Boeing again 47

[Alistair_Heaton]

The available workforce that want to be pilots has changed over the last 25 years I have been in the game. The backgrounds and life knowledge linked to common sense has also changed.

20 years ago there were still loads of ex mil kicking about. Both flying the line and in training.

I haven't had a ex mil pilot in an airline training department in charge of what I need to know in 13 years.

 

[3DDave]

The mystery statement is the FO "while following" the thrust levers with the control column. I don't know what that means, except that with higher throttle and lower AoA the aircraft will ramp up speed, which is what happened. If it also was a lower/negative pitch, which also appears to be the case, then it also got a gravity boost.

The part about the plane retracting from 15 degrees of flap to 10, flap load relief, was interesting. I guess Boeing has met pilots before.

Ex-mil were the best pilots because they were the majority source of pilots. As aircraft become more complex, airlines want to spend less on training. They wanted ex-mil for the same reason - already significant training costs paid for by someone else. Now they want to train as if the candidates were ex-mil and not spend the money. I'd say, put them in sailplanes for a few hundred hours before moving to light aircraft. Let them understand what energy management means and how an airplane really feels and reacts before it's all deadened out with hydraulics and autopilots.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Quite energy management is the key.

My mates say when you had your career change

I honestly haven't I am an energy management engineer aren't we all.


Been flying all week with a 23 year old. The systems he had zero issue with. The 60 tons of mass he didn't really understand to be honest.

I did my best...

 

[SWComposites]

So how many actual flying hours did this 23 yr old have before flying with you?

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

He came out of school with 130 hours and he was over 1500 at the end of the week.

He was actually pretty good, sensible questions.

Hours flown is a false indicator of experience these days.

Jetstream 1500 hours would be 750 approaches flown manually and landed by that pilot. And they would have had a fair few equipment failures.

On the A220 that would be under 300 approachs by them with the auto pilot coming out for the last 6 miles max before landing manually. And single figures number of times none normal check list would have been run out side the SIM.

Most of them will have been GPS jamming related.

When I got my upgrade to LHS I had 2500 hours 1200 on single engine piston instructing. With 2000 plus landings. And the turbo prop I was over 2000 approaches and 1000 landings by me.

A 5000 hour modern career profile pilot will be lucky to have over 600 landings experience flown by them.

My average flight length on the jet is 2 hours. Manual flying time under 5 mins per flight.

Jetstream was about 30 mins with 100% manual hands on flying.

80/90 the captain's had a completely different experience and stick time profile compared to currently.

The ET captain had 7k hours but the bulk of them will be 6-7 hour flights

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

To add I had a back ground of driving 40 ton lorries and cranes before aviation. Which I think has given me lots of experience just dealing with mass.

I have the engineers theory how the physics of flight works. But that doesn't translate into muscle memory and instinct how a 60 ton mass is going to react.

Most pilots have very basic theory background. And the gut feeling instinctive knowledge of how a mass is going to react is very individual. Some just have it others don't.

Add in that masses reaction is going to change depending which part of the flight envelope it is in. Due to aerodynamic changes.

How to train that I have no clue. I have sat next to pilots with 20k plus hours been flying since the 80's and they start to try and steer at high speed using the nose wheel. Then unsurprisingly sliding occurs.

To me we have a bloody great rudder at the back which doesn't skid or loose grip, use it.

The A220 the nose wheel powered steering tiller is unavailable high speed. You have 5 degs range linked to the rudder pedals. Which forces pilots to use rudder for directional control at high speed. Doesn't stop some trying to use the tiller and going off runway.

Braking also doesn't seem to be instinctive. Why try and turn a corner with 60 tons of momentum under heavy braking? It's hardly a suprise when the thing doesn't turn. But I learned that 30 years ago driving 40 ton trailers better to keep the thing straight and brake then turn. But some the instinct is to avoid by trying to turn. Then hit the dirt sideways instead of going off the end straight with everything in line and you still have some directional control.

Btw the way I have never gone off a runway either sideways or in a straight line. I have had a couple of times had brake failures. Which I thought we were going to. But good old Garrett engines and max beta reverse saved the day in a straight line. And if we had gone off the end it would have been less than 20 knts and little if any damage. If I had tried to turn at 90 knts when they failed I think I would have turned into a passenger while the laws of physics dictated the end result.

 

[LittleInch]

I think it's also to do with a lack of understanding about how much grip tyres can actually supply. far too many simply believe they will stick tot he tarmac like glue in all and every condition.

I did all my hairy driving in days before anti lock brakes and tall skinny tyres which folded under if you tried to take a corner too hard / understeered all the way into the hedge. So do all your braking in a straight line to get rid of energy / speed and then turn. Or in extremis take the head on crash (always just managed to avoid that) and don't roll the car into a ditch.

But aircraft must be the same in that you just don't get exposed to those sorts of experiences for many of the pilots coming off the production line. It's all about managing the flight computer, not actually flying the plane. I still don't understand though how that SW flight managed to accidentally lean on the control column... or get overloaded on a go around they had actually talked about before they left.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[3DDave]

If one turns with the mains and the rudder there is 80% or so on those tires. If just the nose, there is leverage, but less than 20% of the weight.

