What kind of High Altitude Upset Training are HA pilots required to do?
Dec 2, 2015, 12:58 pm
#16
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,576
Aviate, navigate, communicate. Those 3 words are the foundation of flying, no matter a 380 or Pitts. When things go wrong, pilots have to prioritize. Someone should always be flying the airplane, the other communicating/running checklists etc... This supports the situational awareness that is required during all types of operations. I wasn't in the Air Asia cockpit, but in my opinion, there was a breakdown in situational awareness and perhaps the blind application of emergency procedures. Even when Airbus technology degrades to the lowest form (Mechanical Backup) the airplane is indeed flyable. It may not be smooth, pretty or precise, but it can be safe and controlled. That is of course, if you can recall experience, skill and knowledge. From what I understand, the Air Asia pilots only found themselves in the first downgrade in flight control laws (alternate). There would be two more degradations before reaching Mechanical backup.
A pilot should realize the implications of what checklist performance will bring. It's impossible to know everything, but basic understandings are required. I'm not advocating the ignoring of emergency procedures. When things go wrong, the airplane prioritizes the kind of message it will display. Some items require action, others do not. If the ECAM presents itself which a checklist, it is required to be completed. This is what I understand the Air Asia pilots were faced with. I also understand that they were faced with 3 ECAMS, all of which were completed safely. It was the 4th ECAM that came after computer resets that helped seal the fate of the flight. When it comes to the big ticket items like flight controls, hydraulics and electrics, some common sense, systems knowledge and experience will carry you FAR and will likely have a contribution to the outcome. Case in point: QF32. No pilot, including myself is perfect. We are humans after-all. Daily life in the flight deck is more than going from point A to B. It's about risk mitigation, preventing threats and when threats DO happen, solving the problem before it escalates further.
I think many pilots today and certainly the training departments at their airlines (including mine) are also concerned about the reality of automation and the degrading of skills. If handled appropriately, the two can coexist just fine. Hand flying at my airline, as I would imagine others in the USA, is encouraged. Even though when flying "Fly By Wire" or non FBW aircraft, the pilot is sending a signal to execute a maneuver, as opposed to a direct link between pilot and airplane, the pilot is still flying. There is still the management of momentum, descent planning, complying with instructions and restrictions. In other words, being a pilot. Further, even when the autopilot is engaged, we are still "flying" the airplane through the computer. One still has to think, plan and execute. A brain and skills are still required.
The good news for the USA is that our pilots are not born and bread on highly automated and sophisticated airplanes. The vast majority of pilots in the USA cut their teeth flying on traditional airplanes, working their way up the ladder to become an airline pilot. It is incredibly rare, unlike in other parts of the world, for a new airline pilot to have minimal flight time and experience. It's true, post 9/11 there were instances of regional carrier hiring low time pilots. They were however, flying turbo-props and sometimes RJ's, which don't always share the level of automation that large transport category airplanes have. The point is that the vast majority of airline pilots today, in the USA have good FLYING experience in which they have grown as pilots flying various kinds of equipment. Therefore, when found flying a highly automated airplane, such as an Airbus or Boeing, they have good experience to fall back on, when it hits the fan.
The previous paragraph was not meant to disparage ANYONE. It's an illustration of the differences between pilots around the world. Compare the pilot who has experience in multiple kinds of aircraft before getting to fly an Airbus or Boeing, to the one who entered the right right seat of an Airbus or Boeing, shortly after they received their flying certificates. There is no replacement for experience. This is not to say low experience is always dangerous. Good training, good mentoring and being a "natural" will help a low experience pilot succeed in a highly automated environment and will likely enjoy a great career.
I hope this helps Alex909. PM me if you'd like to discuss this further.
A pilot should realize the implications of what checklist performance will bring. It's impossible to know everything, but basic understandings are required. I'm not advocating the ignoring of emergency procedures. When things go wrong, the airplane prioritizes the kind of message it will display. Some items require action, others do not. If the ECAM presents itself which a checklist, it is required to be completed. This is what I understand the Air Asia pilots were faced with. I also understand that they were faced with 3 ECAMS, all of which were completed safely. It was the 4th ECAM that came after computer resets that helped seal the fate of the flight. When it comes to the big ticket items like flight controls, hydraulics and electrics, some common sense, systems knowledge and experience will carry you FAR and will likely have a contribution to the outcome. Case in point: QF32. No pilot, including myself is perfect. We are humans after-all. Daily life in the flight deck is more than going from point A to B. It's about risk mitigation, preventing threats and when threats DO happen, solving the problem before it escalates further.
I think many pilots today and certainly the training departments at their airlines (including mine) are also concerned about the reality of automation and the degrading of skills. If handled appropriately, the two can coexist just fine. Hand flying at my airline, as I would imagine others in the USA, is encouraged. Even though when flying "Fly By Wire" or non FBW aircraft, the pilot is sending a signal to execute a maneuver, as opposed to a direct link between pilot and airplane, the pilot is still flying. There is still the management of momentum, descent planning, complying with instructions and restrictions. In other words, being a pilot. Further, even when the autopilot is engaged, we are still "flying" the airplane through the computer. One still has to think, plan and execute. A brain and skills are still required.
The good news for the USA is that our pilots are not born and bread on highly automated and sophisticated airplanes. The vast majority of pilots in the USA cut their teeth flying on traditional airplanes, working their way up the ladder to become an airline pilot. It is incredibly rare, unlike in other parts of the world, for a new airline pilot to have minimal flight time and experience. It's true, post 9/11 there were instances of regional carrier hiring low time pilots. They were however, flying turbo-props and sometimes RJ's, which don't always share the level of automation that large transport category airplanes have. The point is that the vast majority of airline pilots today, in the USA have good FLYING experience in which they have grown as pilots flying various kinds of equipment. Therefore, when found flying a highly automated airplane, such as an Airbus or Boeing, they have good experience to fall back on, when it hits the fan.
The previous paragraph was not meant to disparage ANYONE. It's an illustration of the differences between pilots around the world. Compare the pilot who has experience in multiple kinds of aircraft before getting to fly an Airbus or Boeing, to the one who entered the right right seat of an Airbus or Boeing, shortly after they received their flying certificates. There is no replacement for experience. This is not to say low experience is always dangerous. Good training, good mentoring and being a "natural" will help a low experience pilot succeed in a highly automated environment and will likely enjoy a great career.
I hope this helps Alex909. PM me if you'd like to discuss this further.
