The present topic is the result of a reflection following AF447, MH370, MH17 and the last QZ8501 incidents. A similar post can be seen in the topic dedicated to Flight QZ8501.
Let’s debate here of this long trend to pull away pilots from their basic core of competencies as if it was a shame in the modern world.
I think that the prob does not rely simply on the pilot’s laps (for once!). If we speak in general terms, from the AF447, MH370, MH17 and the last QZ8501, planed were manned by crews that had at least one pilot with an un-contestable experience.
What can be finger pointed are the procedures: the ones used during the design, the management decision from aircraft manufacturer, the training flow of new pilots and the day to day procedure ruling the security parameters in flights.
This what is worry some. We are now converging on the habits of having a severe accidents occurring at regular period of time thanks to the rules of statistics and the increase in the number of flight when we should rely instead on the capacities of the human factor to break the rules of statistics where it matter: dealing with an abnormal surge of occurrences (see the X-15 prog safety).
A pilots is now treated as the weak part of the FCS when it shld be the other way around: the human in board shld be treated as a circuit breaker in the plausibility of an incident occurrence. Let’s look at the Drones and how they are used and manned. If you input an human onboard with full pilots skills, you annihilate the probability of a serious incident. When it happens, Drones are falling down mainly because they are not manned.
This is where I think the single human policy pushed frwd by the NASA has all its meanings. What remains to be seen is: will economics habits rules out the possibility to pay a professional, trained at huge cost and maintained proficient on a costly manner, to be tasked only to monitor screens and systems for years before a true meaning of that investment can be proved, if any ? Won’t the temptation be too great for Airlines manager to dual task such an individual (flight attendant/piloting?)
We see that everyday in the security industry. We have the commune image of the fat guard standing in front of screens security camera seemingly incapable anymore to run after an intruder). Most have administrative task to fill for example. The problem here is to maintain that guard fit and alert as an athlete when the awareness in the public is low (public includes the arlines industry). Human/machine interface is the key obviously. But still, are we capable and ready, us all, member of a competitive society, to see a dedicated professional doing nearly nothing for years ?
This happens in the Nuclear industry (Military and Civil) and those have to cope with the motivations and remaining proficient. But those individuals are rarely exposed to the public attention.
Obviously maintaining that “Pilot” pro-efficient would means letting him taking ctrl of the flight once in a while. But still we will face the wall of incomes and personal motivation where the perception of the general public (again that includes the airline industry) that being active means looking as if you are doing something.
The pilot will turn away from piloting and managing the flight to be ready and trained to deal with the most serious incidents; those that are not envisioned or too difficult to recover with onboard systems (this is needed with global warning and unknown meteorological occurrence encountered first by the airline industries for example (nbr of flight / routes above ocean etc…)).
A pilot with a stuntman background… A one trained to land every time his plane in the Hudson river, glide a 242 tones aircraft for hundred of miles or recover from a spin at night in the most severe thunderstorm…
Let’s let the Engineer deal with the day to day routines of flight. Let’s grd operator manage the flight routes, the schedules, the administrative tasks. Let’s the airlines Manage the flow of passengers in front of the increase number of administrative and legal procedures. Let the Software deal with the expected, the attended, the known situations…
And let the pilot be a flyer, unsophisticated, rough, Cocky if possible but the one that can handle the most serious, sever and unexpected situation. Yep , that one will certainly have to be alone in the “cockpit” for obvious economic reason (cost of training), but let’s bring back the Stuntman!
By: TomcatViP - 19th February 2021 at 03:03
Single pilot trial reach large turboprop freighters:
https://theaircurrent.com/technology/fedex-and-sikorsky-quietly-begin-s…
By: TomcatViP - 12th August 2019 at 07:00
The idea that we have become too reliant on automation and have let our basic piloting skills atrophy isn’t new. Every few years there is a noteworthy crash, some hand-wringing and a call for pilots to take a little more stick time. This has been around for almost as long as I have been flying. But I don’t think more stick time will answer the problem. What we need is better stick time, hand-flying the airplane when it is safe to do so and then do so in a way that helps us improve.
Excellent (and positively recreative) read from J. Albright on Aviation Week :
By: TomcatViP - 9th July 2019 at 19:28
Without any intends to open here the debate around the MAX, fact is that MCAS similar systems have been around since the swept wing… Stability augmentation is probably older than us all. It is unbelievable that a paid professional would have acted like they supposedly did. Sorry, my bad I should have wrote, IT’S F* SCARY!
It is obvious to me that lassitude and the push to take responsibility out of the hands of flight crew can led a 7k hr pilot to act with negligence. Last but not least the war on sub-system cost has also its share in this disaster (as an engineer I can’t believe that an AoA sensor can fed FCS with completely irrelevant data (imagine your car speedometer indicating Mach 1 and everybody telling you it’s perfectly normal), But at the end, it remains that Flight training is sick and you won’t simply bandage it and stop the tragic bleeding of passengers dying in an horrible agony. Drastic move are needed. IMOHO, it might even come with a a rapid increase of profit for a company like Boeing.
