FD in a stall
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it might start to get us all into thinking about raw data as being a normal procedure, and it would help us hone our flying and prevent ourselves becoming lazy by not allowing our skills to atrophy.
In 80's & 90's with the various airlines I flew for B732/757/767 this was the norm. It was encouraged by pilot orientated DFO's. Indeed, in non-radar, non-ILS Greek & Caribbean islands this is what we did, day or night. The a/c were not equipped for fancy LNAV/VNAV/RNAV approaches, neither were the airfields.
Why have those skills atrophised? (is that a word?)
1. The pilot was considered the most likely source of error and incident/accident initiator. Technology was pumped onto the a/c to takeover from the pilot in the belief this would eradicate much of the errors.
2. Airlines are no longer managed by pilot orientated people. (Indeed I know of many where DFO's are not pilots, they are business men. The first pilot in the management chain is CP and he is usually office bound 90% of the time concerned more with budgets than piloting standards. If there are no crashes then everything is fine.)
3. The CPL/MPL has been diluted by 40% of hours and focuses on MCC & CRM and systems management, not flying.
4. The airlines have expanded rapidly with low experience cadets from said diluted CPL/MPL courses.
5. Rigid SOP's have been designed to allow this expansion with low experience pilots. One aspect of those SOP's is maximum use of automatics. Thus the TR courses are focused heavily on use of automatics as per SOP's. Too little handling, and too little in-depth training of the automatics. (you only need to know enough to do the job, not cover every eventuality).
6. Commands are now achieved with 1/2 the experience of earlier generations. These rigid SOP's are needed for the low experienced captains as well as the low experienced F/O's. And the in-house SFI's come from that same stunted background.
7. Manual/visual approaches are considered less safe and less efficient (when they result in a GA) and so are discouraged.
8. Most operational decisions about the culture of the airline are made by business men focused on the bottom line and not by people wishing to attain & maintain a high piloting standard for their crews.
It is a conundrum and no easy quick fix. To fix something someone has to decide it's broken. Is there that perception on a wide enough scale? i.e. there needs to be an incentive & motivation to take the initiative. There are airlines who have pilot orientated management and strong high standard piloting cultures, but they look after themselves and do not drive the whole industry.
The early days of having experienced captains who encouraged such a culture is a thing of the past. The companies had the FCTM as their basic SOP manual and tweaked it to suit internal procedures and cultures. They then gave you the a/c, defined a task and said "go and do it, be efficient and be safe." You had the tools and you had the knowledge and used those tools in the best way necessary to complete the task, within company SOP's. There were various ways to skin the cat. Now rigid SOP's give you only one option and you are trained to that end. When circumstances require discretion & deviation the knowledge is not there to choose the other options. The knowledge data base is too small.
That wonderful video 'Children of the Magenta Line' highlighted much of which we speak, but I wonder what effect it has had on philosophies? Within the host airline I hope the HOT had the influence & authority to carry through with his philosophy and make changes. I wonder if HOT's in todays rapidly expanding airlines are allowed such radical ideas, and if so do they have any influence & authority to implement them.
In 80's & 90's with the various airlines I flew for B732/757/767 this was the norm. It was encouraged by pilot orientated DFO's. Indeed, in non-radar, non-ILS Greek & Caribbean islands this is what we did, day or night. The a/c were not equipped for fancy LNAV/VNAV/RNAV approaches, neither were the airfields.
Why have those skills atrophised? (is that a word?)
1. The pilot was considered the most likely source of error and incident/accident initiator. Technology was pumped onto the a/c to takeover from the pilot in the belief this would eradicate much of the errors.
2. Airlines are no longer managed by pilot orientated people. (Indeed I know of many where DFO's are not pilots, they are business men. The first pilot in the management chain is CP and he is usually office bound 90% of the time concerned more with budgets than piloting standards. If there are no crashes then everything is fine.)
3. The CPL/MPL has been diluted by 40% of hours and focuses on MCC & CRM and systems management, not flying.
4. The airlines have expanded rapidly with low experience cadets from said diluted CPL/MPL courses.
5. Rigid SOP's have been designed to allow this expansion with low experience pilots. One aspect of those SOP's is maximum use of automatics. Thus the TR courses are focused heavily on use of automatics as per SOP's. Too little handling, and too little in-depth training of the automatics. (you only need to know enough to do the job, not cover every eventuality).
