Preventing the loss of pure flying skills in jet transport aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBH unless some of the recurrent content goes or is reduced in frequency you're going to need more expensive sim time to allow for a meaningful amount of handling practise ( such scannexs, etc) every 6 months...
What are the chances of that?
To answer your last question "not a lot."
To address the former comment: in the enlightened airlines that expensive sim time is not needed because they do it on the line every day.
What are the chances of that?
To answer your last question "not a lot."
To address the former comment: in the enlightened airlines that expensive sim time is not needed because they do it on the line every day.
You're all probably bored of me saying this, but an easy system to encourage manual flying would be where we have to perform and record a certain number of manually flown, raw data manual thrust approaches every six months, as part of normal line flying.
We used to have to do this for Autolands, and we kept a personal record of them which was checked at every SIM.
A similar thing should be brought in for manually flown raw data approaches. Obviously they would only be expected to be performed in good weather, but it might help drag us out of our collective "laziness" (and I hold my hand up here too.)
We used to have to do this for Autolands, and we kept a personal record of them which was checked at every SIM.
A similar thing should be brought in for manually flown raw data approaches. Obviously they would only be expected to be performed in good weather, but it might help drag us out of our collective "laziness" (and I hold my hand up here too.)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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: this would only be necessary for those airlines that discourage proper pilot orientated visual approaches. Flying a raw data ILS in severe clear should be a given. In an earlier life it was most common to have the airfield in sight passing FL100 and, no matter which runway was in use, to fly manually to an efficient finals and if you spooled up before 1500' it was beer time. That was before all the new bells & whistles avionics. i.e. pilot judgement.
Now ATC requirements often prevent short cuts, and local noise enforcers do not allow you onto the GP below platform height, rarely not less than 2000'. No matter, it is a manual CDA exercise and needs constant adjustment to achieve it. There are still places where you can appear overhead at 5000' and make a CDA to either runway direction. Great fun, until the damp blanket brigade decreed that finals must be established not less than 4nm or OM, and a wpt must be inserted in the magic box to ensure compliance. OMG.
If all that was done via automatics, and only the final 4nm was manual flight on a good day, where's the skill developing benefit? It needs to be the whole profile from 20nm out to a CDA. That should be basic line flying.
It's all an attitude thing. Its defence is always safety and economics. It avoids unstable approaches and reduces GA's. So there you have it. But let's publish the performances of those airlines who encourage manual flight and those who don't and see if there is any truth in that perception.
Now ATC requirements often prevent short cuts, and local noise enforcers do not allow you onto the GP below platform height, rarely not less than 2000'. No matter, it is a manual CDA exercise and needs constant adjustment to achieve it. There are still places where you can appear overhead at 5000' and make a CDA to either runway direction. Great fun, until the damp blanket brigade decreed that finals must be established not less than 4nm or OM, and a wpt must be inserted in the magic box to ensure compliance. OMG.
If all that was done via automatics, and only the final 4nm was manual flight on a good day, where's the skill developing benefit? It needs to be the whole profile from 20nm out to a CDA. That should be basic line flying.
It's all an attitude thing. Its defence is always safety and economics. It avoids unstable approaches and reduces GA's. So there you have it. But let's publish the performances of those airlines who encourage manual flight and those who don't and see if there is any truth in that perception.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to start an A vs B debate, but why do you say that? I've been up front in the NG, and I don't see anything too cutting edge.
While the A320 is a more evolutionarily advanced aircraft, mostly due to the ingenious FBW system, the 737NG's electronics are a generation ahead. It's a bit ironic, yes?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cadet selection process is raw data flying, and mini IR test. Base training is no FD flying to a pure visual with timing guidance to roll out on finals at 3nm. These are the skills required to join the lofty ranks of line pilots; well line training anyway.
On the line these skills and attributes are forbidden.
"Forbidden" - my bold, unless a day comes when we are in dire need of manual flying skills, then by all means, save the day, Roger. But if you bugger it up, and manage live to tell about it, you might find yourself on the wrong side of an inquiry.
The thing that gets me in some airlines is their confusing attitude.
Sounds like complete nonsense to me, another made up story.
