Breaking News: FAA to require pilots know how to fly

[HA25]

Would you welcome a higher academic standard Tweak?
Well said though

I've always said it's too easy to pass the academic portion of the FAA tests... this is why we're laughed at by a lot of EU trained pilots and why places like Cathey put us through the ringer when we interview there... they're trying to see if we actually understand the basic science of flying..

It never ceases to amaze me how often I meet people in my career that don't understand basic aerodynamics. We had a new hire on the MD11 at a prior company ask why we had to climb above 250 knots when heavy... we tried to explain it, but he lacked the basic understanding of how a jet climbs.. he was never educated on swept wing aerodynamics, high altitude aerodynamics... it was obvious that he simply memorized the ATP written, and flew props at the commuters, managed to fly RJ's there and here we are... a guy who's going to sit right seat on an MD11 and doesn't understand what keeps it flying.. it was shocking to me, but since then I've seen the same over and over.. Airbus school, 747 school... etc.. there is a basic lack of education and understanding being required by the FAA, and it's clearly evident for me.

 

[HA25]

actually sometimes we do train for that. having the PM retract all flaps and leading edge devices uncommanded by the PF during a minor flap change on climbout

which builds on what I just posed... we had a situation (which I'm sure you've seen before) where a co-pilot pulled flaps from 10 to 1 on a 747 (skipping 5), and the captain didn't initially catch it... it became obvious when the very heavy take off weight plane started to sink and then the shaker came on.... without even flinching, the captain immediately commanded .. FLAPS 5.. put it in FLAPS 5! that solved their problem.. this is why heavy jets like the 747 and MD11 have such complicated gates for their flap retraction... so you don't accidentally retract too much after take off before acceleration .. but understanding why that's dangerous is more critical..

Another similar demonstration of how poor the understanding of aerodynamics some pilots have is the guy you'll fly with who will ALWAYS call flaps to be extended as soon as he reaches flap limit speed... so let's say flaps 1 is at 275KIAS, then no matter whether you're at max landing weight or just above BOW+45min of fuel, he's calling flaps the second he's at 275KIAS.. *sigh*

 

[waveflyer]

Agreed! I got way more aerodynamics than most civilians ad you know how much I've got since flight school? Zero.
A handout or two on high altitude- no testing. No instruction.

All part if the 'stay in the profile' and never go outside that and don't understand it line that's been pushed farther and farther.

 

[doh]

The disappointment for me is the speed the Feds showed increasing requirements in our performance while ignoring completely the desperate need for increased rest. If they were showing the same sense of urgency on both issues I'd understand. But this smacks of blaming the victim.

 

[waveflyer]

Agree DOH.

 

[HA25]

The disappointment for me is the speed the Feds showed increasing requirements in our performance while ignoring completely the desperate need for increased rest. If they were showing the same sense of urgency on both issues I'd understand. But this smacks of blaming the victim.

Expect the new rule to hit the streets Aug as per an email I got from a very well placed FAA attorney. With the caveat that the pending Schuster amendment may take some of the teeth out of it for "cost" reasons..

 

[Bringupthebird]

Dunno where you're getting this from; no more than 10% of UPT grads are getting sent to RPAs over the last several years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002712.html

 

[CWGrizwald]

My 2 cents

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002712.html

The article (from 2009--an eternity in Air Force manning policy) says we are training more RPA pilots than fighter and bomber, which is still true. A typical class right now graduates around 20 (both sides of the class--T-1 and T-38). Lately only about 3 on average T-38 studs are getting a fighter/bomber. RPAs are assignable to UPT grads, but we (at our base) haven't seen one in a while now that the RPA career track is up and running, not sure what numbers they are putting out, but they are not rated "pilots" in the sense that they'll be able to transfer to aircraft that requires a person to be in it to fly it. That being said, not sure what RPAs have to do with this discussion in any case. You can be the "Chuck Yeager" of the RPA world, but that time don't count for squat when trying to transfer to a civilian pilot position.

