Fact vs. Fiction

[Doc]

There has to be a reason that flying skills are declining, so what is the root cause?

Maybe poor training quality control and to many low time instructors without proper supervision by experienced instructors?

A large part of the problem Cat, as I see it, is the simple fact that actual "hands and feet" flying skill (outside of bush flying etc.) is just not as important to the airlines as it use to be. I'd wager a 777 is a far easier beast to master, what with auto-everything, than, say a DC6 on a windy strip in Anything Lake, Anywhere? Not talking computer systems here....just "handling" the beast.
I know I like to bitch and moan (as do you) the demise of the "good old days", but my friend, they are perhaps moments in the past. There really is NO reason "non-pilots" (because, lets be frank, that's what they are) can't safely operated the newest that Boeing and Airbus have to offer. Hell mate, bloody Airbuses don't even have control wheels! So, probably one time in several hundred thousand flights "hands and feet" are REALLY needed, then you get pilots like the Air France crew, (none of which were "cadets" I take it?) and these guys were so far behind in brain cells they couldn't even recover from a simple stall?

My only beef with the cadet programme in Canada is.....we have a pretty large number of GA pilots to select from. Asia and Europe do not.

Another interesting thought. While many of the "bush rats" would love to put on stripes and strut through terminals at major airports, that would leave the "farm teams" with VERY low time pilots.....who, to be honest, would create a major hazard in that sector of the aviation community. Do we want 800 hour captains in King Airs? 300 hour captains in Navajos? We do NOT!

[flying4dollars]

Nark, I think you said it right there. 1000s of hours on autopilot IFR with a perfect airplane doesn't provide much experience.

I agree, 1000hours flying straight and level, normal ops etc isn't giving THAT big of an advantage. But, airplanes are not perfect and it's the things that happen between those 1000 hours that you learn (about the airplane, environment and even yourself) that gives experience a 1 up. It's not just about emergencies and aircraft system failures; it's also about operational considerations. Fuel, weather, passengers, comfort, airframe, performance etc. Yes, you learn some of these things in ground school/sim, but if you are a cadet, you cannot learn enough in 20-40 hours to bring you up to par with someone who's experienced.

[Doc]

Nark, I think you said it right there. 1000s of hours on autopilot IFR with a perfect airplane doesn't provide much experience.

I agree, 1000hours flying straight and level, normal ops etc isn't giving THAT big of an advantage. But, airplanes are not perfect and it's the things that happen between those 1000 hours that you learn (about the airplane, environment and even yourself) that gives experience a 1 up. It's not just about emergencies and aircraft system failures; it's also about operational considerations. Fuel, weather, passengers, comfort, airframe, performance etc. Yes, you learn some of these things in ground school/sim, but if you are a cadet, you cannot learn enough in 20-40 hours to bring you up to par with someone who's experienced.

Without sounding like I'm arguing for the other side, these skills, and the ability to think "outside the box", with the modern airliner, will occur SO infrequently, as to be almost unnecessary. On the ONE flight in your very long career, you a can always rely on the guy in the left seat. Hopefully, he was never a cadet?

Funny thing. I land the airplane at least once for every flight hour (on average). Or my co-hort does, so lets say I have around 27000 hours give or take? That's at the VERY least 13500 landings? I have a lot of single pilot time, so it's more like, maybe 18000 landings? (Jesus, that's scary! Never thought of it like that!) Some of them were pretty nasty ones too! Perhaps my "hands and feet" are at least on par with guys who do 5 landings a month....on auto-land? I admit to being a little higher time than most airline applicants, but that's what the airlines don't seem to need. So, lets all hope the emergency the "cadet" does not have to deal with too soon, is the loss of his mentor in the left seat?

[Nark]

I agree, 1000hours flying straight and level, normal ops etc isn't giving THAT big of an advantage. But, airplanes are not perfect and it's the things that happen between those 1000 hours that you learn (about the airplane, environment and even yourself) that gives experience a 1 up. It's not just about emergencies and aircraft system failures; it's also about operational considerations. Fuel, weather, passengers, comfort, airframe, performance etc. Yes, you learn some of these things in ground school/sim, but if you are a cadet, you cannot learn enough in 20-40 hours to bring you up to par with someone who's experienced.

