Challenger 300 Turbulence Death - Prelim Released

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I wonder why this could be? It’s a shame too - because while you don’t “need” to know a lot of that stuff every day, but systems knowledge has come in handy on more than a few occasions. Also, I enjoyed learning about it?

I don’t know, in my opinion there’s need to know, nice to know, and trivia - teach all three but tell people what is what during training and only test on the need to know and some of the nice to know that’s relevant to day to day ops.

Back when I learned the 1900 and CRJ, it was still the old school style of knowing every little pressure and temperature and how every system worked in detail. Of course, people complained about that, and instead of the middle road you’re advocating of teaching it but not testing to it, they went full retard and just started saying “you don’t need to know that.” I knew a fraction about the 717/DC9 that I knew about the 1900.

 

[ppragman]

Back when I learned the 1900 and CRJ, it was still the old school style of knowing every little pressure and temperature and how every system worked in detail. Of course, people complained about that, and instead of the middle road you’re advocating of teaching it but not testing to it, they went full retard and just started saying “you don’t need to know that.” I knew a fraction about the 717/DC9 that I knew about the 1900.

when I was a check airman in 135 land, that’s how I rolled. Need to know nice to know and trivia.

If you knew all the need to know you were going to pass your oral, if you knew the need to know and some of the nice to know it was going to be simple, if you were spontaneously offering forth some of the trivia too you were going to have am easy time.

I hate the mindset “you don’t need to know that” - so what, we’re professionals - you should be trying to know everything because this is our craft. You shouldn’t test people on it, but some one who has taken the time to learn the trivia on top of what’s necessary should be commended not ridiculed.

When someone can remember various pressures and voltages we shouldn’t scoff. “Wow, they’ve taken the time to learn even that? What a badass.” Not “you don’t need to know that, what a waste.”

Our brains don’t have a fixed limit of things we can learn; sometimes understanding the nitty gritty of “why” down to voltages and pressures can help you understand the system better. Certainly don’t test on it - only critical limitations should be tested if they’re not marked on the gauge etc - but there’s a vibe I’ve seen all too often of “don’t need to learn that” that strikes me as a form of intellectual laziness. A professional should strive to be able to build the damn thing even if he/she knows they’ll never have to.

 

[Roger Roger]

2 things
1. Your average part 25 airplane has become so complicated and has so many magic boxes that you’re just not going to be able to be an expert on the whole thing

2. there’s a not insignificant history of pilots trying to use system knowledge to do things they weren’t supposed to do and having that backfire. It might be better in the aggregate if people don’t know enough to try to outsmart the checklist.

 

[KLB]

You tell me!

Pretty sure the Gillespie (sp) accident, they couldn’t see the runway while in the turn, asking if the lights were turned up.


There are people with an ATP itself that had circle approach VMC only. All 121 type ratings I have say circle approach VMC only. I believe you can go in the sim with low weather, do an approach and get that removed.

The weather was VFR...not IFR. And they weren't even going a circling approach. They canceled IFR and were on a visuai approach. Quit making stuff up.

NTSB: ADS-B Shows Unstabilized Approach for Learjet in El Cajon Accident

Both pilots and two flight nurses on board were killed when the aircraft came down just east of the airport.

www.flyingmag.com

 

[mikecweb]

It never was really a thing because captains up until now had a more in depth systems class when they were FOs. With the short upgrades no one on the plane knows anything beyond what the QRH says. I've SATCOM'd MOCC when it got stupid and that was less than informative.

 

[form810]

Preliminary report for the initially reported “turbulence fatality” from earlier this month just released. Turns out, nothing to do with turbulence and a lot more going on than was initially believed (shocker).

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23722207/report_era23la135_106816_3_24_2023-10_09_31-am.pdf

“The flight crew reported that around 6,000 ft, they observed multiple EICAS caution messages. The crew recalled EICAS messages of ‘AP STAB TRIM FAIL’ [autopilot stabilizer trim failure] ‘MACH TRIM FAIL’ and ‘AP HOLDING NOSE DOWN’. Neither crewmember could recall exactly what order the EICAS messages were presented. They also reported that additional EICAS messages may have been annunciated.

