757 pilot had history of hairy landings

[giggitygiggity]

Originally Posted by Banana Joe

I am going to be straight with my question: was gender part of the selection criteria?
Jet2 has to be the company that asked me the highest number of questions concerning my gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity. And they are not the only UK carrier I've applied to in my life.

As an aside (kinda), a group of us started as cadets many years ago, straight on to the A320 with an excellent (training-wise) large Airbus operator in Europe. Everyone had their ups and downs with the landings, however only one of us was tough enough to ask to repeat base training as they had lost their confidence with their landings. It was of course the only woman in the group. Youthful me probably found that quite funny and would have sadly gossiped about it with the rest of the guys, but grown up me realises that myself, or many of the other men would have probably done the same if our machismo hadn't gotten in the way of our development.

We all made it through, but I can't think of any more accutely stressful time of my life - which would probably have been resolved with another six landings at a quiet European airport.

Originally Posted by Check Airman

If I read that right, the FO had amassed 60 landings over 80 sectors and still couldn’t figure it out? What’s the “standard” line training footprint across the sea?

Here, we do 25 or 15 hours on narrowbodies. Not sure about how the widebody guys do it. Granted, the FO in question had very low time, but the most I’ve ever heard of is someone new (first jet) getting 80ish hours of training. After that, the company usually cuts you off. This pilot got 285 hours.

Unfortunate that it didn’t work out for this person, but I suppose this is the system working as intended. I wish the person the best in future endeavours.

285hrs is indeed a lot, but the 757 was probably used for medium-haul work mostly (eg fewer sectors than city hopping round the US). Jet2 does a lot of sunny island work so there will have certainly been fields with little more than an NDB and a guy that likes to dress up as an air traffic controller.

These guys that enter airlines as 'cadets' over here might join with approx 150hrs. They might not have spoken to European ATC during their whole training period. The learning curve is tricky and steep. I assume that when you train someone for 25hrs, most of them will have at the minimum trained in the US under FAA regs, but more than likely have flown other commercial ops or have 1500hrs of ATC comms under their belt. Of course I'm just highlighting ATC specifically but it must take a little more refinement over here. Without getting into a debate over the merits of one system over another, largely, safety doesn't seem to be compromised by this approach at all. This is a rare incident that isn't alien to many experienced pilots who were never 'cadets'. After all, Delta managed to smash a 757 into the Azores in equally CAVOK conditions.

The thing that worries me most about this is that through the control wheel; the captain knew exactly what inputs the FO was applying and that they couldn't react well enough to avoid the paperwork. It's trickier on the Airbus but surely on the Boeing, it's inherent?

[Ollie Onion]

That is not an unreasonable amount of hours considering he had reached the maximum retraining sectors being 'up to 3 x the initial training sectors'. I read this to mean that by the time he was on his 3rd line check he had used 120 training sectors which would mean an average flight time of just over 2 hours. That would make sense as well that after 120 sectors he had performed 60 landings. The fact that 11 of those landings resulted in a take over by the training captain speaks volumes. I spent years as a trainer of new pilots onto the A320/21 and could honestly say I had to physically take over less than 11 times in my whole training career. It is a big deal to be having to take over 15% of a single trainees landings. Some people just can't be trained, I had a ppl student handed to me once, he had 120 hours total and hadn't gone solo as he couldn't land. I did about 20 hours of circuits with him and 80% of the time he would do barely passable landings with the other 20% being down right dangerous. I suggested he take up golf, I talked to the CFI and said I had tried everything I could, the student went off to Florida and came back with a PPL, I suggested to the CFI it was a bad idea to rent aircraft to him, I was over ruled and off he went with two friends on a flight. Next thing we got was a phone call from Cranfields TWR to say that this guy had just bounced on landing in the 172, dinged the prop and veered off the runway ending up in a smoking wreck on the grass, thankfully everyone walked away. It can be the hardest thing to do, but sometimes people just don't have the skills to fly an aeroplane and it is only fair to tell them that.

[Uplinker]

I would be interested to know more about your C172 student not being able to land. Were you able to work out where he was going wrong? - was it where he was looking during the flare, lack of hand-eye coordination, lack of SA in three dimensional space etc?

