1st/2nd Segment Obstacle Correction Factor
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great Performance Thread
Wow, I haven't been able to post for a while,but this is one of the coolest threads I've seen in a long time...But it does raise some curiosities.
Old Smokey or John Tullamarine:
Could this type of correction for RWY slope be applied under the FARs, or would that be way too limiting ?... It sounds like a 'polar equivalent' of 'Linear regression analysis' dA1/dV2=0?
Also, is there a neat way to include tailwinds in the above method or is that just too limiting with the above technique? and is another method more suitable, and if so what is it?...if you don't mind my asking?
Lastly, for us lay folk-like me- i'm real curious about some of the stuff you Guys mentioned i.e 'H3', 'Sledge hammer'?... Way too technical for me to get my head around the geometry
I think FAR 25 also has the 50% rule for AEO TO??
Anyways this is a great discussion,I appreciate EX Douglass Driver for posting this
Old Smokey or John Tullamarine:
Could this type of correction for RWY slope be applied under the FARs, or would that be way too limiting ?... It sounds like a 'polar equivalent' of 'Linear regression analysis' dA1/dV2=0?
Also, is there a neat way to include tailwinds in the above method or is that just too limiting with the above technique? and is another method more suitable, and if so what is it?...if you don't mind my asking?
Lastly, for us lay folk-like me- i'm real curious about some of the stuff you Guys mentioned i.e 'H3', 'Sledge hammer'?... Way too technical for me to get my head around the geometry
I think FAR 25 also has the 50% rule for AEO TO??
Anyways this is a great discussion,I appreciate EX Douglass Driver for posting this
Moderator
rhovsquared,
.. one of the coolest threads ..
mmm .. I've always thought of FT and performance work as "technically and operationally interesting" .. I guess that equates to "cool" in young-folk-speak.
.. be applied under the FARs ..
No reason why not .. one just has to make sure that the basic rules applying to the particular takeoff (trapezoid, etc) are addressed. Not in any way a polar, regression, or differential expression .. just simple grass roots geometry/trigonometry .. normally about 14-15 year old high school level.
.. include tailwinds...
No reason not to include tailwinds provided that one is sensible .. considerations of local knowledge regarding wind profiles, etc. The normal 50/150 requirement provides a pad for wind components, regardless of whether we are talking head or tail.
OS prefers to leave tailwinds out and that is his reasonable decision .. I have no problem with tailwinds but would include suitable pilot training to make sure that the folk have a good handle on the problems and use tailwinds as an exception rather than a rule ...
So far as other simple methods are concerned, some have been addressed earlier in the thread .. including
(a) make sure that D1 lies within the available TODA
(b) make sure that G1 is not less than TODA/STODA
After that, it gets a bit more complicated ...
Terms (and apologies for not defining these before .. we get a bit slack at times, I'm afraid ...)
D1 = first segment distance
G1 = first segment gradient
D2 = second etc
G2 = second etc
H3 = third segment acceleration height. The significance of this is that it is a net height which is very much lower than the gross height used by the pilot. The net height is the basis for obstacle clearance and it is VERY easy to get caught out with this one using obstacle clear surfaces for an analysis ...
The reference to sledgehammer (in respect to (a) and (b), above) doesn't infer anything technical .. rather that the techniques are addressing the problem at hand in a manner which is rather conservative and unsophisticated ... but very quick and easy for line use. Apologies, just me being a bit Ocker, I guess, in my terminology.
... FAR 25 also has the 50% rule ..
The reference is to the takeoff run required. This is one of the cases one has to calculate as part of working out the max takeoff weight for the day.
TORR is the takeoff GROUND distance plus a proportion of the flare distance from liftoff to the 35 ft screen height. The old UK BCAR rules required the first third of the flare distance to be over the declared TORA while the US (and, I presume, the EASA) requirements are a bit more conservative and require the first half of the flare distance to be over the declared TORA.
The basic aim of the TORR is to make sure that the aircraft actually does get airborne prior to the end of the runway hard surface ... it could be a tad embarrassing to have the aircraft go into the soft dirt beyond the runway head and roll itself into a flaming, smoking ball ...
OS,
Thanks for your elucidation .. and we still have to catch up for that beer o'clock appointment ....
.. one of the coolest threads ..
mmm .. I've always thought of FT and performance work as "technically and operationally interesting" .. I guess that equates to "cool" in young-folk-speak.
.. be applied under the FARs ..
No reason why not .. one just has to make sure that the basic rules applying to the particular takeoff (trapezoid, etc) are addressed. Not in any way a polar, regression, or differential expression .. just simple grass roots geometry/trigonometry .. normally about 14-15 year old high school level.
.. include tailwinds...
No reason not to include tailwinds provided that one is sensible .. considerations of local knowledge regarding wind profiles, etc. The normal 50/150 requirement provides a pad for wind components, regardless of whether we are talking head or tail.
OS prefers to leave tailwinds out and that is his reasonable decision .. I have no problem with tailwinds but would include suitable pilot training to make sure that the folk have a good handle on the problems and use tailwinds as an exception rather than a rule ...
