Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 40

Thread: Let's bring back the Stuntman

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,210

    Let's bring back the Stuntman

    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!


    Last edited by TomcatViP; 28th January 2015 at 01:25.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,394


    I don't normally appear here, but just had to say what a great thread-starter post.

    Moggy
    "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,398
    I agree 100% with Moggy.

    I also bear a concern that the Google car and the Mercedes concept cars have no streering wheel and people dont even look at the road.
    Last edited by Moggy C; 29th January 2015 at 06:57.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Within striking distance of EGMH - as was!
    Posts
    11,477
    I cannot contribute with knowledge but my instinct is to agree wholeheartedly with the thinking! As a passenger I know with which type of pilot I would feel safer. It would be interesting to hear the opinions of our renowned warbird pilots with high hours commercial experience as the day job.
    Charlie

    Keep smiling - it's never as bad as you think!!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South East Essex
    Posts
    4,938
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post

    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!
    I assume you don't mean for commercial aviation ?
    Engine Failure:.... A condition which occurs when all fuel tanks mysteriously become filled with air.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,210
    Quote Originally Posted by ~Alan~ View Post
    I assume you don't mean for commercial aviation ?
    Alan, I am afraid that it what my post is all about. I also have drafted the main point that draw such a conclusion and this can be debated more in detail. But yes, this is what I mean.

    I want to see such experienced flyers in the "cockpit" . I want to see them tested, selected and promoted in function of their abilities to recover from an awkward flight situation and lessen the train of errors leading the a catastrophic incident. I want to see them make a career out of that capabilities, I want to see them tested and their abilities refined through a life long training program (what about "in-flight" training/classes instead of a back couchette and a hangover from the night before?).

    3D space awareness (what is used in flight) is a form of intelligence in front of which none of us are equal. It's an ability that is seldom the point of selection in colleges or universities. Hence those individuals have often, either a very good diploma or either a relatively low grade that in both case pushes them out of the selection and promotion process of the airlines industry. Sadly, those are the one that we are in need now again.

    No more do we need a "flight manager" when their very own capabilities are fielded by the a combination of a new generation of softwares and remote operator. General Atomics drones have been cruising for a decade and flown hundreds of thousands of hours at altitude were their low power, large span and cross winds make them barely flyable. Automation software are now there to take the burden of 99.99% of the task during a flight. What is needed now are reactive professionals capable to surpass the capability of a machine in a matter of seconds when catastrophic or unexpected conditions are encountered. This is called flight awareness...

    ... And those are the ones I am talking about.

    @Moggy, thank you for your comment. Very much appreciated coming from you.

    @TopSpeed, I am not sure that a direct view is needed. I think that there is enough of space related or Mil related studies that show that flight is not imparted by a remote display like a digital screen or an helmet with a 3D view (unveiling here the quote mark around my use of the word Cockpit ).
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 28th January 2015 at 22:42.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South East Essex
    Posts
    4,938
    I can see where you are coming from, but I don't see it happening.
    As you say, commercial airliners are getting more and more automated. So much so, that it is possible for
    an airliner to get from point A to B without any control input from the captain or first officer. I'm not sure if
    I'd be happy to be a passenger in an aircraft not having a qualified pilot up front. Although it has been achieved
    in controlled experiments.

    The flight deck of a passenger aircraft isn't the place for individuals, with a number of accidents not helped by
    the fact that the first officer felt subordinate to the captain, and didn't question their actions.

    There's no substitute for experience. Most of us have watched the Air Accident documentaries, and seen this
    proven any number of times. The training manuals can never cover every eventuality, but an experienced crew
    working as a team, stand the best chance of averting an accident. Or at least minimising it's severity.
    Engine Failure:.... A condition which occurs when all fuel tanks mysteriously become filled with air.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,210
    I think you didn't get it. I am not advocating the substitution of what you call a pilot by another kind of non qualified individual.

    What I am saying relative to you answer is that the focus is put on system specialist instead of their flying abilities. I have even mentioned the fact that there are some discrepancies among individuals regarding their abilities to cope with a problem in 3D geometry such as those encountered during a flight. And such qualities are not today what can help a professional to be successful in their career or during their syllabus.

    It should...

    This despite the fact that automation of FCS have nearly reached the point where a flight can be done point to point in a secure manner Without any human inputs or Dedicated crew member monitoring closely (and on board) their systems.

    What can be seen then is that there is an increased divergence in the role attributed to a today pilots and what will be needed tommorrow (please see posts above). Even more nasty is the fact that the step back in flight manager competencies open a door to the irrational (selection) during the Flight officer syllabus (see AF447 or MH370 but we all have our own example in mind).

    Given the raising number of plane flying and hence crews, this is not a good trend.

    The problem I am pushing frwd today is multiple. Please don't see it through the old lens of contesting the place of men in the cockpit. This is not about that. Not at all. On the contrary...

    For example you mentioned that "Most of us have watched the Air Accident documentaries". This is where the problem lie (even if we shld be more thinking at Incidents reports). Most being no more justifiable today.

    A pilot should now be an incident specialist. A manager of catastrophic failures. A trapezist with skills selected and refined everyday trough such a hard training. Someone able to survive (with all of us behind) the most daring flight situations when it may occurs. Because, at an increased rate (in term of linear time given the multiplication of the number of flights) with for example the increased pace of tailored sophistication or global warming and the tremendous time crew are spending in flight, when things will go bad they will go Really bad. The irony of the sophistication of flight is now that it has reached... the departure of controlled flight situations.

    And there there is no FCS, checklist or monitoring system to cope with. There there is only the unexpected, the non-computed, the unattended and hopefully, should we wish, the good old stuntman.
    Last edited by Moggy C; 29th January 2015 at 06:56. Reason: Quote of entire post directly above deleted

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    23
    I agree 100 percent. Computers do not possess the decision making skills that pilots have. Neither can a drone maneuver like an aircraft can in the hands of a skilled pilot. The piloted plane will gun down the drone every time. The stuntman and his metal steed will always have the edge.
    "All the thrust in Christendom couldn't make a fighter out of that airplane".----Vice Admiral Thomas Connolly on the F-111B

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Within striking distance of EGMH - as was!
    Posts
    11,477
    All of which is why I made reference to the opinion of renowned warbird pilots who spend their day jobs on the flight decks of commercial airliners.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South East Essex
    Posts
    4,938
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    I think you didn't get it. .
    I think you may be right
    Either way, I don't see any major changes on the horizon. The system we have now works very well.
    Engine Failure:.... A condition which occurs when all fuel tanks mysteriously become filled with air.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Within striking distance of EGMH - as was!
    Posts
    11,477
    Does it? I would have thought there is considerable room for improvement, as implied by other posts above.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,394
    I think the Air France debacle jolted us all out of any complacency that the current system works well

    Moggy
    "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South East Essex
    Posts
    4,938
    The system works well until an unforeseen set of problems arise. How do you plan for something
    which has never occurred before ? Flying at night into a dense ash cloud, or running out of fuel ?
    You can only train air crews up to a certain level. They rest must surely come with experience ?

    I'll duck out of this debate now, as there are those far more experienced than me to answer these questions.
    Engine Failure:.... A condition which occurs when all fuel tanks mysteriously become filled with air.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,398
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post

    @TopSpeed, I am not sure that a direct view is needed. I think that there is enough of space related or Mil related studies that show that flight is not imparted by a remote display like a digital screen or an helmet with a 3D view (unveiling here the quote mark around my use of the word Cockpit ).

    Sorry I am just trying to see the dangers that lurk ahead not just the ones that are already in the system but not happened yet.

    The KLM / PAN AM incident that took place in the Canary Islands was a sum of the three major factors and few smaller factors.

    Pilot was experienced, but a dickhead...there will be plenty of dickheads flying aeroplanes in the future too whether you have a system that flies without a pilot or not.

    I bet a STUNTMAN is one solution, but you also need to have a person who is thrustworthy flying but also as a human.

    Going through the Neil Armstrong book you see what is demanded outside the 100% flying skills...a dude who never looses his grip !
    Last edited by topspeed; 29th January 2015 at 12:54.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Within striking distance of EGMH - as was!
    Posts
    11,477
    But Alan isn't that exactly what those who know more than you or me, are suggesting? Aircrew need to have a different and less "automated" training regime? They need to be able to "fly by the seat of their pants" - intuitively, if necessary. My understanding of what has been posted is that aircrew no longer have these attributes so rely 100% on the computers, which as we have seen all too starkly, are not to be relied on. My instinct tells me these thoughts have great currency.
    Charlie

    Keep smiling - it's never as bad as you think!!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    East Sussex, UK
    Posts
    1,096
    pprune has been considering very similar thoughts as part of their ongoing thread debate on the Air Asia QZ8501 A320 accident.

    http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...singapore.html

    While you can never tell which posters are true commercial pilots and which are simply armchair MS Flight Sim "experts", a number of posters have asked much the same question(s) regarding the need for suitably trained/experienced crew who can take over quickly when the "uncrashable" aircraft suddenly seems to be in an unexpected, but decidely "crashable" situation.

    As with the Air France A330 case, there are people on pprune suggesting that too much CPL training emphasis may be placed on "Systems Operator" type training, with less emphaisis on manual/traditional hand flying skills, or even careful, but swift "logical assessment" of what the systems data tells you is an apparently "impossible" scenario.

    Its a bit like driving a modern car, I guess, far too many people have fallen into the trap that airbags, seatbelts and ABS means cars are not going to hurt you anymore, and fail to realise that however good the "software" and "systems" are, get outside their safe operating envelope (e.g. tail-gateing on the motorway), or have them fail mechanically, and you may get a very unpleasant suprise... and it's how people identify and deal with that suprise that may be critical factor.

    If someone on aflight deck has had "common sense" trained out of them or has become so used to relying on the 99.9999999999999999999% reliable systems tha they are (unconciously) complacent, when that 0.0000000000000001% improbability turns up, they may not be able to react quickly enough, or in a suitable manner to recover the situation.

    People are also asking questions regarding why "full stall training" on the simulator (if not the real aircraft), seems to be rarely taught - the trining schedule logic presumably being that the aircraft FBW algorithms will never let you stall it, so you don't need to worry about what happens in stall situations (!). And, of course, if the aircraft has never been stalled in real life, the simulator programmers probably have insufficient hard data to build realistic stalling/stalled airframe behavour into the sims anyway....so how can the sim teach you when it doesnt know what will happen when the systems play up and you make inappropriate, but possibly instinctive, control inputs anyway?

    Few are questioning the argument that FBW is great, per se and that it probably saves more lives than it exposes to severe risk, but in those few cases when mechanical failure/sensor failure or human failure (lack of correct situtaional awareness) is thrown in then FBW logic may just take you to places you don't expect, haven't ever experienced, and perhaps cannot quickly recognise, especially when assorted (possibly apparently "illogicially matched" ) audible or visual alarms and warnings are going off all over the "office" too.

    As ever, statistics wll show that FBW is 999.9999999% reliable - problem is, when it goes wrong, or its failure is misunderstood or misinterpreted, the end result may well be 100% failure for those aboard :-( .

    Then again, in an aircraft which still has mechanical linakeges between stick/rudder and control suraces, a pilot can also make errors of judgement, so neither full-FBW (or "fly by algorithm" as test pilot John Farley calls it), nor manual control are failproof. In both cases, pilots can still get into serious trouble if they fail to recognise what's going on when the unexpected situation arises.