You sometimes see car drivers going along the road with the wipers on, even though it is not raining at all - particularly the rear wiper. Or the fog lights on in clear conditions, or high beam on, blinding oncoming drivers. Or in the middle lane with no other cars around. And some drivers cannot plot their car in 2d space so they struggle to manoeuvre it in parking lots etc. So they are able to start the engine and drive along the road without accidents, but otherwise seem oblivious of where the car is in space and what the car systems are doing.

There must be some sort of perception gap that some have, or perhaps it is information overload? Maybe this is what is happening to a very small percentage of pilots who cannot land?

[ohnutsiforgot]

I am a one-eyed pilot, multiengine instrument rated, several thousand hours. I did have a fair amount of trouble with flare height until I developed an alternative method over a period of months, which was to look out the side window and judge closing rate as a matter of timing.. 5-4-3-2-1 . However my instructor would joke that what I really did was point the nose at the numbers and fiddle with the glove box door for 20 seconds or so. One thing that I did accomplish was adherence to glide slope and other instrument procedures, as I became more confident in the IFR environment than VFR.
FYI to get a license with one eye you need a medical flight test with a FAA medical examiner resulting in a waiver..

[B2N2]

I have trained students for their PPL with vision in only one eye and I have flown with a Capt in a large Transport category aircraft that had the same.
Apart from the obvious you couldn’t tell the difference in skill level.
As far as the student who pranged the C172....i say it somewhat jokingly as I only have my own experience and anecdotal snippets from others: 3 out of a 100 are gifted natural pilots. Combination of spatial and mechanical intuition and spades of common sense.
They’re the lucky ones and when encountered should be encouraged to pursue a career in aviation.
On the flip side of that coin we the 3% that cannot be taught how to be a safe and proficient skilled pilot. They lack the correct combination of before mentioned traits.
They vary from 250 hr PPL’s to the quadruple failure of every exam to the never solo which are obviously the most extreme cases.
I’ve personally flown with an individual who would return after a 6-9 month hiatus and 100-150 hrs missing out of his logbooks.
Every instructor we had (5-6?)tried and tried and tried again and eventually we ran out of instructors and that’s when he left.
We thought he had in excess of 250-300 hrs dual instruction with no solo.

The other 94%? They have to work hard at achieving their goals in aviation like I did.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Originally Posted by Check Airman

To land a 757? I like to think I could do it if trained. Haven’t tried though.

You most certainly can... easy

​I wish I could say the same thing about Airbus but I also do believe that I can fly her with training... With No training I would call the radio and have them provide me with instructions from an Airbus pilot


Please eat the chicken not the fish

[Uplinker]

An Airbus FBW flies manually just the same as any other modern jet. There is no difference in how the controls work in manual flight apart from the side-stick, but that is really easy.

Thrust levers, gear, flaps, speed brake, ground spoilers, wheel brakes, reversers, taxiing, all have the same controls and work the same as any other modern jet, with a couple of minor differences. You still push the thrust levers forward for more thrust, pull them back for less. You pull the side-stick back to pitch up, push forward to pitch down. You move the side-stick sideways to roll. The speed-brake lever is clicked out in length to arm the ground spoilers and there are push buttons instead of a rotary switch for auto-brake. Rudder pedals and wheel brakes and steering tillers are the same.

You don't have to trim anything. It stays in the attitude you put it. The trick is to use the stick to set the attitude you want, then let the stick centralise. The aircraft will then stay there, in that attitude (barring large turbulence upsets). (The FBW will modify side-stick inputs, and limit extreme ones, but in normal flying to approach and land, this will not be evident).

If presented with an Airbus FBW in manual, you would have very little trouble flying it and landing it

[Check Airman]

...and you’d have a great deal of fun doing so

[172_driver]

To anyone who's spent a length of time on an Airbus with auto trim, then converting back to a type where you have to trim yourself; do you get rusty or is it still second nature?

(i am still not sure if i would be on the pedals going back to a C172)

[Check Airman]

Originally Posted by 172_driver

To anyone who's spent a length of time on an Airbus with auto trim, then converting back to a type where you have to trim yourself; do you get rusty or is it still second nature?

(i am still not sure if i would be on the pedals going back to a C172)

It took me a while to get used to trimming again. In the sim at first, then again in the airplane. Quite frustrating, to be fighting with the plane until you figure out why it won’t stay put.

[stilton]

Originally Posted by Uplinker

An Airbus FBW flies manually just the same as any other modern jet. There is no difference in how the controls work in manual flight apart from the side-stick, but that is really easy.

