ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
This is true, and I'm all for it, but I think that blaming this accident on the training or on the engineering misses the point.
AF447 Vanity Fair article
- Thread starter NewYorkophile
- Start date
This is true, and I'm all for it, but I think that blaming this accident on the training or on the engineering misses the point.
RDoug
Well-Known Member
My favorite like-quote is, "An absence of body bags is not an indicator of safety."
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Oooh! I like that, I've been saying something similar for years, but that's way better, I'm stealing it.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
You're too busy trying to place blame. It's not about blame. It's about finding causes and contributing factors so that solutions can be developed to prevent recurrence. These pilots didn't start their day saying "I'm going to be complacent and possibly get myself killed." No one ever does. A variety of factors always lead to accidents and incidents, and simply saying "bad pilot, bad!" is not going to result in preventing future accidents and incidents.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
But at what point do we just say, "uhhh, yeah there are contributing factors, but these guys not being able to hand fly a visual is the primary reason this happened." I dunno, maybe they should like, you know as a company, try hand-flying a little bit more? This is basic airmanship stuff to me and everyone I've talked to about this in the "real world." The only place I've been seeing people trip over themselves to stand up for guys who can't hand fly a visual is on the internet!
Not to say that it "couldn't happen to me" (in fact, I've botched landings because I fixated on things and had to gasp GO AROUND as soon as I realized things were screwed up) but there is something wrong if there is a pilot group out there flying around where they can't land the airplane on a blue-bird VFR day. That is really bad. And I don't think the best (or even first) answer for how we fix this sort of problem is "well the airplane should have better automation that prevents you from stalling."
z987k
Well-Known Member
I don't think blaming the pilots is the right way to go, as with any accident that is pilot error, they played a factor as I'm sure the confusing auto throttles did along with the fact they probably get 1 landing a month if they're lucky, and almost never fly anything but an ILS. I also think their training was a massive part of it. Likely not so much at their company/in the sim. I've seen and worked with some of the flight schools and these pilots. If these guys learned how the current crop of Korean pilots learn, this accident chain started in their ppl and ifr training.
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
Beautiful day visual approaches are some of the most difficult maneuvers to fly, so it's a bit unfair to say "they can't land the plane on a blue-bird VFR day." I'm not suggesting that as a professional pilot they shouldn't be expected to have that ability, but it shouldn't be tossed out like that's the basic maneuver and the others are harder. Quite the opposite is true.
As far as go-arounds, the industry as a whole has a problem there. The only go-arounds that are performed are the ones where it's so damn egregious that the crew feels like there's no other choice. We are pilots, so we like to "fix it" when we should be going around.
At the 121 level it's rarely a raw flying ability problem that causes an accident. If a crew gets task saturated they just aren't going to fly as well as a crew that's got the big picture. Sure, the easy way out is to blame the crew and say they were incompetent, but do you really think that's likely? Maybe they were just human beings who made an error or two, got task saturated, and nothing broke the chain?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
You're still not getting it. Why were they not able to hand fly a visual? I can assure you, these guys want to get to their destination in one piece just like you and I do. They didn't show up for that trip with the attitude that they didn't care about how well they flew. Something along the way in their career failed them. Whether it's the equipment, the training, the regulations, the culture, or whatever else, it was something beyond "these guys just suck."
Just the typical ego-driven "I'm a real man, I can hand fly" answer. The accident had nothing to do with hand flying skills. It had to do with not understanding the automation and not properly monitoring the aircraft. Spending more time hand flying isn't going to solve that problem. In fact, it masks that problem so that it presents itself in more spectacular fashion later. Lose the ego, focus on solutions to the actual problem.
Yes, people love to talk tough in the "real world," especially Type A personality pilots. Talking about just culture and training curricula won't win you many new friends at the local bar where a group of pilots are hanging out and telling stories of how they're God's gift to aviation, but it will prevent accidents.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
I don't really agree with the bold at all. That said I agree on go-arounds being an industry wide problem.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
You will after you've sat in the left seat of an airliner watching newhire after newhire FO, all experienced pilots, being all asses and elbows on the visual approaches while flying flawless instrument procedures every time. Every new guy struggles with the visuals, because they aren't purely regimented. Every visual approach is a little different than the one before it. But an ILS is pretty much just an ILS. No surprises.
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
^^^ What he said. Anyone can "fly by numbers." But take a new guy and cut him loose at 10,000 feet 30 miles out and clear him for the visual, and it's a whole other story. That takes skill and experience to pull off well.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
But at what point do we say, "wait, maybe those particular guys did just suck?" At what point is an accident the result of poor airmanship? I would say this is one of those times.
The italicized is a logical fallacy - specifically the "ad hominem" fallacy - for that I suggest this website. I disagree with the bold however. I seem to recall a particular video called "children of the magenta line," there is some skill required to do this job. It isn't all programming and engineering, if anything more handflying will help these guys get more proficient at these types of approaches.
You don't really know me that well do you?
