The need for change was felt due to
1.By regulation Flight Crew Training and checking is based on events, which may be highly improbable in modern aeroplanes.
2.Training programmes are consequently saturated with items that may not necessarily mitigate the real risk or enhance safety in modern air transport operations.
It was started as a safety initiative to enhance and harmonize airline training standards and was developed by industry stake holders under the umbrella of IATA starting 2008. It was to be added in PANS TRAINING in 2012 along with ICAO manual of EBT. It is supposed to be in two phases Recurrent and type rating. The Data came from Global Data report. Training criticality survey, Accident and incident analysis and enahnced EBT will also include Individual Operator Analysis. Global Data has cosidered LOSA reports, Flight Data Analysis studies(3,000000 flights),NTSB Data base(1962 to 2010, 22 aircraft types), 20000 SIM evaluations from airlines and Boeing pilot survey on trainig.
In short all the agencies that matter are involved. The article is too big to produce here. Those interested can go to the ICAO document.

That exercise is a time waster and could just as easily be covered in a class room discussion. What cannot be covered in a class room discussion is handling a 35 knot crosswind on a limiting runway length at night. Or loss of thrust on both engines following a volcanic ash encounter leading into a forced landing from 18,000 ft. Ever attempted a dead stick landing in a simulator? if you haven't, then the chances are high you would crash if for real.

These are just a few examples of the sort of basic handling skills absent in today's jet transport cockpits. Minimise the tedium of button pushing automatic approaches and time consuming check list reading and use valuable and rare simulator time to concentrate on manual skills that have been steadily eroded by automation addiction.

No quarrel. It's not a handling exercise; it's a judgement exercise.

Spot on, exactly what was and continues to occur at my previous SE Asian airline, along with making managers / checkers out of the worst of the lot - based only on their political position. :ugh:

Have heard of airlines whose SOP is A/P on at 1000 agl on takeoff, dual ch A/P ILS to allow an A/P in case of G/A, even if not LVP's, and then disconnect A/P below 1000' agl on finals. How do they pass their prof checks which do include some manual flying (N-1)?

Well, most people will go "mind if I hand fly a bit?".

No.

I guess if you can not hand fly autopilot above 1,000 ft must be a requirement. Some make it 400 ft because their pilots are even worse. We handflew most departures and arrivals and only turned the autopilot on when we got bored. But we are old now so are sorry to see aviation depend so much on automation because of the inexperience of some.

Asian pilots have shown that twice in the last month at SFO how automation makes you a programmer, not a real pilot. They can[t do a simple visual approach in clear weather to SFO. We all looked out the window and landed, they can't.

I beg to differ...it is not seat of the pants flying vs automation...it is smart flying vs automation.

seat of the pants flying is what is meant when instruments are not consulted...the last six inches of a landing is a good example of modern seat of the pants.

automation makes it easy to sell an expensive jet to a third world aviation country with no GA or exceptional military training.

A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

Sheppy,
Yessir, and so did every pilot in the fleet (B767), it was part of the cyclic training program, introduced after the "Gimli Glider" accident -- which sets the period.
Right from the word go, no pilot failed to make a runway, even if they deliberately planned a little "hot and high", based on the logic that it was better to go of the other end at slow speed, than not quite make the runway at 140Kt.
Needless to say, it was not part of the "pass/fail" program, but we all thought it a very valuable exercise in a company that demanded a high level of manual flying skill, as well as a high level of competence with the autoflight systems.
Sadly, I am told that the same company now discourages hand flying --- the wonders of new age management??
Tootle pip!!

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.
Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)

The endless thread debate -

'Learn to fly'
'But we don't want to, besides the chief pilot won't let us'

(Another plane crash)

'Learn to fly'
'But we don't want to, besides the chief pilot won't let us'

(Another plane crash)

Repeat...