Thrust levers, gear, flaps, speed brake, ground spoilers, wheel brakes, reversers, taxiing, all have the same controls and work the same as any other modern jet, with a couple of minor differences. You still push the thrust levers forward for more thrust, pull them back for less. You pull the side-stick back to pitch up, push forward to pitch down. You move the side-stick sideways to roll. The speed-brake lever is clicked out in length to arm the ground spoilers and there are push buttons instead of a rotary switch for auto-brake. Rudder pedals and wheel brakes and steering tillers are the same.

You don't have to trim anything. It stays in the attitude you put it. The trick is to use the stick to set the attitude you want, then let the stick centralise. The aircraft will then stay there, in that attitude (barring large turbulence upsets). (The FBW will modify side-stick inputs, and limit extreme ones, but in normal flying to approach and land, this will not be evident).

If presented with an Airbus FBW in manual, you would have very little trouble flying it and landing it

I don’t doubt it but it’s just not correct to say that Airbus FBW flies manually just like any other modern jet



From not needing to trim, an auto thrust system that does not move the throttles to numerous protections and hard limits just to name a few there are significant differences to consider

[Uplinker]

Originally Posted by 172_driver

To anyone who's spent a length of time on an Airbus with auto trim, then converting back to a type where you have to trim yourself; do you get rusty or is it still second nature?.....

I went from 13 years on Airbus A320/321/330, onto Boeing 737-300/400 - some of which were round dials (And a year later, back onto A330, thankfully)


I was delighted to find that my trimming, (learned from 5 previous years to the 13, on non FBW aircraft), came back immediately and instinctively without conscious thought. Not always 100% accurate, but it was 95% there.


@ stilton; No an Airbus FBW in manual flies just the same as a Boeing in manual, from a controls point of view. You push the thrust levers forward for more thrust, pull back for less thrust*. You push the side-stick forward to pitch down, pull back to pitch up. Roll is very slightly different because you push the side-stick sideways instead of rotating the yoke like a steering wheel. But the side-stick takes about 2 minutes to get the hang of. You don't have to trim anything on the FBW so it is easier. If you were transported from manually flying a Boeing to manually flying an Airbus FBW, you could totally fly it, and land it. It is easy.


*( Boeing thrust levers do not move in manual).

[Check Airman]

stilton I think Uplinker’s main point was that you don’t really think about it after a while. It comes pretty naturally. If you can’t fly a 737, you won’t be able to fly an A320.

At least when I’m flying, I don’t think in terms of what’s written in the book (g-load and roll rate). I don’t think anyone does. You just move the controls to the attitude and thrust that you want. I’ll concede that disengaging auto thrust can be more difficult that it needed to be, but once it’s off, it’s completely intuitive- push for loud, pull for quiet.

edit
It seems we posted at the same time Uplinker

[nonsense]

Originally Posted by ohnutsiforgot

I am a one-eyed pilot, multiengine instrument rated, several thousand hours. I did have a fair amount of trouble with flare height until I developed an alternative method over a period of months...

In my late twenties, I was recently blind in my dominant eye due to a cataract when I was learning to hang glide. We were learning by gliding down a grass slope to a smooth sand beach and with no stereopsis my flares varied from dropping a good two metres to the ground to the occasion when I ran the crossbar into the sand without flaring.

[vilas]

Originally Posted by stilton

I don’t doubt it but it’s just not correct to say that Airbus FBW flies manually just like any other modern jet
From not needing to trim, an auto thrust system that does not move the throttles to numerous protections and hard limits just to name a few there are significant differences to consider

