and unusual situations.
When it all turns to custard we are not looking for elegance (except from the aforementioned gifted pilots) .. rather a workmanlike and repeatable way of recovering from the situation.
Generally
(a) there are no magic formulae (although we all develop codified sets of "rules of thumb" to help us get by),
(b) we look for some understanding of what is going on
(c) there should be an emphasis on a healthy dose of risk management and mitigation to maximise the chances of a satisfactory recovery.
Often there are several ways to recover from a given situation .. the aim is not necessarily to demonstrate incredible prowess .. rather a "sensible" approach to managing and recovering from the problem. Sometimes a particular strategy fails, giving the student the opportunity to analyse what was planned against what was achieved with a view to obtaining a better result on the next try.
A good example of this is in the typical standby power emergency sometime after takeoff. Provided that the instructor doesn't give in to expediency and freeze and reposition for a practice approach ... but lets the student run with the problem, the student gets a close look at the quite significant difficulties associated with time management in the AC fail situation under non-visual conditions.
Your point about brain power (spare cognitive capability) is very important and the instructor bears a high responsibility not to overload the student to more than what he/she can reasonably handle. This may mean that the performance level in extension exercises has to be reduced, or the student given more time, etc. .. I suggest that this is an area where one glove does not fit all ....
I neglected to respond to one of Rob's comments in his earlier post ... the use of "standard" weight/cg operations in the sim is a bit silly, I suggest, and denies the student one of the sim's great values in exploring various areas of the operating envelope. While acknowledging that a sim is not an aircraft and the validity/fidelity question needs to be considered throughout, there is much benefit to be had in exposing the student to the range of weights from MTOW/max forward to minimum weight/max aft.
Last edited by john_tullamarine; 2nd Feb 2004 at 08:30.