So far as other simple methods are concerned, some have been addressed earlier in the thread .. including
(a) make sure that D1 lies within the available TODA
(b) make sure that G1 is not less than TODA/STODA
After that, it gets a bit more complicated ...
Terms (and apologies for not defining these before .. we get a bit slack at times, I'm afraid ...)
D1 = first segment distance
G1 = first segment gradient
D2 = second etc
G2 = second etc
H3 = third segment acceleration height. The significance of this is that it is a net height which is very much lower than the gross height used by the pilot. The net height is the basis for obstacle clearance and it is VERY easy to get caught out with this one using obstacle clear surfaces for an analysis ...
The reference to sledgehammer (in respect to (a) and (b), above) doesn't infer anything technical .. rather that the techniques are addressing the problem at hand in a manner which is rather conservative and unsophisticated ... but very quick and easy for line use. Apologies, just me being a bit Ocker, I guess, in my terminology.
... FAR 25 also has the 50% rule ..
The reference is to the takeoff run required. This is one of the cases one has to calculate as part of working out the max takeoff weight for the day.
TORR is the takeoff GROUND distance plus a proportion of the flare distance from liftoff to the 35 ft screen height. The old UK BCAR rules required the first third of the flare distance to be over the declared TORA while the US (and, I presume, the EASA) requirements are a bit more conservative and require the first half of the flare distance to be over the declared TORA.
The basic aim of the TORR is to make sure that the aircraft actually does get airborne prior to the end of the runway hard surface ... it could be a tad embarrassing to have the aircraft go into the soft dirt beyond the runway head and roll itself into a flaming, smoking ball ...
OS,
Thanks for your elucidation .. and we still have to catch up for that beer o'clock appointment ....
IAS
Great thread but I have to throw a spanner in the works, All Perf data based on IAS (V1,Vr,V2) which can spike up and down and does not represent the aircraft's true kinetic energy v runway length to stop in/obstacles then to be cleared if you go. Should we not really have data based on G/S and weight v runway details and brake capabilities? Think about it, its much more logical than saying your life depends on pitot pressure at the moment the engine fails.
Moderator
.. IAS ... does not represent the aircraft's true kinetic energy ..
Not so .. Hp, OAT, and wind are in the analyses. While the pilot might be predicating his activities on IAS, the complete sums are done in the background ... which gives you groundspeed etc and real numbers based on the data for the day.
The main concerns are
(a) variation in pilot techniques from those specified in the POH/AFM
(b) runway friction/slope characteristics
(c) accuracy of obstacle data.
FT data is based on smooth conditions ... ASI fluctuations is a problem for the guy in the field (but, in general, is not a significant concern)
Not so .. Hp, OAT, and wind are in the analyses. While the pilot might be predicating his activities on IAS, the complete sums are done in the background ... which gives you groundspeed etc and real numbers based on the data for the day.
The main concerns are
(a) variation in pilot techniques from those specified in the POH/AFM
(b) runway friction/slope characteristics
(c) accuracy of obstacle data.
FT data is based on smooth conditions ... ASI fluctuations is a problem for the guy in the field (but, in general, is not a significant concern)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J_T, OS prefers to leave tailwinds out and that is his reasonable decision - Arrrrgh!!! (Did that sound like a cry of pain?)
Actually, because resort to RDS data is of short term use when the RTOW is invalidated -
(1) Headwind is ignored in the table as it provides both D1 and G1 bonus, and
(2) Tailwind Takeoff is prohibited (because D1 is lengthened and G1 is reduced), and the opposite direction (into wind) data must be used.
That will remain the policy until we have runways significantly better even with a Down-wind than opposite direction with a Head-wind (which we do not have). If that day arrives, I'll have to produce a second table for the worst Down-wind case.
rhovsquared, Could this type of correction for RWY slope be applied under the FARs ? - Basically NO. The discussion here is centred around the Australian situation, where the Regulatory Authority provide obstacle data in the form of a series of Obstacle Clear Gradients from certain points on the runway. It is in the public domain, and available through NOTAMs. It's a good system, but does not provide discrete obstacle data, thus, the 1st Segment requires a few gymnastics. It's still light years ahead of other Regulatory Authoritys who couldn't give a damn about publishing runway obstacle data in the public domain.
FAR 25 is actually very close to it's Australian equivalent, CAO 20.7.1B, but I think that most of the points discussed here won't have much relevance even to a FAR 25 aircraft operated outside the Australian environment. The guy to whom I answer at CASA (the Regulatory Authority) likes JAR 25 (so do I), so my work ends up being one giant FAR/JAR/CAO fruit salad to keep him happy.
Beer o'clock approacheth J_T, but the powers of darkness, otherwise known as crew scheduling, seem to have an aversion to my flying to the land of wonder, Dunnunda!
Regards,
Old Smokey
Actually, because resort to RDS data is of short term use when the RTOW is invalidated -
(1) Headwind is ignored in the table as it provides both D1 and G1 bonus, and
(2) Tailwind Takeoff is prohibited (because D1 is lengthened and G1 is reduced), and the opposite direction (into wind) data must be used.
