This week's Maclean's Cover Story

[Human Factor]

macleans.jpg (626.84 KiB) Viewed 6509 times

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/08/24/cockpit-crisis/

Discuss.

[Beefitarian]

Well there you go. They have not become too simple making your skills deteriorate. They're too complex and you can't handle them. Nice to see that sorted out. You're going to have to learn more, before you get a job!

[BEFAN5]

It is about time someone addresses this issue. The airlines won't. The government won't. People need to be aware their pilots only "fly" 2 hours per year.

[cgzro]

Seems to me we are doing something right. Its probably fair to say that most of the downward trend is a result of better automation. Automation in manufacture, automation in flight, automation in navigation, automation in weather predictions, much more sophisticated training devices etc.
If anything the pilots now have perhaps less diverse experience than in the 50's and 60's so despite that trend the overall safety is improving.

Seems to me the system as a whole is achieving the desired result of the flying public. Increasing safety at lower costs. Now if we can tweak it a bit more and get much more upset recovery and unusual attitude we can get the numbers down even further!

[Indanao]

Seems to me we are doing something right. Its probably fair to say that most of the downward trend is a result of better automation.

Yuh, so if we stop trying to make Saints of the incompetent Pilots, e.g. Cranbrook and RB, we will be living in the world of reality.

Nothing more scary for me as a passenger than hearing the FO ( or Captain now ) of an AC flight coming on the PA sounding like a cow moose in heat. Cause I know....it's just another left over PWA Pilot who got in there on the, " Buddy System ". ( Kind of different now adays, with many Pilots not being really trained to fly as much as being trained to be Radio Personalities - different generation. )

Go ahead.....shoot

[trey kule]

I thought that was a pretty good article.

As far as quoting accident stats, the problem is that it only looks at the overall improvement. so for example, great strides in automation might mask pilot errors...to improve in a meaningful way, one has to look at all the elements and focus on areas that are not decreasing in the stats.

And that is all about pilot error , I am afraid.
One only has to read other threads on here where insturctors dont understand that the first thing to do is lower the nose....something that even the author of this article managed to have included in their work. Now couple poor training, with an overall lack of experience to imprint any skills, massive automation to allow what is there to deteriorate, and then an emergency cockpit envirorment that has dozens of bells and whistles , and sometimes contracdictory information pounding on the crews...I think it is called the swiss cheese model.

The solution , for the most part, is really quite simple. Better training. Stricter knowledge and experience standards for the ATPL.
Restrictions (standards) for experience for type rated two crew airplanes. (as an aside, so far Canada's majors are hiring pretty much only experienced pilots..with some exceptions...kind of smart self regulation) On the other hand, regulators are allowing MCPL, which further downgrade the level of experience required., and none of them seem to be able to forsee the issues with pilots who have these licenses in about 20 years. Flight schools do not emphasize knowledge and understanding through ground school training, and instructors are ......well...inexperienced themselves....Makes me shudder when I read some of their comments on stall recovery. It is all about scenarios and having fun...Not learning. And unfortunately the flight training people in the regulator's office are more and more are lacking in the basic skills and knowledge themselves as they are coming from the FTU part and lack overall skills. There are exceptions..

[iflyforpie]

Not sure if anybody is making saints of either of those 737 crews. Perhaps they did with the various 'gliders' (Gimil, Transat) when they were both 100% preventable by crew action alone (drip stick and charts for the former, not cross feeding for the later).

But the statistics do speak for themselves. With deregulation, the emergence of the regional airline operating transport-category aircraft, and the sheer number of hours put on these jets each year to make lease/mortgage payments and maybe make a profit, and the cutting of WAWCONs; the lack of accidents is simply astounding.

To put it in perspective, there were 11 707s written off in 1968. That's just one type of jet in a single calendar year. Now to be fair, one was a terrorist incident and two were ground fires, but that's still 8 and of those 8 most were pilot error (crashed on takeoff, crashed on landing, crashed into mountains, etc). Three were of the 'most experienced airline' Pan American and two of those were within a fortnight of each other.

So two 737s crashes (the first before I was born) in a country ridden with them (PWA, CP, AC, CDN, WJ, 7F, Canadian Northern, Flair, Enerjet, Canjet... et al) seems pretty good to me.

