Air Asia 8501. When will we learn?

fholbert

Mod's - Please don't edit my posts!
Don't shoot the messenger!

Professional airline pilots struggle to achieve what private pilots do happily every day.



It is becoming clear that the probable fate of Air Asia 8501 is that it is at the bottom of the ocean after losing controllability at high altitude in heavy thunderstorm activity.
Fair enough, except none of those things should have made the least difference to a safe landing. Pilots encounter thunderstorms every day worldwide. It’s a routine part of the job. So why did this one make a difference?
The problem is not the thunderstorms but with modern aviation practices.
As a retired high time international airline pilot, I feel qualified to give you a look at the practices in an airliner cockpit.
A professional pilot always expects things to go wrong. Nothing is normally taken for granted in the cockpit. The fact that a flyer flips a switch is no guarantee that the selected system is going to operate. Everything a pilot does in the cockpit is checked, crosschecked by the other pilots and then monitored by all to confirm it’s indeed working -- but it is never just assumed to be working. That’s called good airmanship.
A dangerous over reliance on automation and subsequent degradation of pilot hand-flying skills has led to a change in the traditional pilot mindset. Pilots now assume everything selected will function and if it doesn’t, the computers will warn them or take care of it.
Is this a unique Asian airline problem that has no bearing on American or European carriers?
Unfortunately not. Air Asia pilots have precisely the same training and skill requirements as any other airline in the world. What happened to them can happen to any other operator. And has happened.
The degradation of flying skills is endemic throughout the airline industry.
The sad fact is professional airline pilots struggle to achieve what private pilots do happily every day -- which is to maneuver confidently and smoothly, approach and land their machines by using hand flying skills that come only from regular practice.
Instead a modern airline pilot pushes buttons that program and operate the complex auto systems which actually fly the jets for them.
Why should the public care about this?
Because despite the fantastic advances in avionics and autopilot technology, nothing can cope like a well trained pilot when things go wrong, plans change unexpectedly or equipment fails. A pilot can think ahead and anticipate what’s coming unlike a machine that can only react. A pilot who is familiar with his machine’s idiosyncrasies can fly safely in conditions that auto flight struggles with such as a visual approach with no electronic aids.
why you will never get to be a passenger in a pilotless drone. Drones have a high loss rate for a good reason. They get to the end of their programming and it’s all over. Drones can’t think or operate beyond that point. Pilots can.
But it takes practice. Flying is not like riding a bicycle. You need to practice constantly to maintain a high level of competence. The less you hand fly, the less familiar you become with the handling characteristics or feel of your aircraft. You lose the feel for your jet and hand flying becomes an unpleasant, chunky experience which pilots prefer to avoid.
So why did airline pilots stop actually flying their machines?
As avionic technology improved and became more reliable, it offered the industry a less stressful cockpit environment with higher flying accuracy that was not dependent on personal piloting skills. Thus the need to maintain hand flying skills became less important and began to take a back seat compared to computer operating competence, which was now seen as the primary way to fly in the intense electronic environment of a modern airliner. The ability to hand fly beyond a certain point was seen as an anachronism, like round dials and flight engineers. What was not fully appreciated was that the unique cognitive and intuitive ability of humans would also be lost by relegating pilots to feeding instructions to an autopilot. Instead of using those unique human skills and senses (a pilot’s feel for his machine) to warn them something is amiss, pilots now defer to the autopilot program which they regard as infallible and often allow it to continue doing something they are uncomfortable with.
Air Asia, Asiana, Air France and other recent crashes are proof of this trend of blind faith in the autosystem.
The public needs to understand aviation has taken a wrong turn.
Flying safety depends on two interdependent arms. Technical excellence and the special cognitive ability and skill unique to humans. But one arm has been shortened by not allowing pilots to constantly practice hand flying and thereby removing the vital feel a pilot should have for his machine.
This is a bad mistake.
It is not good enough for pilots to be excellent programmers. We need both autoflight and high pilot skill for safety and the public should demand their airline pilots have both. Airline pilots must regain the feel that pilots should have for their aircraft. They must be confident in their ability to remove the autopilot in any flight phase when they might feel uncomfortable with its performance or don’t understand what it is doing. That takes regular hand flying practice. It will also stop the current trend of using autoflight for operations where a pilot is the better option such as a visual approach.
It is surprisingly easy to achieve this. Weather conditions permitting, a pilot should hand fly the jet from take-off to 10,000 feet on departures and from 10,000 feet to landing at least twice a month.
This will be enough to maintain a satisfactory level of hand flying.
Rob Schapiro is a retired 747 airline Captain with 34 years military / civil aviation experience.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/12/air_asia_8501_when_will_we_learn.html#ixzz3NPCbweYE
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook




 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does Air Asia have dispatchers? I wonder if this crash could have been avoided with an extra look at the weather maps. Maybe a second set of eyes; someone to say "we shouldn't fly through this area of severe thunderstorms."
 