You sir are absolutely right in that respect however;

Day to day normal operations, having a few thousand hours flying in the "bush" does not transfer all that much to what I do now. Lower and upper atmosphere weather is different. Pressurization, and jet engine performance is different. Crosswind landing's are different, as I have an engine on a pylon I have to be aware of.

In today's day and age, these large transport jets are very much systems management. I have to manage numerous systems, be it the FMS and Autopilot mode, while being situationally aware of where the jet is, and where it needs to go.

A near daily example is coming into the New York/Chicago/Atlanta corridors. ATC wants us at 270-300 knots at 10'000. If I were to sit back and and let the FMS/Autopilot do it all, as I descend to 10,000' from higher, the FMS will automatically slow the aircraft down to 250knots as it thinks it's transitioning below. Being aware of this is not something I learned in the bush, flying in the cold blowing winds. A competent cadet can very easily learn this.

Another example is using "Flight-level Change" as a vertical mode on the auto pilot. Below 10,000 again, the autopilot keeps the aircraft at 250 knots until it transitions through 10,000'. However FLCH uses full thrust for climbing (and idle for descents). If I was cruising at 5,000 and ATC gives me a climb to FL2-3-0, pressing FLCH will cause the aircraft to accelerate beyond 250 knots before it pitches up to climb. This will cause you to bust the speed restriction below 10. Using vertical speed hold is great at lower altitudes, however at 30,000+ it's not desirable.

Again, a competent cadet can be taught this.
You don't need to be a 5000 hour pilot to be situationally aware.

Throw into the mix accidents like Air Ontario (Dryden), US Air (LGA), Jazz in North Bay, AA in Columbia, etc... having several thousand hours and experience didn't really do much did it?

[Colonel Sanders]

having several thousand hours and experience didn't really do much did it?

Experience is no guarantee of competence, but you would be hard-pressed to find any individual pilot that thinks he knew as much at 400TT as he did at 4000TT.

[Doc]

So, what I'm hearing from Nark, and quite a few others is to just stream "pilots" from grade 10 or 12, channel them right into the airlines. Train them to be politically correct enough to make it past the blond airhead with the BA, that is human resources, and get them right into computer/ground school, follow that up with 40-60 hours of running check lists, QRH's and FMS management in multi-million dollar simulators, transition them directly into cruise pilot positions for a few years, then the right seat of large modern passenger jets carrying several hundred trusting souls across oceans and continents.
It's a proven model. Works just that way with many airlines.

So, if some poor sot wanted to actually FLY, he/she would have to actually go out, and learn to fly, work ramps, work docks, pay bonds, cough up big dollars to slime ball (too strong? Tough) operators , like the ones we deal with daily here in Canada.....and never get any further than flying in the north/bag runs/instructing/.......but WHY THE FU&K WOULD THEY???

It's all in what you want? Taxi driver? Bus driver?

[Nark]

Point being that expirience isn't total time in a log book.

[CID]

Let's all whip out our dicks and measure. That's basically what most of the posts here amount to....

[Wacko]

Let's all whip out our dicks and measure. That's basically what most of the posts here amount to....

You said a bad word!

[Cat Driver]

Let's all whip out our dicks and measure. That's basically what most of the posts here amount to....

Interesting thought process in the above comment.

Those of us who do actually have high time flying airplanes in a broad spectrum of aviation dare not mention it as we will be seen as dick measuring individuals which has a negative connotation to some members of this forum.

Therefore only males can be guilty of such activity, what do female pilots do?

[Colonel Sanders]

It's funny how often people with experience think it's important, and often people without experience think it isn't important.

Funny thing is, when you look at the job ads, what do they always look for? Experience

[TG]

Yes, experience is important.
Arrogance isn't necessary the best way to show it.

(This rant isn't for Cat & Doc)

[Doc]

Let's all whip out our dicks and measure. That's basically what most of the posts here amount to....

That's not what it's about at all. If you were even semi-literate, You'd know that.

[Doc]

Point being that expirience isn't total time in a log book.

No it's not. You are correct there Nark. But there should be SOME time in a log book. What yard stick (metre stick here BTW) would you use to measure experience?

[CID]

I can read just find Doc. I can read that everyone has an angle as to why their history makes them better pilots than anyone else's brand. "I flew a Beaver". "I flew a crop duster". "I have more training". "I have more experience".

