Flight International "Pilots must go back to basics>"
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New pilots' profile
Please, Leftlook, do you know if any poster opened a thread on PPRuNe about the Kyrgystan crash ? I found nothing with the PPRuNe/Google search tool.
EDIT : Oh, I found it
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...h-bishkek.html
I am concerned with dutch roll since 1979, and since 1992 I try -without success- to explain the need to train airline pilots to dutch roll, and how.
The 1500 pages report which is not public seems to recognize that lack of formation and training and information. It is a great improvment, if really they modify the training and the procédures.
It seems that master's of psychology did not helped the copilot flying, and the majored Captain in engineering could not overcome better the dutch roll.
It seems that the stability augmentation system had a failure and started the dutch roll. So we typically have a new problem with FBW, which must be masterized not only with basics, but with specific Learning.
EDIT : Oh, I found it
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...h-bishkek.html
I am concerned with dutch roll since 1979, and since 1992 I try -without success- to explain the need to train airline pilots to dutch roll, and how.
The 1500 pages report which is not public seems to recognize that lack of formation and training and information. It is a great improvment, if really they modify the training and the procédures.
It seems that master's of psychology did not helped the copilot flying, and the majored Captain in engineering could not overcome better the dutch roll.
It seems that the stability augmentation system had a failure and started the dutch roll. So we typically have a new problem with FBW, which must be masterized not only with basics, but with specific Learning.
Last edited by roulishollandais; 19th Apr 2014 at 22:46. Reason: I found the 2013 May in Kyrgystan/Manas/Bishkek/Chaldovar KC-135 crash thread
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
roulishollandais
Dutch roll demonstration and control was shown to us in B707 and A310. It was quite pronounced in 707 but in A310 it damps out and was not problematic may be same in A320. Perhaps that is why not taught.
Dutch roll demonstration and control was shown to us in B707 and A310. It was quite pronounced in 707 but in A310 it damps out and was not problematic may be same in A320. Perhaps that is why not taught.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vilas
so long no oscillation - or sudden change (turbulence, rate limitation, modification of shape, thrust, configuration, weight, wake turbulence, etc) - and piloting resonance ... But
USAF changed their philosophy after that investigation and his 1500 pages report !!!
I hope it will be published soon !
Air Force Releases KC-135 Crash Report « CBS Seattle
so long no oscillation - or sudden change (turbulence, rate limitation, modification of shape, thrust, configuration, weight, wake turbulence, etc) - and piloting resonance ... But
USAF changed their philosophy after that investigation and his 1500 pages report !!!
I hope it will be published soon !
Air Force Releases KC-135 Crash Report « CBS Seattle
There was a TV programme about airline pilots I recall, it must have been 20-25 years ago and the conclusion even then was that pilots would eventually be condemned to sit on the flightdeck doing nothing just watching the automation. Automation is to my mind, in the main, a good thing and certainly prevented many more prangs than its caused but it needs to be used properly & "appropriately" The apathy lies with what can be deemed as proper & "appropriate".
I also remember that old gag about replacing the co-pilot with a dog which was trained to bite the Captain if he/she touched anything.....
I also remember that old gag about replacing the co-pilot with a dog which was trained to bite the Captain if he/she touched anything.....
The Flight International headline is ‘back to basics’, but the commentary and thread focusses on manual flight skills; what about all of the other professional skills of fight. There are only a few accidents specifically identifying handing issues, which is disproportionate to the overwhelming number of successful operations, presumably involving manual flight. This data would suggest that the industry does not have a serious problem.
However, this does not dismiss that there is a problem, but it is an issue apparently relating to specific circumstances and contributing factors which need to be better understood.
I doubt if a true ‘back to basics’ training programme could be established – time or money; nor that an extensive change is necessary as current operational scenarios differ from those pre-automation and require new skills.
The problems appear to be associated with the advent of automation, but not necessarily directly due to automation. The beliefs that automation would reduce workload and training underestimated the risk of unforeseen changes or knock-on effects – even greater capability or unintended application. Automation has reduced physical workload at the expense of mental workload, but training and operations have not adjusted to this. We cannot expect crews to understand all of the implications of automation malfunctions and thus there is a need to assist with problem solving; and occasionally where crews need to revert to manual flight in surprising circumstances, they may be ill prepared.
