This week's Maclean's Cover Story

[jpilot77]

Professionalism is not supported directly with money, but it is a major driving force. Pride in your job should be irrelevant to your paycheck, but let's be frank guys. When you are grinding day and night out working like 14hr days, making miserable salary on par with Walmart clerk, you can't tell me you are not going to start slacking off after a prolonged period of time.

It's tuff to get the Sully Sullenburgers of the world when for a good part of their career they are making less (and far less job security) than the guy driving a bus for the city.

[azimuthaviation]

I think the problem is too many NCO's in the cockpit.

[outsider]

There is a huge difference in "Flying" an aircraft and "working" an aircraft. Accidents statistics may show an improvement in safety from the 1960's , however there is still a problem with the lack of "hands and feet" ability.

[trey kule]

I am going to play the devil's advocate here.

Lets say, for example, that the aircraft industry goal is to delevop the technology to the state where a pilot is not required.
RPVs have been around since the 60s, and with technological advances I think that is a real possibility. The root cause of accidents is more and more being shifted to pilot error. To put it bluntly, more automation will ultimately mean a drop if accident stats.
The solution, to some, is better basic training for pilots..
And....as people point out over and over. Everyone wants a pilot on board.
So the question becomes then, what does the future "pilot" really have to have in the way of knowledge and skills.
Is the whole solution suggested by many, really a solution to the wrong problem?
What the airlines want now, is the perception that a human is flying the plane. The introduction of MCPLs. Lowering of standards for new hires. Career First Officers...There is a trend there, I think, if anyone cares to look at it.

In the short term, we are going to have to address the problems of how to not only train pilots better in the basic skills, but to keep them current when so much of the flying , even today, is automated.
In the longer term, I think pilots, as we understand them now are going to go the way of the dinosaurs..at least in the airline industry.
The future generation of pilots may actually be more akin to today's cruise pilot, and as such, they really dont have to know how to fly a plane at all.

It is hard to accept that pilots of airliners of the future simply wont have the need to actually fly a plane.
Pilots have only been around for just over 100 years, and there has been huge technological changes in that time, particularily the last 50 years or so. It is time, I think, to understand that the pilot of the future just might change too.

[outsider]

All this makes me glad that I chose an alternative to the airline / passenger flying side of aviation.

[iflyforpie]

Me too. I haven't used an autopilot in years.

[KHills]

On the non-airline side, there are still challenges that go with pilot experience etc.

What about all the guys and gals in the bush fudging their experience in the 250-500 hr range? With the amount of jobs requiring 500 hours TT, the temptation to pull out a pen and think of four letters starting with an F or G that they can add some "valuable experience" to their logbook entices way too many people. and far too many people get away with it. When I was looking for my first flying job I went to a pilot I knew at the time for advice, his advice was to pull out a pen, look around me, find a reg that I liked and apply for that first job with 700 hours. I was pretty discouraged when I heard that was his best advice for me... Anyways, I took the high road on that and decided to build some float time instead and I eventually did get my first job. In hind sight, I can't say that I didn't regret that decision with what I put up with at my first job.

Not a whole lot has been said about the management side of "pilot error" and I suppose that it isn't as prevalent as in bush operations. Like when the company says "take that extra 50 lbs" and the accident is logged as pilot error. Not all pilot error is because of 'stick-and-rudder' errors, I would submit that it rarely is. Perhaps

Most of aviation is illegal business because that's the only way to make money. Maybe airlines need to start bucking up to the public and government and raise prices for air travel. I mean really, who is it that says to get from Calgary to Toronto is worth 350 return? Or from Vancouver to Nairobi is 1800 return...900 dollars each way? why? how else would people get there, take a boat? Common guys, aviation has a monopoly if there was some professional courtesy.

anyways, just my frustrations..

[CpnCrunch]

If you look at the stats, flying in an airline is still much safer than bush/charter/airtaxi flying. The big problem seems to be poor decision making, which isn't as much of a problem in the airline world.

[Nark]

Nothing usefull to add other than an interesting conversation I had with a total stranger.

I was getting a ride to the west coast, and being in uniform of course I atract all sorts of questions.

I was happy to flap my gums during the 2.5 hour trip to SEA with a passenger, discussing this very topic.
Standard questions about autopilot, how often, when etc...
It was interesting to explain this to a complete layperson on the subject.

Again, nothing usefull to add, but made for a better miserable middle-seat.

[nutbutter]

Not all pilot error is because of 'stick-and-rudder' errors, I would submit that it rarely is.

That's not the point, the point is we shouldn't have any of these at the 705 level. The Dash 8 in Buffalo, and Air France 447 are prime examples.
Those were rookie moves. Rookies aren't supposed to be flying these airplanes and making rookie mistakes. Automation you can argue was a contributing factor in both cases.

