A Worry For Some Pilots: Their Hands-On Flying Skills Are Lacking (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Pilots now spend more time learning automated systems than practicing hands-on flying, so newer pilots are less comfortable with taking manual control when the computer steers them wrong, according to interviews with a dozen pilots and pilot instructors at major airlines and aviation universities around the world. "The automation in the aircraft, whether it's a Boeing or an Airbus, has lulled us into a sense of security and safety," said Kevin Hiatt, a former Delta Air Lines pilot who later ran flight safety for JetBlue. Pilots now rely on autopilot so often, "they become a systems operator rather than a stick-and-rudder pilot."
As a result, he said, "they may not exactly know or recognize quickly enough what is happening to the aircraft, and by the time they figure it out, it may be too late." [...] While automation has contributed to the airline industry's stellar safety record in recent years, it has also been a factor in many of the crashes that have still occurred around the world. A 2011 study by a federal task force found that in about 60 percent of 46 recent accidents, pilots had trouble manually flying the plane or handling the automated controls. Complicated automation systems can also confuse pilots and potentially cause them to take action they shouldn't, pilots said.
As a result, he said, "they may not exactly know or recognize quickly enough what is happening to the aircraft, and by the time they figure it out, it may be too late." [...] While automation has contributed to the airline industry's stellar safety record in recent years, it has also been a factor in many of the crashes that have still occurred around the world. A 2011 study by a federal task force found that in about 60 percent of 46 recent accidents, pilots had trouble manually flying the plane or handling the automated controls. Complicated automation systems can also confuse pilots and potentially cause them to take action they shouldn't, pilots said.
This is nothing new. It is a recurring topic, especially after Asiana in SF. Hand flying is a no-no these days so skills go away.
Children of the magenta line...
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
This issue has been a concern for more than a decade. The more pilots use automation, the more their manual flying skills languish. Manual flying is a skill that one must practice to stay current. It may be like riding a bicycle, you never forget, but the fine skills required to fly accurately without the automation is something you can loose. It takes practice to stay current and proficient. It takes practice to be smooth and accurate, like playing a musical instrument it takes regular playing to keep your skills sharp.
There have been a couple of instances where the pilots where faced with the loss of automation and made mistakes with their manual flying. Or situations like Asiana Airlines Flight 214 where the automation wasn't set properly and the manual flying skill and experience wasn't enough to notice and avoid the accident. Pilots and airlines LOVE automation. Pilots like it because it makes their job easier (when it works). Even an unskilled pilot can fly like a pro using automation. I've been in simulators, and although I've never flown anything more complicated than a Cessna 172, I can get the simulator on the ground without balling it up, usually. Airlines love it because it allows the aircraft to be operated in the most efficient way, saving them fuel and maintenance costs.
But button pushing and turning dials isn't flying. Pilots are spending lots of their time managing and monitoring the automation and very little flying the aircraft. It's hard to keep your manual flying skills in top form, when you do mostly button pushing and turning dials
When the automation fails, and you are forced to grab the controls and fly while trying to diagnose what's wrong with your aircraft, Navigate, Communicate with ATC under high stress, you really want those "stick and rudder" skills sharp and current. It's one less thing to think about while you are trying to wrap your head around what is wrong with the aircraft.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
How about training pilots how to fly?
Also, does anyone else read this story as, "I don't know how to do my job, but I want to keep getting paid to do it."?
Fucking stupid.
Stick and Rudder skills are like playing a musical instrument. They require constant practice and exercise to stay "current".
This is not a new realization, but one that's been enshrined in the FAA regulations for decades longer than I've been alive. Pilots are required to "be current" meaning they have flown a minimum number of landings as PIC in the last few months before they can fly. I am also are required to "be current" with a flight instructor every year. Airline pilots must be "current" in their type ratings, which includes both training, check rides and flight time.
