F***ing unbelievable!

[3WE]

I ... think that some hand flying at cruise should be mandatory too.

Straight and level is hard.

Maybe not as hard as tracking an ILS at 250 feet, though.

[SYDCBRWOD]

Are you In The Shade, ISGPOTM?

No use of bold, no conviction that Airbus is made of plastic composite crap where the tail falls off

[Deadstick]

Straight and level is hard.

I can give you both. Which one do you want first?

[3WE]

I can give you both. Which one do you want first?

Liar.

You will run out of airspeed if you try to maintain altitude.

(and eventually the sun will go down and your thermals will die too)

[Gabriel]

I can give you both. Which one do you want first?

Wasn't that the answer for "descend and slow down"?

[Deadstick]

Liar.

You will run out of airspeed if you try to maintain altitude.

(and eventually the sun will go down and your thermals will die too)

There's always ridge lift, but I don't advise soaring after dark.

[snydersnapshots]

3) Independent of 1 and 2 are that humans sometimes [expeletive deleted] up.

I resemble that remark. Sometimes, I feel that if I didn't [expletive deleted] up occasionally, I wouldn't [expletive deleted] at all!

[snydersnapshots]

Straight and level is hard.

Maybe not as hard as tracking an ILS at 250 feet, though.

Hey...I'm on airspeed and altitude and on the localizer and glideslope several times during each flight. Every time I pass through them!

[snydersnapshots]

I liked your two last posts very much.

I think that what you do, that is hand flying some approaches every month, should be mandatory.

I also think that some hand flying at cruise should be mandatory too. That can be a problem is RVSM, but a change of flight level could be a good opportunity because of course you don't have to keep a precise altitude, and also because transitioning from level flight to a climb/descent, establishing in the climb/descent and then transitioning to level flight again is much more rich that just flying straight and level. Decide a target airspeed and descent rate, disconnect the AT and AP, lower the nose and reduce power, adjust nose as necessary to control the airspeed the thrust for the descent rate. Keep'em both nailed, then level off and add thrust to keep the airspeed. Re-connect the AP and AT. Just like in the PPL course when the instructor told you "500fpm and 70 kts"! (except the AP and AT part, that is).

Pilots (not differently that car drivers) need to have a sensibility to anticipate what will be the vehicle response to what amount of control input. And the only way for that is keeping oneself current in hand flying skills, and the only way for that is of course hand flying.

Thanks Gabriel. I like your idea of hand flying at altitude, though you are correct--the pilot is not an "RVSM certified" altitude control mechanism. But there are often spans of level flight below the RVSM altitudes where a pilot can hand fly. Or heck...level off at FL 270 or 280 and fly for ten or fifteen minutes. That's not going to burn that much extra fuel and I think the added benefit of the experience is worth it.

Another way a pilot can keep his head in the game is to work out descent profiles mentally using the old 3 to 1 ratio like the old 727 and 737-200 drivers used to do. I'm at FL 370 and need to cross 25 west of XYZ at FL 240 and 280 knots. When do I start down?... The FMC will almost certainly come up with a different answer, but as long as you're in the ballpark, then you're doing the mental work needed. Or, again...click off the magic and re-join Ernie Gann in a nice manual descent the way they used to do it.

[Leftseat86]

Thanks Gabriel. I like your idea of hand flying at altitude, though you are correct--the pilot is not an "RVSM certified" altitude control mechanism. But there are often spans of level flight below the RVSM altitudes where a pilot can hand fly. Or heck...level off at FL 270 or 280 and fly for ten or fifteen minutes. That's not going to burn that much extra fuel and I think the added benefit of the experience is worth it.

Another way a pilot can keep his head in the game is to work out descent profiles mentally using the old 3 to 1 ratio like the old 727 and 737-200 drivers used to do. I'm at FL 370 and need to cross 25 west of XYZ at FL 240 and 280 knots. When do I start down?... The FMC will almost certainly come up with a different answer, but as long as you're in the ballpark, then you're doing the mental work needed. Or, again...click off the magic and re-join Ernie Gann in a nice manual descent the way they used to do it.

