Reading the MAX grounding thread it's evolved/de-evolved too often into pilot error vs all Boeing's fault. FTR I feel it's mostly Boeing's fault but pilots and mechanics played a part in it as well.

For the most part I feel that any pilot who sits in the cockpit is a very smart talented individual. And, they are very capable of handling manual flight in adverse conditions or with certain mechanical failures. How often do we see bird strikes or compressor stalls just as the plane is lifting off the ground? Around the world it is likely a daily occurence. And how often does that lead to the plane digging a huge hole in the ground? Engine failure for whatever the reason past v1 is a 99.9% survivable situation. It is also among the most trained incidents. It's not just the 20,000 hr sky gods who can pull the plane out of that situation.

Sully did a fantastic job in saving everyone's life and not all pilots would have made the correct decisions he did on a situation that is basically not or was not trained for. BUT if it wasn't for the Hudson river it would have resulted in a major fatality crash. So besides his obvious skill in such a situation he had a livable option.

There's a good number of people on here that feel pilots of today are not adequately trained on manual flight or their skills have deteriorated due to modern automation. And, many think that most of the pilots are all to happy to hit autopilot soon as they can and take it off on final with mere seconds before landing. I'm not going to argue there aren't pilots who are like that, but, most pilots LIKE to manually fly or at least they say they do AND they enjoy challenging landings. Either from approaches such as Madeira or the old Hongkong checkerboard approach they used to make and numerous others. Windy landings, severe crosswind landings, again, many say they enjoy the challenge.

I talked to a female pilot of a flight I was on landing in ALB. It was an obvious crosswind landing you could feel it. She enjoys the challenge of those landings and has no intention of eventually moving up to flying 777's for 14 hrs. She said she liked the action of the regional flights as there is more manual flying involved taking off and landing multiple times a day.

But of course there are others who like the long haul flights, or perhaps the pay and the travel. Still, they are trained for a great many situations and are very competent when things go wrong. Just being on flight radar 24 or any of the others. Thousands of planes everyday making it to their destination or having to abort take off, divert due to mechanical problems and only a few days out of the year does an airliner have a major fatality crash.

Could there be better training? Of course. Are there pilots who can't think outside the box and a more experienced pilot might have saved it? Yes to that too. But generally the men and women sitting in the cockpit are smart talented individuals who have sufficient talent to manually fly in conditions or situations that are far from ideal.

Are you a pilot? If so, have you flown as a cockpit crew outside of North America? From your post, I would say no. There is a wide variance of pilot abilities over the world. As a general rule, the more established industrial countries have a more "robust" training program and the pilot force, in general, has as much higher standard than some other countries.

I am retired now but do contract work for both Boeing and Airbus. I have seen things you would not believe. I have trained Captains to be TRIs and in one situation had to call the DFO at a certain airline to explain to him one perspective candidate could not do a circling approach without attempting to use the FMC with his own fixes put in. The same DFO didn't like the fact I failed a crew in an LPC and asked me to change the grade sheet or call it a training sim. I refused. What he did with the paperwork or the crew I couldn't tell you but I refuse to do any work for that company again. I have trained F/Os who knew the FCOM inside out. They could quote page numbers if you asked them a question but had a hard time keeping the aircraft right side up. They could regurgitate procedures but had no idea what was going on and what to look for. There are pilots like that at most airlines, but in most established industrial countries, they tend to get weeded out during training. There is a great variance in pilot capabilities across the world.

Could training be better? Certainly, it can always be improved if the airline wants to spend the money and time to do so, but it is a trade-off. There is the typical training "footprint". There is some "wiggle room" in the footprint but at some point, you have to pull the plug. Some airlines are willing to do it and some airlines are reluctant to do that.

In my opinion, training is not an event that happens in the sim only or during line training. It should happen on every flight. Cockpit culture had a great deal to do with this. Some cultures, the Captain has tremendous power over the F/O's career. If the Captain has an issue with the F/O, the F/O's career could be over. In other cultures, the Captain acts as a mentor and helps the F/O when he begins to struggle, while in other cultures the F/O is left to struggle until the Captain has no option but to take control of the aircraft. That certainly doesn't work at all.

I can tell you right now there are airlines I would not set foot on because of the training or lack of training in the cockpit crews. I guess I don't share your optimism.

mmo wrote:

Are you a pilot? If so, have you flown as a cockpit crew outside of North America? From your post, I would say no. There is a wide variance of pilot abilities over the world. As a general rule, the more established industrial countries have a more "robust" training program and the pilot force, in general, has as much higher standard than some other countries.

I am retired now but do contract work for both Boeing and Airbus. I have seen things you would not believe. I have trained Captains to be TRIs and in one situation had to call the DFO at a certain airline to explain to him one perspective candidate could not do a circling approach without attempting to use the FMC with his own fixes put in. The same DFO didn't like the fact I failed a crew in an LPC and asked me to change the grade sheet or call it a training sim. I refused. What he did with the paperwork or the crew I couldn't tell you but I refuse to do any work for that company again. I have trained F/Os who knew the FCOM inside out. They could quote page numbers if you asked them a question but had a hard time keeping the aircraft right side up. They could regurgitate procedures but had no idea what was going on and what to look for. There are pilots like that at most airlines, but in most established industrial countries, they tend to get weeded out during training. There is a great variance in pilot capabilities across the world.

Could training be better? Certainly, it can always be improved if the airline wants to spend the money and time to do so, but it is a trade-off. There is the typical training "footprint". There is some "wiggle room" in the footprint but at some point, you have to pull the plug. Some airlines are willing to do it and some airlines are reluctant to do that.

In my opinion, training is not an event that happens in the sim only or during line training. It should happen on every flight. Cockpit culture had a great deal to do with this. Some cultures, the Captain has tremendous power over the F/O's career. If the Captain has an issue with the F/O, the F/O's career could be over. In other cultures, the Captain acts as a mentor and helps the F/O when he begins to struggle, while in other cultures the F/O is left to struggle until the Captain has no option but to take control of the aircraft. That certainly doesn't work at all.

I can tell you right now there are airlines I would not set foot on because of the training or lack of training in the cockpit crews. I guess I don't share your optimism.

Accurate and very well said, sadly, autopilot operators are becoming more prevalent than Pilots

Max Q wrote:

mmo wrote:

Are you a pilot? If so, have you flown as a cockpit crew outside of North America? From your post, I would say no. There is a wide variance of pilot abilities over the world. As a general rule, the more established industrial countries have a more "robust" training program and the pilot force, in general, has as much higher standard than some other countries.

I am retired now but do contract work for both Boeing and Airbus. I have seen things you would not believe. I have trained Captains to be TRIs and in one situation had to call the DFO at a certain airline to explain to him one perspective candidate could not do a circling approach without attempting to use the FMC with his own fixes put in. The same DFO didn't like the fact I failed a crew in an LPC and asked me to change the grade sheet or call it a training sim. I refused. What he did with the paperwork or the crew I couldn't tell you but I refuse to do any work for that company again. I have trained F/Os who knew the FCOM inside out. They could quote page numbers if you asked them a question but had a hard time keeping the aircraft right side up. They could regurgitate procedures but had no idea what was going on and what to look for. There are pilots like that at most airlines, but in most established industrial countries, they tend to get weeded out during training. There is a great variance in pilot capabilities across the world.

Could training be better? Certainly, it can always be improved if the airline wants to spend the money and time to do so, but it is a trade-off. There is the typical training "footprint". There is some "wiggle room" in the footprint but at some point, you have to pull the plug. Some airlines are willing to do it and some airlines are reluctant to do that.

In my opinion, training is not an event that happens in the sim only or during line training. It should happen on every flight. Cockpit culture had a great deal to do with this. Some cultures, the Captain has tremendous power over the F/O's career. If the Captain has an issue with the F/O, the F/O's career could be over. In other cultures, the Captain acts as a mentor and helps the F/O when he begins to struggle, while in other cultures the F/O is left to struggle until the Captain has no option but to take control of the aircraft. That certainly doesn't work at all.

I can tell you right now there are airlines I would not set foot on because of the training or lack of training in the cockpit crews. I guess I don't share your optimism.

