Hawker Down near AKR

135 practice certainly varies more than 121, but I and the vast majority of guys I've flown with switch legs or days unless the F/O is new or the day is extremely demanding (KASE to mins in storms, I'm probably going to fly unless I know the other guy very well). But if I read correctly, the F/O had something like 3500TT. Doesn't seem like a lack of experience is easy to point at, there. The question of standardization, etc seems much more likely to get to the heart of the problem, to me. But that is, of course, speculation.
 
Hacker15e said:
AOA gauges are used in aircraft in primary military flying training, and the thousands of students annually who learn them, and fly aircraft with them, don't have a challenge using them. It isn't some crazy voodoo magic that takes superhuman knowledge or training to understand and use. If you can understand and interpret an altimeter and airspeed indicator, certainly you can effectively interpret and use an AOA gauge.
Click to expand...
You should see how much more capable a supercub becomes with AoA. Most GA airspeed indicators are pretty unreliable under about 35 knots. The airplane stalls at 20kais, and the AoA vanes work just fine. You can knock off hundreds of feet from a landing roll by coming in at the correct angle of attack rather than a derived and unreliable airspeed.
 
Derg said:
Not that I fully disagree, but I don't wholly concur with this.

There is no substitute for situational awareness.

"Does this look right?"

"Am I sure where I am?"

"Do I have 'operational inertia' or am I executing a sound plan?"

Seems like there was a massive loss of SA and no one confidently flying the jet.
Click to expand...
Like Hacker has been saying it's a bit of a tangent. No one is saying AoA would have fixed this, in fact it clearly didn't. I'm just making the case for giving pilots the information, which seems to be sorely lacking in large jets. You'll have to fly an approach by reference to AoA to see it. How incredibly stable it makes everything.
 
Boris Badenov said:
135 practice certainly varies more than 121, but I and the vast majority of guys I've flown with switch legs or days unless the F/O is new or the day is extremely demanding (KASE to mins in storms, I'm probably going to fly unless I know the other guy very well). But if I read correctly, the F/O had something like 3500TT. Doesn't seem like a lack of experience is easy to point at, there. The question of standardization, etc seems much more likely to get to the heart of the problem, to me. But that is, of course, speculation.
Click to expand...

I have very little aviation experience, but it seems to indicate that number of hours don't make a competent pilot.
 
AOA has nothing to do with stabilized approaches or being on speed. AOA is not how civilian aircraft are flown, at least any I have seen. It's pretty irrelevant I think.
 
BCTAv8r said:
I have very little aviation experience, but it seems to indicate that number of hours don't make a competent pilot.
Click to expand...

Number of hours flown most certainly do not indicate a competent pilot. They merely correlate with one. It's an important distinction. As I've always said, actuaries don't give a poop about your pay or retirement, but they most assuredly care a lot about assessing risk. And they continue to view flight experience as a significant factor in reducing risk. I don't think I'm in a position to argue with them. Perhaps you feel differently.

As to AOA, I can't believe this is even a conversation piece. The one instrument which will always tell you what the wing is doing, and the inevitable orthodox response is "yeah, but we don't DO that". Maybe we should start. Fly the wing, it's at the absolute heart of Airmans....woops can't use that word!

Edit: I hasten to add that it's not one or the other. Standardization, training, experience. You shouldn't have to pick two.
 
z987k said:
I'm fairly sure there is not a single airliner with AoA indication at all regimes of flight, and not particularly useful ever.
The only thing we get in my jet is Alpha floor. And only when they deemed it important to have.



It's not. Or at least it's not a requirement to let the pilots know what the AoA is.
Click to expand...
The 73 does, at least ours do... Not sure if it's standard on all.
 
Inverted said:
AOA has nothing to do with stabilized approaches or being on speed. AOA is not how civilian aircraft are flown, at least any I have seen. It's pretty irrelevant I think.
Click to expand...

AOA is your best indicator of a proper speed, regardless of weight, altitude, etc. As well as being an instant indicator of proper units for things such as max range, max endurance, etc.
 
ClarkGriswold said:
The 73 does, at least ours do... Not sure if it's standard on all.
Click to expand...

Our C550s have the actual gauge, to use for the enroute items such as range/endurance, as well as the donut/chevron combo atop the dash for use when in landing configuration.
 
MikeD said:
Our C550s have the actual gauge, to use for the enroute items such as range/endurance, as well as the donut/chevron combo atop the dash for use when in landing configuration.
Click to expand...
I should have also said we don't use it like that. We fly profiles and speeds but its there for SA.
 
Inverted said:
There is a big difference between 4,000 hours, and 1 hour 4,000 times.
Click to expand...

