Ethiopian ET302 Crash.

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by Jcountry


One thing I think you misunderstand is how little stick and rudder skills matter in airliners these days. They are designed to take finesse and touch out of the equation. You don't need to be good at that stuff.. BUT you do need to be good at managing the machine. And highly "automated" planes actually make that more difficult in some ways. Stick and rudder stuff is way in the past. Flying an airliner feels like driving a dump truck. Flying a light aircraft well takes only a couple of fingertips.

The main issue I have with MCAS is that the [censored] at boeing HID the system. And yes, the FAA didn't seem to notice. [censored], they even let boeing "self-certify". The [censored] plane. And MCAS is much more than just a "feel" system. It has aggressive trim rate inputs which can reset an unlimited number of times. I believe it runs its full authority in only about 3 or 4 seconds..... And with it turning on/off and behaving very strangely, I can certainly imagine why those pilots were confused-especially considering how there was nothing in any of the manuals about the system even being installed.

Really read that UK technical site link closely. It has an excellent explanation. Far more than a feel system.


I think you misunderstand that, or at least mis-state it... Stick and rudder skills still matter. They're crucial. But they don't matter to the engineers that design airplanes, nor to airline operations departments. And pilots are not given the opportunity to develop or practice them, despite how important they really are.

We expect pilots to watch a computer fly, and then jump in with superior skills when the computer fails (a la MCAS) but watching the computer fly doesn't develop skills, and we don't provide the opportunity for pilots to develop or maintain skills*.

I encourage you to go back and read the all of the posts in this thread.

Stick and rudder necessity, and proficiency, has been a huge area of discussion.


*Unless you're flying with me. Hand-fly up to cruise. Trim with AP off in cruise. Hand fly the approach. Flight directors off for a visual in SFO. And that's just my last trip...but I am a dinosaur, flying a dinosaur (757/767). Use the automation as needed to accomplish a safe flight. The higher the workload, or the greater the fatigue, the more automation is encouraged, but the lower the workload, the more I encourage hand-flying.

 

[4WD]

As a frequent flyer … this gives rise to the debate I don't get. Seems the most intense part (take off and move away from heavy airport traffic, etc) and then feels like we climb maybe 20 minutes … Today's pilots can't fly that long ?

On 302 … auto mode function was required 6 minutes after take off ?

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by 4WD
As a frequent flyer … this gives rise to the debate I don't get. Seems the most intense part (take off and move away from heavy airport traffic, etc) and then feels like we climb maybe 20 minutes … Today's pilots can't fly that long ?

On 302 … auto mode function was required 6 minutes after take off ?


Some companies (not mine) REQUIRE that the Autopilot be turned on as soon as possible after takeoff.

So, for some airplanes, that is 500 feet. For some, like Ethiopian, it's not much better, there is an autopilot on requirement.

Not exactly conducive to developing flying proficiency.

Worse: Some companies (in rapidly growing, peer economies, with civilian-trained pilots and authoritarian governments, name rhymes with "Air China") actually use the airplane software to monitor pilot performance and compliance. If a pilot is hand-flying, and exceeds a parameter, they are fined by their company, and money is taken from their paycheck. For example, during climb the maximum speed is 250 KIAS, and the assigned speed is 250 KIAS, so if a pilot exceeds 250 KIAS by 1 knot, that's right, ONE knot, then a minor infraction of $200 is taken from his check. Larger deviations, like, say 10 knots, and the fine is $500 from their check.

So, in one flight, with a couple of ripples of turbulence, that cause a 1 knot airspeed excursion, a pilot, who chooses to hand-fly, could lose THOUSANDS of dollars. Similar fines are imposed on bank angle, pitch, glideslope, etc. Airlines have imposed this rule set (with the financial penalties) to improve "compliance" with ATC clearances. The autopilot will be used all the time, or you, the pilot, will pay hundreds, or even thousands of dollars.

So, at that airline NO pilot hand-flies. Ever.

Autopilot on at 200 feet. Off at 200 feet on landing. 14 hour international flight yields a total of 30 seconds of actual stick and rudder practice.

Their regulatory compliance is excellent.

Their ability to fly an airplane when something goes wrong is abysmal.