That will remain the policy until we have runways significantly better even with a Down-wind than opposite direction with a Head-wind (which we do not have). If that day arrives, I'll have to produce a second table for the worst Down-wind case.
rhovsquared, Could this type of correction for RWY slope be applied under the FARs ? - Basically NO. The discussion here is centred around the Australian situation, where the Regulatory Authority provide obstacle data in the form of a series of Obstacle Clear Gradients from certain points on the runway. It is in the public domain, and available through NOTAMs. It's a good system, but does not provide discrete obstacle data, thus, the 1st Segment requires a few gymnastics. It's still light years ahead of other Regulatory Authoritys who couldn't give a damn about publishing runway obstacle data in the public domain.
FAR 25 is actually very close to it's Australian equivalent, CAO 20.7.1B, but I think that most of the points discussed here won't have much relevance even to a FAR 25 aircraft operated outside the Australian environment. The guy to whom I answer at CASA (the Regulatory Authority) likes JAR 25 (so do I), so my work ends up being one giant FAR/JAR/CAO fruit salad to keep him happy.
Beer o'clock approacheth J_T, but the powers of darkness, otherwise known as crew scheduling, seem to have an aversion to my flying to the land of wonder, Dunnunda!
Regards,
Old Smokey
Moderator
.. that appears like we are in general agreement on philosophy .. however, we probably need to argue the wind thing over a beer or ten ... as we will need to do in regard to FAR 25 and CAO 20.7.1B .. unfortunately one of the longstanding Australian Regulatory failings has been inadequate complementary regulatory processes of design standard and operating standard .. it is my view that the US does it far better. Now, if the FAA and EASA could just get their collective acts together ...
I am a tad confused at your comment re FAR .. obviously, if the basic data is not slope, the technique is irrelevant .. but it must surely be applicable for any slope-based data situation ...
While I hold most of the CASA folk in good esteem .. it is necessary to keep in mind that the number of folk with any serious performance background one numbers on the fingers of one hand, I suggest .. however, I would opine that there is naught the matter with fruit salads ..
I am a tad confused at your comment re FAR .. obviously, if the basic data is not slope, the technique is irrelevant .. but it must surely be applicable for any slope-based data situation ...
While I hold most of the CASA folk in good esteem .. it is necessary to keep in mind that the number of folk with any serious performance background one numbers on the fingers of one hand, I suggest .. however, I would opine that there is naught the matter with fruit salads ..
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't sleep either J_T?
Slope based Data - Generally only available (to my knowledge) within the Australian system. There's sure to be other countries supplying it, but I'm not aware of who they may be. It's all discrete obstacle data in the other countries within which I've done work.
Therein lies my generalisation that the TODA/STOD correction methods discussed here might not have much applicability outside the Australian system, even for a FAR 25 aircraft.
Regards,
Old Smokey
Slope based Data - Generally only available (to my knowledge) within the Australian system. There's sure to be other countries supplying it, but I'm not aware of who they may be. It's all discrete obstacle data in the other countries within which I've done work.
Therein lies my generalisation that the TODA/STOD correction methods discussed here might not have much applicability outside the Australian system, even for a FAR 25 aircraft.
Regards,
Old Smokey
Moderator
Sleep ? ... two poodle bitches on heat at the moment so the boys have to be kept at bay ... fortunately they all settle down once we head off to bed.
Total agreement on the practical implementation ..
Total agreement on the practical implementation ..
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Tullamarine and Old smokey:
What elegant techniques...shame not to good for the FARS
I posted actually before seeing the other techniques, but at least with J_T's
definitions the geometry is more clear to me.
as far as the math, ahhh I see now-But I try to sneak The Calculus into every matter, even where it's not wanted
Old Smokey- what a shame about that Obstacle Data...I really wouldn't mind a heartier 'salad' speaking as a Pax now
thankyou both for sharing your knowledge
rhov
What elegant techniques...shame not to good for the FARS
I posted actually before seeing the other techniques, but at least with J_T's
definitions the geometry is more clear to me.
as far as the math, ahhh I see now-But I try to sneak The Calculus into every matter, even where it's not wanted
Old Smokey- what a shame about that Obstacle Data...I really wouldn't mind a heartier 'salad' speaking as a Pax now
thankyou both for sharing your knowledge
rhov
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
john_tullamarine, - two poodle bitches on heat at the moment so the boys have to be kept at bay
Are we leading parallel lives? Same problem, same genre of dog. I've been considering purchasing some back issues of "Footrot Flats" to plagiarise Wal's plans for building a Bitch Box
fortunately they all settle down once we head off to bed - Boy!, those dogs of yours sure have you fooled! When de sun goes down....let de action commence!
Regards,
Old Smokey
Are we leading parallel lives? Same problem, same genre of dog. I've been considering purchasing some back issues of "Footrot Flats" to plagiarise Wal's plans for building a Bitch Box
fortunately they all settle down once we head off to bed - Boy!, those dogs of yours sure have you fooled! When de sun goes down....let de action commence!