So it actually makes sense.. We are taking away the On the Job training opportunity in Stick and Rudder operation, replacing it with button pushing and dial turning. What's a pilot to do? Company regulations likely REQUIRE he/she use the automation for safety, efficiency and passenger comfort so it's hands off the controls while "Auto Pilot" flies for you.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The 737 is not primarily fly-by-wire (not even the MAX). Some secondary flight controls are fly-by-wire (electric tail stabilizer trim, spoilers). The problem is that a pilot needs to know how to recover from runaway stabilizer trim and know that the situation is happening. Since the system was poorly documented, this was a problem.
My friend the airline mechanic told me that accident reports are designed to protect profits. The pilot will always be blamed. Any suggestion of bad design, poor construction or mismanaged maintenance has dire consequences for manufacturers, airlines and others including politicians who depend upon political donations.
My friend has often told me of his discoveries as he goes about his work. Inside a jumbo jet wing he may find beer cans, panties, drug related garbage, as well as tools and loose parts. He found this shocking so he took it upon himself to investigate every airline accident.
Each accident results in a huge report after a multi year investigation. Those reports are available to anyone willing to study hundreds or thousands of pages. The summary will say the pilot was at fault, but if you read carefully you will discover many disturbing facts about the condition of the aircraft.
It shouldn't be necessary to explain to jaded Slashdot readers that money is the motivator in most corporate and government behavior. Blaming the pilot is the way to reduce costs and bad publicity. If there is a flaw in the airplane, it will be fixed quietly.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Actually, this is blatantly untrue.
It has been well over twenty years, and probably closer to thirty years or more, since enough data had been amassed to prove conclusively that women were SAFER pilots than men.
At the time, no one knew why. I suspect no one knows now. I saw one writer speculate, very carefully, that women MIGHT be a bit more risk-averse than men, to the point that they MIGHT make the determination that "this is getting just a bit too interesting for my taste" a bit sooner than a man might, exercise the Captain's prerogative to choose the alternate plan, a bit sooner than a man might.
A lot of pilot training is teaching judgment and caution and knowing how to recognize that a situation is getting a bit too "interesting", for a suitable definition of "interesting".
I fly hang gliders. One of the crazy things we do is tie ourselves to pickup trucks and let them tow us up into the sky like big kites. While you're under tow, it's like riding an elevator, and VERY nose up pitch. Hitting the clamp release and going airborne out of the bed of a moving truck is an experience.
As a safety precaution, there's a weak link between the tow line and the tow bridle. It's designed to break if the force gets too high, such as if you lose control and lock out. If you've flown a kite, this is where, in strong winds, they sometimes just decide to flip over and dive straight at the ground.
Anyway, sometimes the weak link breaks for other reasons. I broke one once, crossing a wind shear boundary. When you lose the tow during dynamic ascent you're instantly in a very severe stall. It feels like free fall. It was one of the scariest things that's ever happened to me. You desperately want to *not* be heading for the ground, but the only way to recover is to pull in and dive to pick up speed.
Fortunately my instructor insisted that we practice stall recovery at high altitude and in calm conditions.
In those incidents of total power failure, (the most famous example being the Gimli glider, where a steep side slip was required to get the approach right) the pilots with gliding experience have performed very well indeed. A glider never has the option of going around after a bad approach, so the pilots are very well trained in using angles to judge their circuits. During training in most countries, pilots even have to fly several flights with all instruments covered, to protect against failures. At least here in Australia stall and spin training is mandatory, and tested each year at the annual flight review.
Most power pilots have never done a full blooded spin, which is a violent and disorienting manoeuvre, due to practice, glider pilots respond very quickly to an incipient spin, and usually take action well before the full spin develops.
Even during takeoff, we are actively expecting problems and have a plan should the tow rope fail for each stage.
I would back the stick and rudder skills and energy management of a well trained glider pilot against any other form of flight training.
Gliding is relatively cheap too, and in competition, many of the pilots are airline pilots who like to use real flying skills, and can afford the latest very high performance gliders.
If I could choose, I wouldn’t fly with a pilot without gliding experience.