The PIC asked the SIC to refer to the quick reference handbook. The SIC, via an electronic flight bag (iPad), located the quick reference card and the ‘PRI STAB TRIM FAIL’ [Primary Stabilizer Trim Failure] checklist. The SIC visually showed the PIC the checklist, and they both agreed to execute the checklist. The first action on the checklist was to move the stabilizer trim switch (‘STAB TRIM’), located on the center console, from ‘PRI’ (Primary) to ‘OFF.’ The SIC read the checklist item aloud and he subsequently moved the switch to off.

As soon as the switch position was moved, the airplane abruptly pitched up. The PIC reported that his left hand was on the flight controls and his right hand was guarding the right side of the flight controls. He immediately with both hands regained control of the airplane in what he estimated to be a few seconds after the airplane’s pitch oscillated up and down. During the oscillations, the PIC instructed the SIC to move the stabilizer trim switch back to the primary position, which the SIC accomplished.

…

The airplane immediately pitched up to about 11° and reached a vertical acceleration of about +3.8g. The airplane subsequently entered a negative vertical acceleration to about -2.3g. The airplane pitched up again to about 20° and a vertical acceleration of +4.2g was recorded. The stall protection stick pusher activated during this pitch up; subsequently, vertical acceleration lowered to about +2.2g which was followed by a cutout of FDR data.”


All of this occurring after an initial aborted takeoff due to a pitot cover-induced airspeed disagree, followed by a takeoff with unpopulated v-speeds. Plenty more happening on the ground as well. Certainly a lot going on here…

I guess "70kts, Cross Check" kinda got missed, eh? Along with, seemingly, a whole bunch of other basic stuff, like a proper pre-flight. Hmmm....

 

[ppragman]

1. Your average part 25 airplane has become so complicated and has so many magic boxes that you’re just not going to be able to be an expert on the whole thing

I'm not sure this is true. It's just going to take more than one recurrent cycle to be an expert on a lot of the other stuff. Still, I do believe you can be an expert on the "whole" thing - and even if you can't, you should try to be one.

2. there’s a not insignificant history of pilots trying to use system knowledge to do things they weren’t supposed to do and having that backfire. It might be better in the aggregate if people don’t know enough to try to outsmart the checklist.

that's more an airmanship issue than a systems knowledge issue though, right?

 

[form810]

2. there’s a not insignificant history of pilots trying to use system knowledge to do things they weren’t supposed to do and having that backfire. It might be better in the aggregate if people don’t know enough to try to outsmart the checklist.

It can sometimes be ok to "depart" from the checklist. That said, the first rule of doing anything should always comport with the Hippocratic oath... "First, do no harm".

 

[ASpilot2be]

I'm not sure this is true. It's just going to take more than one recurrent cycle to be an expert on a lot of the other stuff. Still, I do believe you can be an expert on the "whole" thing - and even if you can't, you should try to be one.

I am with Roger on this one. Having a good systems knowledge is good. But anything beyond that is pointless to commit to memory. Airplanes are computerized that only the engineers really about the inner workings of the computer. We only know what we're told.

 

[CFI A&P]

You tell me!

Pretty sure the Gillespie (sp) accident, they couldn’t see the runway while in the turn, asking if the lights were turned up.


There are people with an ATP itself that had circle approach VMC only. All 121 type ratings I have say circle approach VMC only. I believe you can go in the sim with low weather, do an approach and get that removed.

That’s because your training program didn’t include the circle, hence the limitations. Yes, you can have it removed - most of the business jet pilots have done the JFK VOR 4L circle to land 31R in the sim, or another circle at MEM or JNU (Because those are the approaches approved in the sim).