He was sitting on speculation island when he wrote that.
To the layman reading that it might appear that it is perfectly normal to punch a bad storm, and expect to come through the other side intact. There are some storms that nothing gets through.
 
I must say that every time I read one of these articles I come to the same conclusion. I fly C-130Hs in the guard and CRJ-200s at the airline. The Herk's cockpit looks like this
4187333874_9cb7cae028.jpg
systems often fail, there really is no guarantee that a switch will operate the system as designed, I really do plan for engine/prop issues on takeoff every time, there is no EICAS to tell you when something is wrong, and you have to have a very good understanding of the systems in order to overcome problems,the automation rarely works, I definitely wouldn't trust it to shoot an ILS for me. It's very old school in that I feel like a pilot, because I have to be, it's much more fun, more exciting to solve problems and fix things, but do I feel that it is as safe as the airline flying, well absolutely not. The CRJ I don't hand fly nearly as much because they simply don't require it and that's kind of the bottom line. It's far safer than a 35 year old Hercules and the way the FOM would like me to operate I would consider safe as well. We've certainly come a long way in a very short amount of time, and most guys I fly with seem to have a very good understanding of when to turn automation off and if it is becoming a hindrance or a distraction. It sucks that those Air France guys couldn't figure it out in time, but they rarely if ever dealt with a situation that those skills would be required of them.
 
Hand flying through weather in the mid-high 30s is usually a worse bet than letting the autopilot handle it. Fly through the autopilot and use your extra SA to find a way through the line.

Not only that, controls are less responsive up there, opening up the potential for greater pitch/speed deviations while hand-flying in significant turbulence.

Edit to add: But by all means, disconnect if the autopilot isn't doing its job.
 
I must say that every time I read one of these articles I come to the same conclusion. I fly C-130Hs in the guard and CRJ-200s at the airline. The Herk's cockpit looks like this
4187333874_9cb7cae028.jpg
systems often fail, there really is no guarantee that a switch will operate the system as designed, I really do plan for engine/prop issues on takeoff every time, there is no EICAS to tell you when something is wrong, and you have to have a very good understanding of the systems in order to overcome problems,the automation rarely works, I definitely wouldn't trust it to shoot an ILS for me. It's very old school in that I feel like a pilot, because I have to be, it's much more fun, more exciting to solve problems and fix things, but do I feel that it is as safe as the airline flying, well absolutely not. The CRJ I don't hand fly nearly as much because they simply don't require it and that's kind of the bottom line. It's far safer than a 35 year old Hercules and the way the FOM would like me to operate I would consider safe as well.

How dare you. First rule of air-Internet forums is "Thou shall not speak highly of any RJ."
 
Hand flying through weather in the mid-high 30s is usually a worse bet than letting the autopilot handle it. Fly through the autopilot and use your extra SA to find a way through the line.

Not only that, controls are less responsive up there, opening up the potential for greater pitch/speed deviations while hand-flying in significant turbulence.

Edit to add: But by all means, disconnect if the autopilot isn't doing its job.

I agree my first choice would be to have the autopilot fly. However in the case of severe system degredations including the autopilot I wish I had more simulated experience at least in similar situations.

Maybe instead of practicing an ILs in the sim for the 100th time, dedicate 10 mins to high altitude display/auto flight failures.
 
I must say that every time I read one of these articles I come to the same conclusion. I fly C-130Hs in the guard and CRJ-200s at the airline. The Herk's cockpit looks like this
4187333874_9cb7cae028.jpg
systems often fail, there really is no guarantee that a switch will operate the system as designed, I really do plan for engine/prop issues on takeoff every time, there is no EICAS to tell you when something is wrong, and you have to have a very good understanding of the systems in order to overcome problems,the automation rarely works, I definitely wouldn't trust it to shoot an ILS for me. It's very old school in that I feel like a pilot, because I have to be, it's much more fun, more exciting to solve problems and fix things, but do I feel that it is as safe as the airline flying, well absolutely not. The CRJ I don't hand fly nearly as much because they simply don't require it and that's kind of the bottom line. It's far safer than a 35 year old Hercules and the way the FOM would like me to operate I would consider safe as well. We've certainly come a long way in a very short amount of time, and most guys I fly with seem to have a very good understanding of when to turn automation off and if it is becoming a hindrance or a distraction. It sucks that those Air France guys couldn't figure it out in time, but they rarely if ever dealt with a situation that those skills would be required of them.

Excellent post!
 
How dare you. First rule of air-Internet forums is "Thou shall not speak highly of any RJ."

The RJ sucks, there's nothing like having a full boat and passing through 280 barely making 400fpm, that said, the thing isn't a handful like the -130.
 
I don't know that the author drew the right conclusion but it's becoming abundantly evident that there are some deficiencies in training about dealing with weather and aerodynamics in the high altitude cruise environment.
 
Back
Top