Airbus Official talks about pilot training

[Screaming_Emu]

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.

One thing that I've learned by leaving ASA is that our training department there was fantastic, especially after we transitioned to AQP. Really the only thing that I would change is the over reliance on autopilot usage. They try to paint with a broad brush and write the manual to apply in all situations. The key to flying without the autopilot or flight director is a good pilot monitoring. One of the biggest keys to hand flying successfully is monitoring your PM and making sure you're not overloading them. You also have to look at the situation, I had days where I flew in/out of LGA 3 times in a day. With a familiar crew and good conditions, I see no reason you can't handfly a departure out of there provided it is within your capabilities. If either of you can't keep up, there's no shame in turning the automation on.

 

[Blackhawk]

One thing that I've learned by leaving ASA is that our training department there was fantastic, especially after we transitioned to AQP. Really the only thing that I would change is the over reliance on autopilot usage. They try to paint with a broad brush and write the manual to apply in all situations. The key to flying without the autopilot or flight director is a good pilot monitoring. One of the biggest keys to hand flying successfully is monitoring your PM and making sure you're not overloading them. You also have to look at the situation, I had days where I flew in/out of LGA 3 times in a day. With a familiar crew and good conditions, I see no reason you can't handfly a departure out of there provided it is within your capabilities. If either of you can't keep up, there's no shame in turning the automation on.

I don't think it hurts that the there are not many pilots in the training department who have been here less than 15+ years and the management, whatever their faults, has always emphasized training. I remember when I first upgraded the DO coming to my upgrade class and emphasizing that we would get more sim time than required, but that was fine with management. They would rather lose contracts and sleep at night than lose one pax due to a poorly trained crew. When I compared our training to those at Pinnacle after the crash of 3701 I was surprised to see that I got twice the sim time as their captain and we covered maneuvers not required by the FAA- such as a dual flame out at high altitude with an emphasis on the pitch down attitude required for an airstart.

 

[ppragman]

I'm convinced this is the actual intention of the reg and you can do it anywhere unless your FOM or something says otherwise.

I see you flew freight as well - this is how I've always thought about a lot of stuff. "If it ain't forbidden it's permitted."

 

[Tommay85]

Flying an airliner takes two things to be a "good stick." A normal ability to hand fly the plane and a good ability to manage the auto flight system.

My thoughts on the bus:
The Airbus is no different than anything else and then again it is different. I think a crappy pilot is magnified by flying the bus. Some recent Airbus crashes have uncovered some staggering pilot deficiencies in ability and decision making.

Lastly, I don't think one should be allowed to comment on the Airbus unless they have time in the aircraft. The BIGGEST issues people have with Airbus is usually from a lack of knowledge. I just heard a old/funny one last week:
"You're gonna get into a hold and the plane won't let you get out of it."

The truth is people do not hand fly the Airbus enough at my shop.

Depends on what your definition of "normal ability to hand fly is". Visually, it's almost ALWAYS obvious when the plane is being hand-flown if you can reference something outside. You shouldn't consistently feel it in any plane though, and that seems to more and more rare these days. -not an airbus guy Still, *exponential control inputs* seems to be a dying art. Yes, I'm aware enough the Airbus's fly-by-wire isn't like any other and exponential inputs may or may not work.

To be honest, if they guy is going to jerk the plane around, I don't want them practicing while I'm trying to drink my Mountain Dew in the back. haha

 

[Blackhawk]

As I wrote, however, being able to hand fly to FL 310 has little to do with the issue. Most of the issues occur in the last 2000'- being able to get and stay stable during a visual approach with no glideslope.
Part of the problem also lies with the experience level of those thrown into the situations. As an example, with the Air France crash the pilots involved, except for the captain, had very little actual hand flying flight time. Yes, they had several thousand hours each, but both went immediately (or very quickly), into the 330. So much of their flight time was international, enroute flight time.
Let's compare them to my brother, a 330 FO for Southjet. He went to Navy flight school. Flew P-3's and C-12s (King Airs), for about 15 years. Flew Jet Screams for TSA for about 5 years. Flew DC-9s for Northjet. Flew the Baby Bus for them as well. By the time he got to the right seat of the 330 he had quite a bit of hand flying experience to include "aerobatic" training with the Navy.

 

[Dan208B]

I see you flew freight as well - this is how I've always thought about a lot of stuff. "If it ain't forbidden it's permitted."

This has carried well into my airline career.

 

[Boris Badenov]

If either of you can't keep up, there's no shame in turning the automation on.

I agree with this 100%, but I would hasten to add that if either of you can't keep up, there's also a problem with how the SID/STAR/Whatever is charted. The reason we have two pilots in jets is to catch mistakes the other guy makes, not to just barely get everything done in time. The FAA talks a good Safety game, but they also have a disturbing tendency to require maneuvers which themselves require both guys (gals) to be 100% involved to the degree that there's no one left if something goes wrong. Anything they ask you to do should be 100% do-able by one pilot, IMHO.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

I agree with this 100%, but I would hasten to add that if either of you can't keep up, there's also a problem with how the SID/STAR/Whatever is charted. The reason we have two pilots in jets is to catch mistakes the other guy makes, not to just barely get everything done in time. The FAA talks a good Safety game, but they also have a disturbing tendency to require maneuvers which themselves require both guys (gals) to be 100% involved to the degree that there's no one left if something goes wrong. Anything they ask you to do should be 100% do-able by one pilot, IMHO.