How would you like it walking in the cockpit of a wide body at night at cruise in the middle of the Atlantic, sitting down with your cup of coffee and newspaper like 1000 times before, when all of a sudden half the lights and buzzers in the cockpit are going off, and the precious autopilot disconnects at a very poor time?
You aren't having a good day at that point.
I'm pretty sure its enough to confuse and disorient even the most seasoned among us.
Replay the same scenario where the airplane is being hand flown instead.

[AEROBAT]

My son was getting his rec. license when the Colgan report came out. I asked what he would do if he was picking up ice and was coming in to land.

His answer, as a guy who had not even soloed at that time, was to fly a bit faster.

Then I asked him what he would do if the stick was shaking like the plane was stalling. Of course he said push and read the airspeed.

The last question was was "Would you raise the flaps?" Of course he said "No".

When I told him about the Colgan incident he was baffled.

[outsider]

I had this very same discussion about three years ago with a simulator instructor.My argument was there was no substitute for experience and I felt that having 300 hours and flying a wide body jet was just not enough. I was "TOLD" that modern sims can prepare you for anything , and that if anything arose that these 250 hour wonder pilots could not handle the Captain would step in and take care of it. Basically the training they received in the sim could prepare them for any and all situations and who was I to dare question modern training standards.

During my stint as a refueler , one night I was topping up a BA 777 , i have never forgot what the captain said so humbly when I told him I had just spent the summer on a twin otter in northern Canada. He said " All aircraft work basically the same way and respond to the same inputs , and the type of flying I had just did would serve me well in the future" Smart guy.

[Edo]

My son was getting his rec. license when the Colgan report came out. I asked what he would do if he was picking up ice and was coming in to land.

His answer, as a guy who had not even soloed at that time, was to fly a bit faster.

Then I asked him what he would do if the stick was shaking like the plane was stalling. Of course he said push and read the airspeed.

The last question was was "Would you raise the flaps?" Of course he said "No".

When I told him about the Colgan incident he was baffled.

This accident was a result of fatigue, commuting, low pay etc. They flew a recovery procedure for a tail stall, why? because tail icing and TAIL stall recovery had been beaten into them in ground training.

Sure inexperience gets all the press now, because at the heart of it no one really wants to fix pay and impose commuting rules...why it costs too much money. face it the consumer will switch airlines for 5 bucks, book with priceline and then cry fowl when a codeshare does the trip.

[cncpc]

My remarks here are in response to the comments above by Indanao about "incompetence" he attributes to the pilots of the 737 aircraft which were lost at Cranbrook and now Resolute Bay.

A number of factors led to the Cranbrook crash. I have never heard pilot incompetence named as one of them. The crew initiated a go around after having deployed buckets and then seeing a snowplow which had not been notified the Boeing was inbound. PWA pilots had an advisory not to initiate a go around once thrust reverse had been deployed because there was a possibility that a reverser might not stow due to some hydraulic cut off issues after liftoff. A possibility. To have remained on the runway, and crashed into a snowplow truck would have destroyed the aircraft and killed everyone on it. A certainty. There was no choice but to go around.

The comments about Daddy getting one of the pilots a job and about talking about non flight related matters on the radio tell me more about some bitterness that Indanao has about the cards he has been dealt than incompetence on the part of the pilots. Incompetence is a very strong word and to me it is a deliberate and mean spirited effort to mischaracterize mistakes that quite competent men and women can and have made. Incompetence is a state of being that we are left to assume existed prior to the pilots even boarding the flight. There was nothing to suggest these pilots were incompetent.

Indanao now attributes this adjective to the lost crew at Resolute Bay. I am disappointed to see that. In the original thread about the accident, it was me who first posted a Google view of the runway and some adjacent terrain. It showed a best estimate of the debris trail. At that point, it was merely to show some similar shapes between the button of 35 and a road structure which seemed to be where the debris trail pointed. BMC made a post contributing the information that the debris trail seemed to be pointing at the VOR, which I didn't know existed. I then located the VOR on the Google image, drew a red line parallel to the runway, and we could all see that it lined up almost perfectly with the estimated position of the debris trail. Others added information about the potential problems of switches setting the source for the HSI information.

To me, what came out of those series of posts showed the best of AvCanada. It allowed those of us who are pilots to try and understand this accident in the context of our own abilities and experience, not wait mute until the TSB released its findings many months down the road. We only have a reasonable understanding of what might have happened. Yes, it appears the aircraft was for some reason heading towards the VOR. Why? We have no idea. We don't have to be told by Indanao that it seems hard to imagine the crew not noticing something wrong. That doesn't lead to a condemnation for incompetence from any of the rest of us. Mistake? Obviously something went wrong. Incompetence? That doesn't even arise on the facts as we know them.

It is as a group that we try to understand things that affect our profession, and I think AvCanada as a group has produced thoughtful and expert insight into this accident. It would be as individuals that we try to build ourselves up by tearing others down, especially others who have no voice. Individuals who do that go beyond the Pale of our profession.

