Deterioration of basic skills

[Longtimer]

Interesting article.

DATE:09/09/09
SOURCE:Flight Daily NewsAA09: Pilot handling skills under threat, says Airbus
By Andrew Doyle

Airbus is urging the aviation industry to confront the issue of how to ensure long-haul airline pilots maintain basic flying skills in the face of ever-increasing aircraft reliability and cockpit automation.

"We need to refocus on basic handling," Capt Jacques Drappier, Airbus vice-president training, told the APATS training conference at the show yesterday during a presentation on the manufacturer's training philosophy for its latest widebody programme, the A350 XWB.

"I think that at a certain point in time we need to bring back a little bit of handling," said Drappier, adding that he advocates more simulator time for pilots to hone their basic skills. Meanwhile, he says, there are some elements of training that could be moved from the simulator to the classroom.

According to Drappier, long-haul pilots typically log 800-900 flying hours a year, although this could include "less than 3h of stick time", the majority of which is accumulated on final approach and flare.

"We put people into our training today who have forgotten how to fly, basically," he says. "This is an issue that needs to be addressed by the industry."

Pilot training for the A350 will be broadly similar to that for the A380, despite the technical advances being incorporated into the new twinjet, according to Drappier.

"It's all new technology, but it's new technology in the structure, engines and systems. Most of it is transparent to the pilots. The training experience from the A380 is fully applicable."

Airbus expects pilot type conversion training to take five days between the A380 and the A350, compared with 10 days from the A330/A340 family to the A350 and 11 days from the A320.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... irbus.html

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[Brown Bear]

Pretty funny comment coming fro Airbus. From what I hear, you can't really even "fly" an Airbus. You wouldn't have been able to side slip, as the crew did with the Gimli Glider, for example.

[Brown Bear]

I did not know that. I have been misinformed.

[AMM]

Pretty funny comment coming fro Airbus. From what I hear, you can't really even "fly" an Airbus. You wouldn't have been able to side slip, as the crew did with the Gimli Glider, for example.

Check forward slip.

Also, here is an interesting overview (take the site for what it is) of what an airbus can and can't do.
http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm

# There are no protections provided in Direct Law, however overspeed and stall aural warnings are provided

[Bank Angle]

it flies just like any other aircraft

Okay, I know that you can slip it, and land it just like any other aircraft. But how can you say a modern Airbus "flies just like any other aircraft" when you don't have to hold back pressure on the "control column" in turns, or trim it for airspeed and configuration changes?

[Shiny Side Up]

I know I'm a grumpy old guy, but I don't think you belong
in the right seat of a Boeing or Airbus until you have accumulated
at least 5000 hours of real-world flying in a variety of types
and locations.

And there lies the problem with the system. Your average pilot starting in the industry has around 250 hours. The demand for pilots though is for those with the experience you specify, but there is no real set means for getting there. Everyone knows about starting off as an instructor or a rampie, but how far you go from there is really a crapshoot. Neither are great paths and have their pitfalls. Do you hope a spot opens to move up from the ramp, but then only get to a right seat and have no left seat time? Or do you pound around the circuit with new students and have a ton of PIC but no multi. In either of those jobs you live hand to mouth really limiting your ability to look for opportunity for more flying experience. How many as well might find them back at square one when suddenly their avenue of experience closes down?

I find it funny that a large company like Airbus would come to this realisation, when it is a company like themselves which has the greatest pull for making change in the aviation world. Airbus and Boeing after all, have far more pull than all the pilots in the world for influencing national policy.

[magyar]

i remember doing my IFR rating with an aircraft that had auto pilot. yes it is a good tool per say when task load gets heavy but thinking back it totally craps out your stick and rudder handling skills. i am glad to fly a plane right now with no autopilot, besides i freaking love the feeling of the pressures that the yolk gives off
Now flying without trim, yikes that would suck very much

[rotateandfly]

I know I'm a grumpy old guy, but I don't think you belong
in the right seat of a Boeing or Airbus until you have accumulated
at least 5000 hours of real-world flying in a variety of types
and locations.

That all depends on what kind of training you have. In Europe a lot of ab-initio training is aimed at preparing student pilots for the airline environment. Some companies do just that very effectively. Some airlines prefer to select, train and standardize students instead of hiring ready-entry pilots with thousands of hours.
I'm willing to go as far as saying that some 250 hour wonders will handle flying the A320 far better than someone who has thousands of hours on pistons and turboprops. It all depends on the person and not the hours. The experience will come fast enough if you fly with high time captains.

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[AuxBatOn]

So, you view the right seat of a Boeing or Airbus in a commercial
air service as a place for receiving dual flight instruction
in basic flying skills.

Isn't the job of a Capt to mentor the FO as well?

I think what you're trying to say is that you think airlines
should operate single-pilot, is that correct? And at the
same time, the single competent pilot should give dual
flight instruction?

Do you need to know how to land a Tailwheel in 20 kts crosswind to be able to handle an airliner? Different type of aircraft require a different set of skills.

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[rotateandfly]

couldnt have said it better AuxBatOn, mentor is the perfect word.

The video is a bad selection to reinforce your argument there Hedley. Easy for people flying their desks here to criticize but it would be interesting to see how many people would handle a safe in that situation the way this 320 was saved after that gust.

[rotateandfly]

I never said it was their job to teach basic flying skills, with teaching experience i meant decision making and so on.