Accurate and very well said, sadly, autopilot operators are becoming more prevalent than Pilots

When I joined my carrier 13 years ago the discussion about children of the magenta (referring to following the magenta line on your NAV display) was already well established. I remember watching a extract from AA captain van der Berg with his legendary advice to “step down a level” if automation doesn’t do what YOU want. I have flown 4 types of aircraft, Fokker, McD, Boeing, Airbus. I have never flown them manually with auto throttle/thrust on. Just last week I made 2 visual approaches with everything off (yes FD too) from at least 5000’ AGL. Remember I was from the child of the magenta generation! A lot goes into making a proficient pilot. I’m lucky my training, company culture and current chief pilot promote this but it’s up to the individual to stay on the ball too.

Procedures are really nice, I’m good at flying by the book but it’s always in the back of my mind to “step down a level” all the way back to just pitch and power if needed. Know your basics, know your ready knowledge items and keep training that muscle memory. That’s my 2 cents.

It's overly simplistic to determine a crew's ability by how well they can land in a 30knot crosswind or how they handle an engine failure just after V1. Ultimately, they should be a given.

The difference between a good crew and an average/bad crew is their ability to manage a situation. It doesn't matter how well you can fly an aircraft with the autopilot switched off if you've ended up making terrible decisions and not thinking/planning ahead. The autopilot is a workload management tool - it's there to free up capacity to enable you to focus on other tasks for a successful outcome. If your engine goes bang at 30W, with cascading failures knocking out some of your hydraulics and electrics, it really matters not one iota that you've flown 10 approaches in the last 2 months with no autopilot or autothrottle. It's about decision making, workload management, communication and teamwork. I agree regarding the point made about different cultures and how that translates into the authority gradient in the cockpit - there are some cultures where this is skewed so far the wrong way that an FO will literally watch the captain kill him rather than speak up. For that reason, and a few others, I too have a list of fairly major airlines I wouldn't put my family on.

Most decent airlines and aviation authorities in the world these days will test the mandatory manoeuvres but train the non-technical skills (still assessed obviously, but emphasis on training). Aviation has changed from the 60s, while we all enjoy a bit of manual flying, the job involves so much more.

Max Q wrote:

Accurate and very well said, sadly, autopilot operators are becoming more prevalent than Pilots

And even then, some (many?) are not fully acquainted with the intricacies of the gizmo...too many autopilot-related accidents out there...


faro

BA777FO wrote:

The difference between a good crew and an average/bad crew is their ability to manage a situation. It doesn't matter how well you can fly an aircraft with the autopilot switched off if you've ended up making terrible decisions and not thinking/planning ahead. The autopilot is a workload management tool - it's there to free up capacity to enable you to focus on other tasks for a successful outcome. If your engine goes bang at 30W, with cascading failures knocking out some of your hydraulics and electrics, it really matters not one iota that you've flown 10 approaches in the last 2 months with no autopilot or autothrottle. It's about decision making, workload management, communication and teamwork. I agree regarding the point made about different cultures and how that translates into the authority gradient in the cockpit - there are some cultures where this is skewed so far the wrong way that an FO will literally watch the captain kill him rather than speak up. For that reason, and a few others, I too have a list of fairly major airlines I wouldn't put my family on.

I couldn’t agree more, and yes I’m an airline captain. For me it’s all about proper managing of the situation, sometimes you require automation, other times you need to “step down” and take over manually. And of course you need to be proficient at every level, unfortunately we are seeing accidents where pilots couldn’t manage the situation because of lack of manual skills OR little understanding of the automation.

BA777FO wrote:

The autopilot is a workload management tool - it's there to free up capacity to enable you to focus on other tasks for a successful outcome. If your engine goes bang at 30W, with cascading failures knocking out some of your hydraulics and electrics, it really matters not one iota that you've flown 10 approaches in the last 2 months with no autopilot or autothrottle. It's about decision making, workload management, communication and teamwork.

The autopilot is indeed there to reduce the workload. In fact, they've become so reliable that they are used to their limits. Airlines like the autopilot too: it makes less errors, flies really precise (in most cases), gives a comfortable ride to the passengers,... Airlines encourage/oblige their pilots even to use the autopilot to the maximum possible by writing the procedures as such. However, with that, in my opinion, you create a problem. Because of the reliability of both the autopilot and the plane, pilots are less exposed to workload. Their mental capacity shrinks and they will reach saturation more quickly...

Think about when you were flying small planes in flight training. You had to brief the instructor for an approach while manually maintaining altitude, track and speed as accurate as possible, listening to the radio, looking out to other traffic... You needed a huge mental capacity in order to cope with all that workload. In the big jets, we do have an autopilot with LNAV/VNAV, a PM who's doing the radio,... A lower workload and less mental capacity being used.

Being exposed to a high workload at all times gives a lot of stress, which we want to avoid. I agree 100% with that. However, never exposing someone to workload, means as well that once there is some actual workload involved, you'll quickly reach saturation because there is not enough mental capacity to keep the overview and multitask. How can you manage workload when you're never exposed to it?

So, what is the easiest way of training workload/mental capacity? Stepping down a level (even 2). Fly it manual. It is a controlled environment where you always have the option of turning the autopilot back on again if workload becomes too high (runway change which needs rebriefing,...) . Flying the plane manually is, besides fun (only a few will deny this) and keeping your skills and the actual feeling of flying the aircraft, thé best tool to expose yourself to a bit of controlled workload and to train the brain capacity.
Unfortunately this requires the initiative of the pilot. If airlines don't encourage their pilots to expose themselves to a little workload regularly, a lot of the pilots won't go for it. Airlines would need to change the mentality through training and SOP's...

This is only my opinion, but it is sad to see that even in normal regular line operations where something happens (diversions, go arounds, easy non-normals), you see people get saturated and lose the overview... So in my opinion, if you fly 10 approaches in the last 2 months manually without autothrottle, I'm pretty certain you'll cope better with a complex situation then when you're thrusting the autopilot too much and using it on all the approaches until minimum autopilot use hight. Of course I'm not saying you should disconnect if you have a non normal, I'm just talking about the extra mental capacity flying manually creates.

timh4000 wrote:

For the most part I feel that any pilot who sits in the cockpit is a very smart talented individual. And, they are very capable of handling manual flight in adverse conditions or with certain mechanical failures.

And every teacher is a dedicated and talented educator. Any doctor is something along those lines. Every police officer. Every...
Now remember your high school class and think how many of those people are great talented etc etc. And think of which planet those great professionals should be coming from.
You may also realize that one of US3 - not to talk about rest of the world - require college degree for pilot's, and add that to your high school memories.

OOSFS wrote:

However, with that, in my opinion, you create a problem. Because of the reliability of both the autopilot and the plane, pilots are less exposed to workload. Their mental capacity shrinks and they will reach saturation more quickly...

That's where the training comes in, and for FOs, regular command development training. I disagree that appropriate use of automation results in a lower capacity threshold - manually flying an aircraft is something we should all be able to do - our LPC/rating revalidations literally test that. But there's absolutely no benefit trying to fly manually around a hold while you need to jettison fuel and calculate your landing distance required due to being single engine and having half your hydraulics being knocked out.

OOSFS wrote:

Think about when you were flying small planes in flight training. You had to brief the instructor for an approach while manually maintaining altitude, track and speed as accurate as possible, listening to the radio, looking out to other traffic... You needed a huge mental capacity in order to cope with all that workload. In the big jets, we do have an autopilot with LNAV/VNAV, a PM who's doing the radio,... A lower workload and less mental capacity being used.

My single/twin engine pistons cruised between 100 and 120knots. I'd be doing at least double that in a 777! There's a reason aviation has improved its safety over the years - I'd suggest even the most avid manual flier would brief the approach before taking the automatics out. No one wins a medal for being stressed out - the AFDS is there to reduce workload and shoukd be used appropriately. For the comments about accidents related to automation (Asiana into SFO is a good example) - that came down to a lack of knowledge, poor airmanship and poor teamwork, perhaps some holes in airline SOPs too. It's rarely just one thing. But there was nothing wrong with the aircraft but plenty wrong with those non-technical skills that most decent airlines are training these days.

