Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Hangar Talk
Explosive NYT Story Lays Blame For Max >

Explosive NYT Story Lays Blame For Max

Search
Notices
Hangar Talk For non-aviation-related discussion and aviation threads that don't belong elsewhere

Explosive NYT Story Lays Blame For Max

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-05-2020, 10:42 AM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Posts: 579
Default

Originally Posted by BoilerUP View Post
This post is States Exhibit 1 in why this forum needs a like feature or upvoting!
FollowMe is offline  
Old 01-05-2020, 11:04 AM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Default

Originally Posted by Unicornpilot View Post
CBreezy,

Which fact I have written in this topic is inaccurate? People want the links and public information, which I have provided. Everything I have written is available on the Internet and is a fact.

Can you point to one comment I have written that is not a fact and backed up by a public source?
You still haven't responded to my observation that you say a higher retirement age is a solution for poor pilot training rather than any thought of better pilot training or initial hire requirements.
Baradium is offline  
Old 01-05-2020, 11:09 AM
  #23  
On Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Dec 2019
Posts: 20
Default

Originally Posted by BoilerUP View Post
Because ICAO has not announced an increase in mandatory retirement age like it did in November 2006, the FAA has not announced an increase in mandatory retirement age like it did in December 2006, NS EASA's own commissioned study in the topic last year recommended maintaining its current maximum age of 65?

The conclusions you are drawing from the "publicly available information" simply don't jive with, well, the publicly available information you cite.

The "drone pilot" nonsense is little more than a red herring.

You're connecting dots like a caller on Coast to Coast...
Yes, the independent review did recommend the age remain at age 65, but ICAO, the FAA, and the other bodies are moving forward with the age change.

Go to the link below and look at slide 3-, 31, & 32 on ICAO's website from the May 7, 2019 meeting/presentation.

https://www.icao.int/safety/aviation...%20Study_c.pdf

FACT - These slides specifically state:

FACT - A reduction of the maximum monthly/yearly FTL to 80% of the maximum allowed for pilots over 65 performing CAT multi pilot operations (see presentation).

FACT - Development of options based on the feedback from the Workshop and Medical Examiner Group (MEG), etc.

FACT - The parties will work closely with ICAO and the International Authorities on the future steps to (simultaneously) coordinate (worldwide) actions.

FACT - EASA high-level decision - Impact assessment will be consulted with EASA Advisory Bodies.

FACT - Further feedback from the advisory bodies on the way forward.

FACT - Regulatory activities (to increase the mandatory CAT multi engine age) in congruence with the (aeromedical) decision.

Drone pilots are coming. I guess you know more than the FAA, Boeing, and Airbus who have invested billions of dollars in this program, which begins testing this year.
Unicornpilot is offline  
Old 01-05-2020, 11:15 AM
  #24  
On Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Dec 2019
Posts: 20
Default

Originally Posted by Baradium View Post
You still haven't responded to my observation that you say a higher retirement age is a solution for poor pilot training rather than any thought of better pilot training or initial hire requirements.
The reason is having more experienced pilots who have had better training and are more seasoned is an obvious answer. This a partial solution to the problem. There is not enough training devices and resources to manage the problem.

The pilots being developed today do not have the real time in aircraft experience as those pilots trained 39-40 years ago. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.

Airlines cannot train any more pilots any faster. Their simulators are running 24/7 and they cannot contract more. It takes 2 years to build a simulator and that does not solve the problem.

International companies who want to fly into the United States are putting pilots in Boeing and Airbus aircraft with 300 hours total time.

The Lions Air and Ethiopian Airlines accidents was a wake up call.

The retirement age is changing and the bills have already been created for a change in the U.S., which is simply waiting for ICAO's final work.
Unicornpilot is offline  
Old 01-06-2020, 03:11 PM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 269
Default

Perhaps we should allow pilots to work over 65 as long as they are only in the left seat of a narrow body or even an RJ to help mentor all these new pilots! (Sarcasm is high)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
airlinegypsy is offline  
Old 01-07-2020, 03:54 AM
  #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,090
Default

Originally Posted by Name User View Post
If you read the summary at the end, the author makes the case that aircraft should be designed to be more easily flown a la the Airbus model (or even easier than that).

A Boeing VP pretty much eluded to the same thing in an interview a year or so ago.

Basically, make flying easier via computer software like Airbus (but even more automated) and you won't have to worry so much about how skilled pilots are anymore. The key phrase is "reducing the cognitive load".

DARPA has spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars integrating software into commercial aircraft and helicopters to make them flyable with just a tablet and zero stick and rudder skills for example.

I realize this is a complete departure from how aircraft are designed and operated in the past and currently.
The problem with trying to making airplanes easier to fly is that it creates dumber pilots which then can't respond to basic system failures such as a trim runaway (MCAS issues) or frozen pitot tubes (AF 447).

The departure from the philosophy of designing airplanes to be flown by humans and to instead have computers fly them is what is causing the new wave of safety issues.
threeighteen is offline  
Old 01-07-2020, 06:43 AM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,093
Default

Originally Posted by threeighteen View Post
The problem with trying to making airplanes easier to fly is that it creates dumber pilots which then can't respond to basic system failures such as a trim runaway (MCAS issues) or frozen pitot tubes (AF 447).

The departure from the philosophy of designing airplanes to be flown by humans and to instead have computers fly them is what is causing the new wave of safety issues.
Statistics say we are much safer even with the occasional failure and crash.

There have been non fatal crashes recently caused by pilot error such as the 777 Asiana in SFO. Pilots make a ton of errors every day that the system captures either due to slop or technology. TCAS, GPWS, controllers noticing, etc.
Name User is offline  
Old 01-07-2020, 11:03 AM
  #28  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,261
Default

Originally Posted by Name User View Post
Statistics say we are much safer even with the occasional failure and crash.

There have been non fatal crashes recently caused by pilot error such as the 777 Asiana in SFO. Pilots make a ton of errors every day that the system captures either due to slop or technology. TCAS, GPWS, controllers noticing, etc.
The flip side of that is automation also makes errors (or just plain clicks off) which pilots correct without even thinking much about it. Current aircraft could in no way begin to function autonomously.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 01-07-2020, 03:16 PM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,090
Default

Originally Posted by Name User View Post
Statistics say we are much safer even with the occasional failure and crash.

There have been non fatal crashes recently caused by pilot error such as the 777 Asiana in SFO. Pilots make a ton of errors every day that the system captures either due to slop or technology. TCAS, GPWS, controllers noticing, etc.
Contributing to pilot error was over-reliance on automation, but "landing short" in SFO also seems to a right of passage among far-east carriers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_2
threeighteen is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Guard Dude
Delta
201720
04-06-2022 06:59 AM
jungle
Hangar Talk
175
10-12-2012 03:22 AM
withthatsaid182
Regional
11
04-01-2010 06:21 PM
MrBigAir
Regional
46
05-18-2009 05:42 PM
LAfrequentflyer
Hangar Talk
25
10-07-2006 08:33 PM

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices