The Dumbing Down of Aviation

[Hedley]

fairytale ... my elevator cable just broke and I am in a nose down attitude

No fairytale. Happened to me in a borrowed Pitts. Vertical downline,
elevator jammed. Turned out there was a BNC "T" connector in the
tail that floated up during negative G and jammed the elevator push-pull
tube. I could not get it dislodged in the air, I recovered from the vertical
downline (and landed) with the trim. Most pilots don't consider Pitts landings
real easy, and using trim and power for pitch attitude during the flare
and landing didn't exactly make it a whole lot easier.

Anyways, it was my own damned fault. I'm old enough to know that
everything end up in the tail of an aerobatic airplane, and most aerobatic
airplanes are flown by people who don't like negative G very much, so
the tail fills up with junk, and their postive-G-only acro doesn't move
it around.

Now, every time I fly someone else's aerobatic airplane, all
the inspection panels in the tail come off, and I fish out all
manner of foreign debris out of it. Pens, sunglasses, business
card, barf bags, washers, screws, you name it, I've fished
out of the tails of aerobatic aircraft.

Regardless, this sort of obscure knowledge really isn't very useful
to airline pilots, who only fly straight and level, and will never
encounter cold-shock hydraulic actuator reversal on their
B737 rudders, will they?

[Rockie]

Regardless, this sort of obscure knowledge really isn't very useful
to airline pilots, who only fly straight and level, and will never
encounter cold-shock hydraulic actuator reversal on their
B737 rudders, will they?

I like that. Jet upset is something too many people in this industry take far too lightly...until they find themselves upside down with nothing but brown on the PFD and in their shorts. Then they wish they had paid more attention during that 5 minute exercise in the simulator.

[BTD]

Always looking for self improvement.

They were the ones who could come down from a flight and give themselves the post flight.

Shouldn't it ALWAYS be the case? If they can't self analyze their mistakes and/or seek improvent and they are by themselve, what's going to happen?? What's going to happen when they are Capt on an airplane and they can't find what the FO is doing wrong?

As a student, my instructors always asked me, eighter in the air after an exercice or, if there is no time/fuel in the air, on the ground to debrief myself on the manoevers we did. That way, it ensured I knew what was going on and that I had the proper motivation to continue.

No argument from me there. All post flight briefs should start with, how did you think you did that flight, and where can you improve.

But as in all walks of life, you face many different people. Some are better at analyzing their own performance than others. In addition, you can tell by their expressions/body language in the aircraft after a specific maneuver what they thought about it, and compare that to your own analysis.

My point was simply the people who tend to be more self critical (within reason, no crying or anything) tend to be overall better performers.

BTD

[trey kule]

Well engine guy, please understand I misunderstood the meaning of your comments. Hedley cleared it up for me.
Now let me relate a couple of stories.

1. I had an almost identical experience in a glider in 1966 with the same result. It was not a result of my excellent flying skills but the result of some first class gliding instructors, including the late Wolf Mix. They instilled the kind of knowledge that was needed to think through the problem...but it was a real issue, not a created problem.

2. I have had a couple of bad experiences where things were not quite right at the wrong time, and after analyzing the problem it was detrmined that a new FO decided to "play: with the nav equipment and forgot to reset it properly. Hence my concern when someone tells me they like to play with things.

3. In the last three years I have seen two perfectly servicable aircraft pranged because some pilot decided to try something with them that they should not have been doing. Unbelievable to hear the rationalizatins after...I did it because I thought it would work, or...on and on..you get the idea. And the aircraft are still bent and they are off to another job. The two most notable examples of this of course are the RJ crash in the US when a couple of inexperience pilots decided to try something and the King Air carash in Canada. I guess it is the words "play" and "weird stuff" that got my attentin.

I still feel there is no place in operational flying for playing with stuff and trying weird things.