6. Commands are now achieved with 1/2 the experience of earlier generations. These rigid SOP's are needed for the low experienced captains as well as the low experienced F/O's. And the in-house SFI's come from that same stunted background.
7. Manual/visual approaches are considered less safe and less efficient (when they result in a GA) and so are discouraged.
8. Most operational decisions about the culture of the airline are made by business men focused on the bottom line and not by people wishing to attain & maintain a high piloting standard for their crews.
It is a conundrum and no easy quick fix. To fix something someone has to decide it's broken. Is there that perception on a wide enough scale? i.e. there needs to be an incentive & motivation to take the initiative. There are airlines who have pilot orientated management and strong high standard piloting cultures, but they look after themselves and do not drive the whole industry.
The early days of having experienced captains who encouraged such a culture is a thing of the past. The companies had the FCTM as their basic SOP manual and tweaked it to suit internal procedures and cultures. They then gave you the a/c, defined a task and said "go and do it, be efficient and be safe." You had the tools and you had the knowledge and used those tools in the best way necessary to complete the task, within company SOP's. There were various ways to skin the cat. Now rigid SOP's give you only one option and you are trained to that end. When circumstances require discretion & deviation the knowledge is not there to choose the other options. The knowledge data base is too small.
That wonderful video 'Children of the Magenta Line' highlighted much of which we speak, but I wonder what effect it has had on philosophies? Within the host airline I hope the HOT had the influence & authority to carry through with his philosophy and make changes. I wonder if HOT's in todays rapidly expanding airlines are allowed such radical ideas, and if so do they have any influence & authority to implement them.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rat5 it is "atrophied", otherwise I support you all the way.
Nowt to beat a bit of oldskule attitude flying, but THEY have not seen the light yet, and even when they do there'll be a delay with more hulls and lives lost til the training permeates through the rocks.
How many of THEM have actually flown an airliner for a living? When EASA ftls are dreamt up by a team which didn't include aircrew, then there's not much hope for bureaucratic monoliths like them reacting speedily and accurately to LOC accidents such as those under discussion in these and other fora.
Nowt to beat a bit of oldskule attitude flying, but THEY have not seen the light yet, and even when they do there'll be a delay with more hulls and lives lost til the training permeates through the rocks.
How many of THEM have actually flown an airliner for a living? When EASA ftls are dreamt up by a team which didn't include aircrew, then there's not much hope for bureaucratic monoliths like them reacting speedily and accurately to LOC accidents such as those under discussion in these and other fora.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In da north country
Age: 62
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you've let a commercial jet get to the point of an actual stall, nothing, including a flight director, is likely to save you.
There are so many electronic safety features that will alert you to impending doom, that if you elect to ignore, or, are incapable of interpreting the warning, There is not much else anyone can do for you.
How did you manage to get in the seat in the first place?
There are so many electronic safety features that will alert you to impending doom, that if you elect to ignore, or, are incapable of interpreting the warning, There is not much else anyone can do for you.
How did you manage to get in the seat in the first place?
@RAT 5, yes, all that is agreed and I am trying to think of a way to move on and improve the situation. With autolands, we all had to perform and record at least three real or practice autolands every six months, (and those performed in the simulator would count towards this total.)
So not a very onerous task, yet it was enough to provide gentle pressure towards keeping that task alive in our minds. I think if we applied the same criteria to mandate raw data manually flown ILS approaches, that might help turn around the 'Children of the magenta/green line' syndrome and help keep our instrument scans and manual flying skills alive.
In quite a subtle way, it would send a message throughout the industry saying "This is what we want you to do, and we are going to let you practice it (conditions permitting)".
If it is not mandated, a significant number of us will never do it, (because we don't like potentially embarrassing ourselves in front of another pilot), and that is how we lose our skills.
So not a very onerous task, yet it was enough to provide gentle pressure towards keeping that task alive in our minds. I think if we applied the same criteria to mandate raw data manually flown ILS approaches, that might help turn around the 'Children of the magenta/green line' syndrome and help keep our instrument scans and manual flying skills alive.
In quite a subtle way, it would send a message throughout the industry saying "This is what we want you to do, and we are going to let you practice it (conditions permitting)".
If it is not mandated, a significant number of us will never do it, (because we don't like potentially embarrassing ourselves in front of another pilot), and that is how we lose our skills.
Last edited by Uplinker; 20th Dec 2015 at 08:56.
Check Airman, ‘flashing red box’ hard to ignore.
