People have been saying it for years, a lot of newer pilots aren’t stick & rudder guys. That’s why some airlines (and even some pilots on their own time/money) have taken recovery from unusual attitudes courses in T-34s, Pitts and the like.

Stick and rudder flying still forms the basic foundation of all pilot training, as far as I know. As you point out, the key is to at least try and maintain a sufficient degree of proficiency while engaged in heavily automated day-to-day operations.

Nothing new. I recall the same conversation 15 years ago.
The answer given then IIRC was that airlines needed to be persuaded to change their ops to allow pilots to fly manually more often to retain their touch. Most airlines back then instructed pilots to use the autopilot routinely.
Interested to know what the current generation are instructed to do.

I also believe that this topic has been around for a while. It’s also part of the JAR-FCL ATPL(A) Human Performance & Limitations curriculum.

I get the impression that AP operation is quite routine now as well. Takeoffs and visual approaches (if allowed by the company) are usually done manually. This depends on the company and aircraft in question, crew qualifications etc., of course.

There is nothing wrong with automation when used correctly.

Maybe not, but it can still entail some issues such as low workload or even increased workload in some areas, confusion with different modes and symbology, narrowed attention etc.

Yes they can and have done for years.

As I understand it, cockpit automation is meant to be an aid, not a substitute. One can think of it as another crewmember. It helps monitor the flight crew and must itself be monitored continuously during operation.

As for maintaining stick and rudder proficiency, taking the time to do some GA flying with e.g. SEP/MEP planes and/or gliders on the side can be reasonable. Aerobatics is a winner! 🙂

Good point, Tangmere.

Mechanical failures, maintenance failures and aircrew failures are all investigated.

(…)

With no evidence of mechanical or maintenance defect, the only other source of failure is the aircrew. And it surely does not look good that the helo impacted the hillside after a low-level flight across the water. My guess is someone missed the pull-up as they made landfall.

I cannot comment on this accident in particular. However, when it comes to investigations into (civil) aviation incidents and accidents in general, I get the impression that in this day and age, a share of the focus is or should be directed towards organisational factors as well. Management, SOPs, training etc. Other parties such as ATS and aviation authorities can also be part of the issue.

What may seem as a “straightforward” case of pilot error on the surface can be a symptom of other and deeper issues. Crewmembers can be the last line of defence against a threat which is allowed to reach the operational tip, but that doesn’t mean that they’re the only ones responsible (if at all) when things go wrong. Also, in case of human error (crewmembers and others), I think it’s important to try and find out WHY the crew failed. I’m not accusing you on this, but trying to put the blame with someone without having a better look into the possibilities connected to an incident or accident can often be a poor way of improving flight safety.

James Reason’s “swiss cheese” model as well as the SHELL concept can be of interest in this context.

Some relevant reading on this topic:

The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error

3 500 for PPL A in one payment at the end of the course and 9 000 for CPL A in three payments during the course.

Are those fees for something?

What subjects are “demanded” in aviation career?

Such requirements vary with different flight schools and companies/airlines. Some schools and perhaps some companies require their applicants to have some form of secondary school math and physics under their belts, but not all of them.

From my own experience, pilot aptitude testing may involve a relatively small portion of math and mechanics. From a seconday education perspective, the math problems might not be very advanced. If you did OK in secondary school, I wouldn’t worry much about it. Pilot aptitude testing is mostly about other skills and traits. I should emphasise that I can only speak for myself and my personal experience, though.

You say you’re looking for a “free” school. Is this in Finland?

Is the Finnish Air Force an option for you?

PPRuNe can be a good resource for information. Personally I think the mood there can get a bit dark and pessimistic sometimes. Kenneth’s post may serve to illustrate the opinions and experiences of some people, but it’s nothing universal.

That may well be true the way I see it. It’s no secret that e.g. Norway relies heavily on its NATO membership and has a need to invest in mutual military bonds with other alliance members.

I don’t know everything, but I think Norway’s strong effort in Libya may also reflect a desire in the government to support the UN and aid the organisation as an important international political body with, among other things, a credible capacity to summon the use of military power by its member states when necessary. The UN needs members which are willing and capable to form the tip of the spear.

Maybe a slight but positive input.

The Security and Defense Agenda (Future of NATO)
As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Brussels, Belgium, Friday, June 10, 2011

In the Libya operation, Norway and Denmark, have provided 12 percent of allied strike aircraft yet have struck about one third of the targets. Belgium and Canada are also making major contributions to the strike mission. These countries have, with their constrained resources, found ways to do the training, buy the equipment, and field the platforms necessary to make a credible military contribution.

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1581

I suggest we should try harder to contain the bulk of the political discussion in the GD forum, gentlemen..