Back to Squawk list
  • 14

FAA overhauls airline pilot training requirements

Enviado há
 
One of the new requirements for pilots requires airlines to provide better training on how to prevent and recover from an aerodynamic stall. (news.msn.com) Mais...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


Ttchockey27
Ttchockey27 4
I guarantee that if anyone goes out and asks 10 pilots "how do you recover from a stall?" all 10 of them would say push forward on the yoke and add full power. Airline pilots should not have to be reminded of this, this is something that comes without saying. The FAA overlooked the fact that these pilots were running on minimal rest, were tired and fatigued. They should have done something to the minimum crew rest period rather than jacking up the hour requirement to 1500 hours. Every pilot learns on their first or second lesson how to recover from a stall, and from then on out, every training flight that they take usually involves a practice stall. Although adding stalls to airline pilot proficiency won't hurt, the FAA overlooked one of the major causes of this accident; airline crew rest minimums and pilot commutes that some of these regional airline pilots are taking just to get to their base.
preacher1
preacher1 1
You can ask that and will get that answer, BUT, if you are flying and you violate the sterile cockpit rule during the final or critical phase of flight and chat along as the Colgan folks were rather than FLY THE PLANE,you allow yourself to be startled and human nature is to pull something up when you are falling. Recovery from a stall is exact opposite to that. Basically, had they been paying attention to what they were doing, they might not have been startled and would have done it right, which MIGHT have saved them.
tduggan2010
Tim Duggan 1
"Sterile Cockpit Rule"??

"preacher1", I thought you knew more than that. The "Sterile Cockpit Rule" (as commonly referred to) is only in reference to distracting and non-essential conversation, and ONLY below 10,000 feet MSL, or depending on the airport elevation, within critical phases of flight.

For all intents and purposes WITHIN U.S. airspace (to include Alaska and Hawai'i) this is meant to infer below 10,000 feet MSL.

BUT....and this is important....even WHEN below 10,000 feet and in LEVEL flight, certain non-essential conversations are allowed. This is a distinction that may be superseded...but Humans are Humans.

In any case, *IF* we are referring to Colgan 3407? We can review the full NTSB accident report at any time, and discuss the details and "Human factors"....
preacher1
preacher1 1
I know what the rule is. I was thinkin' the Colgan flight was below 10 grand
preacher1
preacher1 2
My point was that they should have been paying attention to business rather than yakking as they were doing
Musketeer1
Musketeer1 1
They were absolutely in a sterile cockpit phase of flight Tim.
preacher1
preacher1 1
bentwing60
bentwing60 1
Tim, if you don't consider an ILS approach, at night, in marginal weather conditions, or holding in moderate to severe icing conditions a "critical phase of flight", then I'm not sure that your ATP and mine were issued by the same governing body? As for the "sterile cockpit rule", I introduced it first in an earlier post, so don't bust preacher's chops on a topic that I am quite sure he is well versed on. This entire thread rests on the premise that "the lights were on and nobody was at home" The cure will not be the 1500 hour rule. It will be the fantasy of well rested crewmembers and their ability to stay in the loop, and perceive the threat. Don't know how you make that happen 100% of the time.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Thanks for chiming in there bud.
lhstennis0955
Brendan Williams 3
My question here is that would the rules being put in to place save the aircraft? As a student from the Buffalo area going to an aviation school, with the help of professors, it's my opinion that none of this new training would have saved the aircraft. You had a perfect storm, two tired pilots, the FO having minimal time in the aircraft, and a Captain who failed three checkrides before he got to Colgan. Call me a dumb student who doesn't know anything, but take a step back and really look at it.
preacher1
preacher1 4
Dumb students with a desire to learn and possessing common sense, as you seem to have, make good pilots. Don't allow yourself to be put down. Your assessment of the Colgan crash is very correct and all that has been associated with it, such as the 1500hr rule, is just a knee jerk reaction to it by the FAA to get rid of some political heat. Sad fact is, had it not happened, we would still have 2 marginal pilots out there flying around. 2 people made a simple but fatal mistake and the rest of the flying world will pay for it, one way or other. Had they been flying the plane, rather than allowing themselves to be startled at the stall and have a normal human instinctive reaction to pull themselves up rather than do the basic flying as needed, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