[Indanao]

...............

(1) A number of factors led to the Cranbrook crash. I have never heard pilot incompetence named as one of them...........

(2) The comments about Daddy getting one of the pilots a job and about talking about non flight related matters on the radio tell me more about some bitterness that Indanao has about the cards he has been dealt than.........(3) There was nothing to suggest these pilots were incompetent.

(4).....I then located the VOR.....(5) not wait mute until the TSB released its findings many months down the road. .... (6) We don't have to be told by Indanao that it seems hard to imagine the crew not noticing something wrong. .........(7) Obviously something went wrong. Incompetence? That doesn't even arise on the facts as we know them .................(8) It would be as individuals that we try to build ourselves up by tearing others down, especially others who have no voice. Individuals who do that go beyond the Pale of our profession.

Ok. Big blurbs need breaking down.

(1) Could that be because of daddy being in upper management with PWA - or because you never read the report? If the Pilot had not been busy on the radio counting his money he would have known the plow was never cleared the runway ?

(2) I don't really know what anything, " tells you", but as above.

(3) Again, read (1)

(4) And this is where it became all about you?

(5) That's probably true. ( cause if their daddy is in upper management the undistorted truth may never emerge. )

(6) Now your using the, " Royal We". Why did they not - is the issue. duh.

(7) Conjecture and speculation is what the thread is about.

(8) Purpose being, " not wait mute until the TSB released its findings many months down the road.".

Have a nice day.

[goingmach_1]

There is no doubt that all of us with a pilot's licence, earning a pay check because of it, are acutely aware of the consequences of "when things go wrong". So we gravitate to self analysis what happened, trying to use our own knowledge to diagnose the problem and solve it in our mind, memorize it, and hold it in retention till we can use it at another time.

All of these discussion's are opinion's, and thus bear weight. Learn from others, what they have to say, what they have done, or what they do. So of it good, some of it bad. Take something from it and move forward.

To read about these accidents is a learning experience. Some of us need to learn more than others. Some of us need to improve more than others. Point is we never stop learning. How much is up to the individual.

To quote Neil Amrstrong, when asked by a Cub Reporter, "with all your vast experiences of flying all sorts of aircraft, is there one thing you have learned?". "Yes. There is three things that make an airplane fly, airspeed, airspeed, and airspeed, if you don't have any one of these three things, it won't fly!"

I think that kind of sums it up.

[CID]

The article is alarmist claptrap. Automation makes it possible to fly advanced aircraft. The only way to achieve safe efficient flight in high speed, high altitude aircraft up against the coffin corner and in tightly defined airspace is to use automation and have the flight crew "manage" the systems rather than fly the airplane during cruise.

The complexity associated with take-off, approach and landing is as much an issue of increased traffic volume and modern hazard avoidance technology as the pilot's inability to address serious faults.

Overall this method has resulted in a steady and significant increase in flight safety over the decades. MacLean's is doing our industry a great disservice by not presenting a balanced article. Of course that wouldn't sell as many magazines now would it??

[CpnCrunch]

The article talked about simplifying the confusing multitude of error messages sent to the pilots when the shit hits the fan, which would seem to make sense.

For example, in the Air France crash, instead of the computers just going into alternate law (and basically saying 'you have control'), perhaps it would have been more useful to display something pertinent information like:

STALL!
ANGLE OF ATTACK: x
RECOMMENDATION: PUSH NOSE DOWN!

[nutbutter]

The article is alarmist claptrap. Automation makes it possible to fly advanced aircraft. The only way to achieve safe efficient flight in high speed, high altitude aircraft up against the coffin corner and in tightly defined airspace is to use automation and have the flight crew "manage" the systems rather than fly the airplane during cruise.

The complexity associated with take-off, approach and landing is as much an issue of increased traffic volume and modern hazard avoidance technology as the pilot's inability to address serious faults.

Overall this method has resulted in a steady and significant increase in flight safety over the decades. MacLean's is doing our industry a great disservice by not presenting a balanced article. Of course that wouldn't sell as many magazines now would it??

I don't recall anyone disputing any of those facts. I had simply stated automation is being used as a crutch instead of a tool in modern aviation.

[Darkwing Duck]

Correct me if I am wrong here but nowhere did I read that with the amount of accidents going down, according to the graph, has the number of flights increased. The ratio is expanding and therefore in reality air travel is much safer. REGs, SOPs and COMs are followed more closely and training has increased substatially. I would like to know about the accidents and incidents that have occurred over the years that at least 1 person has learned from and saved their own hide as well as the peeps in the back without realizing what they just did.

Whilst I have never been in a situation where I had to make an instant life or death decision, some of these unfortunate souls have and in most cases chose wrong. How many have chosen right and it never makes the light of day, whether in a private single engine bug smasher or the huge twin engined composite airliner with 300+ ride alongs in the back?