Originally Posted by FixTheMess

I can only assume you are employed at Delta, and if so, I hope you are advocating to your management/HR Department the benefit in hiring Turboprop pilots with 8,000+ hrs of "steam six pack" time. We are constantly in the weather, hand flying, operating our aircraft to the edges of its envelope. However, for some time now, it seems most any major is more interested in hiring a 2,500 hr jet pilot, who found a quick upgrade at a jet regional.

I'm not saying a jet pilot doesn't have their own unique skill set, but if stick and rudder skills are so important, (which I wholeheartedly agree with), jet operators need to stop looking down their nose at a high time turboprop pilot. I know several excellent pilots who have plenty of smarts to be able to program an FMS, or work an AFCS, that would be an asset at any airline, who have been shot down recently, because they didn't have any "holy" turbojet time. There may come a time when all the button pushing in the world will not save your plane, and I would much rather have a high time prop driver sitting next to me.

Anyway, my intent is not to start a prop vs jet debate, but to make the point that I do believe experienced prop drivers are under-valued when applying to major jet operators.

Originally Posted by Left Handed

...In the most recent fatal airline crash in the U.S., in 2009 near Buffalo, N.Y., the co-pilot of a regional airliner programmed incorrect information into the plane's computers, causing it to slow to an unsafe speed. That triggered a stall warning.

...The startled captain, who hadn't noticed the plane had slowed too much, responded by repeatedly pulling back on the control yoke, overriding two safety systems, when the correct procedure was to push forward.

Originally Posted by Left Handed

Edited for brevity

Pilots use automated systems to fly airliners for all but about three minutes of a flight: the takeoff and landing.

...In the most recent fatal airline crash in the U.S., in 2009 near Buffalo, N.Y., the co-pilot of a regional airliner programmed incorrect information into the plane's computers, causing it to slow to an unsafe speed. That triggered a stall warning.

...The startled captain, who hadn't noticed the plane had slowed too much, responded by repeatedly pulling back on the control yoke, overriding two safety systems, when the correct procedure was to push forward.

A couple questions-
1) Who only hand flies for three minutes?
2) Is the Dash that computer heavy, or is this bogus info?
Ok, this is a statement-
3) We do need basic stick and rudder skills ingrained in us from hundreds of hours of flying (not 200 but many hundreds), this should not have to be taught to us at our first regional, it shoud be in basic training, not at a puppy mill.

Originally Posted by CE750

never flew a q400 and can't speak to the copilot's incorrect input issues.... but she did do a cardinal sin when she pulled flaps (uncommanded by the captain), during the stall recovery (which was delayed by the captain).... one could argue, had this been a tail stall, she was doing the correct thing, however in a tail stall, you're unlikely going to be getting a stick shaker/pusher!

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver

This is something I've been concerned about for a while now. I'm afraid the new generation of airline pilots are not really getting good, solid, stick and rudder and instrument skills.

I've been looking at college aviation programs with my son (junior in high school). One program we looked at indicated on their web site that ALL of their primary trainers are glass cockpit. I don't care how automated most of the airplanes are these days, I just don't think that's a good idea.

Originally Posted by BlueMoon

This seems to be the trend with most of the larger university programs. I know the one I attended went all glass for the single engine aircraft not long after I left there. They at least have kept the Multi-Engine aircraft the standard six pack (albeit some have an E-HSI).

Originally Posted by Ferd149

"Two"

Originally Posted by CE750

never flew a q400 and can't speak to the copilot's incorrect input issues.... but she did do a cardinal sin when she pulled flaps (uncommanded by the captain), during the stall recovery (which was delayed by the captain).... one could argue, had this been a tail stall, she was doing the correct thing, however in a tail stall, you're unlikely going to be getting a stick shaker/pusher!

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

When I flew the E120 they never mentioned a tail stall ever. But talking to a buddy that flew 1900Ds for Great Lakes they pounded that NASA video in their heads over and over about tail stalls and how to recover but not much on normal stalls.

I don't know but my recollection is nobody touched that on the NTSB report but I think it is a tremendous disservice if there is a possibility that these two pilots were taught more about tail stalls then wing stalls and the end result was making a stall worse by applying the incorrect procedure but the one they were hammered to - by rote - do first. Because let's face it, "on this particular airplane you want to..." can be very compelling reason to go on rote rather than stick and rudder skills.

I don't know if that's the case. Just saying it needed to be explored if it wasn't.

Which by the way, while we throw stones at primary training and regional training, anyone here been taught how to recover from a tail stall or wing stall at mainline?

I remember when you busted your checkride for exceeding 100' on the entry and exit out of an approach to stall but now I think it's do whatever. Steep turns aren't checked either if I remember right.

Originally Posted by captainv

I was jumpseating on a DAL 757 last week and I noticed that the ACARS spit out a report criticizing the rotation rates on takeoff/landing, which the PF read, shrugged and tossed in the trash.

That could cut both ways - you know immediately if you're off the standards instead of waiting for a line check or the sim, but especially if it gets reported to the brain trust, that level of scrutiny would get most of us to engage the autopilot as much as possible.

We started using FOQA recently and Safety has found plenty of issues to tackle, but I can see where micromanaging would push us toward using more automation, not less.

Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine

TAfter flying 2 days with a check airman who hates hand flying, I tried to set up the AP to descend quick enough to capture the glideslope, but then I realized I don't care if he doesn't like to hand fly, I don't want to be fumbling around with an AP trying to get it to do what my hands can do in seconds. It was VFR, so I clicked it off, and got on the slope. I then had to get scolded by the captain that there is no reason to hand fly outside the FAF and that if I selected a 1000 fpm decent rate, the AP would have captured the glideslope by 500ft.