In answer to your main question, who knows? I don't really see anything new here.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Dear friend preacher1, your reference to common sense and good pilots reminds me to reiterate what I very often say. In every are of knowledge/profession, knowing and remembering the basics well play a very vital role. Especially when any variation or deviation from the norm arises without notice !
I have deliberately used non specific words so as to cover ALL areas. Because according to me, this axiom has universal application.
:-) .
bentwing60
bentwing60 1
I tend to think that the blowback from the Colgan accident addresses part of the issue of inexperienced airmen, but completely misses another point. Think back to AA4184, an ATR72 that crashed near Roselawn Indiana 31-10-1994. The CVR tapes in both instances, reveal crews that were tired, distracted, and seemingly unaware of the situation as they chatted away, in a critical phase of flight. The Roselawn boys were holding in what was considered moderate to severe icing conditions, chatting away while the automation controlled the airplane. Never mind that the flight manual instructs the crew to hand fly the airplane in this situation to monitor the effects of airframe icing on airframe performance. The Colgan crew were chatting away while the airplane was conducting an ILS approach, on the automation, and the result is history. I don't care what they say about the stall recognition crap. If you are minding the store, the stall will not occur in the first place. Whatever happened to the sterile cockpit rule, circa 1981. Pay attention out there. It might save your life.
LGM118
LGM118 1
I strongly agree with this point. I'd even take it further and say that while automation and such has helped tremendously in some ways, I think that the FAA really does ignore human psychology in considering a lot of things. Part of the reason for incidents like AA4184 is that we routinize and automate so much that pilots end up feeling at ease. It's like the people who are sending text messages while speeding down an interstate highway. They wouldn't be doing that on a narrower, slower road. People naturally act based on the *perceived* danger of a situation, not the *actual* danger. While a big part of pilot training is designed to help counter certain aspects of that, fatigue can hurt one's ability to get out of our more primal instincts and assess situations rationally.

There's almost a universal agreement about that exact conclusion about perceived vs. real danger, yet the FAA keeps on thinking that if you create more and more automation and make everything really simple, eventually people will somehow break out of that.
bentwing60
bentwing60 1
LGM118, the FAA is not and will never be the driver behind automation in the cockpit. They know it when they see it, and they certify it as flightworthy, or not. I think the first automation driver was the airlines that wanted to reduce personnel, i.e. the flight engineer, and pushed the airframers into designing and adopting systems to monitor systems that would no longer have a dedicated monitor, i.e. the flight engineer. Once that ship sailed, it never returned to the dock. The proliferation of computers and GPS, and their ability to think faster than us knuckleheads, leaves us where we are today. More and more out of the loop, unless one makes a conscience decision to pay attention, stay in the loop and thoroughly understand all the nuances of the automation and what it is doing.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Used to have a guy that worked for me that had a long commute. He bragged about setting his cruise control on 70 on the interstate and reading the morning paper on the way to work.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
Hope u gave him a raise, he was a valuable employee that could multi-task!!!
preacher1
preacher1 1
racecam
Cameron Guthrie 2
I thought stall recognition and recovery occurred in the first two hours of pilot training!
tduggan2010
Tim Duggan 0
This is why we can't have nice things.

The airline industry overall is the safest it's ever been:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/business/2012-was-the-safest-year-for-airlines-globally-since-1945.html?_r=0

This despite a year-over-year general upward trend (no pun intended) in number of flights, especially in the USA prior to the downturn in business post-9/11.

Still, out of 6.08 MILLION airliner departures in 2012 (these for U.S. registered airlines alone, including the alter-ego commuter portion), the numbers of stall accidents (on large commercial airliners) can be counted one hand. ZERO of course, in 2012. One on a commuter turboprop in 2009.

(Source for 2012 airline departure figure: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/15/uk-usa-airlines-departures-idUSLNE81E00U20120215)


This is an over-reaction to a very few isolated cases. It is a fact that stall recognition and recovery training is very, very basic, and it is thoroughly mind-boggling to myself and others how the Colgan Air 3407 Captain mishandled his flight. It could be argued that even *if* he had had this "new" version of training being discussed in the related article, his poor skill-sets may have led to the same results. (The First Officer also was not assertive enough, and/or also was "out-to-lunch" that night).
preacher1
preacher1 2
According to the NTSB report this morning, some of these rules finally came as a result of NTSB recommendations from accidents/incidents back in the 90's.I must admit though that I am buffaloed on that stall training thing though. BASIC?????. Apparently not according to the bureaucrats. It seems that if one person screws up somewhere, as on the Colgan crash, they will do something that will affect the whole dang bunch. IMHO
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Dear friend preacher1, it is not surprising that FAA 'listens' to NTSB !
After all they are the people who can be the best advisors on the subject. People in FAA , though experienced professionals, yet many of them get removed from ground reality over passage of time. Is it not right that generally every where in the world, the head of FAA like organisations is invariably a licenced senior pilot. But they all become 'bureaucrats' of sort over time. But not so with the likes of NTSB whose jobs keeps their nose and ear stuck to ground. And hence, NTSB continues to be their(FAA's) link with the ground reality!
Yes, effectiveness can be an important aspect. With many ifs and buts.
MHO
preacher1
preacher1 1
You are correct. In reality, the NTSB can only recommend and the FAA should be the authoritative body that brings those recommendations to reality or at least say no and why, in a timely manner. In this case, however, they are way behind the curve going back that far.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
ThanX preacher1. Even in context of accident/incident investigations they are merely a fact finding group. And ofcourse, in the process they may make suggestions if needed in their wisdom.
About being timely , story is same all over the world. All realities get coloured by politics and inertia !
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
This is not just a commuter airline issue.