Yet the industry still expects crews to manage with less knowledge, less experience, and reduced opportunity to refresh skills – a belief that “…the strategies of CRM, SOPs, and professional culture will mitigate these threats… professional culture is the weakest…” (ICON report 2001).
The problems involve assumptions that previous skills are adequately trained and can still be called on, less training is required for automation, crews will be able to manage complex operations, and poor standards of emergent automation interfaces are not a significant threat. The industry expects too much of the human and thus must heed the advice of James Reason – it is difficult to change the human condition (training), but we can change the conditions of work; thus the industry should look at the tasks in rare situations which the crews are expected to manage, and then consider reducing, improving, or avoiding them.
ICON Report “The Human Factors Implications for Flight Safety of Recent Developments in the Airline Industry” 2001
However, this does not dismiss that there is a problem, but it is an issue apparently relating to specific circumstances and contributing factors which need to be better understood.
I doubt if a true ‘back to basics’ training programme could be established – time or money; nor that an extensive change is necessary as current operational scenarios differ from those pre-automation and require new skills.
The problems appear to be associated with the advent of automation, but not necessarily directly due to automation. The beliefs that automation would reduce workload and training underestimated the risk of unforeseen changes or knock-on effects – even greater capability or unintended application. Automation has reduced physical workload at the expense of mental workload, but training and operations have not adjusted to this. We cannot expect crews to understand all of the implications of automation malfunctions and thus there is a need to assist with problem solving; and occasionally where crews need to revert to manual flight in surprising circumstances, they may be ill prepared.
Yet the industry still expects crews to manage with less knowledge, less experience, and reduced opportunity to refresh skills – a belief that “…the strategies of CRM, SOPs, and professional culture will mitigate these threats… professional culture is the weakest…” (ICON report 2001).
The problems involve assumptions that previous skills are adequately trained and can still be called on, less training is required for automation, crews will be able to manage complex operations, and poor standards of emergent automation interfaces are not a significant threat. The industry expects too much of the human and thus must heed the advice of James Reason – it is difficult to change the human condition (training), but we can change the conditions of work; thus the industry should look at the tasks in rare situations which the crews are expected to manage, and then consider reducing, improving, or avoiding them.
ICON Report “The Human Factors Implications for Flight Safety of Recent Developments in the Airline Industry” 2001
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Nearer home than before!
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know there are hundreds of pilots out there who are very good at hand flying, practice regularly and can fly difficult approaches with no AT or AP with no issue.
The problem is they fly Turboprops and jet carriers don't seem to want them as they must smell weird or something....must be because they keep using their feet.....
If only the PTF cadet system was shut down and a proper career path re-established, some proper experience might get a look in again.
The problem is they fly Turboprops and jet carriers don't seem to want them as they must smell weird or something....must be because they keep using their feet.....
If only the PTF cadet system was shut down and a proper career path re-established, some proper experience might get a look in again.
True.
I was much better at manual instrument flying when I had three thousand hours than when I had six thousand hours. The above statement by Turkish is the reason.
I was much better at manual instrument flying when I had three thousand hours than when I had six thousand hours. The above statement by Turkish is the reason.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only hope that more line trainers will encourage manual flying. I would like to hope that the Asiana incident would be the turning point on the total reliance of automation... but I do have my doubts
For every enlightened operator that encourages manual flying under appropriate conditions during line flying, the will be a dozen or more who shy away from it to the extent that it is expressly forbidden. However, the latter must be forced by their regulator to schedule simulator hand flying raw data training on visual approaches, ILS in strong crosswinds, high and low altitude stall recovery for example. If practice makes perfect, then what more cost-efficient way to prevent the skill atrophy that has become such a serious issue, judging from the plethora of reports from research and international flight safety conferences.
Where have all the "pilots" gone? Long time passing....
Sorry to use a paraphrase of an old song, but MSB has a good point.
I have refrained from comment until I got a feel from the "heavy" pilots here.
Make no mistake, as a single-seater for most of my flying time, I grew used to using all the automation and "help" as the technology advanced . Except for a very short tactical flight, the AP was great and allowed me to use the entire "system" to reduce workload and get the job done. No navigator, no flight engineer, no co-pilot.
The biggest difference I have seen from my experience versus the posts from heavy pilots here is I never had an AP that would climb, level, descend, hold a set speed, level off altitude, and such. Never had a "coupled AP" for the ILS except for one jet and 400 hours in it ( manual throttle). Crude, but it worked.