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
What is it about the 121 world that breeds this kind of belief?
By definition, day visual approaches and landings are the most basic, core skill learned and practiced from literally day one as a pilot.
I've been a professional pilot for going on 20 years, and at no time during that experience -- ever -- was a "beautiful day VFR approach" anywhere NEAR remotely being even in the same neighborhood as "the most difficult maneuver to fly". In fact, it has always been quite the opposite.
I seriously, honestly, really, all bravado aside, do not grasp where you guys are coming from when you say stuff like this. This is the same line trotted out when first discussing the findings in the SFO crash. I didn't get it then, and I don't get it now. To me, this is like saying "the sky is red", and it is said with such seriousness and conviction I have to think that you guys really believe it.
What is it about 121 flying that creates a culture where this is true in both belief and practice?
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Sometimes the cause is poor airmanship or just a mistake by the pilots. I don't understand the religious-like fervor in which the 121 world seems to do everything in its power to avoid ever actually attributing it to that. There is always magical acrobatics performed to find some way to tag absolutely anything else as the root cause.
Why?
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
I think it has something to do with a "just culture" never, under any circumstances, apportioning any blame to any pilot. Becuase, if I'm understanding this correctly, we are mere vessels to be filled either correctly or in- (in some cases it seems most in-, indeed) by the training department. Which brings me to something I'm rather hazy on. Why, after every crash, is not the entire training department sent to hit the bricks?
etflies
Keeping calm, Chiving on.
For pilots experienced in type, it isn't. For newer guys I think a lot of it starts with training. We're drilled on instrument approaches, procedures, automation management and essentially "following the magenta line" from the get-go. Then we get on line and lo and behold we're not always set up on a nice base leg at the perfect speed with electronic guidance. So you're (colloquial you're, not necessarily you in particular) asking someone brand new to the airplane, and perhaps transport category airplanes in general to suddenly perform a maneuver that for all intents and purposes lacks the guidance and structure that they're only beginning to be comfortable with and removed that crutch. They have to use their best judgement with very limited experience in that particular environment, at speeds they're not used to, in an airplane that is still foreign to them, while trying to maintain some modicum of smoothness and comfort for their passengers.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Contrary to popular belief, they're describing a "no-blame" culture, which is not just culture. More resources available here. Although, it's worth noting that:
At what point does "inability to fly a visual because you have neglected your ability to fly without automation to the point of no return" represent gross negligence? I don't know, but I will say that I would consider myself derelict in my duties as an aviator if I found I was unable to fly a visual pattern. Would I fire these guys for smashing the airplane up? No. Would I have them doing some seriously remedial training? Yes.
If this was a crew that ran an airplane out of gas because they didn't "carry the 1" and were p-poor at math (not a willful error), would you be saying that the problem was the airplane didn't have big enough fuel tanks? I mean, that's the argument that was made earlier in the thread about how the 777 auto-throttle is "bad design."
Here's another linky for those who are interested.
I think ATN is saying that this is the critical part (correct me if I'm wrong @ATN_Pilot ). That said, I'd like to argue that "experience and training" ain't solely the purview of the training department, and these guys need to be able to fly the airplane manually. If these guys can't hand fly because they've been flying on autopilot their whole career, then the company needs to start telling pilots to hand fly more, so that they can, ya know, FLY THE AIRPLANE when it counts! Pilots (not training departments) are responsible for maintaining proficiency in flying things like visual approaches...
You can say I don't know what I'm talking about, but I do. I was intimately involved with maintaining a just culture at my old job, to include doing things like working on ASAP, mitigating management response to silly-pilot-tricks, and trying to provide the best training I could possibly provide and encouraging this kind of thinking. I believe in just culture - but just culture doesn't mean that guys don't have to be able to fly the airplane. I was proud to be a part of building our "just-culture" at my old job. I spent hours reading and learning about this to better myself and my organization. I worked to be part of a system that was hell-bent on continuous improvement (this included things like, knowing how to hand fly by the way). But, ya know, whatever, it's cool - I don't understand because I don't fly an airliner.
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
Visual approaches are certainly part of the core set of skills, but I think it's pretty obvious that it's more difficult to manually maneuver an airplane with no guidance other than your own judgement and "eyeballing" than it is to fly level at 2000 feet, join a localizer then join a glideslope and follow that to nearly touchdown. I'm not saying that it's "hard" but it's definitely "harder" than following some needles until you break out.
And I'm not saying the pilots are blameless. Clearly they share responsibility, but there are a LOT of human factors going on here too. I think that's the point ATN was making. Maybe I'm wrong though.
And I'm not saying the pilots are blameless. Clearly they share responsibility, but there are a LOT of human factors going on here too. I think that's the point ATN was making. Maybe I'm wrong though.
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
Come on. You know that's not what just culture is about. To err is human. That doesn't reduce responsibility, but it does cause you to look deeper than just "the pilot." If the system isn't error tolerant, there will be a bad outcome eventually. You can't error proof a human being. It just ain't possible.