Pilots losing ability to fly

Greg Bockelman said:
I am not following. What’s your point?
Click to expand...
Being able to handfly is one thing, i.e first solo. Being good and proficient at hand flying is something that takes hundreds of hours to learn the feel and nuances of every plane. I can jump into just about any GA plane and land it just fine, but that's completely different than being able to put an airplane down exactly where you want it, at the right speed and attitude. Or knowing exactly how the plane reacts in any stall configuration, or knowing exactly how much space it takes to do a canyon turn. These are all specific examples, but could be extrapolated to transport category aircraft. My point is, there's a set amount of time to learn procedures and airspace etc and when you know it, you know it. Handflying proficiency is an endless process (a license to learn if you will) and if you think it's the "easy" part, then you better be prepared to bet your life on it.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Then I would argue that you barely know how to hand fly at all.
Click to expand...
That would be silly. You truly believe that manipulating the controls (BTW, I've landed a Skyhawk in 40 kt ground winds, definitely lit up my armpits) is the most difficult part? It's the easiest; I'm sure you've let your friends manipulate the controls. I was doing elevator-ride slips to landings quite soon. It doesn't take "hundreds of hours" to learn the nuances. It takes the right teacher, and the right practice, and many fewer hours than that. Boring holes in the sky for hours teaches nothing! I had over 400 landings in my first 300 hours, at many different airports, and six different aeroplanes.
Airline crashes are so rare at this point that it doesn't really matter if the pilots are über-stick-and-rudder people. It's more critical that they understand the systems of the automated airplane (such as, um, certain trim/stability systems.)
 
Kenny Phillips said:
That would be silly. You truly believe that manipulating the controls (BTW, I've landed a Skyhawk in 40 kt ground winds, definitely lit up my armpits) is the most difficult part? It's the easiest; I'm sure you've let your friends manipulate the controls. I was doing elevator-ride slips to landings quite soon. It doesn't take "hundreds of hours" to learn the nuances. It takes the right teacher, and the right practice, and many fewer hours than that. Boring holes in the sky for hours teaches nothing! I had over 400 landings in my first 300 hours, at many different airports, and six different aeroplanes.
Airline crashes are so rare at this point that it doesn't really matter if the pilots are über-stick-and-rudder people. It's more critical that they understand the systems of the automated airplane (such as, um, certain trim/stability systems.)
Click to expand...
When you can do this, (and, no I can't do this). Then you're closer to being "good" at handflying.
@motoadve

Or being skilled at aerobatics. I'd much rather have one of those pilots upfront (after appropriate airline training) than someone that went through ATP and trained on the latest and greatest Garmin product. Anyone can learn that in short order, handflying is where the real skill is, take a look at the miracle on the Hudson, that wasn't a systems analysis, that was pure hand flying.

It's pretty bold to sit there and say you've got nothing left to learn after landing a forgiving plane to a (presumably large) runway in mediocre winds (for Wyoming). Thats advocating for common core piloting. JMNSHO
 
Last edited:
Kenny Phillips said:
But the flying, the hand flying, was the easiest part of learning to fly. Rules/regulations/navigation, etc. took most of the time.
Click to expand...

Mtns2Skies said:
Then I would argue that you barely know how to hand fly at all.
Click to expand...

That’s a ridiculous response. For many pilots, learning how to physically fly the plane is the easy part. Learning all of the regulations, navigation, weather, communication, etc. can require much more effort.

Now becoming truly proficient to the point you can successfully compete in aerobatics or STOL competitions does take longer. But I would imagine that when Kenny wrote his post that by “learning to fly” he meant earning the private pilot certificate. At least that is how I read it and why I can easily see his point.

I would expect a more reasoned response from someone of your considerable aviation expertise.
 
To each his own...

Some people have a mind for the book work and take to it quite easily but are crap flyers. Others take to the controls like they were born to fly but suck at the book work.

I think the one that universally causes people to struggle in early (and even later) training is radio communications and learning the ins-and-outs of the equipment.

