"Are Airline Pilots Forgetting How to Fly"
08-30-2011, 10:23 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: 7er
Posts: 1,673
I have my 1st CQ coming up in a couple of weeks. I haven't researched any gouge yet on what we are tested & evaluated on. Is there an oral/testing. I'm just curious how hard I need to hit the books on refreshing my systems knowledge.
08-30-2011, 10:24 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by FlyJSH
Lemmie guess, JS?
Yeah, I recently had a line check with a guy who scolded the FO (PF) for hand flying a raw data visual approach on a CAVU day. According to him, hand flying, especially raw data, is strictly a GA thing, but IF one chooses to hand fly, it should be included in the brief.
So now, every one of my approach briefs includes, "wx and traffic permitting, I will be hand flying this approachto maintain proficiency."
Let 'em b!tch about that.
Yeah, I recently had a line check with a guy who scolded the FO (PF) for hand flying a raw data visual approach on a CAVU day. According to him, hand flying, especially raw data, is strictly a GA thing, but IF one chooses to hand fly, it should be included in the brief.
So now, every one of my approach briefs includes, "wx and traffic permitting, I will be hand flying this approachto maintain proficiency."
Let 'em b!tch about that.
08-30-2011, 10:34 AM
#43
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine
Not him, but this guy also has a reputation. If I turned the FD off he might have killed me. I wonder what he would have done if the AP kicked off in turbulence in IMC.
Usually shuts them up pretty quick...
08-30-2011, 11:02 AM
#44
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by DeadHead
Are Journalists forgetting how to report accurately without bias?
Are Airline Managers forgetting how to adequately compensate their pilots?
Does the increased role of outsourcing mainline flying to the cheapest bidder play a part?
I'm curious to hear the amount of incidents and accidents that aren't attributed to "Human Error". Oh that's right, you never hear of them because the pilots in those cases prevented a possible catastrophe.
Not sure why I even bother reading anything that is excreted out of that crap factory known as MSNBC. A jar of horse pis$$ has more value than this article.
Are Airline Managers forgetting how to adequately compensate their pilots?
Does the increased role of outsourcing mainline flying to the cheapest bidder play a part?
I'm curious to hear the amount of incidents and accidents that aren't attributed to "Human Error". Oh that's right, you never hear of them because the pilots in those cases prevented a possible catastrophe.
Not sure why I even bother reading anything that is excreted out of that crap factory known as MSNBC. A jar of horse pis$$ has more value than this article.
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.
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.
I will say, flying the E120 made me a better pilot at managing systems but the E145 flying was no different than the 757/767 (domestic) and MD88 flying I do. It's all descent management in that regime. The only new thing to learn was the airplane.
Now I was down in the weather in the E120... in IAH... hardly any weather. I was in far more weather and fog and heavy icing out of EWR/CLE in an E145 but just like on the mainline equipment a-ice makes that a non-event and fog is fog no matter what the airplane.
But that systems management helps on the MD-88 which is far far far easier than the E120 but way behind the automation of a 757 and behind a lot of the stuff the E145 had such as engines and a-ice and overall AUTO - AUTO - AUTO type systems.
But something about TPs can't be missed and that's usually a prop is far more complicated than a jet to get from point A to point B. Going to a jet from that is a vacation... especially since you don't do 7 and 9 leg days on a jet.
All that to say, either one is fine but the prop gives an extra bit of background.
