Another "smart pilot's trick"

[Evan]

I don't know. That's what the AvHerald reader said.

But the core of my opinion is that, in any event, the pilot was INTNTIONALLY doing something he KNEW he was NOT supposed to do.

And why was he doing this? I think it is because certain pilots, having basic airmanship skills but lacking in depth knowledge of the aircraft functions, believe they can flaunt the rules and fly by the seat of their pants, so to speak, (see 3WE) and so they improvise themselves into these situations. Some pilots will follow the rules and some think they are above them, due to their basic skills. If these pilots knew the reasons why these things are rules, they might not try to work around them.

[Gabriel]

And why was he doing this? I think it is because certain pilots, having basic airmanship skills but lacking in depth knowledge of the aircraft functions, believe they can flaunt the rules and fly by the seat of their pants, so to speak, (see 3WE) and so they improvise themselves into these situations. Some pilots will follow the rules and some think they are above them, due to their basic skills. If these pilots knew the reasons why these things are rules, they might not try to work around them.

I don't agree that this case applies here.
Attempting to put the plane (or its engines) outside the approved envelope has nothing to do with airmanship or thinking that one's skills are above the rules.

Again, say that the AvHerald user is wrong, and that the pilot's knowledge was right, that in fact if you move the levers below idle but above shut-off gives you a reduced thrust below idle. Are the pilot's actions any more acceptable?

I compare this incident with things like:
Let's keep take-off thrust past the 5 minutes limit. We know the engine can withstand it. That way we'll for one oh' it faster.
Let's fly a bit faster than Mmo. We know there is margin above it and we'll reach home sooner.
Let's shut down one of the engines for our descent from 410 until we start the approach, so we'll recover the extra fuel burned with the previous two tricks.


Side note (and no, I don't want to start a discussion on this): I don't think (but I am not sure) that 3we ever proposed using the basic airmanship technique in place of the approved procedures. Just that using basic airmanship techniques was safe (I add, not necessarily as safe as the approved procedure). I also mentioned that not following the UAS airspeed procedure is not enough to explain the bizarre reaction of the AF pilot that was way contrary to basic airmanship by so much.

[snydersnapshots]

Well...I'm guessing everyone junior to this moron moved up a number...

[3WE]

having basic airmanship skills but lacking in depth knowledge of the aircraft functions, believe they can flaunt the rules and fly by the seat of their pants, so to speak, (see 3WE) and so they improvise themselves into these situations.

Umm no, Evan.

General fundamental knowledge with no type-specific training would tell me two things.

1) It's a bad idea to flip up the red switches. (Basic fundamental rule: Red = Bad)

2) To little fuel usually means the motor won't run.

(And guess what...fundamental rule #2 works in a CRJ, Cessna 172, your car, your lawnmower, and a coal-fired steam locomotive- and while I've driven cars, lawnmowers and 172s, I think it's a bad idea to almost totally cut off the fuel to a CRJ and a locomotive (but no training there either).

Nice try, thanks for playing.

[3WE]

I don't think (but I am not sure) that 3we ever proposed using the basic airmanship technique in place of the approved procedures.

There are several threads where I am quoted as saying that I want my pilots to know the procedures cold and know the airmanship cold.

However, a number of puppy mill curicula have been criticized for "teaching procedures only, and how to pass the test" at the expense of fundamental airmanship skills.

"At the expense of" are the magic, and critically sad words.

Then recurrent training is sometimes criticized at emphasising procedures at the expense of fundamental airmanship.

...then we have pilot behavior in a number of crashes that suggests a decent knowledge of procedure and a lousy knowledge of airmanship.

The airbus pilots displayed bad knowledge of both. But I find it sad that fundamental things they might have learned in a 172 and then transferred to a turbo prop and transferred to an RJ and transferred to short domestic routes as they advanced as a pilot- the exact same things- could have saved the day in the fancy, international airbus flight.

Evan- as evidenced in this thread, displays a significant interest in procedures and a significant disdain for fundamentals.

[Evan]

I also mentioned that not following the UAS airspeed procedure is not enough to explain the bizarre reaction of the AF pilot that was way contrary to basic airmanship by so much.