By: ananda - 9th July 2019 at 08:47
The first Max crash in Indonesia, The Pilot has close to 7000 hrs flight while the Co-Pilot has 5000. The second crash in Ethiopia, The Pilot has more than 6000 hrs flight, while yes the Co-Pilot has only 200+ hrs flight in 737 but reported has clock more flight hours on other smaller plane.
However the talk on the pilots minimum hours or train eventough is relevant to be discussed even bring to International body that overseas Aviation regulation..should not ‘cloud’ real problem on Max. Afterall even ‘Sully’ in Congressional hearing point out that the problem is in the ‘hardware’.
By: J Boyle - 7th July 2019 at 04:54
In regard to the quote above about airlines “… not teaching pilots to fly.. “
The first officer in one of the Max crashes was said to have 200-odd hours.
Really?
In an emergency…or even a non-emergency but when things aren’t going as designed…what good would he/she be?
Yes, it’s nice for airlines to take worthy novices and train them themselves without the person “paying his way”up the ladder, but do you really want someone with 200 hours in the right seat?
At least if someone had come up through the traditional ranks, private, commercial, CFI, freight pilot, regional airlines…they likely would have faced troubles (equipment, weather, etc.) before being responsible for a jet full of passengers.
By: TomcatViP - 6th July 2019 at 08:23
Boeing 737 Max’s Autopilot Has Problem, European Regulators Find
EASA, in its recommendations, stopped short of telling Boeing how to address the issues, instead asking the company to propose solutions that will then be assessed, the person said. For example, if Boeing can prove the effectiveness of a new training procedure that doesn’t include the more burdensome requirement for simulator training, it could avoid that additional expense.
IMOHO it’s time for Boeing to set their own sponsored Training syllabus and reach out to the public expectation on safety. The days of hybridized airframer qualifications are over when awarness of flight is lagging behind what it should be and mitigated by the complexity of FCS that are here foremost to make for the lag in engineering b/w the main two competitors. The size of each fleet make for plenty of opportunity for any individual without requiring qualification on different airframe. It’s an opportunity for Boeing and those that have embrassed the full authority concept to build a new way for this industry, safer and more economical (single pilot flight, less cost on airframe qualification…)).
Boeing and North America will have an edge for a while in aviation Science and Test facilities.
If you are not convinced, you could read this piece from FlightGlobal summarizing last an-148 crash report:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-an-148-pilots-opposing-inputs-during-fata-459481/
The way some crew are over relying on system inputs is only akin to group somnambulism. A simple set of watch embedded accelorometer could have prevented this and other accident… for cheap.
By: TomcatViP - 8th June 2019 at 22:27
The idea was to relocate the system monitoring activities down on the ground (IA assisted) as most of the procedures and administrative tasks. Today (as was the example used on the opening post of this thread), a 20 something can operate a plane on the other side of the world through high bandwidth datalinks and IA; airframe that are way more tricky to fly and operate given the maximization of their performance and mission profile at minimal cost. There is no reason that a trained team of operators with the dedicated hardware and set of procedures can’t do the same with an airliner routinely, leaving only (mostly) the unexpected events at the hands of embarked professionals, selected and trained specifically (leaving the burden and time consuming tasks of learning the systems aside as a minor in their formation).
Please feel free to browse back the thread to find more in-depth details.
🙂
By: Arabella-Cox - 31st May 2019 at 22:47
I think the two need to go hand-in-hand throughout the training procedure. Over-reliance on automated systems is just starting to become an issue in the automotive world.
By: TomcatViP - 26th May 2019 at 11:21
Last Ethiopian Boeing Max crash raised the question that this topic was aimed for more than 4 years ago:
“Airlines don’t teach pilots to fly. They teach procedures. Your basic core skills should be there before you get to the airline,” said Bo Corby, director of standards and training for Future & Active Pilot Advisors, or FAPA, a career and financial advisory service.
He said the focus for training many pilots these days is to teach them how to use the automated systems, deemphasizing basic flying skills. He said the time has come to revert to a system in which knowledge of core techniques becomes critical again.
Source:
USA Today.com
By: TomcatViP - 16th December 2018 at 18:24
It refers to the early age of aviation where every flight was a stunt (see 1st post of the thread)
A pilot with a stuntman background… A one trained to land every time his plane in the Hudson river, glide a 242 tones aircraft for hundred of miles or recover from a spin at night in the most severe thunderstorm…
Let’s let the Engineer deal with the day to day routines of flight. Let’s grd operator manage the flight routes, the schedules, the administrative tasks. Let’s the airlines Manage the flow of passengers in front of the increase number of administrative and legal procedures. Let the Software deal with the expected, the attended, the known situations…
And let the pilot be a flyer, unsophisticated, rough, Cocky if possible but the one that can handle the most serious, sever and unexpected situation. Yep , that one will certainly have to be alone in the “cockpit” for obvious economic reason (cost of training), but let’s bring back the Stuntman!