Regards,
Old Smokey
Moderator
.. ah .. but we have a couple of COTS wire boxes (about the right size for a small Shetland pony) .. either the boys (or the bitch(es) on heat) get(s) tucked away so that the mice can't play if we are not there to mount picket .... and the silver girl is right into "Well, hello there, sailor" week at the moment .. the black girl, who fancies herself as matriarch .. doesn't like the attention going to the silver one little bit at all ..
Love FF (pity I never made the time to slip down to the local coast when I was at AKL and check out the area) ... actually, since getting tangled up with poodles .. I am convinced that they were the model for Gary Larsen's dogs in The Far Side ..
Absolutely rotten rule-the-roost little sods of dogs but extremely affectionate .. one wouldn't want poodles if one did not appreciate lots of kisses and cuddles .. and, as for waking up in the morning to a wet nose 2.463 mm in front of the eyes .. two silver, two black at this end ..
Lovely animals ...
Love FF (pity I never made the time to slip down to the local coast when I was at AKL and check out the area) ... actually, since getting tangled up with poodles .. I am convinced that they were the model for Gary Larsen's dogs in The Far Side ..
Absolutely rotten rule-the-roost little sods of dogs but extremely affectionate .. one wouldn't want poodles if one did not appreciate lots of kisses and cuddles .. and, as for waking up in the morning to a wet nose 2.463 mm in front of the eyes .. two silver, two black at this end ..
Lovely animals ...
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lovely animals indeed J_T, but a word to the wise..........
Beware strange mutts around those lovely girls of yours!
Sorry mutt, couldn't resist, when opportunity knocks............
Regards,
Old Smokey
Beware strange mutts around those lovely girls of yours!
Sorry mutt, couldn't resist, when opportunity knocks............
Regards,
Old Smokey
Is there so little to do during an engine failure at rotation, or when the plane first leaves the ground, that much of this knowledge actually helps the pilot fly the plane as required?
Please don't misunderstand my questions.
Never mind a higher than normal engine failure clean-up altitude or the quick left turn needed above runway 36 at DCA (Washington, D.C.).
Why can't the "authorities" in those foregn lands leave the runway/clearway/ and (plus met. theory) engineering up to the designers-and allow pilots to just learn what they need to understand aircraft systems, procedures, how air traffic works and procedures for a given airplane type, learn to coordinate, keep track of what they should do, in order to safely FLY the plane? Isn't there enough to keep new, or even more experienced pilots busy?
Why must the basic ratings resemble theoretical university courses?
It takes little to baffle me (just an unwashed 'colonial' who is not among the best, but has flown multi-turbine fixed-wing since '79), as usual.
Please don't misunderstand my questions.
Never mind a higher than normal engine failure clean-up altitude or the quick left turn needed above runway 36 at DCA (Washington, D.C.).
Why can't the "authorities" in those foregn lands leave the runway/clearway/ and (plus met. theory) engineering up to the designers-and allow pilots to just learn what they need to understand aircraft systems, procedures, how air traffic works and procedures for a given airplane type, learn to coordinate, keep track of what they should do, in order to safely FLY the plane? Isn't there enough to keep new, or even more experienced pilots busy?
Why must the basic ratings resemble theoretical university courses?
It takes little to baffle me (just an unwashed 'colonial' who is not among the best, but has flown multi-turbine fixed-wing since '79), as usual.
Moderator
Ignition Override ..
Peace, brother ...
Is there so little to do .. that much of this knowledge actually helps the pilot
Does a pilot need to know the detail of the stuff being tossed about in this thread ? .. of course not.
Ought a pilot have an appreciation of the basic concern ? .. absolutely.
Where does it help ? .. in an appreciation of the potentially high hazard areas of the early takeoff from the viewpoint of obstacles and calculations intended to match the aeroplane's capabilities to the physical requirements of the day.
Why can't the "authorities" ... leave the runway/clearway/ and .. engineering up to the designers ..
The specialist airports engineering folk design the runway environs .. but they generally have only a limited understanding of the stick and rudder problems.. in the same way that we on the other side of the table have only a limited understanding of the airport design bits and pieces (and I have spent more than a few years working shoulder to shoulder with some topflight airports people).
Either the pilot or the operator has to attend to the matching of aeroplane to environment (configuration, weight, and procedure). For heavy iron (for which the present discussion is relevant) that is best left to the ops engineers (or those pilots who have the interest to acquire the skills involved).
The line pilot's role ideally is
(a) to have a sound basic understanding of the requirements and the risks as well as the background philosophy to a particular procedure's design
(b) to know which bits of the procedure are more critical than others and operate his/her aeroplane in a fashion appropriate to the procedure's requirements
(c) not to fall into the trap of "winging it" .. for which the understanding suggested above is/should be persuasive
.. and allow pilots to just learn what they need to understand ..
Unfortunately, the pilot of large aircraft has to acquire a very broad range of knowledge/skills at competence levels which might vary with Type and operation but must be appropriate to the task .. and this skill set includes at least the basics of operational performance.