[trey kule]

I think you are comparing apples to oranges here.
In the 60s, the commercial jet age was just coming into its own. Unfortuantely the attitude at that time was if you could get it started you could fly it (I can attest to the fact personally, that it is only luck that some of us are here today).
nav aids, , etc. were also no where nearly as well evolved as today.

today however, things have changed with regard to pilots. Training has replaced experience, which, in some cases, is a good thing.
But the basic training which is the root cause of some of these accidents is now deteriorating, as is overall experience.
We are relying now on automation, and we are going through a transition stage where the automation and the confidence to completely eliminate flight crews is not yet at the commercial level.

The porblem is the lack of basic flying skills is just now being recognized, and it is going to take years to revamp the training system to provide the proper basic skills as the system has deteriorated over a long period. It is going to changes from the regualtor, the understanding of the importance of giving priority to basic flying skills. One of the things I think you will see in the very near future is the adoption of light aircraft basic recurrent training into the airline programs, with the airline training departments operating a fleet themselves, as they can control the quality of instruction better. But that is just a guess.

[iflyforpie]

What you have Trey, is a paradox.

We have all of these devices (Autopilot, Autothrottle, FMS, GPWS, TCAS, Alpha Protect, Alpha Floor, etc etc ad nauseum) that have certainly made aviation safer and more efficient by removing the human element from the equation.

Yet because of the excessive automation, we now have a situation where the 'hands and feet' of pilotdom rarely get exercised and in the rare event a situation makes it passed the swiss cheese holes to require a human response, they are ill prepared.

The best solution is two-tiered.

First, pilots should know how to fly the aircraft manually in all kinds of situations--and I think this type of grass roots flying is missing in many pilot's career progression. An instructor rating is paradoxically the fastest way to get an ATPL, and after that if you are lucky enough to have a Cinderella career progression it is right seat in a King Air, right seat in a Dash 8 and maybe a bit of left seat before becoming cruise pilot then F/O for Air Canada. Pretty much all autopilot and not a ton of stick time in the right seat and no meaningful stick time (any?) as a cruise pilot. One of these days that pilot is going to be captain if they got their seniority going soon enough or the fleet expands.. do you want one of these guys flying instead of that ex-Airforce pilot or the old bush pilot with thousands and thousands of hours of 'hard' stick time under their belt?

Second, the pilots should be able to use every piece of technology at their disposal to ensure a safe and efficient flight. I don't think the current crop of tech savvy pilots have any problems with this, but these skills cannot stand alone.

[trey kule]

Wow, the last time I had a pairof dox was when I made an amazing shot..I think they were both mallards!

You are quite right. I agree wholeheartldy.

Which brings us to the questions of what has to changes to address the challanges, and how do we go about it?

That is what I was trying to get across. As my old boss used to say..Once we define the problem, we need solutions.

[Indanao]

Solutions are hiring through Merit - not who you blow. In the case of Cranbrook crash the Pilot displayed some arrogance by spending a good portion of the flight talking to the Pilot of another aircraft about what stocks he would buy, and how much money he could make. His internal reference was daddy who was upper PWA management. How good is that? Then if RB turns out to be not having verified the ILS frequency, that indicates a lack of cockpit discipline in a very harsh environment. How much discipline did the Pilots have? Not just basic training, but company procedures, and/or sticking to them, is what needs to be enforced.

If they were tracking to the VOR, how could they not know it wasn't set to the ILS? Frequency was never changed ? I really don't want to speculate, but in view of the McLean's article it seems relevant.

[Panama Jack]

It is an excellent article and I respect the Magazine for having published it.

Yes, automation and technology have helped tremendously in decreasing the accident rate by any measure, but what we have here is another problem.

Seems to run very similar to the David Learmount video that I posted recently on another thread. If you haven't seen it yet it also seems to sum up the problem nicely and can be viewed here:

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=75860

[Panama Jack]

Nice attempt, FOD, at trying to suggest that if you simply spend some more green that people would be more professional and this safety problem would magically disappear.

Nice attempt, but off the mark. This is a Global problem related to technology, SOP's, and regulatory guidance, including in parts of the World where pilots earn considerably more and are more respected than their colleagues in Canada.

Besides, the days of airline monopoly, state-ownership, and economic regulation are either history or dinosaur concepts.