Originally Posted by HercDriver130
I think there needs to be MORE stall training, and NOT just training to recognize and immediately recover.... I think in the sim they need to let stall fully develop and let the pilots see just how bad it can be. I was surprised when my current employer did HIGH altitude stall training/demo where we allowed the jet at FL350 to fully stall and then recover.... pretty eye opening to see how many THOUSANDS of feet it took to fly it out. I am also an advocate of spin training, having come from a AF background we spun the ever living crap out of the T-37 every which way but loose. Beyond the fact that it teaches you the mechanics of a stall recovery in THAT aircraft much more valuable is that it teaches you NOT to panic when you are out of control and that with proper technique situations which may seem unrecoverable are probably recoverable. The ability to keep your head when you get in those situations and perform a recovery and or use good flying skills to recover is the cornerstone of a confident pilot. A bit more hand flying in and out of the terminal environment wouldnt hurt either. At the at least the commercial pilot level and certainly the ATP level verifiable spin and stall training needs to be part of the required training. Hell, when i started flying in 1978 we spun C150s before solo.... I am pretty sure that doesnt happen today.
I also agree, you've got to be a jack of all trades. AP ON, FMS VNAV, hand fly and so on. You've got to be bilingual... or septemlingual or something.
Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine
The report mentioned there was no tail stall and it is very unlikely that both pilots reacted to a tail stall simultaneously without any communication.
Altitude is a resource you can use in stall recover for testing now. As long as you don't hit terrain and your altitude loss was not excessive for the condition, you are fine. Steep turns are still tested though.
Also, at Colgan, we spent some time on tail stalls and watched the NASA video. According to Bombardier, tail ice is not an issue with the Q400 and I think the only reason we watched the video was because there was so much speculation about tail ice for 3407. The instructor just said first attempt a normal stall recovery and then if you are out of options, try a tail stall recovery.
Altitude is a resource you can use in stall recover for testing now. As long as you don't hit terrain and your altitude loss was not excessive for the condition, you are fine. Steep turns are still tested though.
Also, at Colgan, we spent some time on tail stalls and watched the NASA video. According to Bombardier, tail ice is not an issue with the Q400 and I think the only reason we watched the video was because there was so much speculation about tail ice for 3407. The instructor just said first attempt a normal stall recovery and then if you are out of options, try a tail stall recovery.
I still think there was a motivation to pull up the flaps and had you done that in your private, instrument or commercial checkrides you'd failed. And you would've done stalls in those cases. I'd imagine you'd fail doing that in the sim at a part 121 as well, I couldn't imagine a time other than a tail stall where you'd do it. I think the motivation wasn't a brain fart or a bad move, I think it was intentional. I always thought they were in icing, all of a sudden the plane was stalling, icing + stall equals... here let me help you out...
That's all I'm thinking. Nothing more. I know it wasn't a tail icing issue, I know it wasn't talked about, I just wonder if half or all of the cockpit jumped to an unspoken conclusion? Just a thought that's all.
As to steep turns, they're demo only here at DAL and not on any checkride.
I'd say if the Dash 8 isn't going to tail stall, they need to get rid of that video. It makes an enormous impression because it's counter to what you know, and you remember that.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 08-30-2011 at 11:35 AM.
08-30-2011, 11:29 AM
#45
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Can you spin a G1000 C172? You can a regular C172 but are these new screens spinnable?
I think flying is just like college. It's what you make of it. For most of my private students we did spins. Not a lot. Not T37 over and over spin training but don't be afraid of it, it's easy to recover from, look and react to what's going on. I really liked to do it to the guys who were extremely nervous with stalls. After spins a stall is nothing. I'm all for exposing people to new things. But making it a part of a commercial checkride will be a pain in the butt, it's already hard enough to get those things scheduled much less two scheduled.
I'm all for NDB flying though. I do think that's invaluable kind of like spins. You're not going to do it in an airliner but it's good to see.
As to UARs, one thing to remember is we don't do it for a reason now. At least according to the LCA in the sims I've talked to. The reason according to them?
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2004/AAR0404.pdf
I think flying is just like college. It's what you make of it. For most of my private students we did spins. Not a lot. Not T37 over and over spin training but don't be afraid of it, it's easy to recover from, look and react to what's going on. I really liked to do it to the guys who were extremely nervous with stalls. After spins a stall is nothing. I'm all for exposing people to new things. But making it a part of a commercial checkride will be a pain in the butt, it's already hard enough to get those things scheduled much less two scheduled.