To say otherwise is analogous to knowing how to takeoff and land in only light wind conditions .. today, I was part of a review group which discussed just such a circumstance .. involving an experienced SE pilot who had converted onto a light twin (with comparatively scant ME background) and very nearly rolled himself (and other crew) into an untidy ball during a trivial but mis-configured and mis-handled crosswind landing .. due to a very evident lack of general and Type-specific knowledge .. surely this is not much different to conducting a takeoff and hitting a critical obstacle on/just past the fence line because the pilot had no concept of the problems associated with the first segment OEI capabilities of his/her aeroplane.
.. in order to safely FLY the plane?
Just no option in recent years .. the pilot who doesn't have the artisan's skill set appropriate to the trade .. is an accident going somewhere to happen.
Isn't there enough to keep new, or even more experienced pilots busy?
When I was a much younger chap, I was flying with a colleague who picked me up on several minor mistakes I had made during my sector. Noting that I hadn't seen him make too many himself, I ventured the question "Don't you ever make any mistakes ?" .. to which his (wise counsel) response (which I put firmly in my philosophical box of tricks .. coming up to command, as I was, at that stage of my career) simply was "I'm not allowed to".
Whether we like it or not, there is no substitute for competence .. which is the culmination of a lengthy apprenticeship (sadly lacking in some environments), copious study, extensive training and practice, sound attitude and philosophy, and a bunch of other things according to one's view of life. Gann's "Fate is the Hunter" makes a good point of this basic attitude .. I loved the tale about the matches ..
Why must the basic ratings resemble theoretical university courses?
Of course they shouldn't (unless one is undertaking a TP course or similar specialist training) .. but a de-mathed version is essential (and several such useful reference texts are referred to repeatedly in PPRuNe) .. lest one end up with a skill set which, not being underpinned by fundamentally sound technical knowledge, is found to be wanting .. one only has to read some of the fanciful imagination and ramblings in many of the posts in the threads within this Forum to mine a sampling of the extent of the real world problem.
Similarly, from the other side, the aeronautics (and related) specialist(s) needs only an appreciation of the stick and rudder side of things to perform his/her functions .. but the more knowledgeable fellow/lady is the better rounded engineer in the real world outside the ivory halls of erudite learning .. if I reflect upon my undergraduate and other non-specific training .. possibly 1-2 percent has been of direct application to my professional activities over the years as a pilot and engineer .. most of what has stood me in good stead has been all those "extra" things in the way of acquired knowledge one picks up over the course of one's efforts to become a "well rounded" sort of chap .. and that is in addition to the similar qualities of my waistline ..
It takes little to baffle me ...
.. and the same applies to me .. in those disciplines in which my skill set is lacking .. but ought that preclude me .. or you .. or any of our colleagues .. seeking to reduce the skill set deficiencies .. ?
Peace, brother ...
Is there so little to do .. that much of this knowledge actually helps the pilot
Does a pilot need to know the detail of the stuff being tossed about in this thread ? .. of course not.
Ought a pilot have an appreciation of the basic concern ? .. absolutely.
Where does it help ? .. in an appreciation of the potentially high hazard areas of the early takeoff from the viewpoint of obstacles and calculations intended to match the aeroplane's capabilities to the physical requirements of the day.
Why can't the "authorities" ... leave the runway/clearway/ and .. engineering up to the designers ..
The specialist airports engineering folk design the runway environs .. but they generally have only a limited understanding of the stick and rudder problems.. in the same way that we on the other side of the table have only a limited understanding of the airport design bits and pieces (and I have spent more than a few years working shoulder to shoulder with some topflight airports people).
Either the pilot or the operator has to attend to the matching of aeroplane to environment (configuration, weight, and procedure). For heavy iron (for which the present discussion is relevant) that is best left to the ops engineers (or those pilots who have the interest to acquire the skills involved).
The line pilot's role ideally is
(a) to have a sound basic understanding of the requirements and the risks as well as the background philosophy to a particular procedure's design
(b) to know which bits of the procedure are more critical than others and operate his/her aeroplane in a fashion appropriate to the procedure's requirements
(c) not to fall into the trap of "winging it" .. for which the understanding suggested above is/should be persuasive
.. and allow pilots to just learn what they need to understand ..
Unfortunately, the pilot of large aircraft has to acquire a very broad range of knowledge/skills at competence levels which might vary with Type and operation but must be appropriate to the task .. and this skill set includes at least the basics of operational performance.
To say otherwise is analogous to knowing how to takeoff and land in only light wind conditions .. today, I was part of a review group which discussed just such a circumstance .. involving an experienced SE pilot who had converted onto a light twin (with comparatively scant ME background) and very nearly rolled himself (and other crew) into an untidy ball during a trivial but mis-configured and mis-handled crosswind landing .. due to a very evident lack of general and Type-specific knowledge .. surely this is not much different to conducting a takeoff and hitting a critical obstacle on/just past the fence line because the pilot had no concept of the problems associated with the first segment OEI capabilities of his/her aeroplane.
.. in order to safely FLY the plane?