I realize that training is $$$$ for the airlines. Gotta fly the money-making missions. But seems to me that a a few more sim flights and maybe even a flight in the plane in the real world would help.
As a systems engineer in second career, I like MSB's philosophy. The human interface and the human skills/experience/judgement is very important for the overall system design. The human in the loop is akin to another computer that is integrated into the overall system.
Am I way off base here?
I have refrained from comment until I got a feel from the "heavy" pilots here.
Make no mistake, as a single-seater for most of my flying time, I grew used to using all the automation and "help" as the technology advanced . Except for a very short tactical flight, the AP was great and allowed me to use the entire "system" to reduce workload and get the job done. No navigator, no flight engineer, no co-pilot.
The biggest difference I have seen from my experience versus the posts from heavy pilots here is I never had an AP that would climb, level, descend, hold a set speed, level off altitude, and such. Never had a "coupled AP" for the ILS except for one jet and 400 hours in it ( manual throttle). Crude, but it worked.
I realize that training is $$$$ for the airlines. Gotta fly the money-making missions. But seems to me that a a few more sim flights and maybe even a flight in the plane in the real world would help.
As a systems engineer in second career, I like MSB's philosophy. The human interface and the human skills/experience/judgement is very important for the overall system design. The human in the loop is akin to another computer that is integrated into the overall system.
Am I way off base here?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi gums, msbbarratt,
I cannot agree better, as retired airline pilot and scientific and technological IT analyst.
Human belong to the "effective system" before aside effect of every other human factor.
Degenerating dutch roll, or more positive the HUD, are good examples.
Airlines should save $$$ for training better and more on sim and planes by saving the leasing rates and expensive research and investigations and increasing insurances.
Civilian aviation needs better instructors too, with experience of high performance systems: Military instructors could bring their expertise again as they did it during one or two decades after WWII,
...and how you do it on PPRuNe
I cannot agree better, as retired airline pilot and scientific and technological IT analyst.
Human belong to the "effective system" before aside effect of every other human factor.
Degenerating dutch roll, or more positive the HUD, are good examples.
Airlines should save $$$ for training better and more on sim and planes by saving the leasing rates and expensive research and investigations and increasing insurances.
Civilian aviation needs better instructors too, with experience of high performance systems: Military instructors could bring their expertise again as they did it during one or two decades after WWII,
...and how you do it on PPRuNe
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
safetypee . . .
"There are only a few accidents specifically identifying handling issues, which is disproportionate to the overwhelming number of successful operations, presumably involving manual flight. This data would suggest that the industry does not have a serious problem."
I have flown with too many new-schooled copilots who have an acute aversion for manual flying even in day VMC
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One has to wonder what the reaction is of the newbies who dream of 'being pilot and then is one'. Perhaps those on tailored courses with only 148hrs are better honed to the new world, but the flying school QFI self-improvers who fly around insight of road, rail & river and enjoy the thrill of being in the air might have a big shock of what is really means to be an airline pilot. I wonder if the dream is fulfilled. This brings me to think about the selection process of new entrants. Reading the blurb that is spewed out by the big airline HR departments about the characteristics their 'ideal candidate' will have I wonder if they are in sync with reality. Is the 'right stuff' sitting up front in todays bells & whistles wizz-bang do almost nothing aircraft?
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vienna
Age: 50
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO the massive safe expansion of LoCO's we've seen over the past 10 years could not have happened with the equipment of the 70's & 80's. However, and here is my curiosity, SWA DID expand rapidly and used B732 and basic B733 with a down-graded instrument display. It seemed successful. Perhaps those on the inside could enlighten us. But, does anyone believe RYR could have expanded from 25 - 300 a/c over 45 bases in 12 years if they still used B732's?
"Southwest Airlines is the only company in the airline industry that requires a pilot to have a 737-Type Rating before he or she is considered for hire. This rating, given by the Federal Aviation Administration, essentially says a pilot is qualified to be the captain of a Boeing 737. This means that all first officers are qualified to fly as captains."
(Freiberg, K. & Freiberg, J. (1996): NUTS! Southwest Airlines' Crazy Recipe for Business and Personal Success. Austin, Texas: Bard Press, p. 98f.)