When the USA Airbus lost it tail in a vortex on departure the NTSB investigated the airlines training techniques and discovered a fault in their teaching, plus a lack of information from the manufacturer on the matter. In other words it was not deemed to be a design fault.
I wonder if there has been a case, or ever will be, of an accident resulting from a recoverable incident due to lack of basic piloting skill. If this could be the case, and the training dept was investigated and the airline handling policy scrutinised, I wonder if the AAIB would conclude the pilots were 'not fit for purpose' and take action? True, they would have legitimate LPC's and prof checks, but the cat would be amongst the pigeons if it was concluded that the pilots should have been able to save the day but were not competent.

The AAIB's remit does not extend to apportioning responsibility. Like most civil service accident investigation bodies, it can enumerate in detail exactly what went wrong and suggest remedial action, but it cannot directly lay fault.

]

Astute observation:ok: In fact I thought one of the best illustrations of this was a letter to the editor of Aviation Week which said (in discussing automation addiction) "Using autothrottle on final approach is like using cruise control to park your car in the garage:D

Great. We got an explanation why the Turkish at AMS and Asiana at LAX were inevitable...

... but I don't get it completely; they were yoked, classic, manly, seat of the pants, definitively-not-Airbus aeroplanes and yet they got wrecked.

Obtain and maintain, provided they are practiced in the sim. ZFTers are walking among us for last two decades and are not particularly abundant in grim statistics.

It is certified as accurate enough to provide initial and recurrent training. No data support hypothesis it shouldn't have been.

One of the major shortfall are pilots who get into them with "It's only a sim" mindset. Good example was made by a certain TRI - 7200 hrs on type yet when the birds hit his fan, he was unable to replicate for real the maneuver he was practicing in sim for ages. Unlike host of others that fly as trained and only get cursory mention on Avherald.

dear sheppey
 

the observation (and thank you) is from a major argument I had with the professor occupying the boeing chair at M.I.T. (mass institute of technology) in 1992 or so.

he was explaining to me why skilled pilots would no longer be needed as boeing and airbus had adopted the philosophy that automation would take care of everything.

I asked him what a 300 hour pilot flying a plane the size of a l747 would do when the gadgets quit.

he simply said: they won't quit.

a really good pilot, who keeps his skills high by practice, and a plane with good automation, intuitive to a good pilot, can't be beat. but a crummy pilot with a good automation plane is asking for trouble.

even now we are finding problems with robotic surgery, and I recall when San Francisco built the Bay Area Rapid Transit system. They were going to run the rail trains without drivers...but the computer system didn't quite work right.

oops (oh and the drivers may be on strike soon)

Hi everyone
Tons of words are written against automation, manual flying to the hilt is recommended and lot is said about the value of experienced pilots against 200hrs guys in RH seat. But what is actually taking place in real world? Are we missing the point? I said before civil aviation is a commercial activity. Commercial viability takes precedence above everything else. Regulatory bodies also are on board when they lowered the requirements to be in RH or LH seat and accept the automation. Surely some studies were conducted and the findings were accepted word wide. Now what is the industry response to this clamour against automation? More automation with better safe guards and definitely not manual flying aeroplanes. Man may not be replaced as yet but surely will be reduced to monitoring role. Say what you like but it is writing on the wall. I have seen Navigators exit the cockpit followed by FEs they also had some points in their favour but now nobody is uncomfortable without their presence. Automation has its merits. Without it longhaul, all weather operations were not possible.

Vilas, I don't think anyone would argue that automation isn't an extremely valuable tool. The problem is that as long as the automation is fallible (and it most certainly is, and will be for the foreseable future) then a pilot is still required at the pointy end to make decisions and perhaps even (gasp shock horror) fly the airplane.

If said pilot has "kept his hand in the game" and occasionally clicks all the automatics off to practice his skills, then the day those skills are required it will be a non-event. If instead he's a child of the magenta who depends on the automation to make up for skills he never acquired or lost, then chances are that it will end in tears.

Mind you we are all at risk of becoming "magenta children", even if we came from GA/military or "steamgauges": the wonders of LNAV/VNAV (or "Managed" if you're on the bus) can lull anyone into a false sense of complacency. The only effective mitigation strategy is a continuous critical review of what the automatics are doing at all times, and once in a while when conditions allow, disengage all automatics, practice your scan and remind yourself that you can still handfly!

MD

Flare nailed it.