I would not have placed that remark on pprune just for nonsense sake. Those words came from a highly experienced and respected (now retired) Boeing 787 simulator instructor with whom I have corresponded for over 15 years on technical matters, in a personal email to me and while he was undergoing his initial 787 type rating at Boeing prior to his conducting type rating training on type. Take it or leave it...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like complete nonsense to me, another made up story.
0 to ATPL being the norm outside of the US and becoming more common. Airbus was highly astute in recognizing the early majority of their customers seeking airline fleet modernity would be employing those who do not come from a pool of clasically trained pilots and of which English may not be their native language. Their ingenious FBW system was to mitigate much of the risk in that endeavour and for the most part has done a fairly good job, considering.
Last edited by vapilot2004; 2nd Jun 2016 at 13:49.
an easy system to encourage manual flying would be where we have to perform and record a certain number of manually flown, raw data manual thrust approaches every six months, as part of normal line flying.
Playing Devil's advocate for a moment what would be an acceptable level of, say, hand flown approaches (define? e.g. autopilot out below 3k??)) per six months? I know at times some F/O's on Longhaul Fleets struggle to get a landing/approach of any sort a month, due to the heavy crewing they are rostered to do.
@ pax b, l would agree with most of #34, except the 'vital skills in daily use' for Colgan, Asiana, AF do not relate directly to 'pure' flying skills. The dominant skill shortfall was in awareness, probably with contributions from training; stall vs unwarranted tail-stall training, knowledge of a system gotcha, reversion to a recently trained procedure.
A theme of the automation/flying debate is confidence in flying ability. Crews need to acquire and maintain confidence for a wide range of operational scenarios, but it important not to transpose passenger comfort or other operational niceties with the requirement for a safe outcome.
e.g. Whilst it is necessary for crew to practice landings in limiting crosswinds (noting the limits of simulation), it is equally important to direct this experience away from overconfidence. A critical skill is knowing when not to attempt a landing in a limiting crosswind, and what affects the 'limit'.
An alternative incident/accident analysis is required, but I would not turn to IFALPA etc for this. They or similar groups already consider the outcome and recommendations in reports more often with little questioning, resulting in general categorisations, boxes for action.
It would be more beneficial and provide a quicker response, for all operators, all individuals, to consider the reported situation seeking what can be learnt; what they can learn.
It is likely that there will be an wide range of views, probably identifying the many contributors in an accident situation. The objective is not to determine cause, blame etc, but to ask what can be learnt irrespective of the outcome. What applies to 'me', my operation, etc bearing in mind that the outcome might already be known.
A theme of the automation/flying debate is confidence in flying ability. Crews need to acquire and maintain confidence for a wide range of operational scenarios, but it important not to transpose passenger comfort or other operational niceties with the requirement for a safe outcome.
e.g. Whilst it is necessary for crew to practice landings in limiting crosswinds (noting the limits of simulation), it is equally important to direct this experience away from overconfidence. A critical skill is knowing when not to attempt a landing in a limiting crosswind, and what affects the 'limit'.
An alternative incident/accident analysis is required, but I would not turn to IFALPA etc for this. They or similar groups already consider the outcome and recommendations in reports more often with little questioning, resulting in general categorisations, boxes for action.
It would be more beneficial and provide a quicker response, for all operators, all individuals, to consider the reported situation seeking what can be learnt; what they can learn.
It is likely that there will be an wide range of views, probably identifying the many contributors in an accident situation. The objective is not to determine cause, blame etc, but to ask what can be learnt irrespective of the outcome. What applies to 'me', my operation, etc bearing in mind that the outcome might already be known.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a pilot cannot routinely fly by hand at the aircraft limits safely, then they are not really a safe pilot.
Automatics never fail on the CAVOK days....
PEI ( been to lovely little Charlotte town -a good few years ago.
I would not argue with your clearer classification of the failings in the incidents I referred to . You seem to generally agree with my point that in order for something to happen there needs to be pressure on the managements to take active steps to mitigate what has become a significant cause of incidents even if overall the number of serious incidents have decreased.