Stall training: It's extensive in the AF. My experience in Phase 1 was as a tweet FAIP, but I'm told the T-6 is similar. Stalls and spins are a very large portion of the pre-solo syllabus. Not sure about the Toners, but now as a 38 IP, most of the first two blocks are dedicated to landing, which means knowing why and how the jet stalls and practicing, in all configurations, stalls and slow flight, to include full aft stick stalls and stability demos. At PIT, all IP trainees get a dedicated stall ride with a specially trained stall pilot and we repeat stall academics on a regular basis back at our bases, as well as the stall ride. When I flew corporate, stall training in the BBJ and G450 was typical of what most readers here know and have accomplished, however, I don't recall a whole lot of academics on the subject, just what to do if the stick starts shaking. That being said, my pure civilian sim partner in the 450 is as good a pilot as I've ever flown with and not understanding basic aerodynamics, straight or swept wing was not an issue.

Fatigue: In my opinion, this is the big issue. I walked away from a high paying corporate gig, with two great jets, for several reasons regarding safety and integrity. A major part of the safety issue was scheduling. We were expected to fly two pilot operations no matter what the trip length, to include west coast out and backs to the Caribbean, West Coast to Europe followed by a reposition, and worst of all 24 long work days, West Coast to Asia. That is with only two pilots, no relief crew and no pre-positioned crew. I am convinced this operation will hurt someone sooner or later, after all "Fate is the Hunter". Problem is they are doing nothing wrong according to Part 91, but the evidence is pretty clear regarding accident statistics and fatigue being a contributing factor. But you've got to ask yourself, is living on one coast and working on another for crap pay really worth it? For me, living 5 minutes from work with great pay wasn't, (believe me, I understand that flying is better than not flying--usually). But I suffered for my decision with unemployment, part time and finally full time non-flying in another city.

In the end I lucked out with a recall to an active duty cockpit, but I agree with those here that say reasonable common sense rules need to be created and enforced regarding crew rest.

 

[pilotyip]

Expect the new rule to hit the streets Aug as per an email I got from a very well placed FAA attorney. With the caveat that the pending Schuster amendment may take some of the teeth out of it for "cost" reasons..

In your words what would be the perfect rest rules? Domestic, Int'l, night cargo

 

[densoo]

CWG, great summary and interesting info. I agree with your summary of AF stall training. In each plane I flew it was a high emphasis item. In T37s, T38s, and later T1s it seems the first maneuer you did after vertical S's was stalls, stalls, and more stalls. Configured left and right simulating stalling on the base turn, and configure/unconfigured straight ahead simulating stalls on final or at cruise. At the time it seemed like it was way overdone but the recognition/recovery routine was really drilled into your head. I can't speak to it, but I believe getting a private license involves much the same initial training.

I was also a tanker toad and I remember taking guys up to do approach to stalls as a currency item. Not sure if was once per year or even less frequent, but every line pilot had to do it. It's been a long time, but I believe we got a 2,000 foot block of space between 20k' and 30k', slowed and trimmed for level flight until we got to approach speed, then continued slowing without trimming until the rumble started, then recovered. While near buffet we'd talk about the deck angle (pretty dramatic), ADI picture, mushiness of controls, and noise level. It wasn't a full stall like pilot training, but it does show how seriously the AF took the issue. Taking a B707 to initial buffet was a continuation of the philosophy of recognize/recover.

One final note, we didn't have sims for annual checkrides and the inflight checkride included unusual attitude recover as a mandatory item. You told the pilot to close his eyes and you put the plane into a turning nose high slowing attitude or a turning nose low accelerating attitude, then say "recover." On the high one you did not want to see the roll to wings level until the nose had fallen through the horizon and you were picking up some speed. On the low one you'd want to see the roll to wings level first so the pull had maximum effect to minimize altitude loss.

Haven't seen any of this kind of training or re-familiarization in annual evals at the majors. It seems that the MBA view is to automate and proceduralize flying enough by putting the autopilot on/off at 1000' AGL and flying the plane by tapping your fingers onto a box to the point where no one ever gets into an unusual attitude or a stall. This works--most of the time. Unfortunately, while "most of the time" works for running a business (they can just declare bankruptcy and move on), it's not such a great philosophy for flying planes.