The current myopia is that the gear won't break. This is self delusion at it's best.

AF447 went down because a lighting strike flashed the ROMS, knocked out the tubes, no iron gyros and now in turbulence, you got pilots in the dark trying to handfly an aircraft with no attitude reference.

The unthinkable happened - The plane broke and wouldn't fly itself.

I am highly distressed at the course modern aviation (of all forms ) has taken.

Automation...great as it never fails (didn't anyone see "2001, a space odyssey"? Hal, HAL, daisy daisy give me your answer do)

We have shrunk the single most important instrument (airspeed) to a sidebar

We have taken the mental situational awareness away...my brain could, with two VORs , a DME, and an NDB/ADF know exactly where we were all the time.

We are asking olympic athletes to use elevators and escalators and get old and fat. (of the aviation brain that is).


I know how I would design a jetliner...the cockpit would have a giant airspeed indicator and a giant horizon and a giant altimeter, there would be a HUD for airspeed, horizon and altimeter too.

The control system would be Douglas strong...cables, no computer interference and the plane itself would be strong enough to handle me flying the wings off it ONCE to a safe landing.

Of course I would fly it like an old lady to avoid having to use the ''fly the wings off'' saving system.

Now we have a plane...nav instruments and wx radar improvements ...sure...but the Basic instruments of flying are there and the standard scan for any landing would be; airspeed, runway, airspeed runway

instrument conditions would certainly include altitude, horizon and nav.

But we have moved away from FLYING in an effort to make the gadgets happy.


Like bubbers said, autopilot is for when you get bored of hand flying. And if you are performing a maneuver or approach using the autopilot, you better be ready to fly it as well as the autopilot or you shouldn't even try the maneuver or approach.

Even 20 years ago I watched (laughingly) as one pilot I was flying with had a devil of a time HAND FLYING at cruise altitude. He couldn't do it within ATP standards. I finally said, why not descend to an altitude that allows the plane to be a bit more stable. What to do if the autopilot fails?

What to do till the doctor arrives?

Back in the day, a pilot had to fly.

Agree. Have you noticed how most wristwatches now have hands (pointers). Before that came digital numbers. Before that too were hands on the face of the clock. It is quicker to gauge the time by looking at the round dial watch. Don't ask me why but certainly it seems that way.
Round dial ASI's took your attention as their rate of change of airspeed in either direction stood out. Drum type ASI's need interpretation of a different type to round dial ASI's.

Take a look at the "modern" artificial horizon in glass cockpits. Usually a tiny triangle as "the little aeroplane" if you have a good imagination, and nothing like the old type of artificial horizons of yesteryear with a big "little aeroplane" that stood out like dog's balls and much easier to fly on instruments.

The glass cockpit AH's which are usually half camouflaged by coloured bakgrounds are designed primarily for flight directors and often surrounded by a plethora of additional flight information. Garmin displays are like reading a colour blindness chart. Somewhere among those colours is a "little aeroplane".

It may be why the average airline pilot brought up on button pushing often has trouble with basic instrument flying

It is incumbent upon the industry to remember that flying the plane is the most important thing one can do.

then comes navigation.

(lump in wx radar in the nav area...but you could clean things up by having a voice say: fly heading 220degrees, instead of cluttering up the cockpit with things so big they detract from basic flight instruments)

then comes communication...heck, modern times could have the controllers switch radio frequencies for you and you could forget about that.

But to lessen the importance of the flight instrument...no wonder we have crashes like Asiana.

And yes, the Air Speed Indicator with a pointer and a vref somewhere near the 3 or 4 o'clock position, V2 also is just about right.

I am not. It is far too easy for a PPRuNer to assume what mass-media are reporting is average crew performance while actually it is only the worst extreme that is nowadays recognized as reportingworthy.

That's not what operating and training manuals say. There are appropriate procedures for dealing with automation failures and they get followed far more often than not.

As long as such myopia is limited to anonymous doom-rantings on the Internet, I'm fine with it. There are incompetent managers stipulating policies that are somewhat at odds with need to keep the pilots fit enough to take over from Otto/George when it packs up but while they might be flying-ignorant, they are still legal-savvy and would never explicitly even state their pilots need not be proficient in manual flying, let alone put it down in approved manuals.

