Why so long to learn new aircraft operation?

[weaponoffreedom]

@Astro14

You said you were a F-14 pilot. Did you ever fly any other military aircraft? I suppose you flew civilian aircraft also.........

So here is the real question: Does it really take 6 months to learn a new aircraft, until being considered effective?

I would suppose, in general, a pilot (especially a military aviator) should be able to jump into most planes and fly the **** thing.

 

[ecotourist]

A bit of history: Britain and Canada had female pilots ferrying aircraft around during WWII. They weren't allowed to fly in combat but they could fly from the factory to an airbase or between airbases. They carried a cheat sheet of where the controls were (there was little to no standardization in those days), required procedures, etc on all the aircraft they might be required to fly. They climbed in and flew them. Whether they flew all those types really well is a different question, but they flew them well enough to take off, navigate and land them where they were supposed to be delivered.

Seems to me some of those women had flown over 30 different aircraft types by the end of the war. Many of them really liked to fly Spitfires.

There is a story of a large bomber (a Lancaster or a Halifax) landing at an airbase and a female pilot getting out. Some wag asked where was the pilot. "I'm the pilot" she said. He didn't believe her and after waiting a long time for "the pilot" to get out went looking all through the aircraft but couldn't find anyone else on board. The start up procedure for the engines alone is daunting. They must have been very good pilots.

 

[Cujet]

A bit of history: Britain and Canada had female pilots ferrying aircraft around during WWII.

In the USA, female pilots did much the same. My paternal grandfather, a Major in the US Army, was during the war, involved with the WASP/WAFS (female ferry pilot) programs. I knew him well and he always liked the ladies... Looking back, it could have been no other way...

 

[John105]

It’s rather fascinating how there are just so many unique scenarios.

We have a friend from the USAF who became a MD. He asked me for advice on his leaking sunroof. Yet he flew fighter jets.

I once said to a diesel mechanics who was rotating tires on a Freightliner. I bet working on cars is Child’s play for you. He goes work on a car? No I don’t do that, everything is so small with no room, nope.

 

[Astro14]

@Astro14

You said you were a F-14 pilot. Did you ever fly any other military aircraft? I suppose you flew civilian aircraft also.........

So here is the real question: Does it really take 6 months to learn a new aircraft, until being considered effective?

I would suppose, in general, a pilot (especially a military aviator) should be able to jump into most planes and fly the **** thing.

In the military, I flew and completed formal training/qualified in:
T-34C
T-2C
TA-4J
F-14A
E-2C
F-14B
F/A-18C/D

Additionally, I flew in the following with a qualified pilot:
TH-57
HH-60
S-3B
EA-6B
F-5E
F-16N

I’ve flown the following civilian airplanes but only as second pilot, no training:
C-152
C-172
C-182 turbo
Citation I
Stearman PT-17
Piper Archer
Cirrus SR-20
Nanchang CJ-6

Formal training/type rating on the following civilian airplanes:
Piper PA-44 Seminole (just to get my ATP)
Airbus A-320
Boeing 747-400
Boeing 757/767

From that background, let me say that yep, six weeks, to several months of is necessary to get a pilot trained to operate that airplane with sufficient safety margins (or combat effectiveness) to allow them to be considered qualified.

Look airplanes aren’t like a car. They just aren't. They’re far, far more complex. The systems vary. Procedures vary. Handling qualities vary. Even the act of just flying straight and level requires that you have the correct speed for the current configuration, but...airspeeds vary across types and within types depending on temperature, altitude, weight and configuration.

Emergency procedures vary, and must be memorized, you don't have time to look some things up. They must be memorized and done instantly.

The operators manual for the 757/767 is over 2,600 pages long and it must be read, understood, and followed. You can't just "get it close". You must get it precisely right, every time.

*****

So, let's examine a minor system problem in a 767-300, and compare that with a warning light on your dash of a car. This is just one of a great many potential failures and in training, you will experience this, in a simulator, and have to fly the airplane to a safe landing.

You are expected to know what each of the systems are (and I don't have time to explain each one, but if you're a pilot, you'll understand) and to which switch the steps are referring. Here is a 767-300 overhead panel, for reference, as you follow along...so that you can see each of the switches.

So, you get an EICAS warning for center hydraulic system pressure.