Radio communications is a problem that can be solved with time and effort. Advanced Stick and rudder skills is also a "problem" that can be solved with time and effort. Equipment though is one that I just dont see getting better as more and more technology creeps into the cockpit.

I mean how many of us can honestly say we use foreflight to 100% of its capabilities AND our aircraft installed GPS to the same? There's just too many features to be realistic about knowing they all exist, let alone mastering them all and some of them are rarely used to begin with (custom waypoints on a Garmin comes to mind).

As Julie Clark said in the below Flight Chops video starting at 4:18
I have to admit that I never really came to terms with that Airbus. There were so many ways you could solve the same problem and get to the same result... or it could trick you or you thought you had it programmed right and no matter what it is that isnt going right, you're still wrong. The typical conversation was one pilot said "Ive never seen it do that before." "well I've never seen that [either]" "well how long have you been on the airplane?" because it would just play tricks with you almost every leg, every trip
Click to expand...

Notably, the video was released just 4 days after and presumably shot sometime before the Ethiopian Airlines 737-Max crash. Even if it was a "prepared" statement and the video footage was shot in the window between the crash and its release, I'd note exactly what happened was still a matter of pure speculation at the time of its release.

Despite that, I still think the pilots played a larger part in the Ethiopian crash than the media would lead you to believe. Based on the information available, they correctly diagnosed the problem, switched off the MCAS but failed to recover the plane and ultimately switched the MCAS back on. Should MCAS not have suffered the failure it did? Absolutely but the pilots should have been capable of working around the problem (again based on the information available that I've seen, if someone has contradicting evidence of this, I'd be happy to see and review it), especially given the awareness and bulletin issued by the FAA following the Lion Air crash.

The overall need for MCAS remains questionable as I've seen conflicting statements about MCAS being added in order to comply with the 737 type certificate. Without it, the plane still flew but required greater awareness of the pitch up moment. Whether Boeing added MCAS because they knew it wouldn't qualify for the 737 TC without it or because they promised a plane that did not require additional training (arguably, accounting for the pitch up moment requires awareness only in the hands of a competent and proficient pilot) but they built a flawed system with catastrophic results to account for an error that was more nuisance than anything else and probably could have been just as easily resolved with a stick shaker and awareness (if it were truly required at all since it was just a tendency to over pitch).
 
Last edited:
Do airlines require exclusively handflown raw data single engine approach in IMC to a landing as part of their checkrides? If they do, great. If they don't, I think they should as a minimum threshold.

Handflying and the composite instrument crosscheck is a very perishable skillset. By all indications Atlas 3591 is shaping up to be another Colgan 3407 redux. Only thing that saved the industry's optics this time is it wasn't pax ops, plus the company got lucky they lawndarted into Trinity Bay and not some row of tract McHouses in Atascocita/Humble.

I think the question of handflying atrophy in airline pilot work is a legitimate one. Resorting to a tu quoque logical fallacy about the degree of complication inherent to FMS and procedural bureaucracies of part 121 work is a gross deflection from the issue at hand imo. This is the same cohort of people who can't wait to tell you with insufferable pride about their acumen for scoffing their day job for a living, crediting 90/hrs a month and still having to go to the sim every 90 days. Nevermind not touching a g-damn airplane on their own dimes/days off to save their lives, some as a matter of principle it seems. But the second anyone takes that information at face value and questions their ability to put it back on the ground after having to triple click that yoke, it's all of a sudden blasphemy? Ladies doth protest too much me thinks. Can't have the cake and eat it too.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Do airlines require exclusively handflown raw data single engine approach in IMC to a landing as part of their checkrides? If they do, great. If they don't, I think they should as a minimum threshold.

Handflying and the composite instrument crosscheck is a very perishable skillset. By all indications Atlas 3591 is shaping up to be another Colgan 3407 redux. Only thing that saved the industry's optics this time is it wasn't pax ops, plus the company got lucky they lawndarted into Trinity Bay and not some row of tract McHouses in Atascocita/Humble.

