Breaking News: FAA to require pilots know how to fly

[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.

 

[pilotyip]

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.

great post, but flying to a stall recognition and recovering is much different than flying into a stall departure, which from what I read is what the Fed's are looking for. At Zantop in the Electra we did are stall recoveries in flight in the airplane, but only to the point where you started to buffet.

 

[densoo]

great post, but flying to a stall recognition and recovering is much different than flying into a stall departure, which from what I read is what the Fed's are looking for. At Zantop in the Electra we did are stall recoveries in flight in the airplane, but only to the point where you started to buffet.

I'm not too familiar with departure stalls or training for them, but I could see they might be challenging in the sense that there isn't a lot of altitude below to work with. I would guess recovery would be similar to a windshear alert? Max power, set a pitch, stay out of the buffet?

 

[HA25]

you should not be able to get an ATP without at least some basic aerobatic instruction in your logbook... even 5 hours in a Cetabria .. it's critical. The 1st time you're upside down, above 60 degrees bank or 30 degrees nose down should not be in an emergency!

 

[Mud Eagle]

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

That article takes the total number of pilots going through the RPA training pipeline as compared to the total number of pilots going through the fighter/bomber training pipeline.

So, that includes a healthy dose of experienced pilots who have all ready completed operational tours in many different types of aircraft who are transferring over to RPAs.

Since there is no mechanism currently for pilots from non-fighter/bomber airframes to transfer into fighter/bomber airframes, it would certainly make sense that there would be more in one than in the other.

It is NOT exclusively talking about the airframes that newly graduated students are getting out of initial training (again, that number is about 10%). It also doesn't take into consideration all the pilots who go to airframes other than fighters, bombers, and RPAs (of which there are a crapload).

It most certainly does not say what you posted, that

Uncle Sam turns out more UAV remote control pilots than conventional ones

 

[Mud Eagle]

you should not be able to get an atp without at least some basic aerobatic instruction in your logbook... Even 5 hours in a cetabria .. It's critical. The 1st time you're upside down, above 60 degrees bank or 30 degrees nose down should not be in an emergency!

+1000

 

[sinkrate]

full stall in a swept wing airplane, isn't that test pilot stuff? can most sims out there even simulate this correctly?

The FSI CRJ sim does a good job of it. You die every time.

On the serious side the FAA is finally allowing deviations from 121 Appendix F to allow much more realistic incipient stall entry scenarios. For decades the manuevers in the ATP standards and Appendix F were minimum altitude loss proficiency demonstrations. Some viewed them as negative learning for swept wing AC.

 

[sinkrate]

The only 3 fatal Part 121 accidents over a substantial period of time in America alll involved pilots from a very small, disreputable airline and you are going to play it that way? You must be one of those who believes that "past performance is not indicative of future results" silly heads.

I think you must have forgotten about the AMR A300 in NY, The AMR MD80 in LIT and the AMR 757 in Columbia. Which one of the pilots in those accidents was a Gulf stream trained pilot? Although there were fortunately no fatalities you also have SWA in Burbank and twice in Midway, CAL in DEN and AMR in Jamaica. Were any of those pilots Gulf Stream trained? I won't even start to list all of FedEx's totalled airframes.

There are systemic problems in the industry and with the FAA's standards/oversight. Pointing a finger at a single symptom isn't the cure.

 

[JAFI]

And IMHO, one of the biggest problems in the industry are the alphabet groups that every time a change is proposed at least one group opposes it. So it takes so much more time for any change to happen. When a fatal accident happens the alphabet groups all cry for change. No body can agree on what that change should be. But that is the system we have to work with.

 

[Tweaker]

I think you must have forgotten about the AMR A300 in NY, The AMR MD80 in LIT and the AMR 757 in Columbia. Which one of the pilots in those accidents was a Gulf stream trained pilot? Although there were fortunately no fatalities you also have SWA in Burbank and twice in Midway, CAL in DEN and AMR in Jamaica. Were any of those pilots Gulf Stream trained? I won't even start to list all of FedEx's totalled airframes.

There are systemic problems in the industry and with the FAA's standards/oversight. Pointing a finger at a single symptom isn't the cure.

I am absolutely not forgetting them, but they were outside of the timeframe I was discussing. I did not provide specifics, so that is on me, sorry. Gulfstream is by no means the only problem out here, but they are the most egregious and indefensible, as well as identifiable. Why several here have defended them is beyond me!

I stand by my position that Gulfstream especially, and any operation in which a pure injection of money secures one placement in aircraft more advanced than you would otherwise secure results in extremely oversized risk and invites disaster.

from NTSB
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Paxfatal.htm]
08/27/06 LEXINGTON, KY COMAIR Bombardier CRJ-100 47 0
02/12/09 CLARENCE, NY COLGAN AIR Bombardier DHC-8 45 0

I was discussing American Part 121 passenger flights during 2005-2010. Sorry I did not make that clear.