The purpose of this easily verifiable and utterly false statement is mystery to me.

1. It is not the single most important instrument when you are flying without outside visual reference, as airline pilots often do. 2. There is no even half serious report on difficulties interpreting the airspeed from tape indicators ever since we got them on Thunderchief.

For Finnegan's sake.... how do you explain thousands upon thousands of uneventful flights every day or dozens of abnormal situations handled daily if the mental situational awareness is really taken away? Again: this is assuming the worst case scenario is actually the usual one.

Never an inch. We, here, have moved from rational analysis into realm of fantasy gone wild just to make our scaremongering seem plausible.

I've flown the beast with drum and pointer altimeter but this... is this some kind of Soviet thingy? Can I have a picture of it, please?

My bet is it will turn out to be just added digital readout to speed tape.

For Finnegan's sake, when I take a look around my office, the only AH comparable in size to those of steam gauge era is ISIS! Those on PFDs (and EADI before it) are far bigger than giant three-inchers of yesteryear. AS for tiny triangle a) it is not that tiny b) European airlines prefer split cue so we mostly still have aeroplane silhouette on AHs.

Coloured background has pretty definite meaning: blue=sky, brown=ground. Just remember which is which.

Average pilot in average circumstances (hopefully this fits the "often" definition) doesn't but don't let the facts ruin the good libel.

What kind of lump? Where is the sun? What is the wind? Is it the only lump around? Where is the terrain in relation to lump? What wx is our destination calling? Will our contingency+extra cover the deviation?

Create computer and program that will solve all of it satisfactorily to just give you "steer to..." as solution and I guarantee the Nobel prize in computer science will be made just to be delivered to you, because you will achieve true artificial intelligence.

It is. So is the tape type.

clandestino

yes airspeed might not be the most important thing while on instruments...but my comment was aimed at landing and or visual conditions.

and in visual conditions asiana managed to get too slow.they didn't need a horizon to know they were right side up. we shall see

[QUOTE]Land-Rover, to have the system miss the "offending phrase"/QUOTE]

``Randy Lover?``

[QUOTE]that stood out like dog's balls and much easier to fly on instruments. /QUOTE]

Yawing Right tread on left ball, yawing left tread on right ball - dog yelping - too much rudder!

You could have a concrete boulder tied to a chain suspended from the overhead panel. When the aircraft banks the huge boulder bangs the heads of the crew to wake them up -

I just love this piece of :mad:

as a former control systems engineer I can assure you that automation is only ever as good as the sensors. when either they fail or the link to them fails you'd better have a good fallback approach.

when either they fail or the link to them fails you'd better have a good fallback approach.

It's called the disconnect button and the pilot.