The beanies can for a time wave the stats at you and say -our way is safer BUT and it is a big BUt it has become pretty clear that when things get difficult or unusual or unfamiliar 'their way is not safer it is in fact dangerous.
and sooner or later the lawyers are going to make compensation cases (which only refer to one incident at a time ) and say airline xx didnt train their crews properly for abnormal flight conditions and no amount of arguing about what happens to the other 99.999% of flights being safer is going to help then. So I think airline managers need that situation pushed upon them quite forcefully
I would not argue with your clearer classification of the failings in the incidents I referred to . You seem to generally agree with my point that in order for something to happen there needs to be pressure on the managements to take active steps to mitigate what has become a significant cause of incidents even if overall the number of serious incidents have decreased.
The beanies can for a time wave the stats at you and say -our way is safer BUT and it is a big BUt it has become pretty clear that when things get difficult or unusual or unfamiliar 'their way is not safer it is in fact dangerous.
and sooner or later the lawyers are going to make compensation cases (which only refer to one incident at a time ) and say airline xx didnt train their crews properly for abnormal flight conditions and no amount of arguing about what happens to the other 99.999% of flights being safer is going to help then. So I think airline managers need that situation pushed upon them quite forcefully
@ pax b, yes l agree. However, operators in satisfying the beanies and lawyers, may only meet the minimum regulatory requirements, where often the reasoning behind the regulatory change is flawed, dated, and may not address the important issues.
Furthermore, each operator / individual can implement the training according to their understanding of the problem (cf range of suggestions in this thread), and then who checks that the output achieves the improvement intended.
I do not have an issue with those who wish for more hand flying, that's good for aviation. But individually, operators, and regulators must not fool themselves that this alone will solve the significant problems which can result in LoC.
How does accumulating manually flown approaches contribute to the avoidance of similar situations to those encountered in recent accidents; crews need to improve understanding and identification of weather threats, aircraft systems abnormalities, and 'off' normal operation (limits of SOPs).
Furthermore, each operator / individual can implement the training according to their understanding of the problem (cf range of suggestions in this thread), and then who checks that the output achieves the improvement intended.
I do not have an issue with those who wish for more hand flying, that's good for aviation. But individually, operators, and regulators must not fool themselves that this alone will solve the significant problems which can result in LoC.
How does accumulating manually flown approaches contribute to the avoidance of similar situations to those encountered in recent accidents; crews need to improve understanding and identification of weather threats, aircraft systems abnormalities, and 'off' normal operation (limits of SOPs).
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"That which has never been possessed can't be lost."
Are you advocating that it is not necessary for airline pilots to have such skills? And therefore they should not be part of the training program in the transition from spam-cans to jet powered aluminium tubes? Surely any pilot in whom others trust should have pure flying skills to a minimum degree. That does not mean rock & roll inverted flight etc., but pure flying skills related to their application.
Tongue in cheek, if you wish.
Are you advocating that it is not necessary for airline pilots to have such skills? And therefore they should not be part of the training program in the transition from spam-cans to jet powered aluminium tubes? Surely any pilot in whom others trust should have pure flying skills to a minimum degree. That does not mean rock & roll inverted flight etc., but pure flying skills related to their application.
Tongue in cheek, if you wish.
The comment was not a position on the desirability of such skills (which ought to be self evident, but until some bean counter gets indicted for corporate manslaughter.....).
These days I spend most of my time doing MCC and JOC courses; bridging the gap between licence issue and first type rating. Although I ought to be used to it by now I continue to be dismayed by how few of the students can actually fly. Inability to set an attitude. Inability to trim. Non existent scan, especially of heading and speed. Inability to figure out which hand controls what for various phases of flight. Honestly I have NO IDEA how 70% of these people have passed an IR.
I don't blame the students. As an industry (and with the regulators also guilty by omission of action) we have completely messed up the flying training process.
pb
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I continue to be dismayed by how few of the students can actually fly. Inability to set an attitude. Inability to trim. Non existent scan, especially of heading and speed. Inability to figure out which hand controls what for various phases of flight. Honestly I have NO IDEA how 70% of these people have passed an IR.
