Airbus Official talks about pilot training

ppragman

FLIPY FLAPS!
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/ai...-changes-1428853600-lMyQjAxMTI1NjM4MDAzMjAzWj

MADRID—A senior Airbus Group NV safety official has urged revamping pilot training world-wide, in one of the most forceful industry warnings to date about the dangers of undue reliance on aircraft automation.

Addressing an international conference of pilot-union leaders here Saturday, Harry Nelson, a high-level company safety expert and former vice president of the European jet maker’s flight test department, called for fundamental changes to improve manual-flying proficiency and other cockpit skills that have been de-emphasized over the years.

Other industry managers as well as pilot leaders have been moving gradually in the same direction by encouraging more practice of manual aircraft-handling skills in simulators, and even during some regular passenger flights when the weather is good and the airspace isn’t busy. But Mr. Nelson was unusually blunt in calling for substantially more effort in this area, while highlighting broader shortcomings of current training. He contends today’s practices tend to be too boring and predictable for pilots, with rote simulator sessions often disconnected from actual flying experiences.

Perhaps most important, Mr. Nelson told roughly 600 pilots from around the globe that too many veteran aviators have come to view recurrent training sessions as an unwelcome annual or semiannual chore that can endanger their jobs if they perform poorly—rather than an opportunity to fine-tune skills, improve decision making and learn new safety concepts using increasingly realistic simulator technology.

For pilots in the middle of their careers “there is no perceived upside to the training,” he said. “And that’s wrong.”

Mr. Nelson’s comments amount to a striking criticism of many pilot training principles that airlines have relied on for decades, and which helped usher in the safest period in commercial aviation globally.

The speech was especially telling because Airbus, more than rival Boeing Co., has built its reputation and product line around increasingly advanced uses of automation to guard against accidents. But Mr. Nelson stressed his criticism wasn’t directed at any particular airline or type of jetliner.

His views are shared, to some extent, by other safety experts. After learning the details of automation, pilots in the last few years have been encouraged to concentrate more on hand flying plus mastering the intricacies of switching between manual control and various levels of automation. Those are the issues “we’re going to start practicing more and more, the transitioning in and out of these phases,” Tim Canoll, the new president of the largest North American pilot union, said in an interview during the conference.

The impetus for change, according to Joe DePete, a FedEx Corp.captain who serves as the union’s top safety official, was when “we started to see tendencies and trends” indicating erosion of basic flying skills. So in recent years many airlines started explicitly telling crews to manually fly aircraft under appropriate circumstances. “Now, we really focus on those hand-flying skills, and we encourage people to do it,” he said.

All that, however, may be inadequate considering the industry’s previous alleged infatuation with automation. In 2013 a U.S. government-commissioned study prepared by nearly three dozen international safety experts concluded that excessive pilot dependence on automation, combined with failures to master the latest cockpit technology, posed the greatest hazards to passengers. According to accidents and incidents analyzed by study participants, pilots frequently were reluctant to intervene to resolve automation problems, partly because “training methods, training devices and the time allotted for training” may have been inadequate. The Federal Aviation Administration has embraced many of the report’s conclusions and taken steps to implement them.

But despite the airline industry’s accomplishments, according to Mr. Nelson, carriers, plane makers and training organizations still have a long way to go to fully recognize the importance of training pilots to cope with extreme maneuvers or emergency scenarios intended to stretch their professional skills. Frequently, he told the audience, trainers focus too much on complying with regulatory requirements instead of teaching pilots new safety approaches and helping them become more resilient confronting one-of-a-kind emergencies.

“We do a lot of checking” of the same required maneuvers and emergency procedures each year, Mr. Nelson said, “but we don’t do much teaching.”

A shift in emphasis would require airlines to rewrite reigning curricula; and unless some existing practices are eliminated, the result could entail extra costs by extending total annual training hours per pilot.