Just no option in recent years .. the pilot who doesn't have the artisan's skill set appropriate to the trade .. is an accident going somewhere to happen.
Isn't there enough to keep new, or even more experienced pilots busy?
When I was a much younger chap, I was flying with a colleague who picked me up on several minor mistakes I had made during my sector. Noting that I hadn't seen him make too many himself, I ventured the question "Don't you ever make any mistakes ?" .. to which his (wise counsel) response (which I put firmly in my philosophical box of tricks .. coming up to command, as I was, at that stage of my career) simply was "I'm not allowed to".
Whether we like it or not, there is no substitute for competence .. which is the culmination of a lengthy apprenticeship (sadly lacking in some environments), copious study, extensive training and practice, sound attitude and philosophy, and a bunch of other things according to one's view of life. Gann's "Fate is the Hunter" makes a good point of this basic attitude .. I loved the tale about the matches ..
Why must the basic ratings resemble theoretical university courses?
Of course they shouldn't (unless one is undertaking a TP course or similar specialist training) .. but a de-mathed version is essential (and several such useful reference texts are referred to repeatedly in PPRuNe) .. lest one end up with a skill set which, not being underpinned by fundamentally sound technical knowledge, is found to be wanting .. one only has to read some of the fanciful imagination and ramblings in many of the posts in the threads within this Forum to mine a sampling of the extent of the real world problem.
Similarly, from the other side, the aeronautics (and related) specialist(s) needs only an appreciation of the stick and rudder side of things to perform his/her functions .. but the more knowledgeable fellow/lady is the better rounded engineer in the real world outside the ivory halls of erudite learning .. if I reflect upon my undergraduate and other non-specific training .. possibly 1-2 percent has been of direct application to my professional activities over the years as a pilot and engineer .. most of what has stood me in good stead has been all those "extra" things in the way of acquired knowledge one picks up over the course of one's efforts to become a "well rounded" sort of chap .. and that is in addition to the similar qualities of my waistline ..
It takes little to baffle me ...
.. and the same applies to me .. in those disciplines in which my skill set is lacking .. but ought that preclude me .. or you .. or any of our colleagues .. seeking to reduce the skill set deficiencies .. ?
Mr. Tullamarine:
Your well thought-out contrast in perspectives was what I've been wanting to read for quite a while on Pprune, instead of being ignored. I've asked such simple questions in the past, but maybe people read between the words and the tone was misunderstood.
My questions about foreign perspectives and ground training methodologies are never intended to be critical, despite being expressed in a skeptical and frank (too blunt?) manner. From listening to guys who studied similar material at Cathay P. etc, any pilot who makes it through such classes should be rather proud of his/her acheivements.
Sometimes the regulatory authorities have totally different policies and courses with entirely different goals, some of which (especially over here in the US) can be quite comical, i.e. some ATP Written courses, FE (727) Written Study Guides etc. There is no secret about that. But they stress practical experience, perhaps to the detriment of other things. A recent tragedy involving a CRJ helps support that, although the corporate beancounters, who often lean heavily on training costs and training "footprint" (time), might be at least partly to blame-and this was long before the 9/11 recession.
Your explanations helped me at least partly understand the reasoning behind various topics (only tiny fragments are included on Pprune), which are/were often in a very short, condensed version over here.
Never mind certain "quick and dirty" military courses which are part of a type of training known many years ago as "drinking from a fire hose" over here. Even those courses might have changed and, in certain 'pipelines', have combined with other (govt.) departments over the years, i.e. Air Force and Navy. At least one segment of the US DOD, many years ago, seemed primarily interested in quotas filled than anything else, very condensed rote procedures followed, and what a 12-month blur it was... and some totally abbreviated conversion "courses" for civilian ratings were often despised by the civilian pilots who went through them the longer and very expensive way.
Maybe too much is always better than too little.
Your well thought-out contrast in perspectives was what I've been wanting to read for quite a while on Pprune, instead of being ignored. I've asked such simple questions in the past, but maybe people read between the words and the tone was misunderstood.
My questions about foreign perspectives and ground training methodologies are never intended to be critical, despite being expressed in a skeptical and frank (too blunt?) manner. From listening to guys who studied similar material at Cathay P. etc, any pilot who makes it through such classes should be rather proud of his/her acheivements.
Sometimes the regulatory authorities have totally different policies and courses with entirely different goals, some of which (especially over here in the US) can be quite comical, i.e. some ATP Written courses, FE (727) Written Study Guides etc.
There is no secret about that. But they stress practical experience, perhaps to the detriment of other things. A recent tragedy involving a CRJ helps support that, although the corporate beancounters, who often lean heavily on training costs and training "footprint" (time), might be at least partly to blame-and this was long before the 9/11 recession.Your explanations helped me at least partly understand the reasoning behind various topics (only tiny fragments are included on Pprune), which are/were often in a very short, condensed version over here.
