[QUOTE=USMCFLYR;1504518]Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by 'The "human machine" has controls'. Do you mean an organic control like a team leader or captain, each individual's self-control, or an outside operator who controls the "machine"?

Yes. I was referring to Asiana 214.

 

..........

 

For someone who has literally "written the book" on how to be a captain, that is an absolutely pathetic statement.

A professional pilot who has risen to the level of captain of an international carrier has at their disposal more than enough information to fully and completely comprehend the required skill set and qualifications to fulfill their roll. If a captain and a check airman can not successfully operate the autothrottle of a 777 then, by god, they should AT LEAST have the experience and judgement to disconnect the thing and hand fly the plane to the runway. If they lack the skills to hand fly the approach AND the judgement to recognize when that would be necessary they are not qualified to be airline pilots and should not represent themselves as such.

But to blame their company, be it the training department, dispatch, chief pilot, or management, for their shortcomings as professional airline captains, is the most "spineless" excuse of all.

Unless the wings fall off of their plane, you will never hear real "Captains" say that their crash was their instructor's fault because they weren't trained to do something or were "pressured into" a situation that was beyond the aircraft or the pilot's capabilities. Real "Captains" know their limitations and accept the responsibilities that come with the position.

8

 

Well....since you were the one using "human machine" I figured you would understand your own language.

Simply put....I mean that at the end of the story these pilots put a functioning airplane into the end of a runway. You can talk about whatever management responsibility you want, but on the visual that day, with operating GP references, it was the pilot's who failed to properly fly their aircraft - apparently to include monitoring its' systems.

 

Aimpoint-Airspeed, apparently not in the Operators manual....totally someone else's fault.

Jake: No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts! IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!

Blues Brothers

 

"I pressed the wrong button, and it didn't do what I wanted it to do. Not my fault!!"

 

"Management should have known we weren't able to handle that situation"

 

If there were no such thing as auto-throttles, would anyone be attempting to cut these guys any slack? No. End of discussion.

 

I don't know the source of this claim but I do know it's not me. I didn't write the "book on how to be a captain," and I don't think I implied that I did. My thread-starter, "Captaincy," is a short excerpt from a chapter of a treatise I wrote to bring issues I felt needed addressing to the attention of the pilot community. It's the view of one man, open to challenge to anyone ready, willing and able to expand it, refute it or reject it, in whole or in part. That you've presumably read it is a start. The rest is up to you and other active or aspiring Air Carrier pilots.

Sorry to hear you consider one of my statements "pathetic." We all see the world as we are.

I don't see logic in your second paragraph. Both the captain and check airmen of Asiana 214 were professional pilots who have risen to the level of captain of an international carrier.

That "they are not qualified to be airline pilots" is exactly what I've been arguing. How they represent themselves is irrelevant, IMO. What matters is how their airlines and Regulators who employ and license them do. And in this case they were deemed to be "qualified to be airline pilots" by both their employer and their state's Regulator.

Questions regarding "shortcomings as professional airline captains" and their causes and effects have been - and I believe still are being - regularly addressed by trained industry professionals qualified to conduct research in their own fields, and to make recommendations. I can understand those whose actions are identified as causes might not find such reports palatable. Training departments are at fault when their mandate is to prepare pilots for line operations but fail to do so. And Managements are at fault when they release pilots you deem "not qualified to be airline pilots" to the line.

I'm not sure I know what you're getting at when you specify 'real "Captains."' Real, as opposed to what kind? Are you referring to a kind of personality? A level of skill? Experience base? When a pilot is licensed by his government and assigned as PIC of a multiple-crew flight by his employer, he is ex office de facto a captain. That makes him real; and whatever he does from that point on becomes part of what real captains do. Thousands of captains fly unairworthy, overloaded or ill equipped airplanes worldwide, or risk getting themselves in trouble for want of skills and experience every day to feed their hungry kids. These are the everyday "real captains." Is that acceptable? No, it's not. But it's the reality, the same reality, the status quo some of us are trying to change, while others quiver from fear and choose cowardice of silence instead.

I agree: all pilots, not just captains, should know their limitations and accept the responsibilities that come with the position, whatever that is. But where do they go to gain that knowledge? Who teaches them? Where in pilot training is the part that teaches a student how to determine his limitations? And where in the licensing process is the exam to test his knowledge regarding the depth and breath of PIC responsibility? Who does he turn to for guidance regarding his moral responsibility to passengers, domestic and international law, loyalty to the employer, the crew, the profession, and so forth? Who trains him how to live up to the trust vested in him? And who, what institution teaches him what captaincy means and how he's supposed to fill that billet?

Only by asking such questions does reality emerge from the fog of delusions.

 

At what point do you release the initial CFI from his initial training responsibility. The training departments responsibility was to ensure that they were properly trained IAW the regulations and training plan and to demonstrate those skills during a checkride. I'm sure that they did such over and over. ON THAT DAY, they failed as pilots.

Since MOST mishaps involved an element of 'pilot error', then it must be your opinion that every training department and every regulatory agency, and every management team is always responsible for in some manner. Every could have been trained to standards, everything could have be checked to standards, everything could have been scheduled to standards, everything could have been regulated accordingly, and in the end - the pilot (crew) didn't fly the airplane in those last few minutes.
You certainly make it sound like a no-win situation.

The pilot is that last line and therefore shoulders a majority of the praise or blame. At least the accident investigation will usually shed light on problems in the other areas if found; but rarely are those other areas given any praise when things go right. Witness the recent handling of the Spirit Airlines' engine failure. Plenty of praise for the actions of the crew from all corners of the aviation industry, yet not a peep of praise for the training departments, standards department, regulatory agencies or !gasp! - - management