I've often heard people tell me that Robert Piche is a hero and an extremely competent pilot for doing what no other pilot could. Namely planting a powerless A330 down on a patch of dirt in the middle of the ocean. So....I guess having a criminal record makes you a good pilot. Or is it because he grew up speaking French? Or is it because he's white?

See how pointless this is? But hey, if it makes you happy....carry on!

[Doc]

I can read just find Doc. I can read that everyone has an angle as to why their history makes them better pilots than anyone else's brand. "I flew a Beaver". "I flew a crop duster". "I have more training". "I have more experience".

I've often heard people tell me that Robert Piche is a hero and an extremely competent pilot for doing what no other pilot could. Namely planting a powerless A330 down on a patch of dirt in the middle of the ocean. So....I guess having a criminal record makes you a good pilot. Or is it because he grew up speaking French? Or is it because he's white?

See how pointless this is? But hey, if it makes you happy....carry on!

Have to agree with you on that one.....pretty pointless. The "point" being? Oh, Hell with it....lets have a beer. Cheers CID!

[KAG]

This topic reminds me of the Single VS Multi IFR topic, lots of typing going in circles.
Opinions are like a$$holes-everyone has one. Lots of opinions on this thread...a few a$$holes too
relax that was a joke.
Anyway I wish the Seneca grads all the best, study hard and it will pay off. Also don't let it go to your heads and appreciate the oppertunity you have.

[flying4dollars]

I agree, 1000hours flying straight and level, normal ops etc isn't giving THAT big of an advantage. But, airplanes are not perfect and it's the things that happen between those 1000 hours that you learn (about the airplane, environment and even yourself) that gives experience a 1 up. It's not just about emergencies and aircraft system failures; it's also about operational considerations. Fuel, weather, passengers, comfort, airframe, performance etc. Yes, you learn some of these things in ground school/sim, but if you are a cadet, you cannot learn enough in 20-40 hours to bring you up to par with someone who's experienced.

You sir are absolutely right in that respect however;

Day to day normal operations, having a few thousand hours flying in the "bush" does not transfer all that much to what I do now. Lower and upper atmosphere weather is different. Pressurization, and jet engine performance is different. Crosswind landing's are different, as I have an engine on a pylon I have to be aware of.

In today's day and age, these large transport jets are very much systems management. I have to manage numerous systems, be it the FMS and Autopilot mode, while being situationally aware of where the jet is, and where it needs to go.

Hmm, you bring up a very valid point. I agree. I guess it depends on what that experience is coming into. With that being said, flying a turboprop in high density controlled airspace in an airline environment, then going to a major would be a prime example of where experience WILL prevail. Conversely, a pilot who flew Beavers and 206's in the bush and is going to a search and rescue, fire suppression, medevac role etc will also be carrying invaluable experience. The degree to which that experience makes a difference probably does go down a bit with a bush guy going to airline and an airline type guy going to bush. If that makes any sense.

[DAVE THE RAVE]

When I did my training in the A320 box in Toulouse and had finally reached a comfort level in it where me and one of my instructors ( An Airbus test pilot and French astronaut who had flown the space shuttle. ) decided to see who could do the shortest circuit in the simulator in direct law, I won the contest because he finally dragged a wing turning short final and crashed the airplane ( Sim. )

I credit my success in beating him to having flown in Ag work for eight years and water bombers for fifteen years as well as being the holder of a European air-display Authority for flying in the air show business.......ergo my experience in high command airplane handling skills at low level may have given me the edge over him.

Thus it is my opinion that experience trumps training in a lot of cases.

Wow! I'll have to keep that in mind next time Orly tower requests a rapid visual circuit.

[complexintentions]

I'd wager a 777 is a far easier beast to master, what with auto-everything, than, say a DC6 on a windy strip in Anything Lake, Anywhere? Not talking computer systems here....just "handling" the beast.

Errm...no. I think you'd lose that bet. I haven't flown a DC6 (alas!), but I have flown a/c in its weight category and I have to say something weighing 240 tons isn't any easier or harder to operate than something weighing 50 tons. Different handling characteristics to be sure. I'll have to look for the "auto-everything" switch in the flight deck the next time I'm at work!

While I admire the ability to handle an airliner like an ag plane, I'm not sure the airlines see the value in that, in fact they tend to sorta frown on it...?