1. C AIR HYD DEMAND PUMP selector - ON
2. Chose one
SYS PRESS light extinguishes - continue normal operation.
SYS PRESS light remains illuminated - go to step 3.
3. C AIR HYD DEMAND PUMP selector - OFF
4. C1 and C2 ELEC HYD PRIMARY PUMP switches - off
5. Speed brake lever - Down. Do not arm speedbrakes for landing.
6. Manually extend speedbrakes for landing.
7. Use flaps 20 and Vref 20 for landing
8. Do not autoland.

The following items are inoperative:

• Center autopilot
• HMG#
• Right autopilot stabilizer trim
• Some spoiler panels on each wing. Roll rate may be reduced in flight. Speed brake effectiveness will be reduced in flight and during landing.
• Center system hydraulic power to stabilizer trim inoperative. Left system powers trim at one half rate.
• Normal flap operation inoperative. Alternate flap operation is needed. Allow 3 minutes for flap extension during approach.
• Normal landing gear extension inoperative. Alternate gear extension is needed.
• Automatic Speed brake system inoperative. Manual deployment is needed.

9. Check the non-normal Configuration landing distance tables in the performance chapter*

Now you have to figure out where to take the airplane. This is based on runway length, airport and enroute weather, approach facilities (including any that may be NOTAMed inoperative on that day), airport traffic, fuel state, landing weight and airport ramp/taxiway size and weight bearing capacity, emergency facilities, including fire/rescue capabilities (many airports can't handle a widebody), aircraft performance with this malfunction, terrain and missed approach calculations, geo-political factors (internationally, this matters) and pilot familiarity.

So, you get an oil pressure light on your dash, you pull over and shut down the car. Simple. Easy by comparison. Looking for a safe place to pull over, and you don't even have to worry about what speed keeps you in the air, compared with every consideration I just listed?

Child's play by comparison.

*****

That is what you learn in training. Every airplane is different. You must understand the machine completely just to operate it safely.

In the military, you learned to operate it safely and then you learned to employ the weapon system - a whole different level of complexity.

So, back to the question - is that much training needed? Yeah. Every time. You can't just jump in and go. Only Hollywood believes that. In the real world, it's fantasy. You cannot expect to fly an airplane without learning it first.



# Hydraulic motor generator. A back-up power source used for long range operations.

*This is a multi-step process, based on performance at sea level, zero wind, using full reverse, Vref +5 at touchdown, maximum manual braking, touchdown at 1,000 feet down runway, standard temperature, and less than 1 degree runway slope. It requires adjustments for gross weight, height above sea level, each knot of tailwind, each knot flown above Vref +5, inoperative reversers, and then the addition of a 15% safety margin. This step determines the minimum runway required to land this airplane with this problem on this day and it must be performed before a determination of where to land can be made.

Edit: a bit of exposition. The center system is normally pressurized by two electric hydraulic pumps, each one powered by a separate electric bus, so that in event of electric failure, you still have center system hydraulics. The first step of the procedure is to try and restore pressure using the back up, or demand, pump. If the cause of the system pressure loss was the failure (electric or mechanical) of the system pumps, then this step might resolve the system pressure. But if the failure was due to fluid loss, then, in step 2, you move on and shut off all the pumps to prevent further damage. Running a high pressure pump with no fluid can cause an overheat - leading to other problems. The pump itself is already toast, we just don't want it catching on fire from an overheat.

You're expected to know how to emergency extend both the flaps and the gear. There are checklists to back you up on the performance of those tasks.

The use of flaps 20 for landing, as opposed to the normal positions of flaps 25 or 30, allows the airplane to meet climb gradient criteria in the event of a missed approach. A normal go around starts with the application of power, then retraction of flaps to 20, then raising the gear. But in our airplane with a problem, all of this has changed. Some of it can't be done. A go around requires the airplane to meet certain climb gradient criteria, and we have to modify how we configure the airplane for landing to ensure that we can meet those criteria (or we potentially impact terrain - not good - on a missed approach).

The flap emergency extension system would not retract the flaps at the normal rate, meaning there would be more drag if normal flaps were to be used for landing. Moreover, the emergency gear extension process leaves the gear down permanently, so, as a result, the airplane has more drag should a missed approach be executed. Selection of flaps 20 for landing, vs. a normal setting, changes the drag characteristics, handling qualities, approach speed, landing distance, and visual cues on landing, but we accept all of those parameter changes to get better climb performance should a go around be required.