Ernie Gann...what a legend.

[Leftseat86]

I agree with your assessment that AF seems to be having more issues than most airlines, and, correct me if I'm wrong, but the problem has to do more with the long-haul side of the house. Here you have the (arguably) most experienced pilots in the left seat, mid-level experience in the right seat, and lowest experience as relief pilots. They probably fly 4 trips a month with two landings each, so the captain gets one and the First Officer gets one--that's 48 landings a year. The IRO's get an occasional airplane landing and probably a few landings a year in the simulator.

Contrast that with the guys flying the "light twins" (737/ A320) who get many more approaches and landings in a year than do the long-haul plots...

Your thoughts?

Great post. On the subject of AF pilots that both you and Gabriel bring up here, I'd like to ad this tidbit from personal experience. I spent two years living in France while I was in high school, when I was still considering going full speed ahead with pilot training with the eventual goal of flying commercially. In France, in sort of contrast to the pilot culture I was used to in California and the USA, there is a rather large emphasis on mathematics and technical knowledge for pilots. Anyone talked to would tell you that if you're interested in becoming a pilot you better have great math scores and take that route with your studies in high school and college. Along with this, I met quite a few airline pilots, some of them rather young, who looked at flying as basically any other job. They learned what was required of them, passed training, understood procedure and that was basically it. They did not particularly have any attachment to flying or piloting in general. I know there are people like that in the US and elsewhere as well, but this has always seemed kind of weird to me, particularly when I was really excited to talk about flying and aviation with them and they totally lacked that enthusiasm on the subject.

I think those two approaches, combined, can make for rather robotic, detached pilots. Put them in modern airliners and they can operate all the systems well and meet requirements, but they're not particularly interested in flying in general. They can hand-fly to the extent that it is required of them, much like someone would approach driving a rental truck or parallel parking. Gabriel you might point out that these people should at least be able to follow procedure, and the technical side of things, since in theory that is their stronger suit, which in the case of AF447 and others they completely fail at, but as snydersnapshots points out this is again where we enter in the myriad human factors, and I think that this kind of approach to piloting might be playing a role there also. For pilots like this, deviation from the norm such as UAS or other might be more startling and they might be less inclined to take full control like a true pilot who has strong airmanship skills and the confidence that comes with them might. They rely heavily on the automated systems and look for solutions there first instead of what I would consider the best course of option when the airplane and the autopilot are not doing what you want, which would be to take full control and FLY the airplane.

Anyway, just an observation on this subject.

[snydersnapshots]

Ernie Gann...what a legend.

I had the opportunity to meet him 26 years ago. What a gentleman. His wife was hosting a 99's meeting and a lady needed a flight instructor to fly up there with her, so I went. Didn't realize it was at Gann's place or I would have brought my logbook that I have autographs in. He told the few guys that were there that we were welcome to go "down to the building down there and look around. There's probably more aviation junk than you really care about, but feel free.."

That "junk" was his artwork. The typewriter he wrote all his books on. Photos of guys like Ross and Sloniger. The teletype announcing the Pearl Harbor attack that he talks about in Fate is the Hunter.

I'll tell you what: I couldn't have been more excited if I was a Catholic meeting the Pope. And I'm not usually one who cares much about meeting celebrities.

[snydersnapshots]

Great post. On the subject of AF pilots that both you and Gabriel bring up here, I'd like to ad this tidbit from personal experience. I spent two years living in France while I was in high school, when I was still considering going full speed ahead with pilot training with the eventual goal of flying commercially. In France, in sort of contrast to the pilot culture I was used to in California and the USA, there is a rather large emphasis on mathematics and technical knowledge for pilots. Anyone talked to would tell you that if you're interested in becoming a pilot you better have great math scores and take that route with your studies in high school and college. Along with this, I met quite a few airline pilots, some of them rather young, who looked at flying as basically any other job. They learned what was required of them, passed training, understood procedure and that was basically it. They did not particularly have any attachment to flying or piloting in general. I know there are people like that in the US and elsewhere as well, but this has always seemed kind of weird to me, particularly when I was really excited to talk about flying and aviation with them and they totally lacked that enthusiasm on the subject.