[nutbutter]

The solution is not more automation. The solution is a better man machine interface that provides sensory stimulation and feedback and SOP's that require a more hands on approach instead of simply monitoring. Airplanes need to become fun to fly again. Too often do I fly with an individual (usually they started in the right seat of a turbine), with no idea how to use the rudder, who engages the autopilot and starts reading a book/magazine/newspaper as soon as we're through 400ft. These types are "trained" to operate airplanes, but "operate" autopilots. The autopilot is a tool, not a crutch. The modern airliners were designed to put pilots to sleep and keep them from making any mistakes. I remember a girl telling me once how annoyed she was to fly a king air 200 with the yaw damp inop. I fucking hate the yaw damp, interfering piece of crap. Maybe its required on a 737, but its not on a light twin.
I agree though that hiring practices need to change from the ground up as well with the big airlines, and second and third tier operators need to start holding their pilots accountable to company SOP's.
Flight training is another can of worms that need"s to be tackled from PPL, right up to 705 PPC currency and Sim training, its the that fundamentals need to be addressed.
The objective of modern aviation as a whole should be to combine skill level, SOP's, and safe decision making. However, the aim appears to have been to eliminate us from the cockpit. I hope companies like Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, and Embraer and all the major airlines learn some valuable lessons from these accidents.

[Nark]

These companies have learned and implemented from past accidents.

The Cali Columbia American 757 crash is an example with the E-Jet. The spoilers will automatically stow if either three things happen:
You advance thrust beyond 70% Thrust Lever Angle
Airspeed falls below (180 I think)
Flaps greater than 1.

So if you need lift, the aircraft is smarter than you and will configure itself.

Automation. It is good thing.


On the other side of the coin, is adherence to SOP's. I believe Panama Jack mentioned FMS as the magical device that sucks in fingers, eyes and most importantly attention.

Numerous examples of crashes as a result of deviations from SOP's. My former airline's only smash up was a direct result of SOP deviation. Thankfully no one was killed, and the plane was put back into service, albeit flying sideways as a result of a twisted airframe.

Modern airlines don't need pilots with stick and rudder skills, they need pilots with a solid grasp of systems knowledge. One of the most common phrases I was taught "What is it doing now?". If you don't know what it is doing, then how are you going to fix the problem?
Simply turning off the auto pilot isn't enough.

[Rockie]

SOP's are worth their weight in gold, until you encounter a situation where they are not appropriate. Then you had better have a depth of training and experience that enables you to fill in the gap and do something different that is appropriate.

Automation is a great thing too. However it requires proper training to realize what level of automation is appropriate for any given situation and when it isn't. It's also being used as a crutch by operators to enable a reduction in training which is a very serious mistake as the Colgan and Air France accidents attest to. When automation is too unwieldy for a dynamic situation or when it fails either partially or completely the crew must be able to immediately recognize it and compensate.

No airplane is too complex for a pilot as long as the proper training is provided. Loss of control accidents should never happen with an airplane capable of flying if the proper training is being provided.

These recent accidents were all avoidable even given the difficult circumstances if only the crews had been properly trained. It's all about training, and the lack of it that operators are guilty of because of the cost.

[Indanao]

....................................
Automation. It is good thing.

Modern airlines don't need pilots with stick and rudder skills, they need pilots with a solid grasp of systems knowledge. ...

I suggest that this will be put to the test over the next few years. My reasoning is that in some countries, let's just use the Philippines and Philippine Airlines as an example, have trained Pilots off the street and right out of school how to fly, and put them in the right seat. But, after having received free training and not being able to make more than $20k per year, they jump ship and go to Saudi. Many domestic flights there canceled due to no Pilots. They won't let foreign national Pilots fly there because it is a protected occupation. So through their pipeline comes more inexperienced Pilots. Their Chief Flying Instructor at PAL was hired that way - and I think he has now, " jumped ship" also. So there is a whole pipeline full of inexperience coming online. BUT, hey, they can work systems. Let's see what happens after, " the dust settles" so to speak.