Another pilots veiw of Visual App
 

There I was at six thousand feet over central Iraq , two hundred eighty knots and we're dropping faster than Paris Hilton's panties. It's a typical September evening in the Persian Gulf ; hotter than a rectal thermometer and I'm sweating like a priest at a Cub Scout meeting. But that's neither here nor there. The night is moonless over Baghdad tonight, and blacker than a Steven King novel. But it's 2006, folks, and I'm sporting the latest in night-combat technology - namely, hand-me-down night vision goggles (NVGs) thrown out by the fighter boys. Additionally, my 1962 Lockheed C-130E Hercules is equipped with an obsolete, yet, semi-effective missile warning system (MWS). The MWS conveniently makes a nice soothing tone in your headset just before the missile explodes into your airplane. Who says you can't polish a turd? At any rate, the NVGs are illuminating Baghdad International Airport like the Las Vegas Strip during a Mike Tyson fight. These NVGs are the cat's ass. But I've digressed. The preferred method of approach tonight is the random shallow. This tactical maneuver allows the pilot to ingress the landing zone in an unpredictable manner, thus exploiting the supposedly secured perimeter of the airfield in an attempt to avoide enemy surface-to-air-missiles and small arms fire. Personally, I wouldn't bet my pink ass on that theory but the approach is fun as hell and that's the real reason we fly it. We get a visual on the runway at three miles out, drop down to one thousand feet above the ground, still maintaining two hundred eighty knots. Now the fun starts.It's pilot appreciation time as I descend the mighty Herc to six hundred feet and smoothly, yet very deliberately, yank into a sixty degree left bank, turning the aircraft ninety degrees offset from runway heading. As soon as we roll out of the turn, I reverse turn to the right a full two hundred seventy degrees in order to roll out aligned with the runway. Some aeronautical genius coined this maneuver the "Ninety/Two-Seventy." Chopping the power during the turn, I pull back on the yoke just to the point my nether regions start to sag, bleeding off energy in order to configure the pig for landing. "Flaps Fifty!, landing Gear Down!, Before Landing Checklist!" I lookover at the copilot and he's shaking like a cat ****ting on a sheet of ice. Looking further back at the navigator, and even through the Nags, I can clearly see the wet spot spreading around his crotch. Finally, I glance at my steely eyed flight engineer. His eyebrows rise in unison as a grin forms on his face. I can tell he's thinking the same thing I am .... "Where do we find such fine young men?""Flaps One Hundred!" I bark at the shaking cat. Now it's all aim-point and airspeed. Aviation 101, with the exception there are no lights, I'm on NVGs, it's Baghdad , and now tracers are starting to crisscross the black sky. Naturally, and not at all surprisingly, I grease the Goodyear's on brick-one of runway 33 left, bring the throttles to ground idle and then force the props to full reverse pitch. Tonight, the sound of freedom is my four Hamilton Standard propellers chewing through the thick, putrid, Baghdad air. The huge, one hundred thirty-thousand pound, lumbering whisper pig comes to a lurching stop in less than two thousand feet. Let's see a Viper do that!We exit the runway to a welcoming committee of government issued Army grunts. It's time to download their beans and bullets and letters from their sweethearts, look for war booty, and of course, urinate on Saddam's home. Then I thank God I'm not in the Army. Knowing once again I've cheated death, I ask myself, "What in the hell am I doing in this mess?" Is it Duty, Honor, and Country? You bet your ass. Or could it possibly be for the glory, the swag, and not to mention, chicks dig the Air Medal. There's probably some truth there, too. But now is not the time to derive the complexities of the superior, cerebral properties of the human portion of the aviator-man-machine model. It is however, time to get out of this hole. Hey copilot how's 'bout the 'Before Starting Engines Checklist." God, I love this job!!!!

Instead of talking about laser ring gyros, let's get back to basic flying like our gallant C130 jockey

I'll bet less than half of those on this forum have ever used a 90/270 in any situation.

Flarepilot,

Air displays. Works a treat!

BTW, I had tears in my eyes I was laughing so hard. Thanks N1EPR:D

G'day ;)

Last time I did that was in a crop-sprayer a couple of wing-tips off the deck. However, that a/c was built for it. Hauling a big C130 around like that must be a feeling of 'a job well done,' after the "what the **** am I doing this for" moment.
If you've got the t-shirt what brings a smile these days?

right now some real flying is being done in order to fight major wildfires in the western UNITED STATES, esp near and in Yosemite national park.

drone fire bombers? don't think that will be happening soon.

Finally!!!!
 

Thanks N1EPR !!!

I've finally found someone who's posts can be as long as mine!!

:D. :ok:

90/270 is often used for course reversal... in imagination of the folks who don't actually fly.

How can a ninety left followed by a two-seventy right not have you flying away from the runway? Or did I miss the half rolls?

It's a simple course reversal. Need not have anything to do with a runway. :rolleyes:

mross...imagine you are flying heading 360 degrees over runway 36 make a left 90 followed by a right 270 and you should be heading 180 in a place to go straight in to runway 18

it is a course reversal

and dear clandestino

real pilots do use 90/270s in real life and in the sim.

we are allowed to do them in lieu of a charted procedure turn as long as it is on the protected side.

I've done them in real jets / real instrument simulators...GETTING PAID REAL MONEY.

How can a ninety left followed by a two-seventy right not have you flying away from the runway? Or did I miss the half rolls?


Arithmetic and situational awareness.