Never mind certain "quick and dirty" military courses which are part of a type of training known many years ago as "drinking from a fire hose" over here. Even those courses might have changed and, in certain 'pipelines', have combined with other (govt.) departments over the years, i.e. Air Force and Navy. At least one segment of the US DOD, many years ago, seemed primarily interested in quotas filled than anything else, very condensed rote procedures followed, and what a 12-month blur it was... and some totally abbreviated conversion "courses" for civilian ratings were often despised by the civilian pilots who went through them the longer and very expensive way.
Maybe too much is always better than too little.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 16th May 2006 at 05:21.
Moderator
Ignition Override,
Unfortunately, there is no simple answer to your (quite reasonable) concerns.
Fifty or sixty years ago in the DC3 era, the pilot could pretty well know just about everything there was to know about the aircraft and the flying thing .. the aircraft was simple, the systems were simple, and the flying was a largely skill based activity with the overriding considerations of commonsense airmanship ...
Now the aircraft are far more complex in construction, the designers and software developers can't get the code right all the time, and airways procedures in their interaction with the FMSs etc., has taken much of the fun out of everything .. now, it is just NOT possible for the hardest working pilot to know more than a subset of the total story ..
Much the same as comparing academia in the middle ages and now ..
The ATPL standards vary around the world but, especially for the more involved and intensive jurisdictions, getting that pass is no mean feat .. not so much that the work is difficult .. more that the comparatively high pass mark without consideration makes for a degree of difficulty .. not like many of the university courses which (being far more logical) argue that the notional standard of students doesn't vary all that much .. ergo there is a reasonable argument that the spread of results year to year ought to be roughly similar .. which, then, suggests that variability in results is associated with variability in examination difficulty ...
This, in turn, leads to the well-known academic principle called the "zero shifting theorem" which sees raw data marks mapped to something more representative of the norm .. one still sees the ranking preserved but the marks, at the end of the day, are a bit arbitrary.
In the airline world, often the pragmatic training school takes the view that the student on Type Conversion needs to get the basics well established but doesn't need to be exposed to silly pedantry in examination "standards" .. far better to give him/her the basics and let the fails and passes fall as they will during sim or line training .. ie emphasising the practical but still requiring the underlying knowledge basics. I recall one tale for a 727 endorsement .. the company chief pilot was a student and the school set him up for one exam .. which, in fact, was two exams .. one for him .. and one for the rest .. apparently he became a tad anxious as student after student completed the paper and he was stretched to the limit with his "tailored" questions .. so there is room still for a touch of humour here and there.
In the GA world one sees a very wide range of endorsement standards .. one of the most detailed and searching endorsements I have done was for the PA31 many years ago .. at the other end I have been signed off after a circuit or two (admittedly the endorsing pilot knew my capabilities from other aircraft) .. that's the way it goes to some extent.
I fear that there is an undercurrent in the Industry which favours the view that, with increasing reliability and computer driven redundancy, the need for the pilot to be expert in the basics ... is reduced. As a wise man once suggested to me .. that's all fine and beaut .. until the battery goes flat and the widget screens go blank.
Right or wrong .. I am an unashamed dinosaur .. I LIKE the idea of being able to pole a bird around a real tight circuit (I recall a Commander 685 owner for whom I did some design work years ago .. we traded a few hours on his bird for the work .. he was a little surprised when the first couple of circuits didn't go outside the not very big airfield boundary .. I thought it all great fun) ... handfly a raw data ILS to a 0/0 full stop landing in the box .. and so on.
The other (and equally important) side of the coin is that we also need to know the gee-whizz things on our bird and all the other operationally important procedural things .. as well. Just a pity that it is getting harder and harder to find the time to learn as much as we really need to learn ...
The end result is the training and learning workload on the new pilot in an ideal world is growing at an ever increasing rate .. a pity that many opt out and go just for the basics of the need to know syndrome .. this, I suggest, eventually shows up in the differences between the Sioux City outcome (for instance) and the many other accidents where the crews were at a lower standard on the expertise and competence scale ...
Unfortunately, there is no simple answer to your (quite reasonable) concerns.
Fifty or sixty years ago in the DC3 era, the pilot could pretty well know just about everything there was to know about the aircraft and the flying thing .. the aircraft was simple, the systems were simple, and the flying was a largely skill based activity with the overriding considerations of commonsense airmanship ...
Now the aircraft are far more complex in construction, the designers and software developers can't get the code right all the time, and airways procedures in their interaction with the FMSs etc., has taken much of the fun out of everything .. now, it is just NOT possible for the hardest working pilot to know more than a subset of the total story ..
Much the same as comparing academia in the middle ages and now ..
The ATPL standards vary around the world but, especially for the more involved and intensive jurisdictions, getting that pass is no mean feat .. not so much that the work is difficult .. more that the comparatively high pass mark without consideration makes for a degree of difficulty .. not like many of the university courses which (being far more logical) argue that the notional standard of students doesn't vary all that much .. ergo there is a reasonable argument that the spread of results year to year ought to be roughly similar .. which, then, suggests that variability in results is associated with variability in examination difficulty ...
This, in turn, leads to the well-known academic principle called the "zero shifting theorem" which sees raw data marks mapped to something more representative of the norm .. one still sees the ranking preserved but the marks, at the end of the day, are a bit arbitrary.