Did everyone find the pertinent cockpit controls and indicators for this emergency from the diagram? You don't have time to be fumbling around...

 

[weaponoffreedom]

In the military, I flew and completed formal training/qualified in:
T-34C
T-2C
TA-4J
F-14A
E-2C
F-14B
F/A-18C/D

Additionally, I flew in the following with a qualified pilot:
TH-57
HH-60
S-3B
EA-6B
F-5E
F-16N

I’ve flown the following civilian airplanes but only as second pilot, no training:
C-152
C-172
C-182 turbo
Citation I
Stearman PT-17
Piper Archer
Cirrus SR-20
Nanchang CJ-6

Formal training/type rating on the following civilian airplanes:
Piper PA-44 Seminole (just to get my ATP)
Airbus A-320
Boeing 747-400
Boeing 757/767

From that background, let me say that yep, six weeks, to several months of is necessary to get a pilot trained to operate that airplane with sufficient safety margins (or combat effectiveness) to allow them to be considered qualified.

Look airplanes aren’t like a car. They just aren't. They’re far, far more complex. The systems vary. Procedures vary. Handling qualities vary. Even the act of just flying straight and level requires that you have the correct speed for the current configuration, but...airspeeds vary across types and within types depending on temperature, altitude, weight and configuration.

Emergency procedures vary, and must be memorized, you don't have time to look some things up. They must be memorized and done instantly.

The operators manual for the 757/767 is over 2,600 pages long and it must be read, understood, and followed. You can't just "get it close". You must get it precisely right, every time.

*****

So, let's examine a minor system problem in a 767-300, and compare that with a warning light on your dash of a car. This is just one of a great many potential failures and in training, you will experience this, in a simulator, and have to fly the airplane to a safe landing.

You are expected to know what each of the systems are (and I don't have time to explain each one, but if you're a pilot, you'll understand) and to which switch the steps are referring. Here is a 767-300 overhead panel, for reference, as you follow along...so that you can see each of the switches.

View attachment 173868

So, you get an EICAS warning for center hydraulic system pressure.

1. C AIR HYD DEMAND PUMP selector - ON
2. Chose one
SYS PRESS light extinguishes - continue normal operation.
SYS PRESS light remains illuminated - go to step 3.
3. C AIR HYD DEMAND PUMP selector - OFF
4. C1 and C2 ELEC HYD PRIMARY PUMP switches - off
5. Speed brake lever - Down. Do not arm speedbrakes for landing.
6. Manually extend speedbrakes for landing.
7. Use flaps 20 and Vref 20 for landing
8. Do not autoland.

The following items are inoperative:

• Center autopilot
• HMG#
• Right autopilot stabilizer trim
• Some spoiler panels on each wing. Roll rate may be reduced in flight. Speed brake effectiveness will be reduced in flight and during landing.
• Center system hydraulic power to stabilizer trim inoperative. Left system powers trim at one half rate.
• Normal flap operation inoperative. Alternate flap operation is needed. Allow 3 minutes for flap extension during approach.
• Normal landing gear extension inoperative. Alternate gear extension is needed.
• Automatic Speed brake system inoperative. Manual deployment is needed.

9. Check the non-normal Configuration landing distance tables in the performance chapter*

Now you have to figure out where to take the airplane. This is based on runway length, airport and enroute weather, approach facilities (including any that may be NOTAMed inoperative on that day), airport traffic, fuel state, landing weight and airport ramp/taxiway size and weight bearing capacity, emergency facilities, including fire/rescue capabilities (many airports can't handle a widebody), aircraft performance with this malfunction, terrain and missed approach calculations, geo-political factors (internationally, this matters) and pilot familiarity.

So, you get an oil pressure light on your dash, you pull over and shut down the car. Simple. Easy by comparison. Looking for a safe place to pull over, and you don't even have to worry about what speed keeps you in the air, compared with every consideration I just listed?

Child's play by comparison.

*****

That is what you learn in training. Every airplane is different. You must understand the machine completely just to operate it safely.

In the military, you learned to operate it safely and then you learned to employ the weapon system - a whole different level of complexity.