I think you situation is quite different, looking at the types you fly. And if thats the way you have to, or feel you have to learn, by creating situations, as long as no one else gets hurt, so be it. Different strokes for different folks. Bu, again, I would hope that all the new young pilots coming into commercial air services recognize their responsibilities and dont take an "unleashed" opportunity to fool around with someone elses aircraft so they can learn something but testing the limits or new procedures.

Enjoy. I do honestly hope that you will never be sitting there someday asking

[Hedley]

I think this is the sort of thing that TK is referring to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_621

Captain Peter Hamilton and First Officer Donald Rowland[1] had flown on various flights together before, and had an ongoing discussion on when to arm the spoilers ...

... killing all 100 passengers and the nine crew members on board

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnacle_A ... light_3701

The pilots decided to test the limits of the CRJ, and join the "410 Club" ...

... The jet crashed when the engines could not be restarted

[MichaelP]

So the discussion goes from Dumbing Down to just plain Dumb Pilots.
Let's never be dumb pilots.

[Cat Driver]

On this particular instance however, the captain was piloting the landing and said, "All right. Give them to me on the flare. I have given up."

[jetflightinstructor]

A study by Boeing [2] determined the primary cause of Airline hull loss accidents (worldwide commercial jet fleet), from 1996 through 2005, to be:

55%: Flight crew error
17%: Airplane
13%: Weather
7%: Misc./Other
5%: Air traffic control
3%: Maintenance
That study included 183 accidents, with known causes for 134 of them. The remaining 49 were unknown, or awaiting final reports.

Previous Boeing studies showed higher rates for Flight Crew Error:

70%: 1988 - 1997
67%: 1990 - 1999
66%: 1992 - 2001
62%: 1994 - 2003
56%: 1995 - 2004

[North Shore]

Perhaps I'm coming in here in medius res, but where is this 'dumbing down' that we are all speaking of? It seems, from reading frequent posters' threads, that we have quite a wide variety of ages and experience here - 20's to 60's (well, 70's if you count Cat ) instructors, bush, commuter, airline, heli, and yet we all have one complaint - dumbing down. But aren't we, collectively, the industry? And thus, criticizing ourselves?

[trey kule]

dumbing down. But aren't we, collectively, the industry? And thus, criticizing ourselves?

Yes we are. And I think I might not be the only one to want to change things. If we refuse to examine ourselves and our industry we will continue down the path we are on, ...kind of like being fat dumb and happy driving down a road at great speed and not seeing the cliff in front of us....Sometimes you have to look at the trend and where it is taking us. Poor training will not result in an increase in accidents for some time and will increase fairly rapidly as the older pilots move out of the system.. To recognize the potential problem before it becomes one is not a bad thing....or, we could see it as criticizing ourselves, quote accident stats for today as if they will continue forever ...I would use a more philisophical example, but I am really not sure how many would remember Wile E. Coyotes classic flying scene.

What has to be looked at is the type of pilot errors being made. In the heavy transport side, where the crew members are all experienced , CRM,SOP's will normally work. Replace one with inexperience and we have, for lack of a better word, an imbalance in abilities. Experience will overcome this, but a poor base of training and a lack of experience will not overcome this. And unions and seniority lists being what they are, some will work their way to the left seat, and the right seat will be replaced by another of these...that is when you will see the accident rate increasing due to pilot error...

Then again, I am one of the old ones who will be long gone from the system, and I am not sure the young ones agree with my thinking so we will have to wait and see.

[Cat Driver]

Trey Kule has some interesting thoughts regarding the dumbing down of aviation.

I am a few years ahead of him because I am mostly retired from flying for a living.

However I still have a keen interest in how aviation is evolving and I fear it is evolving into a let the machine do the thinking and program the pilots to not think.

The congonhas accident is a very disturbing study in the relationship between man and machine.

Having landed there on many occasions in IMC I can only wonder at what the crew were thinking as they went off the end of that cliff almost but not quite flying.

For a better insight into this subject it may be worth while reading the discussions on this accident on Pprune.

[down3green]

Hey Cat, when did you fly in Brazil? Who did you fly for?