 

[Roger Roger]

That’s because your training program didn’t include the circle, hence the limitations. Yes, you can have it removed - most of the business jet pilots have done the JFK VOR 4L circle to land 31R in the sim, or another circle at MEM or JNU (Because those are the approaches approved in the sim).

Don’t forget MCO

 

[ppragman]

I am with Roger on this one. Having a good systems knowledge is good. But anything beyond that is pointless to commit to memory. Airplanes are computerized that only the engineers really about the inner workings of the computer. We only know what we're told.

There are ways to find out though... which includes even perhaps (egads) consulting the mechanics and engineers who make the things work.

As professionals do we have a "growth" mindset, or a static mindset? You don't "need" to know the pressure of the hydraulic felcher valve or whatever, but if you do, I don't think we should ridicule that. Indeed, I think it's commendable. Teach it in ground school - teach everything, even if it's "there's a checkvalve that limits the pressure to less than 750psi" but certainly don't test it. Test only the need to know.

Still, if you know it, "good for you!" You should nerd out over that stuff, and I respect immensely the people who've taken the time to go above and beyond the minimum that is required.

All of us undoubtedly know a wide variety of facts and trivia about the world that are largely "useless." It was never (never) meaningfully important to me to know that there exists a non-linear relationship between pressure and altitude, or that roughly "half of the atmosphere" is below you at FL180... still, knowing that "500mBar corresponds roughly to FL180" had correlational effects on my understanding of systems and how to operate the equipment.

Thinking back a long ways, I remember "RUAC" - "Rote Understanding Application Correlation" being the levels of learning that the FAA teaches all of us. Rote is the lowest level of "learning" - you simply "know" the answers, like your times tables or whatever. But to get to correlation you might need some stuff you know beyond "what you need."

I'm out of the game now, so my opinion doesn't matter, but this stuff is so awesome and fun! Why wouldn't you want to know as much about the equipment you operate daily as possible? That starts with the bare minimum that you need to know to do the job, and ends with knowing everything about it that you can possibly know.

 

[CFI A&P]

Don’t forget MCO

That’s a new one, haven’t seen the circle there.

It is kind of comical to go do the JFK circle every 6 months for legality, while in real life it seems like we’re doing the ILS 6 circle 1 at TEB, or ILS 19 circle 24 almost every week.

 

[ASpilot2be]

There are ways to find out though... which includes even perhaps (egads) consulting the mechanics and engineers who make the things work.

As professionals do we have a "growth" mindset, or a static mindset? You don't "need" to know the pressure of the hydraulic felcher valve or whatever, but if you do, I don't think we should ridicule that. Indeed, I think it's commendable. Teach it in ground school - teach everything, even if it's "there's a checkvalve that limits the pressure to less than 750psi" but certainly don't test it. Test only the need to know.

Still, if you know it, "good for you!" You should nerd out over that stuff, and I respect immensely the people who've taken the time to go above and beyond the minimum that is required.

All of us undoubtedly know a wide variety of facts and trivia about the world that are largely "useless." It was never (never) meaningfully important to me to know that there exists a non-linear relationship between pressure and altitude, or that roughly "half of the atmosphere" is below you at FL180... still, knowing that "500mBar corresponds roughly to FL180" had correlational effects on my understanding of systems and how to operate the equipment.

Thinking back a long ways, I remember "RUAC" - "Rote Understanding Application Correlation" being the levels of learning that the FAA teaches all of us. Rote is the lowest level of "learning" - you simply "know" the answers, like your times tables or whatever. But to get to correlation you might need some stuff you know beyond "what you need."

I'm out of the game now, so my opinion doesn't matter, but this stuff is so awesome and fun! Why wouldn't you want to know as much about the equipment you operate daily as possible? That starts with the bare minimum that you need to know to do the job, and ends with knowing everything about it that you can possibly know.

I agree you should always try to learn about as much as you can about the plane you fly.

My learning style is usually learning about things after they happen. Solve the problem, then learn. If I do too much trying to think about things when there's a problem, then I will distract myself. There's a reason over time the number of memory items and memorized limitations shrink. You can easily look it up.

