Behind aircraft or not understanding descent management?
 

When I first started flying over 20 years ago, I was sometimes criticized for being behind the aircraft during the descent and approach, as I guess some of us were in the beginning. However, in hindsight, I wasn't behind the aircraft but instead, I just didn't understand descent management. After seeing this being a common problem with new pilots on a jet, I wonder if "being behind the aircraft" is a common misidentification of the instructor of what the actual problem is. Ideas?

Very difficult to know without the specifics. I think that not understanding descent management will lead you to being behind the aircraft because you end up in a continual state of reacting to what it's doing now without being able to predict and control what it's going to do next. In other words they go together.

In a Boeing with the approach and winds loaded the magenta bug gives a pretty good approximation and if you use Vnav Path it will take you all the way. If you've got a good chance of a shortcut then pick a point on final and revert to the 3x table... They're hand in hand, if you're not aware of the decent profile then you cant put the aircraft where you want it and are behind the aircraft.

I find it a little bit odd that people who have passed exams on aircraft performance and other pretty technical things to do with aviation get hung up on descent management. All you need is a rough idea of how your aircraft behaves when descending and/or slowing down, adjust it for speed and wind component, then keep an eye on how it’s going and tweak as necessary. At economy speeds in still air, mine will do ~3.3 miles per 1,000’ and loses ~20kts/nm in level flight at idle. Work that back from where you want to end up and there you go...

I would say that it's not so much a misidentification as the identification of a symptom instead of a problem. If you're 'behind the aircraft', you're not looking/thinking/acting so that you're fully aware of the next steps to take or the next phase of the flight. The underlying problems that can cause this are many and you could argue that having achieved the position you were in in that flight crew, the instructor deemed you capable of analysing the reason for being behind the aircraft and acting accordingly by yourself. That doesn't mean that said instructor couldn't have done more to delve into the issue, but I wasn't there, so cannot comment on that.

I think you need to be more specific, but as a trainer I would not explain "understanding descent management" as a common explanation for being behind the aircraft.

The main issue with young ab-initio's from my experience are two-fold. Item 1 is time management. You have trainees who have perfect understanding of descent management "in the books", but execute it in a fast moving environment where a "position" or "gate" is not waiting (with these words I mean a combination of altitude/speed/configuration at a specific point that has be achieved whatever happens, or you're in trouble) issomething different.There is a lot of doubt and hesitation in the actions of these trainees. Some of it I will agree is installed by instructors as many believe there is only one specific way to do things. If the trainee wants to approach it differently, these instructors might intervene too early. It is a the common struggle: you might do ok with instructor A, and instructor Z starts to fire remarks. Instructors are just normal people.

However, if you don't understand descent management as a trainee, you had to speak up. This is problem item 2: assertiveness. Training is not unidirectional. Training is cooperation. If you don't ask the questions, you might not get the answers. In some companies (like mine) there are specific briefings to be covered, one of them is descent management. If that briefing is signed off, I expect you to have the basic knowledge. If not, I will ask the question or simply "demo" it on the first sector and guide you along on other sectors.

A chap undergoing RAF jet training at the same time as myself received the following monthly summary in his training folder:

”By pressing the engine start button, Bloggs initiates a sequence of events over which he appears to have little control”.

No, not me…I progressed a little further than he did.

I have trained a lot of pilots over the years and would have to say it is hard to get the two confused. I often test my students descent management skills by getting them to clearly set a number of 'gates' that they are trying to achieve all the way through to landing. I can then monitor if they have any idea about profile planning and in the physical control of the actual descent whether they can manage that plan. To me being behind the aircraft is a student who just doesn't anticipate what needs to be done next and takes to long to action it, so it is possible to have poor descent management due to being behind the aircraft or becoming behind the aircraft because of poor descent management.

'Bit , being 'behind the a/c' the a/c is not a new idea. Nowadays it's probably part of SA. Before glass cockpits and numerous DMEs , then situational awareness was more difficult , and reliance on Flt.plans , Navlogs and ETAs was needed .
My original route chk to Belfast turned into more training required when the DME part of the TACAN failed , and my SA worsened , leading to a Hot 'n High approach .
Later you could easily see if someone was behind the a/c whilst in the cruise . Older guys coming off T/props to jets had to up their speed of thought , from 4mi/min to 10mi/min .. Was not always easy for them , if in the cruise on a GLA-LHR [ <10mins ] they had All the radio aids behind the a/c . Then I knew I had to wake up and monitor more thoroughly .
DMEs on the field made life much easier in descent planning and execution . Glass cockpits are helpful in SA and replanning , but DME and 3 x table failsafe .
'Rude and 'Full have it , 'tho in 13 yrs of FI'ing , I've always asked youngsters on trial lessons [ who are interested in flying ] to recite the 3x table ...
One mum [ a teacher ] had it when she corrected her offspring 1x3 = 3 , 2x3 = 6 etc. when he reeled off 3,6,9,12, etc... '' That's a list of 3s , not the table ''
Seems teaching can just be a list , no one has pointed out the value of the table when having only 2 pieces of info the 3rd can be deduced .
The ones that get it well , I tell '' You can fly jets '' !

rgds condor.