    Not sure I agree with the "Stuntman" suggestion as such, but yes, it does perhaps seem time to reconsider the degree to which commercial crews are been trained in flying by the seat of the pants, in flying at the edges of the envelope (and possibly beyond in the case of stalling), and to recognise the "real situation" no matter what the fancy gizmo's and systems may be telling you.

    Paul F (Not even a PPL, let alone a CPL - just someone with some training and experience in all sorts of "systems" )
    Last edited by Paul F; 29th January 2015 at 17:21.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,210
    PPrune is good. But there is so many inputs by poster from so different background that it is time consuming to found any info.

    Also "Stunt" refer to the origin of aviation, the opening of flight envelope, the "barn flyer", the flying circus, when each day was a day of discovery, when speed, G, flight attitude were everyday a life threatening unknown to be solved by the feet, the eyes, the hands and the fill of the body.


    There was no way that a plane could have been designed to be flown against its pilot. It would have been a non sense. Engineers, Pilots, Test Pilots were in line: the same breed, the same brittle, the same objectives: performances and safety.


    Is that a commune acceptance now among the airliner industry that the formations are too weak, too uncertain to let the pilots fly the plane even when all the systems are down ? No.
    If a plane can't be manned, it simply never have to be manned. Simply. Pilots are not there to be only the warranty of an intermediate software release.

    A FCS that have been shown failing should be no more a FCS in charge of flying an airplane. EoA

    Hand over of ctrl to the pilots should be immediate or in matter of seconds, through a simple switch, inside a range of parameters known to be adequate for a safe flying (Frwd CG, Neutral sensitivity of bank,roll and yaw, Pitch down moment, adequate damping ...).

    Today technologies exist that would allow a switch back from the days of hard engineered aft CG trick and and supercritical airfoils trim built in the airframe and hence not cancelable. A plane built with safety in mind but turned more efficient by the trick of technologies (software, fluidic ctrl, plasma) but capable to be handed over back in normal flying behavior should the unattended happens.

    The budget are there. The structure exist for such tech to be derisked. Money should be routed where it matters the most: Performances and flight safety. Again. It's always the same story.
    Not to assume the erroneous decision or a past team of a failing Management (3.4B$ lost again on the A400 today).

    This is what is probably needed: a new set of regulation.

    The stuntman could have save them. The hundreds of them...





    Sources:
    EncyclopediaBritanica

    The San Diego air&Space Museum Archives
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 31st January 2015 at 08:33.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    At the birthplace of aviation in UK
    Posts
    1,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Moggy C View Post
    I think the Air France debacle jolted us all out of any complacency that the current system works well

    Moggy

    Hi Moggy

    Touche -

    The Air France AF447 catastrophe has resulted in many good airlines making mandatory, training with simulated faulty instruments.

    It does not beat the real thing (training) of coming in with one engine, and/or some instruments covered with the obvious risk that you may bend/break the aircraft and kill everyone. Bl..dy expensive but effective.

    It's all about human logic and 'real' experience of pilots being still better than any sim.
    Jay

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    At the birthplace of aviation in UK
    Posts
    1,687
    On the topic of Topcat Vip's "Stuntmen" .

    Anyone remember Matt Elliot - Eurofighter display pilot around 2005.

    I first met him at RAF Leuchars since they had "meet the pilots and autograpgh signing" after displays.

    I then watched him display at East Fortune (outside Edinburgh) - it's a display only as there is no suitable field to land anything large.

    It was a great display and at the end of the display line there were a large clump of trees. He came in low and made a sharp steep port turn on full afterburn to avoid the trees. It singed the hairs on my arm as I was as close to the crowd line as I could get.

    I then met him at Duxford and we spoke about it with smiles on our faces and he agreed that those trees were ominous at East Fortune.