OOSFS wrote:

Being exposed to a high workload at all times gives a lot of stress, which we want to avoid. I agree 100% with that. However, never exposing someone to workload, means as well that once there is some actual workload involved, you'll quickly reach saturation because there is not enough mental capacity to keep the overview and multitask. How can you manage workload when you're never exposed to it?

We do sim checks every 6 month and fly 777s into airfield all over the world that a) experience some horrific weather b) weren't designed with our aircraft size in mind c) are quite remote d) are fairly 3rd world and suffer accordingly (equipment issues/no radar etc). We get plenty of exposure. But manually flying a visual aporoach into Dulles or Boston won't really help me manage a non-normal situation involving cascading failures. That requires a different skill set.

OOSFS wrote:

So, what is the easiest way of training workload/mental capacity? Stepping down a level (even 2). Fly it manual. It is a controlled environment where you always have the option of turning the autopilot back on again if workload becomes too high (runway change which needs rebriefing,...) . Flying the plane manually is, besides fun (only a few will deny this) and keeping your skills and the actual feeling of flying the aircraft, thé best tool to expose yourself to a bit of controlled workload and to train the brain capacity.

I don't disagree with that - but as I said above, it is a different skill set. Regular manual flying won't help me avoid the pitfalls of double negative questions in the 777 Fuel Leak Checklist for example.

OOSFS wrote:

This is only my opinion, but it is sad to see that even in normal regular line operations where something happens (diversions, go arounds, easy non-normals), you see people get saturated and lose the overview... So in my opinion, if you fly 10 approaches in the last 2 months manually without autothrottle, I'm pretty certain you'll cope better with a complex situation then when you're thrusting the autopilot too much and using it on all the approaches until minimum autopilot use hight. Of course I'm not saying you should disconnect if you have a non normal, I'm just talking about the extra mental capacity flying manually creates.

I obviously did a lot more sectors/landings (both manually and automatically) when I was on a narrowbody before moving to the 777. Now I'm lucky to get 3 landings a month, typically it'd be 2 or even 1 if I have leave in a month. I can say with an almighty degree of certainty I'm a better pilot today than I was 5 or 10 years ago. Short haul flying around Europe has its differences to long haul of course, different challenges and contingencies, but I've benefitted from extra (high quality) training in sim checks and an operation where FOs are trained and checked to the same standards as captains and are treated as captains in waiting rather than a "P2". Having to deal with complex non-normal scenarios in the sim, non-technical skills are absolutely vital. While being a competent manual handler is important, there's so much more to the job these days than when the dkies were plied with 707s and VC-10s.

BA777FO wrote:

I don't disagree with that - but as I said above, it is a different skill set. Regular manual flying won't help me avoid the pitfalls of double negative questions in the 777 Fuel Leak Checklist for example.

If there are double negative questions in the 777 Fuel Leak Checklist, is this the Boeing list or the airlines modified version, and in spite of that, are the authorities aware of the crew concerns and is it being addressed?
As stated in other post, crew flew a perfectly fine airline into the ground, some of the problem may have been cultural, poor training, lack of understanding of the a/c and its systems or just plain error. Automation as you say reduces workload, allows crew time to review situations and make informed decision, however, you have also highlighted another fault tree, the desk bound folks who design and their counterparts who document what is designed and how it should be used, whether for regulators or the a/c operators. If you have a fuel leak issue how does the manual with double negative help, do you ignore, make best guess, now you are relying on mental capacity which may even consider the after incident aspects of the current situation.
Automation reduces workload and enhances safety and comfort, it brings with it rules, procedures, SOP's all of which has its own stress levels. Pilots now use tablets, imagine when more manuals are automated, just like with google, if you do not have the time to search the entire manual, asking the right question becomes very important.

A favorite emphasis item on recurrent training, and recurrent training only, especially if you have very low time F/Os is the following scenario. CAVU, calm winds and birds reported in the area. Normal takeoff, at about 500' they fly through a flock of birds. The situation is now an engine fire indication on one engine and severe damage on the other one with the N1/N2/EGT winding down. Guess what engine is the first engine is to be attempted to shutdown? The engine on fire. Time to hit the freeze button and discuss what you have and how did they arrive at that decision. I generally get the same answer. Because the EICAS/ECAM has the warning in red. You always do that first. Then when you ask the question what is providing thrust you get the deer in the headlights look. It was drilled into my head when I was in the military, the first thing you do when you have an emergency is wind your watch. In the commercial world, have a drink of coffee before you do anything. Then analyze what you have. This isn't a race to complete the memory items.
Believe me, I think glass cockpits are great, but the dependence of relying on them is amazing. Gone are the days where you manually figure out the descent point, computerized flight plans are great but gone are the days of computing fuel in your head to come up with a fairly accurate fuel burn, drawing out holding instructions so you can figure out the proper entry. I could cite numerous other examples where automation has taken airmanship out of the equation. Company SOPs mandate or highly recommend autopilot on at 100' and off at 1000' or some other altitude. and that, for a low time pilot, is not what they need. When I was flying the line, I encouraged hand-flying the aircraft at least to and from 10,000' or more if they wanted. Enough of my soapbox.

mmo wrote:

Enough of my soapbox.

Remember the first cruise ships could actually handle rough seas, the current hotels on water may sink in rough weather, they are more for pax comfort than handling the water, similar to your soapbox? The dangers of flying have not changed, our approach to it has with good and unintended consequences.

mmo wrote:

I could cite numerous other examples where automation has taken airmanship out of the equation. Company SOPs mandate or highly recommend autopilot on at 100' and off at 1000' or some other altitude. and that, for a low time pilot, is not what they need. When I was flying the line, I encouraged hand-flying the aircraft at least to and from 10,000' or more if they wanted. Enough of my soapbox.

The situation you cite (engine fire and surge/stall on the other) isn't helped by manual handling proficiency, however - it's a prioritisation issue (ie workload management and problem solving & decision making). I'd be stunned if anyone attempted to tackle this issue without use of the AFDS. First order of business is ensure the aircraft is flying safely (aviate and navigate) and then embark on problem solving and decision making rather than being impulsive. Airlines that are training non-technical skills are infinitely safer than those putting a disproportionate emphasis on manual handling and flying within a knot of V2.

Flying an airliner, particularly on long haul these days, is about managing the operation, teamwork, communication, problem solving and decision making, situational awareness and knowledge and application of procedures. Manual flying really should be a given, whether you do it often or not.

par13del wrote:

If there are double negative questions in the 777 Fuel Leak Checklist, is this the Boeing list or the airlines modified version, and in spite of that, are the authorities aware of the crew concerns and is it being addressed?

It's designed to get you to think about your answer rather than leading you. It usually follows virtually from a similar question without the negative. For example the first question is "main tank leak confirmed: yes/no" - the meaning of confirmed is important too - suspected is not confirmed. Following on, to confirm, if you answered the first question "no" (perhaps because you still only suspect, but haven't confirmed, it'll ask "main tank leak not confirmed" - with a potential leak going on you'll have to think carefully about your answers.

Bill Hunt, Chief Technical Pilot 777 Boeing says, "The Fuel Leak checklist is complex, if it is not taken slowly and methodically, mistakes will be made."

Having hand flown the last approach from 15,000ft in the descent won't save me if my problem solving, decision making and communication aren't up to scratch.

BA777FO wrote:

par13del wrote:

If there are double negative questions in the 777 Fuel Leak Checklist, is this the Boeing list or the airlines modified version, and in spite of that, are the authorities aware of the crew concerns and is it being addressed?

It's designed to get you to think about your answer rather than leading you. It usually follows virtually from a similar question without the negative. For example the first question is "main tank leak confirmed: yes/no" - the meaning of confirmed is important too - suspected is not confirmed. Following on, to confirm, if you answered the first question "no" (perhaps because you still only suspect, but haven't confirmed, it'll ask "main tank leak not confirmed" - with a potential leak going on you'll have to think carefully about your answers.

Bill Hunt, Chief Technical Pilot 777 Boeing says, "The Fuel Leak checklist is complex, if it is not taken slowly and methodically, mistakes will be made."