Even on the mechanic side there's no troubleshooting without reference material. There's so much in the airplane

 

[ppragman]

I agree you should always try to learn about as much as you can about the plane you fly.

My learning style is usually learning about things after they happen. Solve the problem, then learn. If I do too much trying to think about things when there's a problem, then I will distract myself. There's a reason over time the number of memory items and memorized limitations shrink. You can easily look it up.

Even on the mechanic side there's no troubleshooting without reference material. There's so much in the airplane

well, to be clear, I'm not advocating for not using the memory items or what have you, but anytime someone says "I don't need to know that" I cringe a little bit - sure you don't "need" to know much of anything, but don't we have a professional obligation to try to learn as much as we can about everything related to our trade? Would you tell the passengers in 1A that "meh, I don't need to know that" if they asked you about something on the airplane?

Again, I'm not suggesting more memory items, or more esoteric questions on writtens and orals - honestly, I think a good training department should specifically tell you exactly what they're going to test you on, and don't go outside of those bounds. Further, I think someone should go through the manuals and label pretty much everything as "need to know, nice to know, trivia." That way you know precisely what you're expected to know - but as professionals, don't we have a duty to be continuously improving ourselves and our knowledge about our craft?

I knew the memory items in the airplanes I flew, but more importantly, I feel like I had a good grasp on "why" certain things were done a certain way. That correlation made it easier to remember the memory item if I needed to know them, and it satisfied a certain curiosity I had about my trade. Perhaps you don't "need" to know a whole bunch of things, but I can't say that it's a bad thing to be knowledgable. Indeed I'd say it's commendable.

 

[ASpilot2be]

well, to be clear, I'm not advocating for not using the memory items or what have you, but anytime someone says "I don't need to know that" I cringe a little bit - sure you don't "need" to know much of anything, but don't we have a professional obligation to try to learn as much as we can about everything related to our trade? Would you tell the passengers in 1A that "meh, I don't need to know that" if they asked you about something on the airplane?

Again, I'm not suggesting more memory items, or more esoteric questions on writtens and orals - honestly, I think a good training department should specifically tell you exactly what they're going to test you on, and don't go outside of those bounds. Further, I think someone should go through the manuals and label pretty much everything as "need to know, nice to know, trivia." That way you know precisely what you're expected to know - but as professionals, don't we have a duty to be continuously improving ourselves and our knowledge about our craft?

I knew the memory items in the airplanes I flew, but more importantly, I feel like I had a good grasp on "why" certain things were done a certain way. That correlation made it easier to remember the memory item if I needed to know them, and it satisfied a certain curiosity I had about my trade. Perhaps you don't "need" to know a whole bunch of things, but I can't say that it's a bad thing to be knowledgable. Indeed I'd say it's commendable.

All good points.

You definitely understand computers better than most people, so you would probably understand the computer and programming logic beyond what's in our systems manual. Somebody could try to explain it and I can't promise I will retain it. That said, I will read our systems manual and usually pick small things up. But I can't don't think I could go much deeper than that.

I do enjoy reading the Airbus magazine about new things that are learned about the airplanes and the systems. You would probably really enjoy it too.

 

[ppragman]

You definitely understand computers better than most people, so you would probably understand the computer and programming logic beyond what's in our systems manual. Somebody could try to explain it and I can't promise I will retain it. That said, I will read our systems manual and usually pick small things up. But I can't don't think I could go much deeper than that.

Right! And that's ok - but the professional in you "tries" to get better at understanding a wide variety of stuff. I'm terrible at aeromedical stuff - hell, I thought humans had a gizzard until my wife (a nurse) laughed in my face at my ignorance. Still, even though it was hard and there were a litany of seemingly irrelevant facts to learn, I tried to learn as much about it as I could... because, well, it was my vocation! And part of being good at anything requires that you practice the hard stuff more.