Why does no one mention the Asiana 214 crash? It is clear that the plane crashed from an aerodynamic stall, that came a few seconds and hundreds of yards too soon.

Were they not about to land on a runway, but at the altitude of the Colgan flight, they may have lost all the souls on that flight if stalling out at altitude. They would've also had the altitude to go-around without crashing. Then again, no one would've expected 2 pilots with so much experience to stall out their intercontinental airliner on approach.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 0
Dear friend PhotoFinish, the Asiana 214 will ALSO find its place. Infact a prominent place . But all in good time. After NTSB report. After early Dec. hearings at NTSB !
We all, the players like you and spectators like me, will have a field day, or say days !
Till then, let us wait patiently. No ?
:-)
btweston
btweston -3
I'm no physicist, but I don't believe that a high angle of attack is the same thing as a stall. I guess maybe that's why the FAA didn't ask you.
Musketeer1
Musketeer1 1
What do you think the definition of a stall is, if it isn't a specific high angle of attack?
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Dear friends btweston and Musketeer1, on this portal full of '2cent opinions' by humble and polite experts , may I try MHCO (my half cent opinion), by a non aviator ?
Kindly revisit lectures on aerodynamics. One such link on 'stall' is as follows
http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/fxd_wing/stalls.htm
The figure clearly shows followed by text that it is angle of attack based.
And much more on recovery procedures well known to you fliers.
My apologies again for MHCO !
Safe flying is happy flying.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
P.S.
Two additional links as quick reference
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_(flight)

and Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY0JhaVBYBY

all these can be handy for persons of my calibre !
;-)
Musketeer1
Musketeer1 1
I know that...that's why I said that. Thanks for telling me to read about my profession, but it is kind of a hobby already.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
hey, hey !
I was trying to impress you about my interest in the subject !
;-)
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Before the immediate stall inducing high angle of attack seconds before impact, there had been graduated steps up in AOA to decrease vertical speed. Without sufficient thrust, this had the effect of both slowing down the aircraft, as well as decreasing the lift of the wing (which only increased the vertical speed as the plane only dropped faster.