Having hand flown the last approach from 15,000ft in the descent won't save me if my problem solving, decision making and communication aren't up to scratch.

Wouldn't it be better to have multiple choice - instead of just "yes/no"?
Say "confirmed / suspected / no leak"

BA777FO wrote:

par13del wrote:

If there are double negative questions in the 777 Fuel Leak Checklist, is this the Boeing list or the airlines modified version, and in spite of that, are the authorities aware of the crew concerns and is it being addressed?

It's designed to get you to think about your answer rather than leading you. It usually follows virtually from a similar question without the negative. For example the first question is "main tank leak confirmed: yes/no" - the meaning of confirmed is important too - suspected is not confirmed. Following on, to confirm, if you answered the first question "no" (perhaps because you still only suspect, but haven't confirmed, it'll ask "main tank leak not confirmed" - with a potential leak going on you'll have to think carefully about your answers.

Bill Hunt, Chief Technical Pilot 777 Boeing says, "The Fuel Leak checklist is complex, if it is not taken slowly and methodically, mistakes will be made."

Having hand flown the last approach from 15,000ft in the descent won't save me if my problem solving, decision making and communication aren't up to scratch.

However if you were faced with an MCAS like failure where the Automation was trying to put you in the ground - would not hand flying be the appropriate thing to revert to to stabilize the situation - or would you keep trying to rely on Automation even if the fault repeated 22 times?

morrisond wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

par13del wrote:

If there are double negative questions in the 777 Fuel Leak Checklist, is this the Boeing list or the airlines modified version, and in spite of that, are the authorities aware of the crew concerns and is it being addressed?

It's designed to get you to think about your answer rather than leading you. It usually follows virtually from a similar question without the negative. For example the first question is "main tank leak confirmed: yes/no" - the meaning of confirmed is important too - suspected is not confirmed. Following on, to confirm, if you answered the first question "no" (perhaps because you still only suspect, but haven't confirmed, it'll ask "main tank leak not confirmed" - with a potential leak going on you'll have to think carefully about your answers.

Bill Hunt, Chief Technical Pilot 777 Boeing says, "The Fuel Leak checklist is complex, if it is not taken slowly and methodically, mistakes will be made."

Having hand flown the last approach from 15,000ft in the descent won't save me if my problem solving, decision making and communication aren't up to scratch.

However if you were faced with an MCAS like failure where the Automation was trying to put you in the ground - would not hand flying be the appropriate thing to revert to to stabilize the situation - or would you keep trying to rely on Automation even if the fault repeated 22 times?

Obviously not when the issue is from automation - automation is a workload management tool and if it's not doing the desired job then you disconnect it. The Stabilizer/Stab Trim Runaway sounds like a useful checklist in that situation - you wouldn't have the autopilot available.

The point I'm making is that you can be the greatest at flying a raw data NDB approach in a 30 knot crosswind down to minimums and nail it - it doesn't necessarily make you a good, modern day pilot. You might make a good crop duster or bush pilot but manual handling is about 10-20% of a good pilot these days. There's a lot more to the modern day commercial operation than just rudder and stick.

airbuster wrote:

Max Q wrote:

mmo wrote:

Are you a pilot? If so, have you flown as a cockpit crew outside of North America? From your post, I would say no. There is a wide variance of pilot abilities over the world. As a general rule, the more established industrial countries have a more "robust" training program and the pilot force, in general, has as much higher standard than some other countries.

I am retired now but do contract work for both Boeing and Airbus. I have seen things you would not believe. I have trained Captains to be TRIs and in one situation had to call the DFO at a certain airline to explain to him one perspective candidate could not do a circling approach without attempting to use the FMC with his own fixes put in. The same DFO didn't like the fact I failed a crew in an LPC and asked me to change the grade sheet or call it a training sim. I refused. What he did with the paperwork or the crew I couldn't tell you but I refuse to do any work for that company again. I have trained F/Os who knew the FCOM inside out. They could quote page numbers if you asked them a question but had a hard time keeping the aircraft right side up. They could regurgitate procedures but had no idea what was going on and what to look for. There are pilots like that at most airlines, but in most established industrial countries, they tend to get weeded out during training. There is a great variance in pilot capabilities across the world.

Could training be better? Certainly, it can always be improved if the airline wants to spend the money and time to do so, but it is a trade-off. There is the typical training "footprint". There is some "wiggle room" in the footprint but at some point, you have to pull the plug. Some airlines are willing to do it and some airlines are reluctant to do that.

In my opinion, training is not an event that happens in the sim only or during line training. It should happen on every flight. Cockpit culture had a great deal to do with this. Some cultures, the Captain has tremendous power over the F/O's career. If the Captain has an issue with the F/O, the F/O's career could be over. In other cultures, the Captain acts as a mentor and helps the F/O when he begins to struggle, while in other cultures the F/O is left to struggle until the Captain has no option but to take control of the aircraft. That certainly doesn't work at all.

I can tell you right now there are airlines I would not set foot on because of the training or lack of training in the cockpit crews. I guess I don't share your optimism.

Accurate and very well said, sadly, autopilot operators are becoming more prevalent than Pilots

When I joined my carrier 13 years ago the discussion about children of the magenta (referring to following the magenta line on your NAV display) was already well established. I remember watching a extract from AA captain van der Berg with his legendary advice to “step down a level” if automation doesn’t do what YOU want. I have flown 4 types of aircraft, Fokker, McD, Boeing, Airbus. I have never flown them manually with auto throttle/thrust on. Just last week I made 2 visual approaches with everything off (yes FD too) from at least 5000’ AGL. Remember I was from the child of the magenta generation! A lot goes into making a proficient pilot. I’m lucky my training, company culture and current chief pilot promote this but it’s up to the individual to stay on the ball too.

Procedures are really nice, I’m good at flying by the book but it’s always in the back of my mind to “step down a level” all the way back to just pitch and power if needed. Know your basics, know your ready knowledge items and keep training that muscle memory. That’s my 2 cents.

"Step down a level" is enshrined in the very first section of the Airbus Flight Crew Techniques Manual.
- If the automation is not doing what you intend, go from managed modes to selected modes.
- If selected modes are not doing what you intend either, disengage and fly manually.

Also, ALWAYS understand the modes. IMHO understanding precisely what the automation is doing is even more important than handflying proficiency. As my first flight instructor said when he was introducing the very simple autopilot on the Cessna 172, "The autopilot will kill you quickly if you let it..."

mmo wrote:

A favorite emphasis item on recurrent training, and recurrent training only, especially if you have very low time F/Os is the following scenario. CAVU, calm winds and birds reported in the area. Normal takeoff, at about 500' they fly through a flock of birds. The situation is now an engine fire indication on one engine and severe damage on the other one with the N1/N2/EGT winding down. Guess what engine is the first engine is to be attempted to shutdown? The engine on fire. Time to hit the freeze button and discuss what you have and how did they arrive at that decision. I generally get the same answer. Because the EICAS/ECAM has the warning in red. You always do that first. Then when you ask the question what is providing thrust you get the deer in the headlights look. It was drilled into my head when I was in the military, the first thing you do when you have an emergency is wind your watch. In the commercial world, have a drink of coffee before you do anything. Then analyze what you have. This isn't a race to complete the memory items.
Believe me, I think glass cockpits are great, but the dependence of relying on them is amazing. Gone are the days where you manually figure out the descent point, computerized flight plans are great but gone are the days of computing fuel in your head to come up with a fairly accurate fuel burn, drawing out holding instructions so you can figure out the proper entry. I could cite numerous other examples where automation has taken airmanship out of the equation. Company SOPs mandate or highly recommend autopilot on at 100' and off at 1000' or some other altitude. and that, for a low time pilot, is not what they need. When I was flying the line, I encouraged hand-flying the aircraft at least to and from 10,000' or more if they wanted. Enough of my soapbox.

This idea of "not rushing into the ECAM actions" has actually been given an increased emphasis recently, at least in our training. Think first. Verbalise your conclusinos and intentions to the PM. Look up at the overhead panel first so you can double-check that the pertinent light is actually on before you got disengaging an IDG or something.