I fly the A320 for TAM in an out of Congonhas all the time. I lost a few friends on that accident. It's really sad.

The airport hasn't changed a bit. In fact, after the accident they "made" the runway shorter by "adding" runway end safety areas at both ends. It is kinda stupid actually. There is nothing they can do to stop an airplane from going off that cliff.

TAM also implemented several landing restrictions for landing in Congonhas especially with a wet runway and tailwind landings. Still, it can get a bit scary landing downhill on 35L on a rainy day.

How many more accidents will have to happen there for the goverment do something about it?

[jetflightinstructor]

Concerning the airlines the pilot error decrease with the time according to the Boeing study.

That is quite a good news. So I am not that pessimistic and don' t really believe in "the dumbing down of aviation".

[trey kule]

How many more accidents will have to happen there for the goverment do something about it?[

Why does it have to be the government? If its unsafe mabe the airlines themselves should take some responsibility and stop flying in there...Why would the government even think of change as long as people continue to use it?

My thoughts.

[ragbagflyer]

No fairytale. Happened to me in a borrowed Pitts. Vertical downline,
elevator jammed. Turned out there was a BNC "T" connector in the
tail that floated up during negative G and jammed the elevator push-pull
tube. I could not get it dislodged in the air, I recovered from the vertical
downline (and landed) with the trim. Most pilots don't consider Pitts landings
real easy, and using trim and power for pitch attitude during the flare
and landing didn't exactly make it a whole lot easier.

What sort of elevator system does the pitts have? If that happened in a plane with an elevator trim tab as opposed to say, a flying tail, wouldn't trim not save you if it was unable to move the elevator? Frickin scary. Did you have a parachute just in case?

[Localizer]

Blind following of a check list or following a SOP without understanding what you are really doing can lead to disaster.

The statement is correct, if you don't have systems knowledge how can you apply a checklist, or SOP items. Checklist, SOP's can't cover every possible situation, so if you don't have an in-depth systems knowledge, really ... you are flying blind. I think there is a line in the preamble of most SOP's that state this is to work in conjunction with adequate systems knowledge.

Cheers,

Loc

[Cat Driver]

Hey Cat, when did you fly in Brazil? Who did you fly for?

I was flying there in 1998/99 after we finished the Aeropostale mail run from Toulouse to Santiago.

Tam was one of the sponsors and I was flying the vice president of Tam and a bunch of Embriair VIP's around Brazil they kept the Cat at Congonhas and also at Santos Dumont.

[jetflightinstructor]

Quote:
Blind following of a check list or following a SOP without understanding what you are really doing can lead to disaster.



The statement is correct, if you don't have systems knowledge how can you apply a checklist, or SOP items. Checklist, SOP's can't cover every possible situation, so if you don't have an in-depth systems knowledge, really ... you are flying blind. I think there is a line in the preamble of most SOP's that state this is to work in conjunction with adequate systems knowledge.

Cheers,

Loc

True. But at the same time I don' t know any captain that fit your description...
In the world I am living in we have a type rating to pass (or/and PPC........), and I don' t know one captain that applies the SOP "blind". In fact we have more troubles with the ones with too much imagination...

In the airlines there is less and less pilot errors, even including the new asian aviation development. The airline are on the good track I guess... (concerning safety, concerning economy that is an other story...)

[Liquid Charlie]

tory number two: A glider friend of mine needed to make a landing point but knew he was coming up short if he kept on with his original plan. Well he knew from experience of playing with stuff that his best coarse of action was a steeper dive right for the ground. Crazy huh!!! But what he did was pick up speed and get into ground effect which in the end gave him all the distance he needed and then some...

Goes for a Norseman too

[Doc]

tory number two: A glider friend of mine needed to make a landing point but knew he was coming up short if he kept on with his original plan. Well he knew from experience of playing with stuff that his best coarse of action was a steeper dive right for the ground. Crazy huh!!! But what he did was pick up speed and get into ground effect which in the end gave him all the distance he needed and then some...