By: CONCORDE - 16th December 2018 at 14:54
TomcatVIP
Have to say this is an odd title for what you are trying to explain!!!!
By: TomcatViP - 16th December 2018 at 14:08
Software will now deal with the daily routine of flight. Stratified ones will do even better (see earlier).
When something will go wrong, it will potentially cascade into something catastrophic rapidly. It is then logically in the interest of the industry to see and recruit their pilots as a backup failure system that will react in an environment where the decision process has been compromised or did failed completely (unexpected case of failure, instruments failures, non-relevant checklist, communications unavailable…). The Pilot will have to react instantly and take decisive action right on the go. Pilots that master the core of their competencies only will have a chance of success: stick time, 3d awareness, crash procedure training, aerobatics basics (and understanding), flight time “by the pants” and obviously old fashioned navigation training will be at the forefront of what does constitute for modern airlines… an useful pilot.
By: CONCORDE - 15th December 2018 at 21:15
Possibly the best stunt work I seen was in the Airport 1980 film, when a stuntman ran underneath Concorde on take off.
By: CONCORDE - 15th December 2018 at 17:54
I think those days are gone from the barnstorming era of 1930’s or 60’s. Like any industry at the present recruiting new employees go through a wide range of tests to see if they are suitable. What you want is someone who is levelheaded and not a hot head, who can fly the aircraft safely and competent and yes just like Chesley Sullenberger.
By: TomcatViP - 19th April 2018 at 11:20
And sourced from UPI.com:
Emergency alarms on the plane acted properly and the plane rolled at a severe 41-degree angle after the left engine failed, he said. He also noted “a fair amount of vibration” and said the airliner landed in Philadelphia at an above-average speed of 190 mph.
By: TomcatViP - 24th February 2018 at 20:47
Autonomous Helicopters Seen as Wave of the Future
The Matrix algorithms and flight control system can also operate aircraft more efficiently than human pilots, Van Buiten said. Even seasoned air crews introduce extraneous inputs into platforms during operations, he explained. The super computer cuts down on those and can manage the onset of loads on a helicopter by making calculations and moving the controls in fractions of a second.
That has implications for sustainment.
“When we have the computer fly the airplane it can … reduce the wear and tear on the components pretty significantly, so that’s direct cost reduction,” he said.
The system can also be used when human pilots are on board the aircraft, he noted. In addition to enabling autonomous flight, it can be used to assist one-man or two-man air crews.
It gets clearer day after day now: the pilot (or should we talk about manned piloting?) is heading to be exclusively an “out of the loop” situation manager.
Source (as sourced from The secret Projects forum):
The national Defense magazine.org
By: TomcatViP - 10th February 2018 at 19:58
Boeing raises prospect of only one pilot in the cockpit of planes
By: TomcatViP - 11th January 2017 at 01:12
Thales outlines digital tranformation avionics
Examples of new functions include recommendations for optimal altitudes, weather rerouting, and turbulence and air-traffic-delay avoidance. Given that new aircraft already have advanced displays, secure connectivity to the ground and digital links to air traffic control, Thales is pursuing methods to take available data and package it in a way that helps a pilot make the best decisions. “That’s the next phase,” Pellegrini said, adding the improvements can be done incrementally, without waiting for the next clean-sheet aircraft design.
“What we’re seeing is significant disruption in many industries due to the exponential progress in Big Data, machine learning and connectivity,” he said. “The classic example is automated cars.” He noted that some automotive technologies, including the linking of information from various sources, can apply to aviation.
In that context, information from air traffic control, airport ground systems and other nontraditional sources, for example, can be fed into data analytics and artificial intelligence algorithms to provide airlines and pilots with “significant advances in operating their aircraft more efficiently,” he said.
Source:
AviationWeek.com
By: TomcatViP - 10th September 2016 at 23:43
Flight EK521 go-around incident (plane destroyed) points to pilot overload
Just 10s elapsed between the sounding of a cockpit alarm, which appears to have triggered the aborted landing, and the retraction of the undercarriage.
[…]
Destruction of Emirates flight EK521 might also add a further twist to the complexity of training pilots to handle such events effectively. If the cockpit alarm, warning of a long landing, proves to have been the trigger event for the go-around, investigators will have to explore the decision process that led the crew to abort touchdown when some 3km of runway remained.
Source:
FlightGlobal.com
Sign In
January 28, 2015 at 12:21 am