Another issue Mr. Nelson raised could be equally thorny. As planes get ever more reliable and older generations of trainers with strong manual flying skills retire, their replacements typically lack comparable experience dealing with real-life emergencies. That is because dangerous malfunctions and close calls are much less frequent now than they were in earlier decades.

“Tomorrow’s instructors will not be teaching from personal exposure” to emergencies that required pilot interventions, Mr. Nelson said. “They’ll be speaking from hearsay.”

As the dependability and sophistication of engines and flight-control systems continue to improve—making automation a major driver of safer skies—airline pilots spend the vast majority of their flying hours programming and monitoring onboard systems. During most trips, manual flying is relegated to barely a few minutes during takeoffs and right before touchdowns.

Now, Mr. Nelson and other experts are spending considerable time documenting some of automation’s downsides, including low morale among many aviators. “It used to be cool to be a pilot,” Mr. Nelson said Saturday. But these days “for a lot of pilots it’s just another job,” he said, adding that such attitudes provide further impediments to lifelong learning.
 
Ya don't say.

"Y'all are sucking at flying when y'all are flying. Do more flying dummies!"

I've had captains absolutely flip their ..... when I talk about taking off from a small, class D airport with the FD off, on "cleared for takeoff, fly runway heading."

"Okay, I'll use the flight director."

What blows my mind though, is last AQP cycle, there was a lot of emphasis on doing just that because guys have been screwing it up from always going "gear up, after takeoff checklist, autopilot on."

It's okay, we can do this. We're allowed.
 
It's interesting that folks who are of the viewpoint that experience/CFI/paying your dues or whatever you want to call it continue to take flack for calling out the fact that a 500 hour pilot does not necessarily mean good airmanship. It's the whole bag of luck > bag of experience analogy. And it seems that some safety folks are saying, "yes, pilots need to learn flying skills as well as system monitoring skills."

When I look at 500-1500 hour pilot wether they are military trained, airline trained or civilian trained, the commonality is that pilots always need to continue to learn and improve skill sets throughout their career, and they are sometimes blind to that fact.

Good on the industry experts for calling it out.
 
The bottom line here is that the airlines don't really give 1/2 a crap about either airmanship or monkey skills; so long as training programs are meeting the FAA minimum standard and cost the line the least amount of money they can, that's what they want to do.

We are a long way from when Pan Am called themselves "The Most Experienced Airline In The World" with pride, because it meant something that their pilots and in-flight service were skilled beyond a minimum required federal standard -- it was a brand image and perceived as an attraction for customers.

So long as there aren't tv crews filming NTSB investigators walking through a flaming debris field with "YOUR AIRLINE" on the vertical stab, they're not interested in doing any more than the absolute minimum required for crews to be "safe" and "legal".

Pilots who actually care about their airmanship have to cultivate and curate it themselves.
 
When I look at 500-1500 hour pilot wether they are military trained, airline trained or civilian trained, the commonality is that pilots always need to continue to learn and improve skill sets throughout their career, and they are sometimes blind to that fact.

I have spoken to Bob Hoover, and he readily admits that he doesn't have it all figured out as an aviator. Anyone with less experience and airmanship than him should take note.
 
The bottom line here is that the airlines don't really give 1/2 a crap about either airmanship or monkey skills; so long as training programs are meeting the FAA minimum standard and cost the line the least amount of money they can, that's what they want to do.

We are a long way from when Pan Am called themselves "The Most Experienced Airline In The World" with pride, because it meant something that their pilots and in-flight service were skilled beyond a minimum required federal standard -- it was a brand image and perceived as an attraction for customers.

So long as there aren't tv crews filming NTSB investigators walking through a flaming debris field with "YOUR AIRLINE" on the vertical stab, they're not interested in doing the absolute minimum required for crews to be "safe" and "legal".

Pilots who actually care about their airmanship have to cultivate and curate it themselves.

I agree with this completely.
 
The bottom line here is that the airlines don't really give 1/2 a crap about either airmanship or monkey skills; so long as training programs are meeting the FAA minimum standard and cost the line the least amount of money they can, that's what they want to do.