Unfortunately, in response to their sink rate, the pilots only continued to increase their AOA, rather than increase their thrust. But the underlying issue that they were dealing with is that they were allowing their plane to stall. No question whatsoever about that.
eagle5719
eagle5719 1
I've always thought airliners have so many panel gadgets that control the flight of the airplane that the pilots get a little lazy, and out of touch with real stick and rudder flying. When they encounter bad weather, a stall, engine out or other emergencies, controlling the airplane is a problem. An airline could provide an airliner simulator and/or a trainer 737 with a panel and systems similar to an older small twin with no autopilot and only steam gauges. Also, they should encourage pilots to get their nose out of the panel and look outside more.
preacher1
preacher1 1
There are a bunch but the good pilots will pull what they need out of that array and pay attention to those in particular, just like you would do with an array of steam gauges. You notice I said GOOD pilots. The rest will come up on a problem and start pulling checklists. Problem with that is that in a lot of cases you don't have time to complete a checklist. You need to know or at least have an idea of what to do to try and recover in most cases before you can even get the book out. There's only so much footage between you and the ground. A good example would be losing an engine on takeoff. That is one of the crews busiest time. You got to know what to do with it til you can get a little altitude and clean things up, THEN look at your checklist. I doubt you'll ever see the kind of SIM you are speaking of as they want their pilots TRAINED????? in what they'll be flying and not much attention given to stick and rudder skills. Supposedly they have those when they are hired.
eagle5719
eagle5719 1
Preacher1: Maybe I'm wrong but I imagine that any good pilot that spends many years in an airliner and flying by twisting knobs and pushing buttons will tend to lose basic flying skills. If they get little sleep between shifts and then try to correct a problem using complex checklists, it may not get corrected. I'm just suggesting they practice flying an airliner the old fashioned way - once in a while.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, you loosely use the term GOOD again. Personally a GOOD pilot will hand fly one every now and then for that very reason, then you have those button pushers that would declare an emergency if they lost an AutoPilot. I understand what you are saying and even the FAA recognized that here while back and RECOMMENDED that Airlines incorporate and emphasize that more in their training, so we'll see. Automation is nice on a long haul but I always felt like it was my bird below 10 grand.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Dear preacher1, am I right to assume that it is NOT necessary to put the bird on auto ? As long as you stick to the route chosen/filed with the ATC !
If that be so, one can always make a combination of MFR(manual flying rules ?!) and IFR ! According to convenience.
;p
preacher1
preacher1 1
Is not necessary but is nice to able to at cruise. Hand flying and IFR flight rules have no relation. You will fly as filed. Gotta go, outside awhile
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
ThanX preacher1. Seems I am learning well. May not make a good pilot, but sure will make a good aviation administrator if it happens !
Patting my own back ! Am I ?
Musketeer1
Musketeer1 1
Am I the only one that thinks the 1500 rule is a good thing? It will finally force the regionals to start paying pilots...eventually...hopefully...
preacher1
preacher1 1
It may do that but if it does, it will be an unintended consequence. It will have no bearing on a pilots qualification per se, not as people think.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
If I am not wrong, there are specific laws about number of continuous working hours followed by statutory rest period. And this same or similar all over the world, ICAO specified , I guess.
If ANYONE flouts it, is liable for punishment of sorts.
In such a case, how and why fatigue factor comes into play ? Even if the pilot in question 'failed' to to have the appropriate rest ?
In aa such cases, either the employer deserves punishment or the non resting pilot !
Right ?
preacher1
preacher1 1
No, you are correct in that they are there and were revised a little as a result of the Colgan crash, yet they exempted cargo pilots, which almost exclusively fly at night based on economics. Tim has a good piece here about scheduled and blocking out time worthy of a read. But really, increases in the total rest don't address the real problem, which is the time of day(or night)that one flies.The human body is designed to sleep at night, when it is dark. There is a difference in working 12 hrs in daytime and 12 hrs at night
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Dear preacher1, about time differentials, I guess this is where guys dealing with space medicines have an important role to play !
Or else what is advantage of all this space research ?
preacher1
preacher1 1
All the research in the world is no good unless it's results are implemented by the powers that be. 8 hours at night, for most folks, is a lot harder than 12 hours in daylight; for one reason, most of life happens during the day and folks will not take enough rest to commence with but even for those that do, 8 hours at night is just harder on the body in general. Proven over and over by various studies but nobody pays attention to it. In our profession, it will take a high body count attributed directly to that problem to get someone's attention.
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Dear friend preacher1, I will give a weak(?) comparison. About those who work in shifts and periodically these shifts are rotated. These people rest and sleep and do all chores needed for a 24 hour day.
preacher1
preacher1 1
They are supposed to, but in truth, a lot don't, and even if they do, for most folks, night work is just harder on the body in general.I have been in places with an early morning arrival, sleep all day and getting required rest, and return home late evening. Slap wore out. Catch 8 and fresh, ready to go in daylight. I could have 18-24 off and called for nighttime depart and be yawning before I got on top good, so who knows. If you are working full time at night, you have to have enough personal discipline to adjust your schedule and force sleep/rest during the day while the rest of life goes on around you. Unfortunately some don't and it is just harder working at night anyway; note the big bucks paid by FedEx and UPS
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 1
Dear friend preacher1, I am not sure if I read your words about big bucks connexion correctly ?
Do you mean if the money is good, these guys(pilots) will be able to sleep at odd hours too ?
I pray that I am wrong !
tduggan2010
Tim Duggan 1
There used to be an old joke about the "100-hour wonder". If I remember correctly.

A certain amount of cockiness could sometimes develop in some people, at about that point in their level of flying experience. Minimum of 250 hours for a Commercial was considered adequate for many decades. Seemed to be a point where "cockiness" and any incompetence had been weeded out. Perhaps that should be addressed.

The "1500 rule" idea nowadays stems from the advent of only two-pilot airplanes being used in more long-haul operations, and in these cases (not where turboprops or smaller-segment turbofans are involved) two-person crewed airplanes operating on segments that exceed 8 hours "Block-to-Block" require crew augmentation. In those cases, the F/Os (First Officers) must also hold ATP certificates (USA). So, they must meet the standards FOR that certificate, both in number of total hours, and demonstrated ability in certified training curricula.