There are few situations where waiting 15-30 seconds while the aircraft is on a stable flight path will make any difference.

Great thread. I wish Whalejet was still around to contribute.

BA777FO wrote:

morrisond wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

It's designed to get you to think about your answer rather than leading you. It usually follows virtually from a similar question without the negative. For example the first question is "main tank leak confirmed: yes/no" - the meaning of confirmed is important too - suspected is not confirmed. Following on, to confirm, if you answered the first question "no" (perhaps because you still only suspect, but haven't confirmed, it'll ask "main tank leak not confirmed" - with a potential leak going on you'll have to think carefully about your answers.

Bill Hunt, Chief Technical Pilot 777 Boeing says, "The Fuel Leak checklist is complex, if it is not taken slowly and methodically, mistakes will be made."

Having hand flown the last approach from 15,000ft in the descent won't save me if my problem solving, decision making and communication aren't up to scratch.

However if you were faced with an MCAS like failure where the Automation was trying to put you in the ground - would not hand flying be the appropriate thing to revert to to stabilize the situation - or would you keep trying to rely on Automation even if the fault repeated 22 times?

Obviously not when the issue is from automation - automation is a workload management tool and if it's not doing the desired job then you disconnect it. The Stabilizer/Stab Trim Runaway sounds like a useful checklist in that situation - you wouldn't have the autopilot available.

The point I'm making is that you can be the greatest at flying a raw data NDB approach in a 30 knot crosswind down to minimums and nail it - it doesn't necessarily make you a good, modern day pilot. You might make a good crop duster or bush pilot but manual handling is about 10-20% of a good pilot these days. There's a lot more to the modern day commercial operation than just rudder and stick.

Agreed - you have to be good at both.

I guess I stumbled onto a good subject with varying ideas and thoughts. And it's nice to hear from those who actually do the flying. My overall optimism remains simply from the fact of the overall safety record worldwide. Perhaps modern day automation is saving our lives from undertrained and inexperienced pilots, or perhaps it's become the cause of it and with the safety culture in retreat we are sitting on a potential time bomb of fatal incidents as planes are being flown that shouldn't be by pilots who either have little or eroded hand flying skills or the automation is beyond their comprehension. I certainly would like to hope neither is the case and right now I don't think it is. I'm hoping the MAX crashes has alerted the industry that the safety culture is beginning to decrease. It happens in all areas and endeavors where safety is or should be the 1st priority. NASA has unfortunately proven this to be true from them a few times. Sadly it always takes fatality to hit the reset button. Let's hope that it has in commercial aviation and it's current safety statistics remain where they are now.

In my opinion, training is not an event that happens in the sim only or during line training. It should happen on every flight. Cockpit culture had a great deal to do with this. Some cultures, the Captain has tremendous power over the F/O's career. If the Captain has an issue with the F/O, the F/O's career could be over. In other cultures, the Captain acts as a mentor and helps the F/O when he begins to struggle, while in other cultures the F/O is left to struggle until the Captain has no option but to take control of the aircraft. That certainly doesn't work at all.

That is frightening to read. An airliner is no place for on the job training. The FO should be every bit as capable as the captain. What happens if the captain dies or becomes incapacitated?

TTailedTiger wrote:

In my opinion, training is not an event that happens in the sim only or during line training. It should happen on every flight. Cockpit culture had a great deal to do with this. Some cultures, the Captain has tremendous power over the F/O's career. If the Captain has an issue with the F/O, the F/O's career could be over. In other cultures, the Captain acts as a mentor and helps the F/O when he begins to struggle, while in other cultures the F/O is left to struggle until the Captain has no option but to take control of the aircraft. That certainly doesn't work at all.

That is frightening to read. An airliner is no place for on the job training. The FO should be every bit as capable as the captain. What happens if the captain dies or becomes incapacitated?

There is a saying in aviation: "Every day is a school day."

An airliner has always been the place for on the job training. It isn't as if training flights are done with empty aircraft. You can't learn to fly on the line if you don't fly on the line.

Don't get me wrong. If a pilot is in the seat, he/she has been deemed competent to perform his/her duties safely. But that doesn't mean there is no room for improvement. A new FO will (most likely) not be as capable as a 20-year captain. Training can't get him/her up to that level. Time and experience are required.

It is not intended that a line captain should act like a training captain. However, there is often mentoring going on. And sometimes the mentoring goes the other way. A captain new on type will be picking up techniques from the FO.

I do not assume the experience of any of my FOs, that if he’s the FO that he has less experience than I do. He or she may be more experienced.

Every FO at my airline is qualified and typed to sit in the captain seat. The sole thing that separates me from the FOs I fly with is that my seniority allows me to sit in the captain seat. I have had FOs that unfortunately used to be 747 captains and A380 captains - it is because of circumstances they are an FO again. It is unfortunate that in the airline industry in the United States, your aviation experience - whether you have 30 years and 20,000 flight hours or 1 year and 1,500 hours - has no bearing on what seat you sit in.

I started this thread after reading the max thread (not all of it) but enough to where there's big discussions going on that more experienced handflying would have likely prevented ted the fatal crashes. I'm not certain that's true... maybe.

I look at the overall picture and the 99.9% safety record and to me regardless of automation use vs. Hand flying use and skill you guys (pilots) and all of the other elements that take part. ATC, mechanic etcetc. You're all doing it right for the most part.

At the top level, you guys and gals are highly critical or tend to be. It's probably a good thing although it sounds kinda scary to a passenger, but I think that by being critical, it further pushes for excellence be it operating the numerous modes of automation or hand flying skills.

I watched a video of a cockpit take off of a B-36 bomber. There were 4 in the cockpit which in the back were the navigator and the engineer. Now, perhaps due to it being military aviation but the captain clearly was the leader. The co-pilot took his orders without anything more than a yes sir. Compare that to modern day aviation it's a whole different world and the co-pilot is very instrumental in the operation of the flight and will often fly either take off or landing. I've never seen a video where the captain was a tyrant over the F/O, At most I saw a video where the F/O was making the landing and multiple times had to correct the F/O who wasnt apparently taking the wind into consideration enough. So I'm assuming the F/O was relatively inexperienced.

Overall though with so many planes in the sky arriving to their destination with issues not prevalent enough for the pax to be aware of them 99.8% of the time. You all are doing it very very well.

BravoOne wrote:

WPvsMW wrote:

Whalejet never posted why his posts stopped, but he had some fascinating stories, esp., resupply ops into hot zones, call sign changes en route, etc.

It's kind of funny as his alter ego that posted a on different site did not mention any 747 airline stuff, just various other flying duties including fire suppression which he injected into some of his posts here as well. He dropped off that site some time back. One of his favorite put downs was calling out a poster as "bright spark." Still laughing at that one. Excellent writing skills along with an great amount of knowledge made his posts entertaining, if nothing more.

There was one other guy who could top him though, and his handle was 411A, over on Pprune. He passed away a couple of years ago and was missed or hated by most of the members on that site depending on your point of view.

411A was a bit of a troll, but entertaining and
knew his stuff (especially about his beloved Tristar) unlike wj who just made stuff up and
bluffed when challenged on his nonsense

Starlionblue wrote:

Also, ALWAYS understand the modes. IMHO understanding precisely what the automation is doing is even more important than handflying proficiency.

This really can't be emphasized enough, and it rarely is. So thanks for saying it.

Automation is not going anywhere, and it exists for a good reason - without it, the workload on pilots is greatly increased, and all humans, pilots included, are prone to errors that increase in both frequency and severity as workload increases. Automation has helped reduce the number of accidents dramatically over the years by reducing pilot workload. It's proven and it does the job it was intended to do, but it's a system, and like any aircraft system it needs to be fully understood by the pilots to use it safely.

Hand flying skills are important but they frankly wouldn't have mattered in almost any of the accidents they're brought up in relation to. For example, AF447, Asiana 214, or the recent 737 MAX crashes. In none of these cases would hand flying have helped because the pilots did not recognize what the automation was (or was not) doing. We frankly don't know how good their hand flying skills were, because they either never thought to or did not understand how to return the aircraft to full manual control, or they thought the aircraft's automation would protect them when it wouldn't. Wherever the fault actually lies, these accidents were not caused by a lack of hand flying skills but by a disconnect between the pilots' knowledge of the automated systems and what those systems were actually doing.