Absolutely. Not that I'm complaining about it at all, because I enjoyed flying it and I think it can be done safely, but a good example is the expressway visual 31 into LGA. FAA talks a lot about stabilized approaches, and rightly so. But flying a longer final into 31 at LGA would be a little inconvenient for them so they throw it out the window. Fly the same profile into CAE, you're probably going to hear about it from someone.

 

[ppragman]

This has carried well into my airline career.

You need to bid the JNU - GST summer run.

 

[Blackhawk]

Absolutely. Not that I'm complaining about it at all, because I enjoyed flying it and I think it can be done safely, but a good example is the expressway visual 31 into LGA. FAA talks a lot about stabilized approaches, and rightly so. But flying a longer final into 31 at LGA would be a little inconvenient for them so they throw it out the window. Fly the same profile into CAE, you're probably going to hear about it from someone.

And for good measure let's throw in a construction crane on final. Better not get off that centerline.

 

[Blackhawk]

I agree with this 100%, but I would hasten to add that if either of you can't keep up, there's also a problem with how the SID/STAR/Whatever is charted. The reason we have two pilots in jets is to catch mistakes the other guy makes, not to just barely get everything done in time. The FAA talks a good Safety game, but they also have a disturbing tendency to require maneuvers which themselves require both guys (gals) to be 100% involved to the degree that there's no one left if something goes wrong. Anything they ask you to do should be 100% do-able by one pilot, IMHO.

Actually some were designed to take advantage of the precise nature of GPS/RNAV track couple to a FD and give busier airports more departures/arrivals by narrowing the required separation.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

And then you get the CA that asks the AT be turned back on, when you briefed it off, it was not busy, no weather, clear day, and no fatigue/tiredness (one leg for the day).

Oh well. Can't win 'em all.

In our PCs they have us flying the RNAV approach as AP off, AT off, and FD on. It's staggering how many people fark it up. I've even heard one horror story of a CA in a sim not knowing how to properly turn the AT off, tried pushing the AT button, got thrust lock, more button pushing, and then got left high, pretty much a recipe for an unstable approach.

No one is saying be a hero and turn that stuff off to impress the other pilot. But one needs to be able to master all aspects of their machine and be comfortable with AP and AT off.

 

[Dan208B]

You need to bid the JNU - GST summer run.

Did that 3 times this summer! It's perfect because you can hand fly no FDs at 3500ft the whole way. Really awesome flight on a nice summer day. I made a radio call one day "Juneau traffic, Alaska 737 over Funter bay 2500 VFR westbound." And someone goes "cool!"

 

[ppragman]

Did that 3 times this summer! It's perfect because you can hand fly no FDs at 3500ft the whole way. Really awesome flight on a nice summer day. I made a radio call one day "Juneau traffic, Alaska 737 over Funter bay 2500 VFR westbound." And someone goes "cool!"

Making me homesick man! This sounds awesome! If you really wanna sound "local" say "737, Kittens at 2500 for Gustavus."

 

[🦈💜]

Did that 3 times this summer! It's perfect because you can hand fly no FDs at 3500ft the whole way. Really awesome flight on a nice summer day. I made a radio call one day "Juneau traffic, Alaska 737 over Funter bay 2500 VFR westbound." And someone goes "cool!"

I think that was me. :>

-Fox

 

[🦈💜]

Making me homesick man! This sounds awesome! If you really wanna sound "local" say "737, Kittens at 2500 for Gustavus."

Meowww.

 

[BobDDuck]

Actually some were designed to take advantage of the precise nature of GPS/RNAV track couple to a FD and give busier airports more departures/arrivals by narrowing the required separation.

The actual language is in AC-90-100 (and maybe AC-90-105) but the general theory is that as long as you have a nav display that shows scalelable lateral deviation along the RNAV SID or STAR track you are not required to have a FD or autopilot in use while flying the procedure. There are several carrier specific additional restrictions depending on how a carrier was approved to fly RNAV procedures, but it's not an industry wide thing.

EDIT: If you want to know WAY more than you'd ever realistically want to know about all this stuff the FAA has a nice slideshow (with narration) you can watch.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...0/afs470/pbn/media/RNAV1_RNP1_RNAV2/movie.swf

 

[Blackhawk]

The actual language is in AC-90-100 (and maybe AC-90-105) but the general theory is that as long as you have a nav display that shows scalelable lateral deviation along the RNAV SID or STAR track you are not required to have a FD or autopilot in use while flying the procedure. There are several carrier specific additional restrictions depending on how a carrier was approved to fly RNAV procedures, but it's not an industry wide thing.

EDIT: If you want to know WAY more than you'd ever realistically want to know about all this stuff the FAA has a nice slideshow (with narration) you can watch.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...0/afs470/pbn/media/RNAV1_RNP1_RNAV2/movie.swf

In theory.
In practice, however, most pilots are not nearly as precise as they think they are with raw data. I remember ATL departure folks once throwing up a picture of the airplane tracks soon after they put in the RNAV departures. It was a very solid line.... with some deviations here and there. The thought was that the deviations were the Rambo's trying to show that they could hand fly it precisely... but couldn't.

 

[alaskadrifter]

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

This, it is always our own responsibility first.

 

[scooter2525]