I think the question of handflying atrophy in airline pilot work is a legitimate one. Resorting to a tu quoque logical fallacy about the degree of complication inherent to FMS and procedural bureaucracies of part 121 work is a gross deflection from the issue at hand imo. This is the same cohort of people who can't wait to tell you with insufferable pride about their acumen for scoffing their day job for a living, crediting 90/hrs a month and still having to go to the sim every 90 days. Nevermind not touching a g-damn airplane on their own dimes/days off to save their lives, some as a matter of principle it seems. But the second anyone takes that information at face value and questions their ability to put it back on the ground after having to triple click that yoke, it's all of a sudden blasphemy? Ladies doth protest too much me thinks. Can't have the cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...
Every recurrent I have to shoot a hand flown single engine ILS down to mins. I’m pretty sure most airlines require the same. They also have to implement extended envelope training so that should help with stick and rudder skills as well.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Do airlines require exclusively handflown raw data single engine approach in IMC to a landing as part of their checkrides? If they do, great. If they don't, I think they should as a minimum threshold.

Handflying and the composite instrument crosscheck is a very perishable skillset. By all indications Atlas 3591 is shaping up to be another Colgan 3407 redux. Only thing that saved the industry's optics this time is it wasn't pax ops, plus the company got lucky they lawndarted into Trinity Bay and not some row of tract McHouses in Atascocita/Humble.

I think the question of handflying atrophy in airline pilot work is a legitimate one. Resorting to a tu quoque logical fallacy about the degree of complication inherent to FMS and procedural bureaucracies of part 121 work is a gross deflection from the issue at hand imo. This is the same cohort of people who can't wait to tell you with insufferable pride about their acumen for scoffing their day job for a living, crediting 90/hrs a month and still having to go to the sim every 90 days. Nevermind not touching a g-damn airplane on their own dimes/days off to save their lives, some as a matter of principle it seems. But the second anyone takes that information at face value and questions their ability to put it back on the ground after having to triple click that yoke, it's all of a sudden blasphemy? Ladies doth protest too much me thinks. Can't have the cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...
Hand flown yes. Raw data no. Still get the flight director.
 
Ah yes, the annual PoA automation vs. hand flying thread, where we take a complex human factors problem and reduce it to a binary situation, using our individual backgrounds to assume whatever position allows us best to fellate ourselves.
 
kayoh190 said:
Ah yes, the annual PoA automation vs. hand flying thread, where we take a complex human factors problem and reduce it to a binary situation, using our individual backgrounds to assume whatever position allows us best to fellate ourselves.
Click to expand...

Welcome! :D
 
kayoh190 said:
Ah yes, the annual PoA automation vs. hand flying thread, where we take a complex human factors problem and reduce it to a binary situation, using our individual backgrounds to assume whatever position allows us best to fellate ourselves.
Click to expand...
Back in my day, we had to walk up hill in a snow storm barefoot and shoot a raw data single engine ILS down to mins
 
Kenny Phillips said:
That would be silly. You truly believe that manipulating the controls (BTW, I've landed a Skyhawk in 40 kt ground winds, definitely lit up my armpits) is the most difficult part? It's the easiest; I'm sure you've let your friends manipulate the controls. I was doing elevator-ride slips to landings quite soon. It doesn't take "hundreds of hours" to learn the nuances. It takes the right teacher, and the right practice, and many fewer hours than that. Boring holes in the sky for hours teaches nothing! I had over 400 landings in my first 300 hours, at many different airports, and six different aeroplanes.
Airline crashes are so rare at this point that it doesn't really matter if the pilots are über-stick-and-rudder people. It's more critical that they understand the systems of the automated airplane (such as, um, certain trim/stability systems.)
Click to expand...

Could not disagree more. And almost every single week it seems in GA someone proves you wrong by stuffing their airplane after losing control of it.
 
I had 2 pilots during BFR not be able to hold 300 ft or heading when I shut down thier autopilot.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I agree with the comment abut automation. Things get done now, but people forget (or never learn) the mechanisms behind the magic and get lost when it doesn't work.
Click to expand...
air france is an example of that. their crash could've been avoided with better training and, perhaps, less automation.

wasn't it a frozen-over pitot tube?