Witness China Air 006, in which an engine failed during cruise, and the crew didn't actually fly the airplane, took no action on the flight controls, until the airplane rolled over and ended up supersonic (or nearly so)...15,000 "hour" pilot...which means, what, a few hours of actual flying in his career? And 15,000 hours of monitoring an autopilot???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_006

Or, take a look at Asiana 214 - perfectly good airplane, clear day, hand flown into the SFO sea wall because the crew didn't understand how the airplane worked, rarely flew by hand, and lacked the proficiency to maintain airspeed.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by Jcountry


One thing I think you misunderstand is how little stick and rudder skills matter in airliners these days. They are designed to take finesse and touch out of the equation. You don't need to be good at that stuff.. BUT you do need to be good at managing the machine. And highly "automated" planes actually make that more difficult in some ways. Stick and rudder stuff is way in the past. Flying an airliner feels like driving a dump truck. Flying a light aircraft well takes only a couple of fingertips.

The main issue I have with MCAS is that the [censored] at boeing HID the system. And yes, the FAA didn't seem to notice. [censored], they even let boeing "self-certify". The [censored] plane. And MCAS is much more than just a "feel" system. It has aggressive trim rate inputs which can reset an unlimited number of times. I believe it runs its full authority in only about 3 or 4 seconds..... And with it turning on/off and behaving very strangely, I can certainly imagine why those pilots were confused-especially considering how there was nothing in any of the manuals about the system even being installed.
Really read that UK technical site link closely. It has an excellent explanation. Far more than a feel system.


You apparently misunderstood what I wrote.
A lack of ability to actually fly an aircraft will work just fine until it doesn't.
When things go down the drain and the automation dumps everything into the hands of the crew, the ability of the crew to actually fly the aircraft with a learned understanding of what's happening is crucial. Pitch and power were all the Air France crew needed to understand to get themselves and their aircraft and passengers out of trouble. They couldn't grasp this as they ran their aircraft along with all of its passengers into the Atlantic ITCZ. Had these guys had more actual flying experience, they would have had the skills to recognize the stall they put the aircraft into and then held all the way down.
Forget MCAS and consider AF447.
Do you understand what I'm getting at?
Incidentally, crews of older jet airliners who spent a lot more of their flying hours actually flying their aircraft never described them as handling like dump trucks.
Some were even described as quite sporty to fly.

 

[4WD]

Can't say I haven't flown with both of them …
… but glad to be going back on IAH to NRT with you know who

 

[Jcountry]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by Jcountry


One thing I think you misunderstand is how little stick and rudder skills matter in airliners these days. They are designed to take finesse and touch out of the equation. You don't need to be good at that stuff.. BUT you do need to be good at managing the machine. And highly "automated" planes actually make that more difficult in some ways. Stick and rudder stuff is way in the past. Flying an airliner feels like driving a dump truck. Flying a light aircraft well takes only a couple of fingertips.

The main issue I have with MCAS is that the [censored] at boeing HID the system. And yes, the FAA didn't seem to notice. [censored], they even let boeing "self-certify". The [censored] plane. And MCAS is much more than just a "feel" system. It has aggressive trim rate inputs which can reset an unlimited number of times. I believe it runs its full authority in only about 3 or 4 seconds..... And with it turning on/off and behaving very strangely, I can certainly imagine why those pilots were confused-especially considering how there was nothing in any of the manuals about the system even being installed.
Really read that UK technical site link closely. It has an excellent explanation. Far more than a feel system.


You apparently misunderstood what I wrote.
A lack of ability to actually fly an aircraft will work just fine until it doesn't.
When things go down the drain and the automation dumps everything into the hands of the crew, the ability of the crew to actually fly the aircraft with a learned understanding of what's happening is crucial. Pitch and power were all the Air France crew needed to understand to get themselves and their aircraft and passengers out of trouble. They couldn't grasp this as they ran their aircraft along with all of its passengers into the Atlantic ITCZ. Had these guys had more actual flying experience, they would have had the skills to recognize the stall they put the aircraft into and then held all the way down.
Forget MCAS and consider AF447.
Do you understand what I'm getting at?
Incidentally, crews of older jet airliners who spent a lot more of their flying hours actually flying their aircraft never described them as handling like dump trucks.
Some were even described as quite sporty to fly.