[Four1oh]

mentor the FO

That surely doesn't include the teaching of basic skills.

If you don't even have the basic skills, get the F out of my flightdeck, as you shouldn't even have a job as an FO on an airliner. I can't imagine having to do perpetual 'line indoc' training of the basics.

[AuxBatOn]

Hedley, in 250 hours, I believe anyone could learn the basic skills required to fly an aircraft. Any aircraft. It depends on how someone can use these skills and adapt them to an other machine.

You should not be operating any aircraft commercially if you don't have the "basic" skills.

[rotateandfly]

Yes i agree, those 250 hours should be well structured integrated training. Without a good foundation and excellent basic skills, further advanced training is pretty ineffective.

[taylor498]

Hedley, in 250 hours, I believe anyone could learn the basic skills required to fly an aircraft. Any aircraft. It depends on how someone can use these skills and adapt them to an other machine.

You should not be operating any aircraft commercially if you don't have the "basic" skills.

With all due respect to both posters, I would think that the chance of success for a military flight training candidate is probably much higher than a civilian one. It's too easy to scrape by on a TC flight test. I don't know if its possible to really learn to fly in 250 hours, but if it would happen anywhere, the CF has a good a shot as any.

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[Canoehead]

One of the big differences between the 250 hr ‘wonder’ and one with experience is that the ‘wonder’ will never know what his/her personal limits are (in a 705 operation). The pilot who has done their ‘time’ in an environment that is more demanding (ie: ‘The North’) is more likely to have learned stuff on the job that one can never be taught- especially at an ‘FTU’ of any type.

There are experiences that money simply cannot buy. Everything from airmanship to command decisions to plain old ‘pucker factor’ situations are things that I learned in the 703 environment. I’ve been to my limit- the edge of my comfort zone and even way beyond it. I’ve been ‘out of control’, and only by God’s grace, never bent an airplane. That’s not to say I’m invincible. I just know when to say ‘no’ or ‘I’m in over my head’, or ‘sorry- but I don’t get paid enough for that…’

The 250 hr. wonder will never have the satisfaction of knowing their limits, in my opinion.

Dangerous? Not for the most part (in a 705 operation), although potentially could be down the road when/if they are in the left-seat.

Unfortunate? Definitely for the pilot, but is of little consequence for the airline.

I wouldn’t trade my ‘time in the north’ for anything.

[godsrcrazy]

I don't think we have gone far enough with how bad this has become. It doesn't matter if you have 250 hours or 2,500 hours. Although most new pilots these day's only know how to read a map well enough to get them thru a flight test. It is truly scary to how may pilots today are buzzing around the sky's starring at a GPS. Many pilots never pickup a map. I can't remember the last time i laid a map on the floor and scratched in a line on it. I know it has been a long time since i have seen anyone draw a line on a map. We flight plan of computers and GPS. I have sat beside young pilots that have flown in areas in excess of 1 year that can't tell you the name of lakes and towns they are flying over.

How many people can actually use an astrocompass. I know i have forgot anything i ever learned about them.

This list can go on to how many people can do an ADF approach. Do they even teach them any more? Seems like the only approach we do any more are VOR/ILS or GPS

[AuxBatOn]

With all due respect to both posters, I would think that the chance of success for a military flight training candidate is probably much higher than a civilian one. It's too easy to scrape by on a TC flight test. I don't know if its possible to really learn to fly in 250 hours, but if it would happen anywhere, the CF has a good a shot as any.

We're only talking basic skills. Not talking about making someone into a reincarnation of . Yeager. And I stand by my statement that anyone can learn that in 250 hrs. It just depends how much effort someone is willing to put in his/her training. I am not saying that everyone with 250 hrs has the basic skills down, or that TC's flight test does a good job of weeding out those that don't. If someone makes it to the airline without the said skills, hopefully the Initial Training/Line Indoc will catch that. If it doesn't, then the problem goes much farther than TC.

As far as the "decision" aspect of things, this is where you Aircraft Captain (ie: the guys with the experience) comes handy, for a 250 hrs guy flying an airliner. Keep the eyes/ears open and ask questions. That's where the "mentor" part comes in. I don't think you need to fly 1000 hours in a 703 operation to figure that out.

[Hedley]

*** edited ***

[Brantford Beech Boy]

How many people can actually use an astrocompass.

The number is dwindling but every day I fly, I work with people who know how to use an astrocompass

This list can go on to how many people can do an ADF approach. Do they even teach them any more? Seems like the only approach we do any more are VOR/ILS or GPS

You must fly in "civilization". Come north of the tree line and see how long you last if you can't shoot an NDB approach...

It doesn't matter if you have 250 hours or 2,500 hours

Respectfully I must disagree. I see a HUGE difference between
pilots with 250 and 2,500 hrs. You simply can't compare the
levels of skill and knowledge - unless the person is quite stupid,
with an IQ significantly on the left hand side of the bell curve,
which impairs their learning beyond what they know at 250 hrs.

Speaking in the average I would agree, but I have met my share of both extremes...pilots with thousands of hours whom I would not trust to operate a go kart to 250 hr wonders who could fly circles around them.

BBB

[CelBatrin]

I think most people would agree that flight test standards should be raised (particularly for the CPL).
Not only would it insure a higher level of proficiency for those that make the pass, but it would also lower the number of new pilots. And we all complain about flight schools "pumping" them out, and the implications involved.

Two birds, one ... ummm... bullet.