So, back to the question - is that much training needed? Yeah. Every time. You can't just jump in and go. Only Hollywood believes that. In the real world, it's fantasy. You cannot expect to fly an airplane without learning it first.



# Hydraulic motor generator. A back-up power source used for long range operations.

*This is a multi-step process, based on performance at sea level, zero wind, using full reverse, Vref +5 at touchdown, maximum manual braking, touchdown at 1,000 feet down runway, standard temperature, and less than 1 degree runway slope. It requires adjustments for gross weight, height above sea level, each knot of tailwind, each knot flown above Vref +5, inoperative reversers, and then the addition of a 15% safety margin. This step determines the minimum runway required to land this airplane with this problem on this day and it must be performed before a determination of where to land can be made.

Edit: a bit of exposition. The center system is normally pressurized by two electric hydraulic pumps, each one powered by a separate electric bus, so that in event of electric failure, you still have center system hydraulics. The first step of the procedure is to try and restore pressure using the back up, or demand, pump. If the cause of the system pressure loss was the failure (electric or mechanical) of the system pumps, then this step might resolve the system pressure. But if the failure was due to fluid loss, then, in step 2, you move on and shut off all the pumps to prevent further damage. Running a high pressure pump with no fluid can cause an overheat - leading to other problems. The pump itself is already toast, we just don't want it catching on fire from an overheat.

You're expected to know how to emergency extend both the flaps and the gear. There are checklists to back you up on the performance of those tasks.

The use of flaps 20 for landing, as opposed to the normal positions of flaps 25 or 30, allows the airplane to meet climb gradient criteria in the event of a missed approach. A normal go around starts with the application of power, then retraction of flaps to 20, then raising the gear. But in our airplane with a problem, all of this has changed. Some of it can't be done. A go around requires the airplane to meet certain climb gradient criteria, and we have to modify how we configure the airplane for landing to ensure that we can meet those criteria (or we potentially impact terrain - not good - on a missed approach).

The flap emergency extension system would not retract the flaps at the normal rate, meaning there would be more drag if normal flaps were to be used for landing. Moreover, the emergency gear extension process leaves the gear down permanently, so, as a result, the airplane has more drag should a missed approach be executed. Selection of flaps 20 for landing, vs. a normal setting, changes the drag characteristics, handling qualities, approach speed, landing distance, and visual cues on landing, but we accept all of those parameter changes to get better climb performance should a go around be required.

Did everyone find the pertinent cockpit controls and indicators for this emergency from the diagram? You don't have time to be fumbling around...

Thanks for the thorough and above board response. I would expect nothing less.

I do understand the importance of procedure, and where it, safety, and time meet up, you must know 100% what you are doing, or accept the consequence. I had no idea there was that much difference between aircraft. I figured there might be most between different types like the C-5 and F-15, being as they are different types. I suppose the real difference is in procedure and systems?

 

[Astro14]

Thanks for the thorough and above board response. I would expect nothing less.

I do understand the importance of procedure, and where it, safety, and time meet up, you must know 100% what you are doing, or accept the consequence. I had no idea there was that much difference between aircraft. I figured there might be most between different types like the C-5 and F-15, being as they are different types. I suppose the real difference is in procedure and systems?

Certainly going from airliner to airliner, particularly with a common manufacturer, the transition could be relatively straightforward, and Airlines typically accomplish this in anywhere from 4 to 6 weeks of training. But that’s taking an experienced pilot, who is already familiar with the size, category, and type of airplanes. Sweptwing, jet powered, big airplane. We have a lot of pilots struggle with their initial airline training, because they haven’t seen swept wings, or high speeds, or big, heavy airplanes, and they’re used to something very different. So they have to learn a whole different set of responses, like going from a Ferrari to a Semi truck. Except the semi truck goes just about as fast.

Airbus has done a brilliant job of keeping their cockpits and auto flight systems identical across platforms, so going from say an A320 to an A330, is a very quick course. The weights and speeds are different, of course, but the aircraft calculates those for you, and displays them in exactly the same manner across the aircraft types. Makes the transition quite simple.

I found the transition from F-14 to F-18 to be relatively straightforward. Many Hornet guys have told me that the reverse is almost impossible, that the Tomcat’s complexity in flight control systems and configuration management made it intimidating.