I'd like to recommend an excellent book:

‘Understanding Air France 447' Bill Palmer....

This guy was an A330 program manager for NWA. Excellent book and I think pretty understandable for non-pilots and pilots alike. If you want to really understand that situation, that book is fabulous.

Full disclosure-I fly the Airbus. I love it! Flew the more traditional way for 25 years, and the AB takes some getting used to, but once you do, you will never go back to those other things.

The point I am trying to make (poorly) is true to some extent of all modern airliners. The stick and rudder stuff is a given. I can't imagine anyone flying for a major US airline and not having that stuff figured out. But finesse and touch don't matter. They just don't. At all. I flew a crj for many years, and it was fun and sporty, but touch didn't matter much in it either.

I think the thing about the AB is the automation is your friend. It's a way to de putter your brain and be a better manager. In some planes, hand flying is satisfying and fun. In an AB, it's pretty pointless. Managing the plane is more important, and takes a bit more attention-especially when you are new to the plane. Hand flying detracts from that to some extent.

I agree that 447 started because of poor airmanship, but there's more to it than that. It wasn't really poor design, poor airmanship, or poor management. It was a combination of all three. That's a great book. And a good illustration of how vital management can be.

 

[fdcg27]

If the stick and rudder stuff were actually a given, then AF 447 would have been no more than an upset which might have awakened a few of the pax.
It wouldn't have been a disaster resulting in the loss of the frame and everyone aboard.
You write that finesse and touch don't matter and when everything is going well they probably don't.
When things go bad, the ability to actually fly an airplane and not merely manage systems like a video gamer does matter.
An Airbus in Alternate Law flies just like a vintage Boeing and is just as reliant on airmanship in its control.

 

[Jcountry]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
If the stick and rudder stuff were actually a given, then AF 447 would have been no more than an upset which might have awakened a few of the pax.
It wouldn't have been a disaster resulting in the loss of the frame and everyone aboard.
You write that finesse and touch don't matter and when everything is going well they probably don't.
When things go bad, the ability to actually fly an airplane and not merely manage systems like a video gamer does matter.
An Airbus in Alternate Law flies just like a vintage Boeing and is just as reliant on airmanship in its control.



This is true.

I don't have that concern about basic airmanship with western-trained flight crews, but definitely crews in some other places are not trained to the same standard. [censored], even some European airlines use something called an MPL during cruise-while one of the pilots is taking a required rest. That person is technically not even a pilot. Read about that. It's a horrible idea.

Many countries have a very, very low standard for training people who wind up at the controls of an airliner.

Those are the people who worry me. You need to be a good manager with these machines. It can be easy for them to get into an undesired state if you aren't managing well. Smoothness and finesse have nothing to do with being a good manager. That's what I'm trying to say .

But yes. Basic airmanship should be a given by the time someone sits in an airliner cockpit

 

[Jcountry]

Yep.

Some Boeing execs will go to prison over this.

Apparently knew this was a problem for over a year and continued to hide it.

Some FAA people should share cells with them.

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/06/7205...-problem-before-plane-crash-in-indonesia

 

[4WD]

Before I read anything these days … I go check out previous work of the same author …
Did that and done …

 

[Jcountry]

Originally Posted by 4WD
Before I read anything these days … I go check out previous work of the same author …
Did that and done …



The author is not the problem here....

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/05/business/boeing-737-max-warning-light.html

I'm not a huge NYT fan normally, but their business reporting is good.

I think Boeing definitely knew about this system being an option, though..... A very expensive option. Manufacturers regularly do this with many features, because $$$$$$$.

Boeing execs are pathetic. They knew the score on this stuff..... They probably just thought it would look exactly like a normal trim runaway. It doesn't. And the [censored] system runs for a full 10 seconds when triggered. That's an insane amount of trim on a 737.

 

[4WD]

I think your bias on Boeing has been on full display for several days …
Only you just are not getting the attention you want … how about we let the real investigators have this a few more months and not the drama queens from smear rags …

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by 4WD
I think your bias on Boeing has been on full display for several days …
Only you just are not getting the attention you want … how about we let the real investigators have this a few more months and not the drama queens from smear rags …

He's only here to impress us with his sweet airplane skills and denigrate Boeing. Nothing else.