    I was later told he had joined BA - There's a good Captain for BA. Call him a stuntman and I am sure he will not mind.
    Jay

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Within striking distance of EGMH - as was!
    Posts
    11,477
    Which sort of links to my previous posts about warbird pilots and their day jobs in commercial aviation.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,210
    The text bellow is pasted from the A320 gone Missing (QZ8501) thread:

    The pilot should be trained to fly and manages "situations", not to react to an increasingly complex Automated system. Monitoring Software have come a long way from all over the horizon of the tech. It's now time to to bring all this in an appropriate manner in our planes.

    It doesn't makes sens that a 20+ year old with 6 month training can ctrl a UAS from the other side of the globe when a 20+ years experienced Captain standing behind the yoke can't. Something is wrong.

    Then [...] we see that the pilot range of responsibility will evolve toward coping mainly with "Situations" . As envisioned, candidate profiled and screened for their 3D Space Awareness, trained in a flight simulator... flying and kept proficient throughout in-flight classes (instead of spending their time monitoring the FCS).

    It could be something like that

    - Level0: FCS as seen today
    - level1: FCS Monitoring software (plane maker) - this where the liability and responsibility of the plane maker stop - this to ease the industries dialog toward a more responsible procedure (no more finger pointing b/w companies, Pilots association and Maker) and protect IP.
    - Level2:Industry Monitoring Software (FAA) - Supervisor / Coordinator / Innovation - and secured database (open architecture and Mil grade anti hacking, regulations enforcement, flight route coordination etc.. all data refreshed before each flight via a cassette like hardware (security, safety, responsibility) ))
    - Man-machine interface (simple) to rapidly de-activate totally or partially the FCS and reset the plane in a Fully controllable state (Frd CG etc...).
    - Level3: Pilot
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 7th February 2015 at 01:58.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington, West Sussex
    Posts
    340
    At last the subject is being debated again. When I flew as cabin crew 20 yrs ago the subject was already being mentioned but nobody really took it seriously. Even then I only knew one Captain who flew manually to keep up his skills. Interestingly he had flown types others hadn't (Concorde) and had far more diverse experience. He was a pilot.
    I'd suggest it is reasonably predictable that the unpredictable and unexpected will occur at some point. Can those at the pointy end cope with that if they are never allowed to practice their skill outside of the sim?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,210
    Thinking more into the concept, I think a flying flight simulator could come around easily. Systems emulation, adaptive control laws and virtual trafic are now notions that won't afraid anybody anymore speaking about it. The new key is now to have a low kinetic "situation" simulator to emulate the most hairy critical situations that a pilot now must have to be trained to deal with.

    With crash safety design solutions and some other new minded approach, it should be possible to have a safe enough plane offering high sink rate and able to emulate the experience of a deep stall, a flat spin or a crash landing with enough safety and acceleration control to have an Instructor on-board teaching and screening several dozen of trainee at a low cost (before he had seen enough and decide to move on).

    This kind of flying kinetic simulator (fitted with the above described virtual rendering systems (trafic, FCS systems and ctrl laws)) could be part of a mandatory session to all trainee with refreshing cursus in place for experienced aircrew.

    It's easy to foresee an economic model around it with the design fulfilling an international RFP (ICAO for example) and the plane being bought by individuals or structures renting hours to companies or professional flying school (just like the NATO's pilot training system in place).

    With such a tool, sensations could be safely introduced in the cursus, adding a new dimension to the training that will bring in a much needed awareness for the pilots encountering a critical situation.
    Low kinetics is the necessary variable to emulate safely on a regular basis an abrupt flight departing, a high pitch rate (periodic or pulsed), a high drifting angle, a high sink rate and, of course, the most dairying crash landing training.

    With such a tool (and added hardware), we can even envision to train (via flying simulator as opposed ti ground based one) for landing on forest canopy, crash landing at sea, take off and landing in icy/ or heavy snow conditions, extreme cross wind landing and of course, power-off approach (tracting engine at full power for safety - not even at idle).
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 4th March 2015 at 03:51.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,210
    An interesting editorial following the crash of Germanwings Flight 9525 :

    [Non US] airlines recognize an MPL (Multi-engine Pilot License) with only 200 hours of flight instruction before climbing in the right seat of your commercial airplane [instead of 1500 in the US]. With 18 months as an employee of this airline, this particular co-pilot had only accumulated 630 hours. ...