I don't blame the students. As an industry (and with the regulators also guilty by omission of action) we have completely messed up the flying training process.
The 'leaders', not the majority, signed off on the programs/systems the 'risk averse' and bottom line aligned were selling. This is the root core of the current disconnect towards safety culture.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is interesting, in this debate, is that critisicm of lack of real basic flying skills has now migrated down the food chain to the embryonic stages. That is scary and the solution rests firmly on the XAA's and flight school inspectors. Who does the final CPL flight test? Are they locally appointed/approved TRE's or employed XAA examiners? Is there any incentive for flight schools to have high pass rates? Is there an assumption that the CPL student on an airline orientated course will then fall into the talons of the in-house airline training dept. and be beaten into shape.
I wonder, having failed 1 element of my initial IR, if standards are high enough in the early stages. I wonder too at the basic selection process. True, anyone with cash can buy a CPL, but aptitude has to be assessed along the way. I know schools are businesses first & foremost. A difficult conundrum.
From experience I found that the small airlines operating from a few bases, who conducted their training & recurrency at home base, who did not employ self-funded cadets but experienced pilots were more active in encouraging piloting skills to be maintained on the line; certainly in all the various charter companies I flew for. This attitude is also alive and confirmed by friends at some of the EU and Canadian national carriers, even up to B747 size.
What I did find is that the rapidly expanding airlines, who have bases all over the place, have pilots from a rainbow of back-grounds and who do employ a large number of self-funded cadets, have quite the opposite attitude. Very rigid use of automatics and SOP's.
It was felt this was the only way to 'keep a handle' on the safe expansion over the horizon. It might seem that the rapid growth of the cheap ticket market so loved by the ever travelling nouveau pax has been complicit, in some areas, with the dilution of piloting skills.
Now that does need the wisdom of Solomon to solve and reverse.
I wonder, having failed 1 element of my initial IR, if standards are high enough in the early stages. I wonder too at the basic selection process. True, anyone with cash can buy a CPL, but aptitude has to be assessed along the way. I know schools are businesses first & foremost. A difficult conundrum.
From experience I found that the small airlines operating from a few bases, who conducted their training & recurrency at home base, who did not employ self-funded cadets but experienced pilots were more active in encouraging piloting skills to be maintained on the line; certainly in all the various charter companies I flew for. This attitude is also alive and confirmed by friends at some of the EU and Canadian national carriers, even up to B747 size.
What I did find is that the rapidly expanding airlines, who have bases all over the place, have pilots from a rainbow of back-grounds and who do employ a large number of self-funded cadets, have quite the opposite attitude. Very rigid use of automatics and SOP's.
It was felt this was the only way to 'keep a handle' on the safe expansion over the horizon. It might seem that the rapid growth of the cheap ticket market so loved by the ever travelling nouveau pax has been complicit, in some areas, with the dilution of piloting skills.
Now that does need the wisdom of Solomon to solve and reverse.
Uplinker: this would only be necessary for those airlines that discourage proper pilot orientated visual approaches. Flying a raw data ILS in severe clear should be a given. In an earlier life it was most common to have the airfield in sight passing FL100 and, no matter which runway was in use, to fly manually to an efficient finals and if you spooled up before 1500' it was beer time. That was before all the new bells & whistles avionics. i.e. pilot judgement.
@wiggy, Well that is for the XAA's to say, not me. We used to have to perform and record 3 practice autolands every 6 months, of which 2 could be flown in the SIM, so I would have thought that was enough opportunity in 6 months for even the long-haul only pilots?
@Tourist; I am trying to come up with workable ideas to shift the thinking and complacency in our industry. Yes, we should all be able to fly at our limits, and indeed some of us can - I used to really enjoy all the turbulent crosswind landing practice I got at EGBB and EGNM. However, the level of such skills is dropping in our industry, and my suggestion might be a way to change the thinking and mind set - in admittedly a small way - of airlines and pilots. Some days I am too tired or, let's be honest, sometimes too lazy to hand fly. If we have had a difficult time on the ground; fire fighting delays from the GHAs, security, the wheelchair agents and slots etc., then I am probably feeling frazzled and not in the mood - I just want to get round the track and then get some rest. Having said that, I am forcing myself to do raw data approaches whenever I can - I did one this morning which wasn't too shoddy, although it was a bit high and fast! And the reason for specifying good or reasonable weather for practice is that unless some sensible ground rules are set out, airlines are not likely to embrace such a proposal - which potentially might lead to increased go-arounds - until we all get used to the idea.