I got through the initial phase of F-18 training in about a month. I was able to safely fly the airplane at that point. The Hornet is a really well thought out airplane. It is easy to fly. My advantage in going through the course at that time was that I had already been an instructor in the F 14, and I knew exactly what I wanted this new machine to do. So, I simply had to translate my intentions into the correct actions with a new platform. Even basic employment of the weapon system came quickly, because I already knew how to fight an airplane, and again, the Hornet is a great jet. Very thoughtfully designed.

What’s interesting about my job now is that I fly both the 767 and the 757. Boeing intended them for to be common aircraft types, but the systems underlying both of them are actually quite different. 757 and 767 hydraulic and pneumatic systems aren’t even close. Our course is frankly the hardest of the airline, because we have essentially four variants. 757-200, round dial, RR engines. 757-300, round dial, RR engines. 767-300, round dial, P&W engines. 767-400, flat screen, GE engines.

There are several differences, even among those models, in communication and navigation equipment.

To your point though, a guy flying F-18 could figure out the F-15 pretty quickly. He might not be able to fly it safely until he’s had all of the school, but the cockpit layout, the way that the hydraulic system is organized, the generators, the engines, landing gear and everything else is gonna work pretty similar since they’re both McDonald Douglas products. It will feel familiar. It will be straightforward.

Test pilots often fly several different aircraft at the same time. The challenge with military aircraft, particularly single seat aircraft, is the amount of rote memorization that is required for emergency action items. You need to see those emergencies in a simulator, to really get a feel for the airplane, and what those actions entail. Test pilots, though, don’t always know how the weapon system operates, or they often fly airplanes without a weapon system. That weapon system, is a whole dimension to an aircraft type. It greatly changes the complexity, well as the scope, of learning.

I’ve had several folks as guests in the 747, 757 and 767 simulators over the years. Even the experienced pilots need a lot of guidance on how to manage the airplane. And I end up doing a lot of things to simplify the experience. They may be able to manipulate the flight controls and get the airplane to go where they want to go, and frankly, if they’re able to do that on the first try, that’s above average, but I’m handling dozens of systems, calculations, inputs, and changes outside of their focus in order to simplify what they’re seeing and managing. So, to them, it might seem pretty easy, but that’s because I’ve been taking care of so much of the flying that they have only had to look at, perhaps, five to ten percent of the workload needed.

The more astute among the crowd, notice the amount of button pushing, programming, tweaking, adjusting, and management that I handle and realize how little they actually know in comparison with what needs to be done to safely operate an airplane like that.

And that’s in normal operations, with everything working as it should. A trained/qualified pilot is able to fully handle all the emergency procedures and non-normal operations as well.

I’ve flown some interesting simulators over the years. Zero prior training, including the T-37, A-6, and Harrier. In every case, I was able to get them off the ground, fly them around and land them.

But, and this is the critical point, it was a simulator, and what I was doing as a pilot with zero experience, and that airplane was most certainly dangerous in the real world. My selection of takeoff speeds and flap settings, for example, was a complete guess. The same with landing. Safety margins were compromised the whole time.

Lots of fun. But no translation in the real world. In the real world pilots need to be trained to a level of safety and proficiency doesn’t matter if we are talking about the military, and combat effectiveness, or Airlines, and passenger safety.

Qualified means trained to an acceptable standard. And it’s a long road to get to that standard.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

Thanks for the clarification, and the addition to my knowledge banks.

You have just reaffirmed a few items on my mind recently.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Not much anyone can add given the extraordinarily well-written post ( would make a fantastic ground school instructor BTW ) by Astro but I would add that to really, really, know a plane well, to know your stuff, you have to go far beyond what you are taught and ask questions, ask to see other things in the sim when having extra time leftover, etc.

I used to drive Captains nuts when I first got on the Airbus, constantly asking questions and eager to learn more.

Even today, I still ask to see extra stuff in the sim sessions that are not part of the script just to see what the aircraft does.

Trust me, despite what some think, you cannot fly the A320 with zero hydraulics even though the manual talks about "manual reversion" somewhere ( meant for flying if temporary loss of electrics ).

I have recurrent sim next week, I have a list of a few extra things I would like to see.

Very few Fo's ask me anything about the A320 ( except "How long have you been on it, you seem to know it well" ), even when upgrading to Captain soon.

 

[wpod]

The airliners are complicated !