I think those two approaches, combined, can make for rather robotic, detached pilots. Put them in modern airliners and they can operate all the systems well and meet requirements, but they're not particularly interested in flying in general. They can hand-fly to the extent that it is required of them, much like someone would approach driving a rental truck or parallel parking. Gabriel you might point out that these people should at least be able to follow procedure, and the technical side of things, since in theory that is their stronger suit, which in the case of AF447 and others they completely fail at, but as snydersnapshots points out this is again where we enter in the myriad human factors, and I think that this kind of approach to piloting might be playing a role there also. For pilots like this, deviation from the norm such as UAS or other might be more startling and they might be less inclined to take full control like a true pilot who has strong airmanship skills and the confidence that comes with them might. They rely heavily on the automated systems and look for solutions there first instead of what I would consider the best course of option when the airplane and the autopilot are not doing what you want, which would be to take full control and FLY the airplane.

Anyway, just an observation on this subject.

You're exactly right. There's "book-smart" and there's "common-sense smart". The biggest idiot I ever flew with got his college degree in (as he described it) the easiest thing he could find: Physics. Very intelligent guy, but no common sense. I swear if you put him in an empty room with a fire in the back and two doorways in the front, he'd die in the fire because he couldn't figure out which door to leave through. Ultimately, he was asked to find other endeavors when he was finishing his initial operating experience on the Brasilia with a fed on board and couldn't quite grasp the concept of "250 below 10,000." The first time he did it the fed debriefed him and said he'd be back the next day. The second time the fed wasn't so benevolent.

I also understand what you mean about people who have a passion for flying vs the ones who just got into it because it was easy. Or it was a cool job. Gann talked about such people, I think it was in the chapter about Sloniger in "Flying Circus". I don't have the copy with me, but the passage starts out with "There are airmen, and there are pilots..." I'll look for it when I get home and edit this post.

[3WE]

This "culture" discussion is interesting because it's big.

What would you guys report as the major sources of pilots these days? There was a time that pilots were either military guys or folks who took the long road of instructing, check flying, light freight, corporate, and then hopefully big iron.

Then it seems the regional boom and a period of pilot shortages brought on a slug of "rich kids" who took the turn key, "puppy mill" curriculum (here you go, with just the right amount of twin turbine time, (and fully competent at stall-warning, full power, ~15 degree ANU). It almost seems that the regionals shunned the "old fashioned" CFI who instructed somewhere other than the big flight school...Although I did have one instructor that landed an ERJ job straight from an FBO.

Recently, on another board an RJ guy was sort of lamenting that his "best used by" date was fast approaching for the ability to join the majors...kind of sad that experience is not valued as experience- the dude is very focused on competence.

[Gabriel]

I am convinced that it is not one thing or the other. A good pilot (or better, airman) needs to have a number of skills. The good ones are those who have all of them.

Physics: If there is one absolute truth is aviation, that is "Airplanes fly on Physics". A pilot can break the laws of common sense, of the best practices, of the procedures and of the regulations. But there is one law that cannot be broken, no matter how hard you try, and that's the laws of Physics. I don't mean that pilots must be experts in rational mechanics or able to derive the Navier Stokes equations of the motion of the fluids. But they need to have a very good understanding of the physical CONCEPTS involved in flying, enough to tell not only what happens but why things happen, and to predict what will happen if...

Technical: Every plane flies on the same Physics, but each type has different ways of interfacing with that Physics. A pilot must have a good understanding of the airplane's systems, the source of power available to each of them, what controls or instruments are fed by each of them, and how to manage them. Again, it is not needed that the pilot knows the rated power of a generator or the size of a hydraulic pipe, but he needs to have a good understanding of how each system works and the interactions among them, with the pilots controls, and with the Physics of flight.

Stick and rudder: No matter how advanced the plane, a pilot must be ready to take manual control of the flight and make proper control inputs, both in normal and abnormal situations (like upsets, stalls, escape maneuvers, etc.). This of course includes paying attention to the vital flight parameters needed to perform those tasks effectively. It might sound obvious, but a pilot must be able to fly the plane, and do it right.

