Air France 447 - On topic only!

[MCM]

i didnt say it was.

"does the military consistently produce better pilots? if so, is because they spend more time with hands-on real world flying outside of a sim? or is it because they actually train in stall recovery since military aircraft are more prone to stalls."

both questions. however, i'm pretty certain that most military pilots get more real stick time than puppy mill grads...

Evan hits the nail on the head with the style of flying. Especially as the high hours are usually only on the transport aircraft... many military fighter pilots have relatively low hours... not that hours is the judge of ability.

A lot of the argument is around if hands on stick time is better than extensive training in other areas. Have many of the recent aircraft crashes been from puppy mill pilots with low experience? Colgan it was probably a relevent issue. But the other crashes?

There are a lot of factors that are at play here. I for one don't like the concept of paying for your own aircraft endorsement. That is a very common thing these days, and I think very much pushes towards minimum hour training. Similarly, the race to the lowest price means that airlines are tightening their belts, and will ultimately be less inclined to do non-required training.

The next problem is how much time do you give to a given training sequence? Simulator exercises are very tiring and demanding on crew, not to mention expensive for an airline. How many sessions/hours in the sim should be done per year? How many of them should be on jet upset? How about engine failures? Depressurisations?

There is no doubt that there has now been recognition that some of the basic skills have deteriorated, and, just like when other failings have been identified, there will be a push to fix this problem, and it will decrease. The question will then be what will the next industry failing be?

[Fear_of_Flying]

No, FOF, I can't, BECAUSE the regulations are not explicit enough or standardized enough. There. We've come full circle again.

I don't think we've come full circle if you're referring to our recent discussion on regulations regarding flying at altitude because these are two different things. But why pick on Air France if it's impossible to determine how well any given airline trains its pilots?

Your "black list" now includes Southwest and Air France. Interesting.

We can conclude that both are insufficient to establish learned responses.

I'm glad you're using the term "learned responses" as opposed to "instinctive responses". They do suggest two more or less opposite things, and you seem to use them interchangeably. But what might you use as criteria to indicate adequate training? We won't know if it's adequate until the next airplane gets into trouble. Again, it's the real world situations that ultimately put the training to the test.

[Fear_of_Flying]

The civilian vs military question is flawed. Are we talking about military transport pilots or fighter pilots? Big difference. I think piloting, when best learned, is learned by apprenticeship and experience beginning on simpler aircraft, where aerodynamic consequences are more easily understood. Thus, I don't see why military training has any real advantage over that kind of quality civilian experience. First you need to learn to fly, then you need to learn the tools of automation in that context. But factory schools are a problem (I think they might advertise here). And, I must reiterate, traditional flying skills don't mean squat if you don't also have technical knowledge of the systems involved in a 21st century airliner. There is no either/or position to take on this. Both are required. What can your C-5A hours tell you about managing A330 autoflight modes or Airbus control law? If you grow up learning violin, will that make you a better guitar player than if you grew up playing guitar? If you have operated a lathe for 10 years, does that make you better on the mill? You will be very aware of the general dangers of loose clothing and long hair, but these are very different machines and you have to learn them individually by apprenticeship.

Your analogies don't quite fit. If you grow up playing the violin, you will learn to be a talented musician who understands phrasing, dynamics, intonation, different musical styles, and so forth. You can then take your general knowledge and apply it to different situations, such as learning to play a second instrument like the guitar. You can indeed go from the general to the specific.

No one "grows up" learning to fly an A330. You have to learn to fly first, and then apply that knowledge in learning to fly a larger jet. It is the training underneath that matters, and the more hands-on that training is, the better, or so it would seem. In the military, I think a person more consistently receives that hands-on flying experience.

[Evan]

The civilian vs military question is flawed. Are we talking about military transport pilots or fighter pilots? Big difference. I think piloting, when best learned, is learned by apprenticeship and experience beginning on simpler aircraft, where aerodynamic consequences are more easily understood. Thus, I don't see why military training has any real advantage over that kind of quality civilian experience. First you need to learn to fly, then you need to learn the tools of automation in that context. But factory schools are a problem (I think they might advertise here). And, I must reiterate, traditional flying skills don't mean squat if you don't also have technical knowledge of the systems involved in a 21st century airliner. There is no either/or position to take on this. Both are required. What can your C-5A hours tell you about managing A330 autoflight modes or Airbus control law? If you grow up learning violin, will that make you a better guitar player than if you grew up playing guitar? If you have operated a lathe for 10 years, does that make you better on the mill? You will be very aware of the general dangers of loose clothing and long hair, but these are very different machines and you have to learn them individually by apprenticeship.

[Evan]

Do you have reason to believe that other major carriers provide superior training in those deficit areas you point out here?

No, FOF, I can't, BECAUSE the regulations are not explicit enough or standardized enough. There. We've come full circle again.

Also, it appears that stall avoidance techniques were trained to a higher degree than stall recovery, yet there's nothing to suggest they used these, either. So what can you really conclude based on the "paper qualifications"?

We can conclude that both are insufficient to establish learned responses.