    Foreign captains are often flying basically alone, with a very inexperienced new co-pilot. The doomed captain's thousands of hours of flight time did him little good, while foolishly locked out of the cockpit. As a check pilot in several fleets (B727, B757, B767, B777) for two decades before I retired, even a new co-pilot had thousands of hours in complex commercial aircraft before transitioning to a new fleet and was never alone in the cockpit.

    There is a national and international shortage of commercial pilots resulting in the lowering of standards in employment and certification, particularly among foreign carriers. It is also why there is increasing reliance on automation in aircraft design, particularly in the Airbus philosophy of restricting pilots from overriding the autopilot to enhance sales.
    Veteran professional pilot Adam Shaw

    Source:
    www.theatlantic.com/

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,210
    An interesting testimony again in line with the crash of Germanwings Flight 9525 :

    I am currently 26 and have been flying since I was 18, I will most likely move on to flying an A320 or similar when I am 29, not too dissimilar to this FO. Now by that time I will have more than 4000 TT and flown in no particular order:

    C208b bush flying
    GA8 para dropping
    DHC6 airline
    Q400 airline

    I will have worked my socks off and sacrificed to get there, have two kids and a beautiful wife at home and been around the world.

    Who do you want sitting in the RHS of your positioning flight? Me or the 200 hr cadet [...]?

    Bring in the 1500 TT FAA rule and we can start fixing our industry.


    Source:
    PPrune User cgwhitemonk11
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 9th April 2015 at 23:38.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    688
    By all means have experience in the cockpit, but the pilot quoted by 'TomcatViP' is more likely to be seen as on enthusiast rather than the sort of person an airline wants in the cockpit.

    I get the impression that the airline industry wants aircrew who are stolid imperturbable types who can cope with the sheer boredom of flying the modern airliner. And the boredom isn't caused by the on-board computer systems, it's caused by the nature of flying an airliner. It's just as dull for the aircrew as it is for the passengers and I do wonder whether, not withstanding his experience, the person quoted above is entirely suited to be an airline pilot. He seems to want the excitement part of flying not the inherent boredom of the airliner. As an occasional passenger I wouldn't want such a person in the right hand seat.

    The current airline industry has created one of the safest forms of transport known. Not quite the safest, but very safe indeed. The Germanwings horror story should not detract from that achievement. It isn't AFAIK the first time this has happened and, with regret, I'd be surprised it it's going to be the last.

    Regards
    David Mylchreest
    Steam and Model Railway videos http://www.youtube.com/user/PenrithBeacon
    Aviation videos http://www.youtube.com/user/austerfive

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,394
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    .... the pilot quoted by 'TomcatViP' is more likely to be seen as on enthusiast rather than the sort of person an airline wants in the cockpit.
    Wasn't that the whole message of the post?

    Moggy
    "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    688
    Quote Originally Posted by Moggy C View Post
    Wasn't that the whole message of the post?

    Moggy
    Yes, and the answer is that this is not the sort of person the airline industry wants to employ and this occasional passenger and total aviation freak wants to be driven by. What I want is a totally reliable, dull, unimaginative pilot who will get me to my destination without any alarums and excursions. It is a dreadful fact that the Germanwings passengers didn't get such an individual but neither would I want somebody who is in love with the romance and excitement of the past which appears to be the case in the post.

    Sorry but again we are at odds.

    Regards

    Sorry
    David Mylchreest
    Steam and Model Railway videos http://www.youtube.com/user/PenrithBeacon
    Aviation videos http://www.youtube.com/user/austerfive

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    688
    A duplicated post ...
    David Mylchreest
    Steam and Model Railway videos http://www.youtube.com/user/PenrithBeacon
    Aviation videos http://www.youtube.com/user/austerfive

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES