Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Boeing incidents/accidents due to Thrust/Pitch mode mishandling

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Boeing incidents/accidents due to Thrust/Pitch mode mishandling

Old 17th Oct 2018, 09:48
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 100
Posts: 1,408
Originally Posted by parabellum View Post
Possibly time for the regulators to step in to scrub the Multi Engine Licence and insist on 1500 hours of GA or 1500 hours of mixed GA and light twin turbo first officer experience, anything to develop the natural reactions to an aircraft with the potential to fall out of the sky if not attended to properly?
Personally I see it in a different way. What active pilots do need, be them airline, corporate or whatever is constant and recurrent training. The minimum training and checking requirements laid down by the major authorities worldwide can be insufficient to effectively warrant complete proefficiency to those pilots who do not push themselves to dig in more for extra knowledge and practice. A big chunk of the pilot population gets in the book a few days before their recurrent PPC and most of the time already with a good idea of what is going to happen inside the box. Why does that happen ? I believe one of the main reasons is that flying pilots up to their maximum limits obviously requires subsequent rest and time for family/social activities, with less and less time that can be dedicated to self study and preparation. If Authorities / Operators increased the amount of rostered mandatory ground recurrent training and sim training and checking then it could be a big step forward. You can pick up a guy with as many hours as You want of GA to fly on the line, but if subsequently he/she doesn't keep up on track with the constant need of self updating then it will be completely useless. Now having guys on the ground studying and in the sim is expensive for airlines, who need them to fly passengers and not in front of their Ipad to periodically review the several thousand pages of different company manuals and procedures. The question is : how many of those accidents would have happened with better trained and aware pilots ? Nowadays a type rating can take 3 weeks, when I started flying it took 3 months and we had a ground instructor for every system of the aircraft. I believe there should be a way somewhere in between.
My 2 pennies
sonicbum is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2018, 07:54
  #82 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,042
Sonicbum - My only quibble with your argument is that simulators rarely faithfully reproduce the seat of the pants sensations necessary to properly fly an aircraft and so obviously lacking in some recent accidents.
parabellum is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2018, 11:39
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,177
Quite so, Sonicbum, but I also agree with parabellum.

Too many simulator sessions these days are box ticking exercises then-piss-off-early-to-beat the traffic. If an exercise is not flown properly, you get a minor bollocking from the TRE who tells you what you should have done, then an immediate repeat which, unsurprisingly, you get right. The box is ticked and you move on to the next exercise. But have you really learned, understood and practiced the manouever until it is second nature? Of course not.

As a long term Airbus pilot recently converted onto the Boeing, I do find the Boeing autothrust confusing. Obviously, I am not completely au fait with it yet, but it seems (to me) go to arm at strange times, and doesn’t always pick up, so you have to watch it like a hawk otherwise it can bite you in the arse by dropping out while you are re briefing because the arrival and ILS changed or whatever.
Uplinker is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2018, 14:11
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,865
Possibly time for the regulators to step in to scrub the Multi Engine Licence and insist on 1500 hours of GA or 1500 hours of mixed GA and light twin turbo first officer experience, anything to develop the natural reactions to an aircraft with the potential to fall out of the sky if not attended to properly?
Agree whole-heartedly. Not that I fly as a passenger anymore. But when I did, I was always a trifle uneasy sitting down the back knowing on a long flight the captain was asleep in his rest bunk and a sprog second officer was in the left seat and a first officer in the right seat. In the case of the Air France A330 accident it became the second officer's "leg" and the first officer merely watched as the second officer stuffed up in weather.
Centaurus is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2018, 15:30
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 100
Posts: 1,408
Originally Posted by parabellum View Post
Sonicbum - My only quibble with your argument is that simulators rarely faithfully reproduce the seat of the pants sensations necessary to properly fly an aircraft and so obviously lacking in some recent accidents.
Originally Posted by Uplinker View Post
Quite so, Sonicbum, but I also agree with parabellum.

Too many simulator sessions these days are box ticking exercises then-piss-off-early-to-beat the traffic. If an exercise is not flown properly, you get a minor bollocking from the TRE who tells you what you should have done, then an immediate repeat which, unsurprisingly, you get right. The box is ticked and you move on to the next exercise. But have you really learned, understood and practiced the manouever until it is second nature? Of course not.

As a long term Airbus pilot recently converted onto the Boeing, I do find the Boeing autothrust confusing. Obviously, I am not completely au fait with it yet, but it seems (to me) go to arm at strange times, and doesn’t always pick up, so you have to watch it like a hawk otherwise it can bite you in the arse by dropping out while you are re briefing because the arrival and ILS changed or whatever.
You are absolutely right. The seat of the pants sensation is almost completely absent in the sim and that is an important limit of these training devices that we should account for. The "box ticking" philosophy is one of the major concerns affecting the industry as, especially nowadays, everything must be fast and cost efficient otherwise the bean counters will see it as unproductive. Me, like I believe the majority of other trainers regardless of the type of airline, have found myself with 4 hours sim sessions filled up way above the brim with enough material to cover comfortably 2 sessions. You then end up with maybe 1 or 2 trainers signing training disruptions for lack of time whilst the majority just cuts every possible corner to finish the session, go home and chill. No need to say who then gets questioned by the training department. I honestly don't know where we are going to end up by following those principles and I praise those operators who still manage to keep the bar high regardless of how expensive it is.

Last edited by sonicbum; 20th Oct 2018 at 15:32. Reason: typo
sonicbum is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2018, 02:08
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,160
I honestly don't know where we are going to end up by following those principles and I praise those operators who still manage to keep the bar high regardless of how expensive it is.
A good example is competency in max crosswind landings during both type rating and re-currency simulator training sessions. Many low experience pilots fear crosswind landings; yet their boxes are ticked off after two or three landing attempts if they are lucky and it's on to the next sequence in the syllabus.

They lose confidence quickly especially as we all know it takes real pure flying skill to be able to consistently nail a good crosswind landing without screaming tyres and being jerked sideways. It takes at least ten landings on maximum crosswinds in the simulator before some new pilots get the hang of the de-crabbing technique. These can be done from one mile final or five mile final using re-positioning after touch down. Yet few syllabus will allow the half-an-hour of time needed for practice until certified competent.
Tee Emm is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2018, 10:22
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 100
Posts: 1,408
Originally Posted by Tee Emm View Post
A good example is competency in max crosswind landings during both type rating and re-currency simulator training sessions. Many low experience pilots fear crosswind landings; yet their boxes are ticked off after two or three landing attempts if they are lucky and it's on to the next sequence in the syllabus.

They lose confidence quickly especially as we all know it takes real pure flying skill to be able to consistently nail a good crosswind landing without screaming tyres and being jerked sideways. It takes at least ten landings on maximum crosswinds in the simulator before some new pilots get the hang of the de-crabbing technique. These can be done from one mile final or five mile final using re-positioning after touch down. Yet few syllabus will allow the half-an-hour of time needed for practice until certified competent.
That is very true. Unfortunately nowadays how many airlines offer the opportunity to have purely non jeopardy handling sim sessions aside from the mandatory recurrent/ppc ? I believe we can count them on one hand.
sonicbum is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.