As a low time pilot, I sort of trust that with time, I will get more experience, but that doesn't seem like an automatic result anymore. So what's the difference between those two guys? What makes one a one hour pilot 4,000 times, and the other a 4,000 hour pilot? Is it varied experiences? Looking at a CFI for example, what would set a 1,500 hr cfi appart?
 
Inverted said:
There is a big difference between 4,000 hours, and 1 hour 4,000 times.
Click to expand...

This is a true statement. But not as big a difference as I sort of suspect you think. It's certainly true that buzzing around the patch in a 152 doesn't directly prepare you for figuring out wtf to do when the inverters go on vacation on a long overwater leg (or whatever). But any emergency (or, more fairly, anything that makes you confused/afraid) prepares you for the next time things don't work the way you think they're going to. It's almost impossible to quantify, but that sword cuts both ways. I can't prove to you that it's true, but you can't prove to me that it's false. And my personal perspective on it suggests that one becomes better at un-tunneling the vision and paying attention to what's important the more times they've been forced to, regardless of whether it was flying a jet, a piston, a motorcycle, a skateboard, whatever. My personal suspicion is that people who are drawn to "dangerous" situations (real meaning: situations which require clear thinking and precision) are better, in the aggregate, at handling aircraft emergencies than those who aren't. It's a psychological quality (in the most neutral sense of the term "quality") And the more they do it, the better they get. If you want to call getting scared to death "better".
 
MikeD said:
AOA is your best indicator of a proper speed, regardless of weight, altitude, etc. As well as being an instant indicator of proper units for things such as max range, max endurance, etc.
Click to expand...
Yea but we don't fly approaches or profiles by AOA number. It's irrelevant in the civilian world, we aren't taught to fly by AOA, profiles aren't set up for reference by AOA, and the profiles we fly IFR aren't based on AOA.
 
Aopa has been campaigning for AOA indicators in GA aircraft as of late. It makes sense to me. Is a typical AOA indicator susceptible to icing like an airspeed pitot is? It seems like an AOA indicator as a primary instrument would go a long ways when everything else goes tango uniform, like in the case of AF447.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
MikeD said:
You don't have to fly it specfically, but it does confirm that speeds that have been computed, are accurate, if the particular profile is reflected on or has a corresponding AOA unit of measure.
Click to expand...
Well in the 73 it's just fast or faster on approach, a good chunk of the speed is added in to the vref calculation for tail clearance. For a civilian plane how does 160+ Knots on approach sound?
 
BCTAv8r said:
As a low time pilot, I sort of trust that with time, I will get more experience, but that doesn't seem like an automatic result anymore. So what's the difference between those two guys? What makes one a one hour pilot 4,000 times, and the other a 4,000 hour pilot? Is it varied experiences? Looking at a CFI for example, what would set a 1,500 hr cfi appart?
Click to expand...

Aptitude, attitude, various experiences, risk aversion, etc. You could apply the same question to any profession, like why is this NBA center a hall of famer and the other guy is a bench warmer? It doesn't help that in our profession that it is actually pretty hard to wash out as a professional pilot. If you have the cash and can pass a medical, you can be a professional pilot.
 
BEEF SUPREME said:
So other than mshunter how many of the people commenting here have flown for 135 operator? How many have flown for what they consider a "scumbag" 135 operator?

Because right now I am hearing a bunch of people talk about 135 operations who don't have that in their background.

AOA has nothing to do with this...
Click to expand...
I have. And I have.

I agree, in this case, that an AoA gauge would have been just one more critical piece of information that these two would have ignored. These two, as individual pilots, were a cluster but to put them together was a soup sandwich!! THIS is a question the operator/President of the company must answer.

I also agree that an AoA is valuable as a cross reference to aircraft attitude vs speed, I think the pilots here that don't understand its' value, have never or don't use them.
 
^ but did you read the CVR transcript. The PAX asking the crew if they knew what they were doing? The briefing that sounded like a basic IFR instruction? The misplaced NDB that was something else?

Someone above these guys pay grade f-Ed up big time. They didn't t vet the captain or the FO. They didn't train anyone to a standard. IMO it is pure negligence to look at a logbook and say sweet you have 3500 hrs? Cool. I guess you can do everything meow? No training no standards no call outs.

Did ya'll read the CVR transcript???

Configure when? Flaps what? V-ref who?

Good lord. This was part 91 nightmare status non standard eerryyyyythang.

But some muppet paid the cheap price and lost

"HEY DO YOU GUYS KNOW WHERE YOU ARE GONING"???

Major red flag. Major


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top