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
 
SkyDog58 said:
Back in your day? When was that? Yesterday?

:cool:
Click to expand...
tenor.gif

:D
 
USA Today loves to take a grain of truth and sensationalize it.
 
kayoh190 said:
Ah yes, the annual PoA automation vs. hand flying thread, where we take a complex human factors problem and reduce it to a binary situation, using our individual backgrounds to assume whatever position allows us best to fellate ourselves.
Click to expand...
Lol. Nail meet hammer.
As you reference the discussion is complex and there are no easy answers.
I think the best way to be a good pilot is to be a well rounded pilot with diverse experience. That is the obvious answer because I’m a great pilot and that’s how I’ve done it. So everyone else should too
 
Mtns2Skies said:
When you can do this, (and, no I can't do this). Then you're closer to being "good" at handflying.
@motoadve

Or being skilled at aerobatics. I'd much rather have one of those pilots upfront (after appropriate airline training) than someone that went through ATP and trained on the latest and greatest Garmin product. Anyone can learn that in short order, handflying is where the real skill is, take a look at the miracle on the Hudson, that wasn't a systems analysis, that was pure hand flying.

It's pretty bold to sit there and say you've got nothing left to learn after landing a forgiving plane to a (presumably large) runway in mediocre winds (for Wyoming). Thats advocating for common core piloting. JMNSHO
Click to expand...
In a modern airliner, give me the systems guy. The one who knows where the skeletons are buried on the particular aluminum bus that we are in. The chance of any hand-flying saving the day is virtually zero.
Flying in to a fishing camp, VFR, in questionable weather, in between chunks of granite and ice, I'll take the guy who can park it on a postage stamp. But there are many more of the former jobs than the latter.
Horses for courses, and most of the courses are automated people movers.
 
I ALWAYS use the automation. Why? Although it’s more precise than hand flying, I find it harder to manage. Therefor I use it for a challenge/experience.
I’ve gotten into trouble a couple times with the airline and I just disconnected the automation and hand flew the approach. It seemed so easy compared to the auto.
 
Kritchlow said:
I ALWAYS use the automation. Why? Although it’s more precise than hand flying, I find it harder to manage. Therefor I use it for a challenge/experience.
I’ve gotten into trouble a couple times with the airline and I just disconnected the automation and hand flew the approach. It seemed so easy compared to the auto.
Click to expand...
It’s also quite common to see people for whom managing automation is difficult, but hand flying is downright ugly.
 
Daniel L said:
air france is an example of that. their crash could've been avoided with better training and, perhaps, less automation.

wasn't it a frozen-over pitot tube?

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yes, it was. I don't know how I would have handled that for real, but I like to believe I would say that the engines are turning, the GPS is showing a reasonable speed, we are straight and level, so we aren't in danger, although something is wrong. Just keep flying straight and level.

I have that airbus incident, and the Boeing incidents in mind lately. I came up with a way to automate a lab procedure, and we just launched it as part of the product. I made an application note describing the magic, how it can fail, and what to do about it. I can't train everyone, but I can make sure the information is available. Next year, we will automate it some more.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
In a modern airliner, give me the systems guy. The one who knows where the skeletons are buried on the particular aluminum bus that we are in. The chance of any hand-flying saving the day is virtually zero.
Flying in to a fishing camp, VFR, in questionable weather, in between chunks of granite and ice, I'll take the guy who can park it on a postage stamp. But there are many more of the former jobs than the latter.
Horses for courses, and most of the courses are automated people movers.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall an instance not too long ago with a dual-engine failure where hand flying indeed saved the day. Or a complete hydraulics failure where the only reason ANYONE survived was because the pilots were damn good.

The oncoming generation of new pilots is scary, as the vast majority of the pilot mill/CFI/airline kids are getting their first taste of actual IFR in the cockpit of a jet *shudders* and really have not been making command decisions as their flight schools dictate what they can and cannot fly in.

*shakes cane at the sky*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top