Let's bring back the Stuntman

Member for

1 year 8 months

Posts: 15

Possibly the best stunt work I seen was in the Airport 1980 film, when a stuntman ran underneath Concorde on take off.

Member for

8 years

Posts: 5,852

Software will now deal with the daily routine of flight. Stratified ones will do even better (see earlier).
When something will go wrong, it will potentially cascade into something catastrophic rapidly. It is then logically in the interest of the industry to see and recruit their pilots as a backup failure system that will react in an environment where the decision process has been compromised or did failed completely (unexpected case of failure, instruments failures, non-relevant checklist, communications unavailable...). The Pilot will have to react instantly and take decisive action right on the go. Pilots that master the core of their competencies only will have a chance of success: stick time, 3d awareness, crash procedure training, aerobatics basics (and understanding), flight time "by the pants" and obviously old fashioned navigation training will be at the forefront of what does constitute for modern airlines... an useful pilot.

Member for

1 year 8 months

Posts: 15

TomcatVIP

Have to say this is an odd title for what you are trying to explain!!!!

Member for

8 years

Posts: 5,852

It refers to the early age of aviation where every flight was a stunt (see 1st post of the thread)


A pilot with a stuntman background... A one trained to land every time his plane in the Hudson river, glide a 242 tones aircraft for hundred of miles or recover from a spin at night in the most severe thunderstorm...

Let's let the Engineer deal with the day to day routines of flight. Let's grd operator manage the flight routes, the schedules, the administrative tasks. Let's the airlines Manage the flow of passengers in front of the increase number of administrative and legal procedures. Let the Software deal with the expected, the attended, the known situations...

And let the pilot be a flyer, unsophisticated, rough, Cocky if possible but the one that can handle the most serious, sever and unexpected situation. Yep , that one will certainly have to be alone in the "cockpit" for obvious economic reason (cost of training), but let's bring back the Stuntman!

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/M2CBx7x5GCI/hqdefault.jpg

Member for

8 years

Posts: 5,852

Last Ethiopian Boeing Max crash raised the question that this topic was aimed for more than 4 years ago:

"Airlines don't teach pilots to fly. They teach procedures. Your basic core skills should be there before you get to the airline," said Bo Corby, director of standards and training for Future & Active Pilot Advisors, or FAPA, a career and financial advisory service.

He said the focus for training many pilots these days is to teach them how to use the automated systems, deemphasizing basic flying skills. He said the time has come to revert to a system in which knowledge of core techniques becomes critical again.

Source:
USA Today.com

Member for

11 years 8 months

Posts: 1,059

I think the two need to go hand-in-hand throughout the training procedure. Over-reliance on automated systems is just starting to become an issue in the automotive world.

Member for

8 years

Posts: 5,852

The idea was to relocate the system monitoring activities down on the ground (IA assisted) as most of the procedures and administrative tasks. Today (as was the example used on the opening post of this thread), a 20 something can operate a plane on the other side of the world through high bandwidth datalinks and IA; airframe that are way more tricky to fly and operate given the maximization of their performance and mission profile at minimal cost. There is no reason that a trained team of operators with the dedicated hardware and set of procedures can't do the same with an airliner routinely, leaving only (mostly) the unexpected events at the hands of embarked professionals, selected and trained specifically (leaving the burden and time consuming tasks of learning the systems aside as a minor in their formation).

Please feel free to browse back the thread to find more in-depth details.

:)

Member for

8 years

Posts: 5,852

Boeing 737 Max's Autopilot Has Problem, European Regulators Find

EASA, in its recommendations, stopped short of telling Boeing how to address the issues, instead asking the company to propose solutions that will then be assessed, the person said. For example, if Boeing can prove the effectiveness of a new training procedure that doesn’t include the more burdensome requirement for simulator training, it could avoid that additional expense.

IMOHO it's time for Boeing to set their own sponsored Training syllabus and reach out to the public expectation on safety. The days of hybridized airframer qualifications are over when awarness of flight is lagging behind what it should be and mitigated by the complexity of FCS that are here foremost to make for the lag in engineering b/w the main two competitors. The size of each fleet make for plenty of opportunity for any individual without requiring qualification on different airframe. It's an opportunity for Boeing and those that have embrassed the full authority concept to build a new way for this industry, safer and more economical (single pilot flight, less cost on airframe qualification...)).

Boeing and North America will have an edge for a while in aviation Science and Test facilities.

If you are not convinced, you could read this piece from FlightGlobal summarizing last an-148 crash report:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-an-148-pilots-opposing-inputs-during-fata-459481/

The way some crew are over relying on system inputs is only akin to group somnambulism. A simple set of watch embedded accelorometer could have prevented this and other accident... for cheap.

Profile picture for user J Boyle

Member for

15 years 1 month

Posts: 9,664

In regard to the quote above about airlines "... not teaching pilots to fly.. "

The first officer in one of the Max crashes was said to have 200-odd hours.
Really?

In an emergency...or even a non-emergency but when things aren't going as designed...what good would he/she be?

Yes, it's nice for airlines to take worthy novices and train them themselves without the person "paying his way"up the ladder, but do you really want someone with 200 hours in the right seat?

At least if someone had come up through the traditional ranks, private, commercial, CFI, freight pilot, regional airlines...they likely would have faced troubles (equipment, weather, etc.) before being responsible for a jet full of passengers.

Member for

9 years 2 months

Posts: 506

The first Max crash in Indonesia, The Pilot has close to 7000 hrs flight while the Co-Pilot has 5000. The second crash in Ethiopia, The Pilot has more than 6000 hrs flight, while yes the Co-Pilot has only 200+ hrs flight in 737 but reported has clock more flight hours on other smaller plane.

However the talk on the pilots minimum hours or train eventough is relevant to be discussed even bring to International body that overseas Aviation regulation..should not 'cloud' real problem on Max. Afterall even 'Sully' in Congressional hearing point out that the problem is in the 'hardware'.

Member for

8 years

Posts: 5,852

Without any intends to open here the debate around the MAX, fact is that MCAS similar systems have been around since the swept wing... Stability augmentation is probably older than us all. It is unbelievable that a paid professional would have acted like they supposedly did. Sorry, my bad I should have wrote, IT'S F* SCARY!
It is obvious to me that lassitude and the push to take responsibility out of the hands of flight crew can led a 7k hr pilot to act with negligence. Last but not least the war on sub-system cost has also its share in this disaster (as an engineer I can't believe that an AoA sensor can fed FCS with completely irrelevant data (imagine your car speedometer indicating Mach 1 and everybody telling you it's perfectly normal), But at the end, it remains that Flight training is sick and you won't simply bandage it and stop the tragic bleeding of passengers dying in an horrible agony. Drastic move are needed. IMOHO, it might even come with a a rapid increase of profit for a company like Boeing.

Member for

8 years

Posts: 5,852

The idea that we have become too reliant on automation and have let our basic piloting skills atrophy isn’t new. Every few years there is a noteworthy crash, some hand-wringing and a call for pilots to take a little more stick time. This has been around for almost as long as I have been flying. But I don’t think more stick time will answer the problem. What we need is better stick time, hand-flying the airplane when it is safe to do so and then do so in a way that helps us improve.

Excellent (and positively recreative) read from J. Albright on Aviation Week :

https://m.aviationweek.com/business-...tal-dependence