I agree, but the initial point is which display is more likely attract the pilot’s attention to a parameter and thence the overall situation for subsequent action. It would have been interesting to consider a flashing gauge ‘display’ for comparison, but I suspect from previous studies of display formats and aspects of Gestalt as above, the centrally located presentation would still be superior both for attention and ‘intuitive’ use – action.
Your point starts with the assumption ‘If’ the pilots are looking at a gauge display; it is often the assumptions which bias the starting point of our thoughts.
We will have to wait for the NLR report for the experimental details, but based on their previous work and the presenter pilot’s involvement, I would have confidence in both the scientific method and summarised findings.
I agree, but the initial point is which display is more likely attract the pilot’s attention to a parameter and thence the overall situation for subsequent action. It would have been interesting to consider a flashing gauge ‘display’ for comparison, but I suspect from previous studies of display formats and aspects of Gestalt as above, the centrally located presentation would still be superior both for attention and ‘intuitive’ use – action.
Your point starts with the assumption ‘If’ the pilots are looking at a gauge display; it is often the assumptions which bias the starting point of our thoughts.
We will have to wait for the NLR report for the experimental details, but based on their previous work and the presenter pilot’s involvement, I would have confidence in both the scientific method and summarised findings.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willit Run - "is likely to save you"???
Plenty of airliners have been stalled, and recovered from the stalls, at altitude.
Trying to use FD's for 'edge of the envelope' flying is beyond stupid. Basic flying 101 - what is my AOA? What pitch and power is appropriate for the current AOA, nose attitude, energy state, and ground state?
Many of the accidents from stalls have had a lack of BASIC understanding of the previous sentence.
Plenty of airliners have been stalled, and recovered from the stalls, at altitude.
Trying to use FD's for 'edge of the envelope' flying is beyond stupid. Basic flying 101 - what is my AOA? What pitch and power is appropriate for the current AOA, nose attitude, energy state, and ground state?
Many of the accidents from stalls have had a lack of BASIC understanding of the previous sentence.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uplinker: In quite a subtle way, it would send a message throughout the industry saying "This is what we want you to do, and we are going to let you practice it (conditions permitting)".
If it is not mandated, a significant number of us will never do it, and that is how we lose our skills.
I'm with you in your goal. It will not be easy to achieve, but the hardest step on a long journey is the first one, and that is often half the difficulty. The 3x autoland logging is mandated, so perhaps that could be a start point. I doubt the airlines in general will introduce it. Those who think like us already encourage it. This who don't never will unless mandated by XAA. And then, who is the dog and who is the tail?
I suspect the autoland log idea came about because it was a new technology; similar to ETOPS. The XAA's didn't really understand either and so legislation was needed to set higher than normal standards. Look now how much of training operational standards have been diluted. Now there is >3hrs ETOPS. 20 years ago this was heresy. The MPL course is 40% less than CPL's in 80's. That would have been heresy to old HOT's with in-house training schools. Engineering standard qualifications are reduced. There are fewer top licensed one at main bases. So much in the last 20 years has been diluted. In this quest you are asking for a raising of the game. I support you and salute the idea. With less piloting experience in EASA & XAA's I have to be pessimistic.
A good idea needs a plan of implementation. Let us know what you think.
If it is not mandated, a significant number of us will never do it, and that is how we lose our skills.
I'm with you in your goal. It will not be easy to achieve, but the hardest step on a long journey is the first one, and that is often half the difficulty. The 3x autoland logging is mandated, so perhaps that could be a start point. I doubt the airlines in general will introduce it. Those who think like us already encourage it. This who don't never will unless mandated by XAA. And then, who is the dog and who is the tail?
I suspect the autoland log idea came about because it was a new technology; similar to ETOPS. The XAA's didn't really understand either and so legislation was needed to set higher than normal standards. Look now how much of training operational standards have been diluted. Now there is >3hrs ETOPS. 20 years ago this was heresy. The MPL course is 40% less than CPL's in 80's. That would have been heresy to old HOT's with in-house training schools. Engineering standard qualifications are reduced. There are fewer top licensed one at main bases. So much in the last 20 years has been diluted. In this quest you are asking for a raising of the game. I support you and salute the idea. With less piloting experience in EASA & XAA's I have to be pessimistic.
A good idea needs a plan of implementation. Let us know what you think.
Please see PM,
Uplinker
Uplinker