[Gino Under]

Excellent article.
Much is being done as we speak by a number of industry working groups. Their work is close to publication and I can assure you, things will change.
Automation is here to stay and we have evidence that monitoring the automation is not enough.
As previously noted, the pilot needs to be engaged. Not reading a magazine or newspaper.
There is little need for manual flying skills beyond a certain point. (some may wish to re-read that)
There will always be the need for basic manual flying skills on any airplane but systems knowledge is one of the more subtle yet often forgotten aspects of any flight we conduct. For decades, and out-of-step with technology I might add, we've heard, "You can't do anything about it in the air so why try to build it". But you can always accomodate better decisions with increased systems knowledge whether that knowledge is the nearest suitable airport or understanding with clarity what the QRH is asking you to do under pressure.
The griping I hear in training will most often focus on how poorly the QRH/NNC is written or how the english used doesn't make sense. Tell you what, on a dark and dirty night when it's the only thing you've got, you better understand WTF is going on and why.
Isn't that your responsibility as the flight crew?
It's time and long overdue that industry started to train what is needed and not what is regulated.
Regulatory agencies are government and government gets most of it's input from the public which in many cases seems misguided, to me. Industry would be a much better source for that guidance I'd say.
The biggest offender being the U.S. Congress. Survivors of Colgan had Congress by the balls and they squeezed. Congress then passed laws affecting Part 121 ops without any input from the 121 world which the FAA will have to enforce. That legislation will make it very difficult for 121 operators to find suitably qualified F/Os when hiring picks up.
Make sense?
Not to me.

Gino Under

[Nark]

The idea of needing system's engineers instead of stick and rudder pilots is predicated that they catch the problem prior to the shit storm.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

An example that comes fresh to mind is keeping the Aircraft in an automation mode, not applicable to all situations, such as Vertical Speed hold. At altitude a jet doesn't climb like it does at sea level. The automation only being so smart will sacrifice airspeed to hold VS, leading you to stall at altitude.

Knowing why, or anticipating what the aircraft is going to do, ideally is going to steer you away from that snowball, or swiss cheese of trouble heading your way.

The point of SOP's is to "Deliver you from Evil, and not into Temptation"

However the point of this discussion is, "what do you do when you are up shit creek without a paddle?"

Do you regulate it? Do your increase training? Do you increase standards?

Regulate it?
ASAP is a great program whereupon you mess up, you tell someone about it. Chances are if it wasn't negligent, you will not get hammered for it.

Training?
Many airlines are moving to an AQP type of training, which is more inline with the real world. The last sim session I did was a LOFT flight along the east coast, where something likely was to happen. Cargo fire, sick pax etc...

Standards?

A 250-1000hr guy in the right seat of an advanced jet in the case of many regional and national airlines around the world is a dangerous potential bomb about to go off. The Indian fellow who tried to adjust his seat in a 737, who put the aircraft into a high altitude stall comes to mind. Colgan crash is another. (while both had a few thousand hours, neither demonstrated the knowledge of what ice does to stalling)

Airlines around the world know that the risk of significant accidents are extremely rare. The idea that increasing capacity of routes, at the expense of finding experienced crews is worth the monetary reward.

Here in the US, many regionals require little more than a heartbeat to fly in the right seat of a high performance aircraft.

[Mig29]

All of this discussion fails to address one aspect of the problem. Professionalism. This is directly related to money. The industry cannot attract top quality candidates as the reward for doing this job doesn't compare with other, easier to attain careers. The cost of training is too high (for operators) to spend time re-training or improving a below standard, or poorly skilled pilots. However, on paper, these pilots, who somehow have enough time and experience satisfy insurance requirements as well as transport's requirements are needed to occupy seats.

If the pilot's career was lucrative, regardless of where he/she is placed in the industry, the industry could attract better candidates. If the training cost to the FTU/Operators was lower, they could spend more time sharpening skills during PPC's and re currents.

Lastly, money and success = pride. There is little pride left in this business. This industry fosters insincerity, nepotism and greed. "If you don't do the job someone else will, if you don't like it, don't let the door hit you on the way out." How many times in one way shape or another has a guy heard this in this biz. Out of school, go straight into the lowly-ist and most corrupt business models in this industry, that is where our pilots are shaping their pilot personalities. Now pay him/her like crap, treat them like crap, and people wonder that pilot professionalism is disappearing?

I think I understand what FOD is trying to say here. Now, yes, money in it's entirety is not the PRIMARY reason for the recent spade of crashed. But I will agree that the state of our industry is not great and shiny since the last decade. Too much pressure is put on crews at many companies, while chipping away at their bottom line. Guys are overworked, tired, stressed while operating high tech aircraft almost in "zombie" mode. I'm not saying that is the case at our major carriers in Canada, but we do have a problem that somewhat hidden at other levels of our industry. In states, the regional/commuter industry is even worse. We don't need to say more about that...

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.

Just my two cents

[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.