We are a long way from when Pan Am called themselves "The Most Experienced Airline In The World" with pride, because it meant something that their pilots and in-flight service were skilled beyond a minimum required federal standard -- it was a brand image and perceived as an attraction for customers.

So long as there aren't tv crews filming NTSB investigators walking through a flaming debris field with "YOUR AIRLINE" on the vertical stab, they're not interested in doing any more than the absolute minimum required for crews to be "safe" and "legal".

Pilots who actually care about their airmanship have to cultivate and curate it themselves.
Even then there is plausible denial. "Yeah, it has our airline logo on the tail, but that RJ with two pilots up front with less than a year of turbofan experience is NOT one of ours. It belongs to Crummypaynotripordutyrigs50%DHbutafastupgrade Airline. Ask them what happened."
 
Last edited:
Ya don't say.

"Y'all are sucking at flying when y'all are flying. Do more flying dummies!"

I've had captains absolutely flip their ..... when I talk about taking off from a small, class D airport with the FD off, on "cleared for takeoff, fly runway heading."

"Okay, I'll use the flight director."

What blows my mind though, is last AQP cycle, there was a lot of emphasis on doing just that because guys have been screwing it up from always going "gear up, after takeoff checklist, autopilot on."

It's okay, we can do this. We're allowed.
Sad. Now out of LGA I can understand. Should be able to do it if the FD is deferred but no need to tempt fate and put undue workload on the NFP. But out of a quiet class D/C on a VFR day? I try to do this at least once a trip.
 
The bottom line here is that the airlines don't really give 1/2 a crap about either airmanship or monkey skills; so long as training programs are meeting the FAA minimum standard and cost the line the least amount of money they can, that's what they want to do.

AirBusGuy said:
Perhaps most important, Mr. Nelson told roughly 600 pilots from around the globe that too many veteran aviators have come to view recurrent training sessions as an unwelcome annual or semiannual chore that can endanger their jobs if they perform poorly—rather than an opportunity to fine-tune skills, improve decision making and learn new safety concepts using increasingly realistic simulator technology.

Many (most?) training departments have become nothing more than "checking" departments due to either the company philosophy or financially imposed time constraints. I know I don't particularly like going to sim every year because there is a very low likelihood I will learn more than 1 or 2 things that are new and important for me to know to do my job. Instead I'll be run through the same procedures as always, checking the boxes that show I am a proficient aviator blah blah blah...

I'd agree that there is an industry wide reliance on automation. And that's a good thing because automation has driven down the accident rate considerably. But, that said, there does need to be a push for more basic level skills as well as a drive to be constantly improving a pilot group's level of skill as a whole instead of just ensuring everybody meets the bare mins.
 
Many (most?) training departments have become nothing more than "checking" departments due to either the company philosophy or financially imposed time constraints. I know I don't particularly like going to sim every year because there is a very low likelihood I will learn more than 1 or 2 things that are new and important for me to know to do my job. Instead I'll be run through the same procedures as always, checking the boxes that show I am a proficient aviator blah blah blah...

I'd agree that there is an industry wide reliance on automation. And that's a good thing because automation has driven down the accident rate considerably. But, that said, there does need to be a push for more basic level skills as well as a drive to be constantly improving a pilot group's level of skill as a whole instead of just ensuring everybody meets the bare mins.

This is a huge problem with the industry, I have seen this at nearly place I've ever worked - we have no real "continuing education" process for flight crews in the industry in general - rather we "check" everything twice a year and call it good. I'd rather see a "once a year" checking event and every 6 months have a series of no jeopardy "scenario based" training events and some mandatory hands on flying. That or a "continuous recurrent training" system where we did sim sessions and scenarios every 3 months and good CBT on a monthly basis. Unfortunately, this costs money...and companies typically don't want to spend it. Regardless, companies need to foster and cultivate a culture of continuous self-improvement in their pilots (really in everyone at the company) - they need to not just say it either - companies need to pay for it.