Can anyone tell me whether any of the airlines involved in recent accidents caused by a lack of pilot skill have instituted a seriously back-to-basics training regime? Or has the response merely been to fix the defective sensor / landing aid?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recently we had a few minutes on the ground at a field in NE Ontario, now used as a destination for one of our Ontario Government owned "puppy Farm" flight schools, if our meeting with an instructor and pupil from this school are anything to go by the lack of skills and common sense is programed from the very beginning of training in this place. We heard their endless transmission as we were joining IFR for the GPS approach for the North South runway, they informed the world {and the other four fields on the same freq} that they would be doing a "full stop", well that's nice to know but "landing" would do the job according to our standard RT booklet, {I am by the way a radio examiner} but to their credit we didn't get the "currently, at this time" babble which seems to be the latest in "Yuckspeak" on the radio these days. On meeting the two crew in the FBO we were astounded to see them dressed in white shirts, slip on shoes, and a very light jacket, now for those who don't live in this part of the world they have just flown for about three hours over pretty rough bush which still has a few feet of snow on the ground, on top of their lack of suitable dress we found they are not carrying any survival gear, the chances of them surviving two nights in the bush are about zero, even less as they were both "city boys". In conversation with the student we were informed, in the most authoritative manner, that on graduation from this school they would have little need for hand flying skills as the "modern aircraft fly themselves" end quote. The other crew member of our corporate aircraft waited until I was out of ear shot and let them know in no uncertain terms that I had some time ago retired from Boeing/Airbus products and would most likely give them a new orifice if the said this again, so there it is, the blind leading the blind, a bit of topic but its typical I fear of our government sponsored schools in Canada, the nation which once taught the world to fly.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it just me or have we read on here, over the past 18 months, an increase in serviceable a/c accidents. Start with such things as going off the end of the RWY in TSL Greece and then add in all the others we've discussed in many 'civilised' aviation countries. There seemed to be more crew induced prangs than broken a/c calling it a day and capitulating to Mother Nature & Gravity. Am I wrong?
Further; I heard from the head of a flight college that the idea was the future cadets for MPA CPL could be trained >75% in a sim. They would earn the basic PPL in a prop and then spend the rest of their 150hrs in a MPA sim learning MMC/CRM/AFDS/QRH etc. etc. All that good twin prop IFR, VFR Nav, aeros, circuits etc. etc. was not necessary to be an airline pilot. But, I asked, what about the MPA Turbo-prop/Biz-jet pilot who flew into tiny little airfields in all regions in all weathers? No answer. What about the charter airlines who fly big jets into some inhospitable places? No answer. What dos the guy do who wants a CPL but not an MPA? No answer. It seems the authorities have decided there is only o e sort of pilot. My 250 schools hours is already reduced to 150hrs, but at least they are airborne. What's next, a Play Station or Wii-Wii? Perhaps the ground based pilot is closer than we dread.
Further; I heard from the head of a flight college that the idea was the future cadets for MPA CPL could be trained >75% in a sim. They would earn the basic PPL in a prop and then spend the rest of their 150hrs in a MPA sim learning MMC/CRM/AFDS/QRH etc. etc. All that good twin prop IFR, VFR Nav, aeros, circuits etc. etc. was not necessary to be an airline pilot. But, I asked, what about the MPA Turbo-prop/Biz-jet pilot who flew into tiny little airfields in all regions in all weathers? No answer. What about the charter airlines who fly big jets into some inhospitable places? No answer. What dos the guy do who wants a CPL but not an MPA? No answer. It seems the authorities have decided there is only o e sort of pilot. My 250 schools hours is already reduced to 150hrs, but at least they are airborne. What's next, a Play Station or Wii-Wii? Perhaps the ground based pilot is closer than we dread.
Last edited by RAT 5; 23rd Apr 2014 at 16:24.
Some good points, Rat.
I flew two single-seaters that had decent sims to help before first flight. Great for procedures and such, but little else. One of them had no "training" models, so first hop was truly "solo". Good deal, and I would not diminish the value of the sims as long as they accurately reflect the aero properties of the jet and the training shows the "bad things" that can happen and how to handle them. The KC-135 sim apparently could not model dutch roll, and the crew could not cope with it. Ditto for the 'bus in a reversion mode where the stall protection did not prevent the jet from entering a deeply stalled condition ( recoverable, but had to know what to do and not to do).