I would differ slightly from Uplinker. It's not theoretically but practically also there is a difference. Airbus is flight path stable Boeing is speed stable. That means the aircraft behavior is not same with thrust and speed changes. Boeing 737 nose will pitch up or down but Airbus will maintain the flight path. That's why in 737 with autothrottle/AP it's either auto/auto or manual/manual. It was same in airbus non FBW but in AB FBW ATHR can remain on. In Boeing when you make pitch change you need to hold the new attitude till it is trimmed off or the nose will go back to previous attitude. Not so in AB FBW you make pitch change and return the stick to neutral or rather make a pitch change and leave the stick it's spring loaded to go back to neutral. In airbus when stick is out of neutral you are asking the computer to change pitch or bank. So if you are happy with your PFD you leave the stick alone. I have seen some trainees both abinitio and experienced initially creating their own instablity. Airbus is not difficult it's easy but different. Take missed approach 737 as you change the attitude aircraft itself will sharply pitch up and you may have to push forward then trim. Stab trim is not that simple. Unlike elevator trim tab which changes the neutral position of the yoke stab trim doesn't and you need to move back after trimming. Rostov on Don crash happened because the stick was held forward and prolonged trim was applied putting the aircraft in steep dive. In AB Aircraft will resist any change that is not commanded from side stick. So if pilot doesn't pull up it pitches 8 or 9 degrees. So you can pitch up all the way to 15° and leave the stick it will stay there. It's easy to switch to Airbus but an out and out CPL to command A320 pilot changing to 737 will have to rediscover basic skills of holding speed or altitude and trim. Because when you reduce thrust in AB nose doesn't drop nor does it come up with increase in thrust also there's no tactile feed back in the stick. Airbus is ideal for 200hrs guys to settle down to Airline flying. Even a less gifted can manage as it doesn't demand high standards of psychomotor skills.

[anotheruser]

AFAIK even the B777/787 has autotrim for thrust and configuration changes. Even the speed stability is artificial: Basically the control laws are the same as on the Airbus, with a function that chases airspeed put on top if it? Is it true that for speed changes you don't have to actually trim, but only briefly hit the trim switch in the correct direction and then it will trim automatically for the current speed?

I've always wondered what autotrim is good for. I mean, trimming is not that difficult, is it? You do it with your thumb, instinctively, mostly subconsciously. But it gives you a feeling for your airplane, how it naturally reacts to thrust and configuration changes etc. Through everyday practise, that knowledge will be more than just learned and trained, it will become engraved into your mind and you will be able to apply it without actually having to remember and think about it. There have been occurences in which pilots brought a crippled airplane back under control by lowering gear, using thrust, extending flaps etc. They did that intuitively because they knew how their plane would react to this. Would pilots that never trim their airplanes outside the sim be able to do that?

[vilas]

I've always wondered what autotrim is good for. I mean, trimming is not that difficult, is it? You do it with your thumb, instinctively, mostly subconsciously.

As far as Airbus FBW is concerned it's not a question of easy or difficult but auto trim is essential design philosophy. It's not even the trim which comes into picture later it's the control which is held in position as commanded by the pilot through an integrater. Then the trim takes over. Airbus is for automated flights.

[spanner the cat]

The 777 trims for a reference speed, rather than a nose attitude. The trim isn't automatic, it has to be adjusted manually if the speed is changed. The system does compensate for thrust changes.

[vilas]

Originally Posted by spanner the cat

The 777 trims for a reference speed, rather than a nose attitude. The trim isn't automatic, it has to be adjusted manually if the speed is changed. The system does compensate for thrust changes.

Can you explain how does it compensate for thrust changes. In speed stable system if thrust is increased and if the flight path is maintained i.e. if the nose doesn't come up speed will increase. Similarly if the thrust is decreased if the nose doesn't drop speed will decrease. That's what happens in Airbus. What happens in 777?

[Uplinker]

Originally Posted by anotheruser

I've always wondered what autotrim is good for. I mean, trimming is not that difficult, is it? You do it with your thumb, instinctively, mostly subconsciously. But it gives you a feeling for your airplane, how it naturally reacts to thrust and configuration changes etc. Through everyday practise, that knowledge will be more than just learned and trained, it will become engraved into your mind and you will be able to apply it without actually having to remember and think about it. There have been occurences in which pilots brought a crippled airplane back under control by lowering gear, using thrust, extending flaps etc. They did that intuitively because they knew how their plane would react to this. Would pilots that never trim their airplanes outside the sim be able to do that?

Fair points.

With my engineer's hat on though, since my distant C152 days I personally have always thought that the need to trim aircraft for speed ought to be designed out, (and ditto the pitch-power couple).

If, owing to a quirk of physics, our cars veered to the right with increasing speed, and to the left with decreasing speed, we would all get used to trimming them to keep straight, but it is so much nicer not having to do that and having a neutral steering wheel at all speeds.

Likewise, the Airbus FBW is really lovely to fly without having to trim all the time. I have passed 7 commercial type ratings so far, 5 that needed trimming, 2 that have auto trim. I much prefer those with auto trim !