Originally Posted by
DigDug
Perhaps I got up in mine to better speak to you in yours(?)
I would suggest you jumped first but that is not important.
I've never met anybody that knew anything - that questioned the assertion that flying the Airbus means being more manager and less pilot.
Which is basically what I was arguing that skill sets change and we are apparently arguing terms. How many pilots do you know who can fly a raw data NDB? Does that mean they are not pilots anymore?
A properly trained and maintained Airbus pilot ultimately requires the same skill set as any other transport pilot, its just that some of that skill requirement has been removed from the normal operations regime and left with Direct Law flight in abnormal and emergency situations. How many pilots get THAT thoroughly exercised regularly in the sim? I suggest that many or most Airbus pilots are not getting their Direct Law skills maintained and tested to ATP standards.
I don't know of anyone training to ATP standards for Direct Law but then I also know no one trains to ATP standards for manual reversions.
1) Current training trends are (through indifference and inattention) relying upon a skillset learned in aircraft other than an A320.
I agree.
2) As the automation advance slowly eradicates the true hand flying instrument skills from the pilot population - basically through retirements - a shift in causal factors of accidents and incidents will occur highlighting the loss of basic instrument skill in directly controlled flight (Direct Law).
We already see an erosion in *basic* skills in guys flying glass but that is a function of technology, not a specific aircraft. Does that make those in glass cockpits less of an aviator?
3) The one airline that has an accident (in the future that sees the industry wide elimination of directly controlled flight in normal operations) which highlights this issue will modify its training program accordingly and determine that its very difficult to get any of their pilots to fly directly controlled approaches to ATP standards in control forceless flightdecks.
I don't think so. The DC-10 accident in SUX didn't force the industry to train everyone to fly complete hyd failure approaches. And from watching guys wrestle the 737 and 727 in manual reversion, getting it on the ground without a solid prang was acceptable. ATP standards? Not likely.
4) Industry wide modification of training programs will only occur if enough people are killed.
I heartily agree. This is Dekker's assertion and is one generally embraced up and down the line. Dekker stated "Killing people is a normal part of business", a point he illustrates with Alaska 242. Up and down the line, statistics and operating histories showed it was completely reasonable and logical to extend the jack screw lubrication cycles and to permit the thread erosion on the jackscrew. If you have seen the photos of that jackscrew, you would wonder how it lasted so long.
But killing people is not solely resident to the aviation community. Take the Bophol (sp?) accident, Chernobyl, the Herald of Free Enterprise, the north sea oil rig... or your average hospital. And the problem is training for things that happen as if the system will create another set of specific and similar circumstances again, a distinctly remote likelihood. Simple.. the more complex the system, the more arcane the failure path.
5) Machines will rule the world.
Not likely. But it makes for good sci-fi.
Somebody help me down, I have an ex Cathedra headache.
Cura te ipsum!