No, but the erratic nature of the flight director, combined with the ambiguous ECAM overspeed warning message does give some explanation. It's a classic case of following the technology without knowing how the aircraft works. That is what I'm getting at: so many crashes have occurred in recent years for this very reason. Pilots are not being trained in systems at the level that even I, a non-pilot, am well aware of, and that is a frightening reality. Universal skills are invaluable, but specific aircraft knowledge has become just as valuable. Things like knowing instinctively that artificial static stability no longer exists in alternate law, or that the autothrust may be locked well below the thrust lever position, or that a go-around on autopilot is not available without a glideslope signal, or that the autothrust cannot be used with a MEL'd radalt, or that you must pull the knob to engage a selected heading or it will revert to the current one... I might need to start a new thread on the subject when I can find the time...

Solid basic airmanship combined with a lack of of technical understanding of modern aircraft can make for a very short career.

[Gabriel]

Solid basic airmanship combined with a lack of of technical understanding of modern aircraft can make for a very short career.

We all agree: it's not one thing OR the other. It's one thing AND the other.

Still, it doesn't look to me that all this has anything to do with this incident. IMHO, it was simply a smart-ass trick.

[TeeVee]

No, but the erratic nature of the flight director, combined with the ambiguous ECAM overspeed warning message does give some explanation. It's a classic case of following the technology without knowing how the aircraft works. That is what I'm getting at: so many crashes have occurred in recent years for this very reason. Pilots are not being trained in systems at the level that even I, a non-pilot, am well aware of, and that is a frightening reality. Universal skills are invaluable, but specific aircraft knowledge has become just as valuable. Things like knowing instinctively that artificial static stability no longer exists in alternate law, or that the autothrust may be locked well below the thrust lever position, or that a go-around on autopilot is not available without a glideslope signal, or that the autothrust cannot be used with a MEL'd radalt, or that you must pull the knob to engage a selected heading or it will revert to the current one... I might need to start a new thread on the subject when I can find the time...

Solid basic airmanship combined with a lack of of technical understanding of modern aircraft can make for a very short career.

sure, from the comfort and calm, non-emergent position behind your desk, you think you know everything there is to know about aircraft systems. stick your bookworm behind in a cockpit, throw a couple of funky failures at ya, and let's see how perfect you really are...

[brianw999]

This is ringing bells for me in my chosen career of paramedic. I spent three years learning the basic fundamentals and then putting them together with the clever stuff and 32 years putting it all into practise.
The newbie direct entry university paramedics these days get all the clever stuff thrown at them but they don't get the basic fundamentals experience.
Most of them recognise that fact and do something about it but we have some who can tell you in immense detail why you are dying.....

......but can do very little to stop it happening !!

Frightening really.

[3WE]

sure, from the comfort and calm, non-emergent position behind your desk, you think you know everything there is to know about aircraft systems. stick your bookworm behind in a cockpit, throw a couple of funky failures at ya, and let's see how perfect you really are...

Driving a car is pretty simple.

But I'm thinking that I'm not the only one- that roughly once every 10 years has a moment in my car that is "Oh crap, I screwed up", and/or "what the hell is going on" and/or "oh shit, I almost (or did) crash"

Stats show us that our two pilots, procedures, checklists and automation acheive incredible safety!

...then, on extremely rare conditions, two pilots make a takeoff run on the wrong runway.

...and as TeeVee says, on other rare conditions- in an extremely foreign, confusing "oh shit" moment- THE PERFECT procedure is not all that clear.

[UncleFire]

sure, from the comfort and calm, non-emergent position behind your desk, you think you know everything there is to know about aircraft systems. stick your bookworm behind in a cockpit, throw a couple of funky failures at ya, and let's see how perfect you really are...

Fair enough. But in the context of this thread (and other things we've seen in other threads) don't you think that as complex as things are that pilots should NOT doing things outside the reasonable/SOP so as NOT to create a "funky failure".

In this case, I'm sure there are reasons for the stops for flight idle. While engines MIGHT work below that, there are clearly "tolerances" which can cause engine shut-down below that setting.

In the other post w.r.t. driving a car. Of course it is simplier than flying an a/c. There are things like rev limiters, Anti-lock brakes, traction control etc. One can drive their car at its limits (or beyond), but you do so at your own peril.