The fact that different folks do better at different things is not only "ok" - indeed it's really a great thing. Variety gives you two people with complimentary skillsets in the cockpit - that's good. I have a friend of mine who's now at UPS, who is basically the smartest "people person" I have ever met. He's able to just intuit what other people are thinking. He reads a wide variety about psychology and human factors. He's interested in the systems stuff but it's not his passion - he does what he needs to do to get by; his gift is for "how other humans think." He's a great dude to fly with for that very reason.

Still, he's a consummate professional and spends the time in the books, even reviewing things that "he doesn't need" in order to go beyond "just being good" to being "great" at his job. I think that's really important. Do we want to be "good" at our jobs, or "great at them?" What do the passengers expect? If you have no passengers, who would you want to fly with? The guy who's "good" at the job, or the guy who's great at the job? Note that's not a one dimensional thing either of stick skills, or systems knowledge - it's a continuum across many different things.

In the polar chart of aviation and professional skills, what axes has one neglected? Find that axis and attempt to improve upon it.

I do enjoy reading the Airbus magazine about new things that are learned about the airplanes and the systems. You would probably really enjoy it too.

Yeah, I love that stuff! I miss flying immensely, and think about it nearly daily - but it's not just the trivia of how systems work that's interesting, there's the math and problemsolving that you can explore in how you might choose to plan a flight or operate more efficiently etc. That stuff is great.

 

[ASpilot2be]

Right! And that's ok - but the professional in you "tries" to get better at understanding a wide variety of stuff. I'm terrible at aeromedical stuff - hell, I thought humans had a gizzard until my wife (a nurse) laughed in my face at my ignorance. Still, even though it was hard and there were a litany of seemingly irrelevant facts to learn, I tried to learn as much about it as I could... because, well, it was my vocation! And part of being good at anything requires that you practice the hard stuff more.

The fact that different folks do better at different things is not only "ok" - indeed it's really a great thing. Variety gives you two people with complimentary skillsets in the cockpit - that's good. I have a friend of mine who's now at UPS, who is basically the smartest "people person" I have ever met. He's able to just intuit what other people are thinking. He reads a wide variety about psychology and human factors. He's interested in the systems stuff but it's not his passion - he does what he needs to do to get by; his gift is for "how other humans think." He's a great dude to fly with for that very reason.

Still, he's a consummate professional and spends the time in the books, even reviewing things that "he doesn't need" in order to go beyond "just being good" to being "great" at his job. I think that's really important. Do we want to be "good" at our jobs, or "great at them?" What do the passengers expect? If you have no passengers, who would you want to fly with? The guy who's "good" at the job, or the guy who's great at the job? Note that's not a one dimensional thing either of stick skills, or systems knowledge - it's a continuum across many different things.

In the polar chart of aviation and professional skills, what axes has one neglected? Find that axis and attempt to improve upon it.

Yeah, I love that stuff! I miss flying immensely, and think about it nearly daily - but it's not just the trivia of how systems work that's interesting, there's the math and problemsolving that you can explore in how you might choose to plan a flight or operate more efficiently etc. That stuff is great.

I think overall it's better phrased as never stop improving yourself as a professional. I would argue that the airplane nowadays is a small part of that.

We will have to discuss this on an Anchorage layover down the road.

 

[ppragman]

I think overall it's better phrased as never stop improving yourself as a professional. I would argue that the airplane nowadays is a small part of that.

We will have to discuss this on an Anchorage layover down the road.

hit me up, you've got my digits! if I'm not actively drowning in coursework let's hang out!

just generally, my take on all this stuff is the "foster and lean into a culture of continuous self-improvement." That means confronting the things your bad at

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

The weather was VFR...not IFR. And they weren't even going a circling approach. They canceled IFR and were on a visuai approach. Quit making stuff up.

NTSB: ADS-B Shows Unstabilized Approach for Learjet in El Cajon Accident

Both pilots and two flight nurses on board were killed when the aircraft came down just east of the airport.

www.flyingmag.com

Oh it was VFR? That only makes the case even more.