If I were running a corporate flight department and had a stupid amount of money to spend on training, then every year I would send the guys to sim training at FSI, and on the 6 month check, send them to do something different. Get a guy a float rating, a glider rating, send a guy to fly aerobatics. Something different! Get the guy out of his comfort zone. Realistically, that sort of thing isn't that expensive, and it pays dividends and keeps guys humble. I know that every time I've been "schooled" by a new airplane that was outside my comfort zone I've learned a lot.
 
Sad. Now out of LGA I can understand. Should be able to do it if the FD is deferred but no need to tempt fate and put undue workload on the NFP. But out of a quiet class D/C on a VFR day? I try to do this at least once a trip.


Where's your sense of adventure?
 
Sorry to hear that on the corporate side.
On the airline side (at least the better ones), we use ASAP (Aviation Safety Action Program), and FOQUA (Flight Operations QUality Assurance), events to create training scenarios. Yes, every year we have to do the "check the box" maneuvers (steep turns, V1 cuts, etc), we are also given tasks or events based upon observed weakness, problems or issues in the line. So as Mshunter wrote, last year the emphasis was on visual approaches. Take off, do a pattern, land visually. Do a localizer to LGA then circle under visual conditions. The year after the 1900 crash in Charlotte I was given the same scenario in the ATR sim and shown how to crash under control it it ever happened to me
I won't say I look forward to AQP each year, but I almost always come away learning something.
 
The bottom line here is that the airlines don't really give 1/2 a crap about either airmanship or monkey skills; so long as training programs are meeting the FAA minimum standard and cost the line the least amount of money they can, that's what they want to do.

We are a long way from when Pan Am called themselves "The Most Experienced Airline In The World" with pride, because it meant something that their pilots and in-flight service were skilled beyond a minimum required federal standard -- it was a brand image and perceived as an attraction for customers.

So long as there aren't tv crews filming NTSB investigators walking through a flaming debris field with "YOUR AIRLINE" on the vertical stab, they're not interested in doing any more than the absolute minimum required for crews to be "safe" and "legal".

Pilots who actually care about their airmanship have to cultivate and curate it themselves.
At the risk of sounding like a cheerleader, I don't feel this represents the way our airline views safety and training. The union and company seem to have good relationship in the training world and I feel like our training events feel less like jeopardy rides and more like refreshers.
 
At the risk of sounding like a cheerleader, I don't feel this represents the way our airline views safety and training. The union and company seem to have good relationship in the training world and I feel like our training events feel less like jeopardy rides and more like refreshers.

I would agree. Unfortunately this is not the case across airlines and the legacy carriers really don't care what their FFD carriers do as long as they meet the FAA minimums and come in with the lowest bid. We saw this with Colgan 3407- they were given the FAA minimum training and even I was surprised at what little this consisted of.
 
I have spoken to Bob Hoover, and he readily admits that he doesn't have it all figured out as an aviator. Anyone with less experience and airmanship than him should take note.
x1cIlMl.jpg
 
Now out of LGA I can understand...no need to tempt fate and put undue workload on the NFP.
So take some of the load off the NFP by working the FD while hand flying out of LGA. The whitestone is a much better scenario for maintaining a scan and SA than VFR out of an outstation (not that there's anything bad with that).
 
So take some of the load off the NFP by working the FD while hand flying out of LGA. The whitestone is a much better scenario for maintaining a scan and SA than VFR out of an outstation (not that there's anything bad with that).
That was my point.
 
So take some of the load off the NFP by working the FD while hand flying out of LGA. The whitestone is a much better scenario for maintaining a scan and SA than VFR out of an outstation (not that there's anything bad with that).

That was one of the places I normally dumped the FD. Way too much twisting and turning of the heading knob to get out of there.

Current shop I actually had a captain ask me how I removed the FD from my display. That's how often it gets done here.
 
Back
Top