I'm all for NDB flying though. I do think that's invaluable kind of like spins. You're not going to do it in an airliner but it's good to see.
As to UARs, one thing to remember is we don't do it for a reason now. At least according to the LCA in the sims I've talked to. The reason according to them?
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2004/AAR0404.pdf
08-30-2011, 12:08 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 361
What about the ab-initio programs? Taking a zero time student, giving him 250 hours and sticking him in the right seat of an Airbus with 300 PAYING customers in the back. I am not in favor of this.
Yes it works in the military but there are no paying customers along for the ride. NO ONE should be in the cockpit of an airliner without a minimum of 1500 PIC time. CFI, banner towing, cargo, whatever, but let them build hours while making their own decisions at the same time.
Yes it works in the military but there are no paying customers along for the ride. NO ONE should be in the cockpit of an airliner without a minimum of 1500 PIC time. CFI, banner towing, cargo, whatever, but let them build hours while making their own decisions at the same time.
08-30-2011, 12:34 PM
#47
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 36
One of the problems with doing fully developed stalls in the sim is that there are very few accurate aerodynamic models for aircraft behavior of swept wing aircraft in a stall. The best thinking to date is to avoid the stall rather than having pilots complete negative training. Maybe it's time to rethink stall and spin training. Colgan 3407 brought some of this up but AF 447 also brings up a whole host of issues including how we interact with the aircraft. AF was in a stall from 38,000. This will continue to be an interesting discussion moving into the NextGen era.
08-30-2011, 01:16 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
That's what I was looking for, what was Colgan teaching? Thanks.
I still think there was a motivation to pull up the flaps and had you done that in your private, instrument or commercial checkrides you'd failed. And you would've done stalls in those cases. I'd imagine you'd fail doing that in the sim at a part 121 as well, I couldn't imagine a time other than a tail stall where you'd do it. I think the motivation wasn't a brain fart or a bad move, I think it was intentional. I always thought they were in icing, all of a sudden the plane was stalling, icing + stall equals... here let me help you out...
That's all I'm thinking. Nothing more. I know it wasn't a tail icing issue, I know it wasn't talked about, I just wonder if half or all of the cockpit jumped to an unspoken conclusion? Just a thought that's all.
As to steep turns, they're demo only here at DAL and not on any checkride.
I'd say if the Dash 8 isn't going to tail stall, they need to get rid of that video. It makes an enormous impression because it's counter to what you know, and you remember that.
I still think there was a motivation to pull up the flaps and had you done that in your private, instrument or commercial checkrides you'd failed. And you would've done stalls in those cases. I'd imagine you'd fail doing that in the sim at a part 121 as well, I couldn't imagine a time other than a tail stall where you'd do it. I think the motivation wasn't a brain fart or a bad move, I think it was intentional. I always thought they were in icing, all of a sudden the plane was stalling, icing + stall equals... here let me help you out...
That's all I'm thinking. Nothing more. I know it wasn't a tail icing issue, I know it wasn't talked about, I just wonder if half or all of the cockpit jumped to an unspoken conclusion? Just a thought that's all.
As to steep turns, they're demo only here at DAL and not on any checkride.
I'd say if the Dash 8 isn't going to tail stall, they need to get rid of that video. It makes an enormous impression because it's counter to what you know, and you remember that.
08-30-2011, 01:49 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: B-777
Posts: 177
08-30-2011, 02:32 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: C47 PIC/747-400 SIC
Posts: 2,100
in the late 80's when i came of age aeronautically there were still plenty of DC3 ,and twin Beech operators for guys/gals to cut their teeth on ,fly all night in bad WX,and deal with the occasional engine out, it was a great academy, and i feel sorry for the kids today that the opportunity for real stick/rudder/tailwheel flying is not there anymore in the lower '48.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