Goes for a Norseman too

We were taught that technique when I was getting my PPL many years ago. Almost as long ago as you, LC! I've never seen any "scientific" data on distance gained for increased airspeed. It can't be very much in a Norseman. But at times, just enough?

[MichaelP]

There's two reasons for teaching a student to increase airspeed when apparently short:

1, you get into ground effect quicker in two ways, and this will get you further.
2, It's opposite to the rabbit sense which would involve slowing down to make the field and either hitting the ground even further away from the field and/or the stall spin scenario. Teaching a pilot to increase rather than reduce the airspeed ensures that the crash, if it happens, is with control of the aeroplane.

[Liquid Charlie]

Well the maneuver is the same but we did this when the airplane started to mush and lose altitude - so there you are on a hot summer day -- airplane trying to descend -- airspeed decaying so you got to get the cahonies to push instead of pull -- you gain airspeed and the old girl finally starts to fly as you enter ground effect. Gave a new meaning to "scenic tour" --

[trey kule]

I've never seen any "scientific" data on distance gained for increased airspeed.

huh? This is joke right? Not an example of the dumbing down.

You have to go no farther than to take a look at the specs of pretty much any new glider...min sink speed vs best range speed....

I dont like to get involved in theoretical stuff but this is so very basic that all pilots should understand it.

Real simply. At a certain speed (read angle of attack), the combined effect of lift/dr will settle performance providing power is not constant. Higher lift ..means a lower speed and more drag....think about best angle of climb or minimum descent speed.
Increase the speed by reducing the angle of attack and you reduce drag..You go up or down faster (best rate), but you cover more distance.

One of the terrible tragedies is that pilots dont understand this, thus when they get caught short in a climb they continue to pull up and slow down past the best angle and end up in a stall spin accident. It is natural to want to pull up not to hit the trees or mountain, and you have to have the ingrained understanding that pulling up makes it worse.

The same goes for the glide. By pushing forward, and reducing the angle of attack you will increase the descent rate but cover more ground. Slow down more and you will descend faster and come up shorter.

In the world of old jets this could be a real killer. When it comes to making a field or lake, the knowledge had better override the urge to pull back to try and make it.

So, if you want simply go and review all those nifty litte graphs that no one seems to really relate to the world of aviation.
They really do have meaning.

It is also why , on an overshoot, you put the nose down as you add power ...though we usually refer to this as getting on the front side of the curve...a reference to the speed (angle of attack) vs. drag graph curve. Do they still not go through that very simple but important exercise of reducing power in level flight and reducing speed to hold altitude to demonstrate the best lift/drag ration, and the back side of the curve where more power does not help? A good debriefing helps the student to understand what was experienced..No debriefing means it will pass from their memory n a short time..

[Cat Driver]

The dumbing down starts at the training level.

I was reading a comment on the flight training thread about training for the multi engine rating where some poster made a very telling comment regarding training for the multi engine rating.

Here it is in full:

It seems, this discussion has missed one rather important point:
You don't need to be an flight instructor BUT:
How often do students log the multi training as part of their commercial training? They can not use the dual training for this purpose if not provided by a flight instructor.
That's why most schools would probably want to see your instructor rating.

It was the important point bit that grabbed my attention.

The whole mindset is ass backwards when the logging of time for the commercial license trumps the quality of the instruction.

The message is don't get your training from someone with decades of experience flying multi engine airplanes.

Go to a FTU where they can give you a pilot with just enough time on type to meet TC's minimums because he/she has an instructors rating.

And we are arguing about why aviation is getting dumbed down?

[mattedfred]

great post CD

university professors get paid quite well in my opinion and they aren't required to cut their teeth working in their field first

FTUs don't respect instructors and neither do the students

yes, the cost of flight training would skyrocket if instructors were paid better and experienced pilots were sought for the positions

but the training would be superior and safer which benefits the entire industry

a real catch 22 i'm afraid