One suggestion is somatogravic illusion. If flying straight and level and you give it the gas, you get pushed back as long as the acceleration and changing acceleration lasts, the same feeling as when the plane is climbing at a constant speed. If one isn't looking at the instruments to see the actual pitch of the plane, it can be easy to push forward and go nose down to get back to the feeling of being where the butt cheeks, and inner ear, are telling you compared to what you expect to feel.

The CFIT/LOC Risk
Whilst there are many situations in which these illusions can occur, one of the most likely, and certainly the most dangerous, is when the positive changes in acceleration, which accompany the initiation of a go around or the transition to initial climb after take off, are occurring. In both cases, the consequences can rapidly lead to CFIT if the condition is not recognised or to LOC if the situation is recognised but the complexities of recovery are mishandled.

Flap and gear retraction and changes in thrust whilst seeking to achieve and maintain a specific climbing flight path involve considerable changes in acceleration which, in turn, are conducive to a somatogravic illusion. As the inputs to establish sustained climb take effect, a perception of excessive pitch-up may occur. This can lead to a fear that the stalling angle of attack may be approaching. The instinctive reaction to this is to push the nose down in the belief that a reduction in pitch to a more “normal” climb angle is being achieved. If the aircraft is banked, either intentionally or unknowingly, at the same time, the perception of angular acceleration may be underestimated because of a somatogyral illusion, leading to an instinctive tendency to increase the angle of bank.

Sometimes, the strength of these illusions may be so intense that even a conscious cross reference to the flight instruments, which do not validate the perception, may be insufficient to lead to a corrective input to the flight controls by the affected individual. However, in a multi-crew aircraft, it is uncommon for both pilots to be similarly affected at the same time and effective monitoring becomes critical if the risk of an unintended excursion is to be avoided.

https://skybrary.aero/articles/somatogravic-and-somatogyral-illusions

 

[LittleInch]

I normally hope that the pilots on aircraft I fly on would not be flying by the "the seat of their pants", but rely rather more on what their instruments are telling them. Hell, I took a one hour flying experience recently and spent anytime not looking out of the window watching the instruments very regularly (even though the instructor told me not to...)because I don't trust my inner ear to that extent.

I guess that's why many airlines seem to prefer to hand over to the A/P as soon as possible to prevent too many incidents like this?

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[3DDave]

Even when they try not to, as mentioned above, the illusion can be felt so strongly when decision time comes the inner ear wins.

A/P is preferred because it is tighter on the controls so it is tighter on the fuel burn, hitting closer to optimum than people tend to.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Yes it is the modern way they promote basically 400ft AP on.

The plane uses less fuel on automatics. But the statistics do show less accidents.

I find the human reactions to sudden stimulation very interesting.

It was the same with lorry driving.

And instructing you could just tell within minutes if the person just had the knack.

Had one kid who we could only stay in the circuit with for an experience flight due weather. By the 2 seconds circuit I was having absolutely zero input. He was at solo standard for landing by the end of the hour. I said to his dad he had the knack. Heard 10 years later he had joined the air force as a pilot. Was a bit worried he had been killed in the recent spitfire crash.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Just to note the changing profile of pilots and the effects that 3DDave is discussing are not linked to Boeing.

The same issues are present on all types.

Air France af477 on Airbus was similar application of control input completely opposite to any logical response to the situation.

And AF pilots at the time were all top level university educated, they were assessed way more than your normal line pilot, And also they had way more career development theoretical training.

They still pulled back when they should of pushed forward or even let go would have saved them.

 

[1503-44]

So, they had some Max training?

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

They have extensively changed the requirements to fly a max worldwide.

I believe simulator training is mandatory now dictated by Boeing. And they have to use a full max simulator not just a Ng simulator at least once a year.

 

[hokie66]

1503-44, I think he means AF 447, not 477. That disaster was in 2009, before Boeing Max planes, and was an Airbus A330.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Yes I did mean that one.

Throw one out to you.

80's flight crew had a pretty awful reputation for being hard drinking, sexist, alpha male bullys and captains taking fo's behind the hanger was not uncommon.

That started going out of fashion after Tenerife KLM when CRM was developed as a concept.

Now those types are actively avoided by HR departments.

Has this change in acceptable personality type made a difference to the reactions under stress do you think?

 

[moon161]

3D, when I was in school, my controls professor said in lecture that he was working with the navy. They wanted a smoother ride on the automatic carrier landing system so that the pilots would use it more often.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Autoland is rough as hell to be honest. On all types civilian. I only use it when I have to for cat 3 or due tiredness issues with both of us.

Or technical tech request to keep the certification valid.

it really is rough as standard what ever the weather conditions are.

 

[1503-44]

I think it would be hard to prove a connection with personality type.

I'd bet more on increased mass, extended operating envelop and "smaller windows".

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

that's why I threw it out.

There has been a steady decrease in fatalities in commercial aviation over the same period. So the change I think is for the best.