In all of these accidents, what would have prevented them is not better hand flying skills, but the pilots understanding the automation in their planes, including reversionary and failure modes. This is a big part of being a modern airline pilot, and that's not going to change.

In a general sense, what's needed is probably not more pilots better trained to hand fly (not because it's not necessary, but because pilots generally are good at that already), but for the public, media and even some in the industry itself to update what they think it means to be an airline pilot in 2019 (and beyond). Hand flying is just one facet of the job. There are other aspects of the job that are just as important, including for safety. Focusing just on hand flying while ignoring these other aspects is not going to be a net positive for safety in the long run.

In commercial aviation today, knowing what the automation is doing IS a central part of airmanship. Not knowing automation is like trying to get financial management job with a few hours of training in Excel or Word (or equivalents thereof... analogs to the minimum set of airmanship skills). You may bluff your way into the job, but you will soon be fired.

The Lion Air flight crew didn't know that MCAS existed. The Ethiopean flight crew did. Knowing MCAS existed, but not how to manage it, led to the same as being completely ignorant of the existence of MCAS.

The jumpseater on the previous Lion Air flight also didn't know MCAS existed... but he knew automation was the culprit. Calmer under stress and/or higher IQ ... probably both.

TTailedTiger wrote:

In my opinion, training is not an event that happens in the sim only or during line training. It should happen on every flight. Cockpit culture had a great deal to do with this. Some cultures, the Captain has tremendous power over the F/O's career. If the Captain has an issue with the F/O, the F/O's career could be over. In other cultures, the Captain acts as a mentor and helps the F/O when he begins to struggle, while in other cultures the F/O is left to struggle until the Captain has no option but to take control of the aircraft. That certainly doesn't work at all.

That is frightening to read. An airliner is no place for on the job training. The FO should be every bit as capable as the captain. What happens if the captain dies or becomes incapacitated?

And how do you propose to give airline pilots experience and training without getting near an actual airliner then? An no, 1500 hours of farting about in a Cessna does not give you those qualifications.

BTW, single pilot scenarios are a fixed part of the curriculum for an EASA type rating course. Pretty sure it was even a requirement for the final check-ride in the sim - I certainly did it. In any case, handling an airliner single-pilot is way easier than the piston-twin which I flew single pilot during my flight training.

Starlionblue wrote:

"Step down a level" is enshrined in the very first section of the Airbus Flight Crew Techniques Manual.
- If the automation is not doing what you intend, go from managed modes to selected modes.
- If selected modes are not doing what you intend either, disengage and fly manually.

IMHO, this is a major issue today. I've seen way too many airlines that encourage or even force the opposite. The Irish CAA seems to be the worst in this regard.

I've always wondered where the 1500 hrs comes from before sitting in the right hand seat. If it's all piston training aircraft then that would be an equivalent to someone learning to drive a basic automatic transmission Honda civic then ho directly to an 18 wheel kenworth truck with 12 or whatever gears it has. 1500 hrs of turning a wheel and stepping on the pedals, but even those aren't the same. Captains are going to have expect new. F/O's from time time and be patient and mentor them. And perhaps more sim time in whatever jet are rating for. Honestly I'd think someone would learn more sitting in a jump seat for 1500 hrs with the captain explaining what he's doing then all these hours in a plane is eventually not going to fly and move up to a regional jet, 737, a320

timh4000 wrote:

I've always wondered where the 1500 hrs comes from before sitting in the right hand seat. If it's all piston training aircraft then that would be an equivalent to someone learning to drive a basic automatic transmission Honda civic then ho directly to an 18 wheel kenworth truck with 12 or whatever gears it has. 1500 hrs of turning a wheel and stepping on the pedals, but even those aren't the same. Captains are going to have expect new. F/O's from time time and be patient and mentor them. And perhaps more sim time in whatever jet are rating for. Honestly I'd think someone would learn more sitting in a jump seat for 1500 hrs with the captain explaining what he's doing then all these hours in a plane is eventually not going to fly and move up to a regional jet, 737, a320

Flight instructing is one way, but even that is a dubious proposal. Is putting inexperienced pilots in charge of training new pilots really the right way? I know from my own experience that I learned way, way more from flying with freelance instructors who came in from the commercial jets to teach us in their spare time.

I think a good pilot has to be at least average (or above average) in many disciplines. First, speaking from the mindset point of view, a good pilot is always aiming to become better. The moment you stop learning is the day you should retire. Probably the most important thing is CRM. If you are not able to work as a crew, the best manual flying skills won't matter a dime. Speaking from the skills point of view, the ability to fly manual is certainly an important part. In my opinion every pilot should have the skills to handle the aircraft manually in all flight phases (obviously, this does not mean that he should do this on every flight as it neither legal, i.e. in RVSM airspace, nor desirable from the workload perspective, but the ability should be there). Some pilots are either lazy or in a way a bit worried about flying manually (especially new pilots, but also 'old' guys who allowed their skills to detoriate). Management and Decision making skills are also an important part of the skill set of a pilot. Pilots that are good in all those areas usually have a good situational awareness and are able to handle almost everything that's thrown at them.
An other observation I have made is that the 'worst' pilots are usually not the brand new guys, but people who have been in the business for very long and have become bitter and show a lack of motivation (often seen in 'old' FOs with a lot of hours, that never got the chance to move to the left seat). New pilots are usually eager to learn and while they lack experience they really focus on what they are doing and often have new ideas.

Excellent info. Is anyone willing to name names of the carriers they would not fly on? Not interested in political correctness, but sure would like to know the names on the list (s).

Is there a correlation between waist size of captains and mentoring skills... as in inversely proportional?
/humour

n92r03 wrote:

Excellent info. Is anyone willing to name names of the carriers they would not fly on? Not interested in political correctness, but sure would like to know the names on the list (s).

In Europe and in North America all airlines are safe because they are overseen by very competent authorities and would loose their AOCs if they violated safety standards. There are some countries in Africa and Asia where safety can not be assured to be on the European/American Level by the authorities. However even there flying is still much safer than driving in a car. A list of airlines not allowed into European airspace due to safety concerns is available here https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/ai ... /search_de

VSMUT wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

In my opinion, training is not an event that happens in the sim only or during line training. It should happen on every flight. Cockpit culture had a great deal to do with this. Some cultures, the Captain has tremendous power over the F/O's career. If the Captain has an issue with the F/O, the F/O's career could be over. In other cultures, the Captain acts as a mentor and helps the F/O when he begins to struggle, while in other cultures the F/O is left to struggle until the Captain has no option but to take control of the aircraft. That certainly doesn't work at all.

That is frightening to read. An airliner is no place for on the job training. The FO should be every bit as capable as the captain. What happens if the captain dies or becomes incapacitated?

And how do you propose to give airline pilots experience and training without getting near an actual airliner then? An no, 1500 hours of farting about in a Cessna does not give you those qualifications.

BTW, single pilot scenarios are a fixed part of the curriculum for an EASA type rating course. Pretty sure it was even a requirement for the final check-ride in the sim - I certainly did it. In any case, handling an airliner single-pilot is way easier than the piston-twin which I flew single pilot during my flight training.

Starlionblue wrote:

"Step down a level" is enshrined in the very first section of the Airbus Flight Crew Techniques Manual.
- If the automation is not doing what you intend, go from managed modes to selected modes.
- If selected modes are not doing what you intend either, disengage and fly manually.

IMHO, this is a major issue today. I've seen way too many airlines that encourage or even force the opposite. The Irish CAA seems to be the worst in this regard.

Flight instructing is not "farting around". Teaching your skill to others is one of the best ways to improve on it. I'd rather someone go through all of the different ratings and work up hours instructing. At least we know they were competent enough to keep themselves alive for 1500 hours. The wonder boy ab initio training programs with a 200 hour FO on the 737 just doesn't sit well with me. And I'm not saying what I think matters to anyone. But a 200 hour FO is going to be completely subservient. And years of crew resource management research and education has taught us that is exactly what you don't want. Both pilots need to be assertive and ready to recognize a dangerous situation. A 200 hour FO will never challenge or try to correct a captain that has put the plane in danger.