In the airline world, often the pragmatic training school takes the view that the student on Type Conversion needs to get the basics well established but doesn't need to be exposed to silly pedantry in examination "standards" .. far better to give him/her the basics and let the fails and passes fall as they will during sim or line training .. ie emphasising the practical but still requiring the underlying knowledge basics. I recall one tale for a 727 endorsement .. the company chief pilot was a student and the school set him up for one exam .. which, in fact, was two exams .. one for him .. and one for the rest .. apparently he became a tad anxious as student after student completed the paper and he was stretched to the limit with his "tailored" questions .. so there is room still for a touch of humour here and there.
In the GA world one sees a very wide range of endorsement standards .. one of the most detailed and searching endorsements I have done was for the PA31 many years ago .. at the other end I have been signed off after a circuit or two (admittedly the endorsing pilot knew my capabilities from other aircraft) .. that's the way it goes to some extent.
I fear that there is an undercurrent in the Industry which favours the view that, with increasing reliability and computer driven redundancy, the need for the pilot to be expert in the basics ... is reduced. As a wise man once suggested to me .. that's all fine and beaut .. until the battery goes flat and the widget screens go blank.
Right or wrong .. I am an unashamed dinosaur .. I LIKE the idea of being able to pole a bird around a real tight circuit (I recall a Commander 685 owner for whom I did some design work years ago .. we traded a few hours on his bird for the work .. he was a little surprised when the first couple of circuits didn't go outside the not very big airfield boundary .. I thought it all great fun) ... handfly a raw data ILS to a 0/0 full stop landing in the box .. and so on.
The other (and equally important) side of the coin is that we also need to know the gee-whizz things on our bird and all the other operationally important procedural things .. as well. Just a pity that it is getting harder and harder to find the time to learn as much as we really need to learn ...
The end result is the training and learning workload on the new pilot in an ideal world is growing at an ever increasing rate .. a pity that many opt out and go just for the basics of the need to know syndrome .. this, I suggest, eventually shows up in the differences between the Sioux City outcome (for instance) and the many other accidents where the crews were at a lower standard on the expertise and competence scale ...
Yes sir, all are valid points. After simulators, many US airlines rely not just on 25 hours or so of IOE, but on-the-job-training, 'OJT'.
Many elements of US business seem to rely on OJT. This culture, for better or worse, often has limited patience for detailed theory and academia. Compared to the older world over there, it is still evolving from a frontier society, and becomes impatient when productivity is hindered.
When the United DC-10 lost all hydraulic systems (all three systems were clumped together, where the blade burst from the engine) either an Instructor Pilot or Check Airmen went straight to the c0ckp1t, to offer his help. Without his immediate help and their experimentation (no other options were possible), it is questionable whether the three pilots would have tried to use the throttles to control pitch and roll.
The DHL pilots in the A-300 which was hit by a missile at Baghdad were familiar with this, and it saved their lives. Will DHL pilots now avoid being forced to fly to Baghdad?
Many elements of US business seem to rely on OJT. This culture, for better or worse, often has limited patience for detailed theory and academia. Compared to the older world over there, it is still evolving from a frontier society, and becomes impatient when productivity is hindered.
When the United DC-10 lost all hydraulic systems (all three systems were clumped together, where the blade burst from the engine) either an Instructor Pilot or Check Airmen went straight to the c0ckp1t, to offer his help. Without his immediate help and their experimentation (no other options were possible), it is questionable whether the three pilots would have tried to use the throttles to control pitch and roll.
The DHL pilots in the A-300 which was hit by a missile at Baghdad were familiar with this, and it saved their lives. Will DHL pilots now avoid being forced to fly to Baghdad?
Moderator
... concur.
From what little I know of the DHL event ... it would appear that the chaps put on a mighty fine show in getting the bird back on the ground .. like all these things, one part knowledge, one part skill, one part cockpit management, one part keeping one's cool, and fill the glass to the brim with good luck ....
From what little I know of the DHL event ... it would appear that the chaps put on a mighty fine show in getting the bird back on the ground .. like all these things, one part knowledge, one part skill, one part cockpit management, one part keeping one's cool, and fill the glass to the brim with good luck ....
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it seems to me that you never know enough in certain fields (aviation especially) the more you know, the more you don't know. I just wanna stay alive. unfortunately i have relatively little comparative experience...the best teacher...so in the meantime ??? Also when you're not flying,or not able to fly as you please to do, you tend to become a bit of a tech head, hours of boredom....sheer terror
Moderator
...so in the meantime ???
.. like in any activity ... be a bit conservative in what you do and how you do it (when compared to competence level) .. well summed up by the old saying about the superior pilot using his superior knowledge to avoid situations which might require his superior competence to dig himself out of a deep hole ...
.. like in any activity ... be a bit conservative in what you do and how you do it (when compared to competence level) .. well summed up by the old saying about the superior pilot using his superior knowledge to avoid situations which might require his superior competence to dig himself out of a deep hole ...