Managerial skills: Pilots must be able to manage the resources that are available to them, which includes the instruments, the controls, the automation, the other pilot, the cabin crew, the ATC, airline's operation/maintenance, and even the passengers. CRM is a thing that should be taught and practices starting from PPL, and it is not (at least it wasn't in my case). This managerial skills also includes leadership (even for a FO), risk assessment and management, and decision making.

Crisis management: This could be included in the managerial skills, but I put it separately because it is perfectly possible that a person is an excellent manger in a range of situation, fut falls apart in a highly stressing crisis. The ability to stay relatively calm during a daring emergency as to objectively assess the available information and make rational decisions is critical. And this is one aspect of the skills that is extremely hard to evaluate, as much for the airline as for oneself. How do I know how will I react in a life-or-death situation until I face one?

Person's way, manners, personality, self discipline: Among all the professions, pilots are pilots even when out of work. They need to take the rest periods with responsibility, so they are rested when they set foot in the cockpit. They are not free to do whatever they want with their free time (there are times when they can, but not when they have one day between two sectors). They cannot be addicts to alcohol or drugs. They also must have high standards in ethics and honesty, coupled with a personality strong enough as to say "no" if he is asked to do something that is illegal or that he deems unsafe, but humble enough to admit mistakes and able of self-criticism and permeable to external criticism, and make public his mistakes for the sake of the learning of others.

Of course, a pilot doesn't need to excel in all those skills, but should have at least a minimum acceptable level in each of them. And that's tough. Like being a Medical Doctor or a Doctor in Quantum Physics, being an airline pilot is not for everybody. Or shouldn't be. And probably there is a lot of persons out there who have "the right stuff" to be pilots but don't go that way because getting there is too expensive and the rewards are less and less everyday. It looks like being a pilot has lost its magic, or part of it.

Another thing that plays against this is that training doesn't seem to be focused on all those skills, but just in performing certain tasks within a pass/fail specification (Chendelle: the maneuver must be ended 180° off the entry heading +/- 10°, at the entry altitude +/- 100ft and the entry speed +/- 10 kts). Several things have been done towards this. Today most (if not all) airlines train in human factors, CRM and risks management. The FOQUA programs and the scenario based training are also for it. But evidently there is still a long way to go, at least in some airlines.

And all these skills should be taught starting from hour zero in the C-172, something that in my experience doesn't happen. And that's, not in a small part, because the instructors don't have the right stuff. Flight instructor, even an FBO one, should be a highly professional and well paid profession. But it isn't. It's hard to make a living out of instructing, so good instructors move to be good professional pilots. I've never ever reviewed the POH with an instructor (including the performance charts), never did a weight and balance, never had a good aerodynamics class (just comments along the flights). They've just gave me the material and told me to study it for the examination. Instructors have told me that the high-wing planes are more stable than the low wing planes because of the pendulum effect, that you must be aware with the loss of airspeed when turning downwind, or that the T tails don't fly so well with tailwinds. Just the other day, an instructor was telling me about a flight he had done in a 180HP Archer. Four adults, full fuel. I told him about the possibility of the plane being overweight (almost certainly), he answered that "You have to understand that flying here (very cold place) is different from the rest of Argentina, the air is more dense so the wing makes more lift and the engine produces more power". I was about to ask him if he took that from the POH or if he thought that the wing spar was also stiffer here, but I stopped short of that because this is the only place I have to fly here (an activity that I expect to resume some time this year).

Finally, aviation has lost its ability of making people fall in love with it. So there are less and less people starting the activity including, among them, less and less people with "the right stuff".

I am convinced that the vast majority of airline pilots have what it takes to be at least good enough for the job. But if commercial aviation is an activity that can't afford 1% of pilots that don't. Not if it wants to keep improving his excellent safety record. Because when an abnormal situation coincides with that 1%, people can die.

That, or we keep moving towards the pilot-less plane.