I totally understand and agree with what many of you are saying. But, is acquiring 1500 hrs of flight time on a totally different type of plane going to help that much if they go straight from that to a 737, or even say an ERJ145?

Remember when you were teenagers learning to drive? Even if you learned to drive a stick shift early on driving a different car was much more of an experience than it is today. Now imagine you drove the same type of car for the 1st couple of years you were driving and then you apply for a job driving a large truck, or bus etcetc. You've got all kinds of confidence and experience driving a Corolla. I'm just saying the new F/O needs lots of sim time and good mentoring because the 1st time he takes the controls is a brand new experience. I think I GF makes good points about the mentoring and line check process. Certainly not some butt hole captain berating, and just showing off his years of experience in both automation and hand flying. The new F/O isn't gaining much and probably only becoming even more insecure. and lacking confidence in their abilities. But again I will say based on the safety record of the past couple of decades it's being done right. Hopefully our safety culture isn't about to implode due to pilot shortage and lack of oversight. Then many of us who love to fly will hop on a train or suck up the long car rides if it does.

So here is the question? Forward another twenty five years and assuming the tree huggers have not closed down avaition as we know it today, the only pilots left are the magenta line advocates and these are not the ones who should be mentoring based on the line of thought I see here. Garbage in, garbage out might be to harsh a way to describe the pilot evolution, but there would seem to be some reason for concern.

There are few airlines today that have embraced the stand alone train module that is 100% dedicated to maneuvering with the automation either off or significantly reduced to allow the new pilot a no jeopardy opportunity to learn something about the flight characteristics of his/her aircraft. Until very recently that was not done in the USA. With the advanced UPRT programs in place this will make up for some of that loss. It still does not fully support the needs of a new pilot when he/she checks out in a new aircraft, but its better than what we have seen in the past. Its all about money.

There are a number of pilots from around the world that owe their success to disciplened ab initial pilot training programs. BA, JAL, Lufthansa are but a few. I'm pretty sure they entered service with 350 to 450 hours so maybe the 1st step would be to bump up the curriculum to include some additional time.

EK has a program that is just starting and probably worth closely watching for desired results. Quite advanced with high performance aircraft and an almost military application.

“ As my first flight instructor said when he was introducing the very simple autopilot on the Cessna 172, "The autopilot will kill you quickly if you let it...”
You just made me feel old, I’ve never heard of a C-172 having a autopilot.

TTailedTiger wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

That is frightening to read. An airliner is no place for on the job training. The FO should be every bit as capable as the captain. What happens if the captain dies or becomes incapacitated?

And how do you propose to give airline pilots experience and training without getting near an actual airliner then? An no, 1500 hours of farting about in a Cessna does not give you those qualifications.

BTW, single pilot scenarios are a fixed part of the curriculum for an EASA type rating course. Pretty sure it was even a requirement for the final check-ride in the sim - I certainly did it. In any case, handling an airliner single-pilot is way easier than the piston-twin which I flew single pilot during my flight training.

Starlionblue wrote:

"Step down a level" is enshrined in the very first section of the Airbus Flight Crew Techniques Manual.
- If the automation is not doing what you intend, go from managed modes to selected modes.
- If selected modes are not doing what you intend either, disengage and fly manually.

IMHO, this is a major issue today. I've seen way too many airlines that encourage or even force the opposite. The Irish CAA seems to be the worst in this regard.

Flight instructing is not "farting around". Teaching your skill to others is one of the best ways to improve on it. I'd rather someone go through all of the different ratings and work up hours instructing. At least we know they were competent enough to keep themselves alive for 1500 hours. The wonder boy ab initio training programs with a 200 hour FO on the 737 just doesn't sit well with me. And I'm not saying what I think matters to anyone. But a 200 hour FO is going to be completely subservient. And years of crew resource management research and education has taught us that is exactly what you don't want. Both pilots need to be assertive and ready to recognize a dangerous situation. A 200 hour FO will never challenge or try to correct a captain that has put the plane in danger.

I've seen 250 hour second officers question captains on their decisions. And I've seen 2500 hour first officers not do it when perhaps they should have. Experience counts, but training and personality seem to count for more. It also depends a lot on the captain's demeanour.

Calling ab initio cadets "wonder boys" does them a disservice, as most of them worked very hard under pressure to get to where they are. Yes, many are somewhat meek in the beginning, but that passes rather quickly.

Many of my colleagues used to instruct on light pistons, and had thousands of hours doing it. They all say that flying a a multi-crew jet is a very different thing. There's only so much the instructing hours will give you. This is reflected in the fact that airlines typically value multi-crew turbine hours much greater than light piston hours when recruiting.

ParkFSI wrote:

“ As my first flight instructor said when he was introducing the very simple autopilot on the Cessna 172, "The autopilot will kill you quickly if you let it...”
You just made me feel old, I’ve never heard of a C-172 having a autopilot.

Behold the Bendix/King KAP140, on Cessna 172s since 1996.

Flow2706 wrote:

I think a good pilot has to be at least average (or above average) in many disciplines. First, speaking from the mindset point of view, a good pilot is always aiming to become better. The moment you stop learning is the day you should retire. Probably the most important thing is CRM. If you are not able to work as a crew, the best manual flying skills won't matter a dime. Speaking from the skills point of view, the ability to fly manual is certainly an important part. In my opinion every pilot should have the skills to handle the aircraft manually in all flight phases (obviously, this does not mean that he should do this on every flight as it neither legal, i.e. in RVSM airspace, nor desirable from the workload perspective, but the ability should be there). Some pilots are either lazy or in a way a bit worried about flying manually (especially new pilots, but also 'old' guys who allowed their skills to detoriate). Management and Decision making skills are also an important part of the skill set of a pilot. Pilots that are good in all those areas usually have a good situational awareness and are able to handle almost everything that's thrown at them.
An other observation I have made is that the 'worst' pilots are usually not the brand new guys, but people who have been in the business for very long and have become bitter and show a lack of motivation (often seen in 'old' FOs with a lot of hours, that never got the chance to move to the left seat). New pilots are usually eager to learn and while they lack experience they really focus on what they are doing and often have new ideas.

News flash: Half of pilots are worse than average. Half of doctors (lawers, chiefs, police officers, drivers.... ) are worse than average as well.
Pilots are probably the profession with the least incentive to become better as seniority is the only way up the ladder in many cases.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Teaching your skill to others is one of the best ways to improve on it.

What skill? They have zero knowledge outside of the most basic stuff taught at flying school! You are suggesting that the entire training cycle has to rely on inexperienced and freshly graduated PPL pilots with no experience to pass on.

TTailedTiger wrote:

At least we know they were competent enough to keep themselves alive for 1500 hours.

Anybody can stay alive in a Cessna for 1500 hours. Those things are easier than riding a bicycle.

TTailedTiger wrote:

A 200 hour FO will never challenge or try to correct a captain that has put the plane in danger.

And neither will a 1500 hour pilot who is completely fresh in a multi-crew complex aircraft. It is a symptom of entering a completely new and different environment.
That is why fresh FOs don't get put on the line with any old captain, but with line instructors.

VSMUT wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Teaching your skill to others is one of the best ways to improve on it.

What skill? They have zero knowledge outside of the most basic stuff taught at flying school! You are suggesting that the entire training cycle has to rely on inexperienced and freshly graduated PPL pilots with no experience to pass on.

TTailedTiger wrote:

At least we know they were competent enough to keep themselves alive for 1500 hours.

Anybody can stay alive in a Cessna for 1500 hours. Those things are easier than riding a bicycle.

TTailedTiger wrote:

A 200 hour FO will never challenge or try to correct a captain that has put the plane in danger.

And neither will a 1500 hour pilot who is completely fresh in a multi-crew complex aircraft. It is a symptom of entering a completely new and different environment.
That is why fresh FOs don't get put on the line with any old captain, but with line instructors.