By USA (FAA) standards (current) B-to-B "scheduled" (note "scheduled") flight times of more than 8, but less than 12 hours require only ONE extra 'augment'...typically called an "International Relief", sometimes an "O" for 'Officer' is added to the acronym. In those situations (from my past experience) the relief, or 'IRO' must be present from T/O to 18,000 feet on departure, and conversely on descent, from FL 180 to landing. En-Route, there were brief rest periods worked out between the three fight deck crewmembers, in the airline's designated "rest areas". ("rest areas" ...Dependent on working union contract, airplane type and configuration, etc.)

When getting into LONGER haul (over 12 hrs B-to-B) then FAA requires TWO full flight crews, both CA and FO, and resting and on-duty arrangements.

Know this...an airline will "schedule" often to meet FAA Regs. Publishing those schedules. That is why "Scheduled" versus "Actual" is important. If it is "scheduled" to be within FAA Regs AT TIME OF DISPATCH, and ETD, then the flight can legally "Block Out". This is perhaps a "gamble" on the part of (certain) airline company's marketing, crew scheduling, and Flight Ops departments. THEN the onus of complying with regulations falls on the shoulders of the crew, and ultimately, the Captain. BUT, actual flight hours (and minutes) in real life can accumulate, forcing crews to then be "illegal"...and it is incumbent upon every flight crew to keep a close track when they are nearing legal limits.

THESE are just a few of the pressures put upon modern flight crews, today. I don't see it getting any better, given the alleged costs that airlines are "enduring" (even as they make record profits from the "add-on" fees!).

(rant)Perhaps I've "ranted" a bit...let's just say, after retiring, I wish the newer crop well. I've seen the latest CONTRACT at the (newly merged) company that I am retired from. I compared it to the one I left. The pay rate from "Contract2008" to 2013 newly negotiated rates I have downloaded was increased a meager 0.03% to 0.17% (depending on equipment type). FIVE years!!! At most, less than 1 percent. For us older guys? Eh..you "Newbies"? Blue Skies...I hope.

(/rant)
tduggan2010
Tim Duggan 1
I should have clarified that regarding "Block Out" times, I mistyped. In paragraph #6, by FAA Regs, a crew can "Block Out" and meet the fight-planned "ETA" (not ETD).

My explanation stands, if not the quality in that particular post. Because, another "rule exemption" is that once "dispatched" (AKA, Blocked out for flight), then any subsequent delays that exceed the "estimated" and "scheduled" time simply incur added rest requirements on what I will call the "back end" (NOT an FAA term).

Sometimes we (as crews) could use these regulations to our advantage....yes, this IS a truth. However, the management in Flight Operations, those who have "gravitated" to that position by political prowess, are ALSO aware of the "tricks of the trade".

Oh yes...sorry, I was (/rant), so (end).

[This poster has been suspended.]

bentwing60
bentwing60 0
Have you flown with that many of them Phil? You must have pissed off a bunch of copilots! Cheers.

[This poster has been suspended.]

bentwing60
bentwing60 1
If the primary motivator for most aviators were only monetary, I suspect many would have become doctors, lawyers or politicians instead. But you are right, you gotta know you are going to be poor for a while to want to be a regional driver. And self preservation is a pretty strong motivator for taking the job seriously, once you get there. Something about being the first ones to the scene of the accident and all that.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Personally, 80 grand for a right seat biz jet ain't all that trashy
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 0
I wonder how many Aviation Authorities of national level around the world will follow the lead being provided by FAA ?
akayemm
Er.A.K. Mittal 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Stall recovery, simulator fidelity improvements in new FAA training rule

FAA on Tuesday issued a final rule that will give airlines and training providers five years to upgrade flight simulators and begin more comprehensive training of pilots for stall and upset incidents as well as for crosswind and gust events.

http://atwonline.com/regulation/stall-recovery-simulator-fidelity-improvements-new-faa-training-rule?NL=ATW-04&Issue=ATW-04_20131105_ATW-04_432&YM_RID=anilmittal.1945@gmail.com&YM_MID=1431679&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1_b

Entrar

Não tem uma conta? Registre-se agora (gratuito) para funcionalidades personalizáveis, alertas de vôo e mais!
Esse site utiliza cookies. Ao usá-lo e continuar a navegar, você concorda com isso.
Ignorar
Você sabia que o rastreamento de voos da FlightAware é patrocinado por anúncios?
Você pode nos ajudar a manter o FlightAware gratuito, permitindo anúncios de FlightAware.com. Trabalhamos muito para manter nossa publicidade relevante e discreta para criar uma ótima experiência. É rápido e fácil permitir anúncios no FlightAware ou, caso prefira, considere nossas contas premium.
Ignorar