I am not a dinosaur WRT new avionics and "aids" to make the flight safer and reduce workload. But sooner or later it will come down to basics, and that is what I fear we are losing. I preached use of the AP from the time I was a nugget until I retired, as we could use it while we pulled out the approach plate for a divert base. We could use it while we took a sip from our coffee thermos or a can of juice. Of course, there were biological needs that had to be satisfied and we couldn't go back to the latrine at row 3A. Heh heh. Secondly, our official manuals emphasized the use of the old steam gauges even tho we had cosmic HUD systems that showed all you needed to fly very precisely ( the flight path vector was the best thing). It's called "cross check", huh?
I realize that training in the real jet is expensive compared to the sim. But somewhere in my mind is the thot that a certified pilot must experience exactly what the plane does under various conditions. But what do I know...
I flew two single-seaters that had decent sims to help before first flight. Great for procedures and such, but little else. One of them had no "training" models, so first hop was truly "solo". Good deal, and I would not diminish the value of the sims as long as they accurately reflect the aero properties of the jet and the training shows the "bad things" that can happen and how to handle them. The KC-135 sim apparently could not model dutch roll, and the crew could not cope with it. Ditto for the 'bus in a reversion mode where the stall protection did not prevent the jet from entering a deeply stalled condition ( recoverable, but had to know what to do and not to do).
I am not a dinosaur WRT new avionics and "aids" to make the flight safer and reduce workload. But sooner or later it will come down to basics, and that is what I fear we are losing. I preached use of the AP from the time I was a nugget until I retired, as we could use it while we pulled out the approach plate for a divert base. We could use it while we took a sip from our coffee thermos or a can of juice. Of course, there were biological needs that had to be satisfied and we couldn't go back to the latrine at row 3A. Heh heh. Secondly, our official manuals emphasized the use of the old steam gauges even tho we had cosmic HUD systems that showed all you needed to fly very precisely ( the flight path vector was the best thing). It's called "cross check", huh?
I realize that training in the real jet is expensive compared to the sim. But somewhere in my mind is the thot that a certified pilot must experience exactly what the plane does under various conditions. But what do I know...
Last edited by gums; 23rd Apr 2014 at 17:06. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MPL is not replacing the CPL. However it is an alternative which is only aimed at airline operation, not at the business jet market or any other non-airline environment.
Interestengly enough MPL students cope very well in the charter segment though, flying a nice visual circuit in a 737 or A320 is apparently not a big issue with the right kind of training, even in challenging conditions. LIFUS is usually longer than with CPL candidates, they need more landings during base training (i believe it is 12 or 14 with ours instead of 6 for CPLs) and the learning curve is indeed quite steep, which requires certain personality traits to begin with.
The MPL is in theory not an hour based training, it is purely competency driven, however many current implementations leave quite a bit to be desired. Still, there needs to be a thorough selection of applicants in those programs, the whole training is monitored very closely and conducted in close coordination with the sponsoring airline, and yes, a sponsoring airline is a required part of an MPL. Since the whole MPL thing is still kinda new there is monitoring in place during normal line flying as well, mainly during training and checking of course.
Interestengly enough MPL students cope very well in the charter segment though, flying a nice visual circuit in a 737 or A320 is apparently not a big issue with the right kind of training, even in challenging conditions. LIFUS is usually longer than with CPL candidates, they need more landings during base training (i believe it is 12 or 14 with ours instead of 6 for CPLs) and the learning curve is indeed quite steep, which requires certain personality traits to begin with.
The MPL is in theory not an hour based training, it is purely competency driven, however many current implementations leave quite a bit to be desired. Still, there needs to be a thorough selection of applicants in those programs, the whole training is monitored very closely and conducted in close coordination with the sponsoring airline, and yes, a sponsoring airline is a required part of an MPL. Since the whole MPL thing is still kinda new there is monitoring in place during normal line flying as well, mainly during training and checking of course.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would qualify my thoughts with: a cross channel ferry captain does not necessarily need to be able to sail a dinghy, but, it does teach them respect of the sea, wind & current. All good stuff, but you don't need to be Ben Ainsly to be a captain of a Frigate.
Food for thought washed down with a good slosh of sea water & fresh air.
It is a discussion for many moons. However, I do feel we have gone down the new/wrong path very quickly without due diligence. It has been a very slippery slope and one that will be extremely difficult to climb back up. Indeed it is proving difficult to brake the slide.
Food for thought washed down with a good slosh of sea water & fresh air.
It is a discussion for many moons. However, I do feel we have gone down the new/wrong path very quickly without due diligence. It has been a very slippery slope and one that will be extremely difficult to climb back up. Indeed it is proving difficult to brake the slide.