Any halfway decent flight school is going to have ongoing training and evaluations for their CFIs. An airline has the incentive to rush some zero hour cadet into the right seat of an airliner. I'd love to see one of them handle a complex approach on their own. As one of our resident 737 pilots stated, they are nothing more than a systems manager. It's hard to argue that the current arrangement in the US doesn't work really well. A pilot should only apply for an airline position once they have mastered the prerequisites of the PPL, Instrument, and Commercial ratings.

kalvado wrote:

Pilots are probably the profession with the least incentive to become better as seniority is the only way up the ladder in many cases.

Keeping themselves and 150 other people alive isn't an incentive?

TTailedTiger wrote:

Any halfway decent flight school is going to have ongoing training and evaluations for their CFIs. An airline has the incentive to rush some zero hour cadet into the right seat of an airliner. I'd love to see one of them handle a complex approach on their own. As one of our resident 737 pilots stated, they are nothing more than a systems manager. It's hard to argue that the current arrangement in the US doesn't work really well. A pilot should only apply for an airline position once they have mastered the prerequisites of the PPL, Instrument, and Commercial ratings.

PPL, IR and CPL are prerequisites for starting at any airline, if not for applying. Handling a complex approach on your own is part of sim training. Ab initio cadets are not "rushed" into the right seat. They have to do the work like everyone else. Just in a rather more time-compressed fashion. The pace is often brutal, and they work very hard. They are held to very high standards and every exam, flight or sim is an opportunity to wash out.

From zero to "checked to line", cadets typically spend 18-24 months. In context, that's about the same time that it takes to go from zero to an operational squadron in a fighter jet. But unlike ab initio cadets, no one questions that process. You could argue that the military can accept a higher level of risk, but I don't buy it. Military jets and the training to fly them are too expensive for that sort of calculus.

The current US arrangement works fine. As do arrangements in other countries. Accident and incident rates at LH, BA, CX, SQ and EZ, all of which have ab initio programs, are not higher than at AA or UA. These are hardly fly-by-night airlines operating under dodgy regulatory oversight. The US arrangement and the ab initio arrangement are two different ways to get to the essentially same result.

The fundamental difference is that ab initio cadets are trained for airline operations from day one, while in the US you can get an ATP without flying anything but single-engine pistons. The EASA CPL theory consists of fourteen papers and takes at least 6 months of full-time study to pass. And unlike the single US CPL exam which you can prep for in a couple of days, the syllabus heavily emphasizes turbine aircraft and commercial operations.


Anecdotal again, but I have colleagues who were 5000-hour light piston instructors and they did not find the initial conversion any easier than the 250-hour cadets. Apart from manual handling, their skills didn't transfer that much. The guys who had an easier time tended to have either multi-crew turbine or fast jet experience.

johns624 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Pilots are probably the profession with the least incentive to become better as seniority is the only way up the ladder in many cases.

Keeping themselves and 150 other people alive isn't an incentive?

The point being that studying above and beyond the point where you know you will surely pass will neither get you more pay more nor advance your career faster. That being said, the "pass" standard is quite high, and indeed very much sufficient for the task of keeping us and the pax alive.

Starlionblue wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

And how do you propose to give airline pilots experience and training without getting near an actual airliner then? An no, 1500 hours of farting about in a Cessna does not give you those qualifications.

BTW, single pilot scenarios are a fixed part of the curriculum for an EASA type rating course. Pretty sure it was even a requirement for the final check-ride in the sim - I certainly did it. In any case, handling an airliner single-pilot is way easier than the piston-twin which I flew single pilot during my flight training.




IMHO, this is a major issue today. I've seen way too many airlines that encourage or even force the opposite. The Irish CAA seems to be the worst in this regard.

Flight instructing is not "farting around". Teaching your skill to others is one of the best ways to improve on it. I'd rather someone go through all of the different ratings and work up hours instructing. At least we know they were competent enough to keep themselves alive for 1500 hours. The wonder boy ab initio training programs with a 200 hour FO on the 737 just doesn't sit well with me. And I'm not saying what I think matters to anyone. But a 200 hour FO is going to be completely subservient. And years of crew resource management research and education has taught us that is exactly what you don't want. Both pilots need to be assertive and ready to recognize a dangerous situation. A 200 hour FO will never challenge or try to correct a captain that has put the plane in danger.

I've seen 250 hour second officers question captains on their decisions. And I've seen 2500 hour first officers not do it when perhaps they should have. Experience counts, but training and personality seem to count for more. It also depends a lot on the captain's demeanour.

Calling ab initio cadets "wonder boys" does them a disservice, as most of them worked very hard under pressure to get to where they are. Yes, many are somewhat meek in the beginning, but that passes rather quickly.

Many of my colleagues used to instruct on light pistons, and had thousands of hours doing it. They all say that flying a a multi-crew jet is a very different thing. There's only so much the instructing hours will give you. This is reflected in the fact that airlines typically value multi-crew turbine hours much greater than light piston hours when recruiting.

ParkFSI wrote:

“ As my first flight instructor said when he was introducing the very simple autopilot on the Cessna 172, "The autopilot will kill you quickly if you let it...”
You just made me feel old, I’ve never heard of a C-172 having a autopilot.

Behold the Bendix/King KAP140, on Cessna 172s since 1996.

Very cool, I’m new to the forum and this dates me for sure. I flew single engine/gas combustion aircraft in the 70’s and 80’s and A/P’s were almost un heard of : )

Starlionblue wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Any halfway decent flight school is going to have ongoing training and evaluations for their CFIs. An airline has the incentive to rush some zero hour cadet into the right seat of an airliner. I'd love to see one of them handle a complex approach on their own. As one of our resident 737 pilots stated, they are nothing more than a systems manager. It's hard to argue that the current arrangement in the US doesn't work really well. A pilot should only apply for an airline position once they have mastered the prerequisites of the PPL, Instrument, and Commercial ratings.

PPL, IR and CPL are prerequisites for starting at any airline, if not for applying. Handling a complex approach on your own is part of sim training. Ab initio cadets are not "rushed" into the right seat. They have to do the work like everyone else. Just in a rather more time-compressed fashion. The pace is often brutal, and they work very hard. They are held to very high standards and every exam, flight or sim is an opportunity to wash out.

From zero to "checked to line", cadets typically spend 18-24 months. In context, that's about the same time that it takes to go from zero to an operational squadron in a fighter jet. But unlike ab initio cadets, no one questions that process. You could argue that the military can accept a higher level of risk, but I don't buy it. Military jets and the training to fly them are too expensive for that sort of calculus.

The current US arrangement works fine. As do arrangements in other countries. Accident and incident rates at LH, BA, CX, SQ and EZ, all of which have ab initio programs, are not higher than at AA or UA. These are hardly fly-by-night airlines operating under dodgy regulatory oversight. The US arrangement and the ab initio arrangement are two different ways to get to the essentially same result.

The fundamental difference is that ab initio cadets are trained for airline operations from day one, while in the US you can get an ATP without flying anything but single-engine pistons. The EASA CPL theory consists of fourteen papers and takes at least 6 months of full-time study to pass. And unlike the single US CPL exam which you can prep for in a couple of days, the syllabus heavily emphasizes turbine aircraft and commercial operations.


Anecdotal again, but I have colleagues who were 5000-hour light piston instructors and they did not find the initial conversion any easier than the 250-hour cadets. Apart from manual handling, their skills didn't transfer that much. The guys who had an easier time tended to have either multi-crew turbine or fast jet experience.

johns624 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Pilots are probably the profession with the least incentive to become better as seniority is the only way up the ladder in many cases.

Keeping themselves and 150 other people alive isn't an incentive?

The point being that studying above and beyond the point where you know you will surely pass will neither get you more pay more nor advance your career faster. That being said, the "pass" standard is quite high, and indeed very much sufficient for the task of keeping us and the pax alive.

There are some good ab initio programs, that have proven themselves over time, but now we have the MPL scheme. I believe that a cadet program needs to be run by the host airline, where they can control the selection, and elimination process, like the the military programs. When things are done by for profit schools, I don't believe the standards will always be upheld, lest a school become known for a high failure rate, and lose business.