Many of us used to come out of flying school and start on small turbo props or piston engined aircraft, on which we "learned the ropes" doing night freight with crusty and difficult Captains. Then we progressed onto larger turbo props and finally jets. So we have the experience and skills - as long as we can keep them sharp. But folk now are coming out of flight school having flown a small composite twin @ 3000' in good weather for, what, 120 hours? and then go flying in a 737 or 320 SIM before being put on the line ! Do they really have the depth of skill and experience that us 'oldies' do? Have they ever wrestled a turboprop safely to the ground in turbulent crosswinds at their personal limits?
The authorities need to make a decision: Are they going to allow the continued reduction of piloting skills to occur, and therefore 'accept' the occasional crash - in which case they need to justify that thinking - or are they going to do something to keep raw flying skills at the forefront of aviation practice?
Last edited by Uplinker; 3rd Jun 2016 at 15:06.
@wiggy, Well that is for the XAA's to say, not me. We used to have to perform and record 3 practice autolands every 6 months, of which 2 could be flown in the SIM, so I would have thought that was enough opportunity in 6 months for even the long-haul only pilots?
on the line that we have to log for the XAA. I'm simply not sure you can set a target/monthly/three monthly requirement to log certain types of handling exercises and approaches on the aircraft as was done "back in the day", certainly in an organisation I flew for, where you'd get ***** by the stats officer and boss if you hadn't flown your two simulated engine out SRAs for the month.
I apologise for teaching to suck eggs etc, but at a rough guess where I work many of the Long Haul P2s might only get a shot at get 2-3 approaches in a average month. Obviously (?) not all of those approaches can be hand flown e.g. because of Ops manual restrictions for approaches in weather close to Cat 1 limits, increasing frequency of RNAV approaches ( BTW another recurrent sim box tick that uses up time but adds nil to hand flying practise) etc.
Given the amount of exposure my colleagues get it's not uncommon, especially in the winter months, to fly with pilots who haven't hand flown an ILS for several months, and it's not been down to laziness.
I actually think they mostly do remarkably well given the lack of opportunity for hand flying........
Last edited by wiggy; 3rd Jun 2016 at 18:22.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiggy. I understand and sympathise. Finding a 'fits all' solution is never easy. It's like FTLs. One size does not fit all. I heard of problems in one long haul heavy crew operator. The SFO's were rostered as safety/cruise pilots with the newbies. The captain needed recurrency landings, plus autolands, and the newbies need experience. This the SFO's had naff all handling time. Then came their command upgrade process. they were rusty as hell and some failed. Their fault? No.
What troubles many of us is the lack of skills in the short haul market. There, there are no mitigating circumstances other than company culture. There is opportunity enough. The fact that it is not taken, or is to allowed, is the root cause of the problem. One could argue who needs the skill more, the multi-sector short-haul minor-airport ILS/NPA pilot or the few-sector, long-haul, major airport ILS autoland pilot. They are different animals. Both should have the basic skills, but who need them more on a daily basis?
What troubles many of us is the lack of skills in the short haul market. There, there are no mitigating circumstances other than company culture. There is opportunity enough. The fact that it is not taken, or is to allowed, is the root cause of the problem. One could argue who needs the skill more, the multi-sector short-haul minor-airport ILS/NPA pilot or the few-sector, long-haul, major airport ILS autoland pilot. They are different animals. Both should have the basic skills, but who need them more on a daily basis?
I'm not sure where logging autolands comes into it (other than it was about the only thing that we did/ do on the line that we have to log for the XAA.
I'm simply not sure you can set a target/monthly/three monthly requirement to log certain types of handling exercises and approaches on the aircraft
Last edited by Uplinker; 4th Jun 2016 at 02:56.