Ask The Pilot

[Quickstatus]

What is GA or general aviation?.



it seems that a lot of airplanes and not just the giants now are "i-planes" as a private pilot friend calls it (he ferried a single engine from US to OZ via Hawaiian islands) , and the smart systems in these small airplanes are limited generally only by the size of the owners pockets and can be extremely sophisticated. In the end he said its still an airplane and will , given the chance , fall out of the sky.

So the pathway to competent flying should generally following the similar suggestion of learning to drive a manual before an automatic?

 

[mjt57]

Great first and even better second post Rabs97 - we welcome your input to correct any misconceptions we may have with the training of pilots as well as other questions here.

God knows, I don't want to sound like a JB fanboy, but we all know what his credentials are. Sort of the same for Boris (JB has vouched for him). It would be nice to know some of Rab's background too. But it seems that JB has countered most of his replies back to JB's posts about cadets.

As a non-flyer, but one who relies on the two/four guys at the front end knowing what to do when systems fail, and in the case of QF30/32 when they were getting erroneous messages from the control systems that help the pilots (or sometimes to hinder them) fly the aircraft, they're able to manage it.

And right now. QF has the points on the board. I guess that it's down to the minimum standards that it applies to its recruitment program and the ongoing training.

Interestingly enough, too, Matt Hicks, the FO on QF32 was a cadet, for whom Lady Bird Walton gave Qantas a reference.

 

[jb747]

Matt Hicks is now a captain on the 737, so you might see him on a domestic sector.

I'll admit that there are cadets and cadets. The regionals are a great place to learn in the sense that you are exposed to many different parts of the aviation world, many of which the jets just fly over the top of.

The issue I have with cadets is their placement in high capacity aircraft. Even worse high capacity, long haul aircraft. This is a common practice in some parts of the world.

 

[Rabs97]

Well there's no growth in General Aviation (in most of the world it's barely existant), none or a drawback in the military (I believe) but a very large increase forecast over the next few decades in the demand for jet airliners and the pilots needed to fly them. What that will mean is that "cadets" and cadet programs used to train them will be filling up a larger portion of flight decks around the world. It's something that airlines are going to have to get used to. Over the last twenty years as the proportion of cadets in flight decks has increased, it isn't correlating with an increase in accidents. In fact despite several high profile accidents 2014 was the safest year on record.


I'll bow out of this discussion now by saying I appreciate the time and effort you have put in on this forum jb, over the last 3 and a half years.

 

[JohnM]

Thanks for the discussion Rabs97 and jb747​. Very interesting.

 

[jb747]

Don't bow out. It's been an interesting discussion. And you have knowledge of the regional side of aviation, about which I know nothing.

Also turboprops...which is about to become topical given Taiwan today.

 

[kpc]

Don't bow out. It's been an interesting discussion. And you have knowledge of the regional side of aviation, about which I know nothing.

Yes...please hang around...love your discussion with jb747

 

[Rabs97]

Also turboprops...which is about to become topical given Taiwan today

Alright
from other forums on the internet it looks like they have suffered engine problems after take off, which some have alluded to as the left propeller turning slower than the right. It also looks like they are in an asymmetric condition, with a sharp bank to the left. This would indicate they are flying at a speed lower than V2, or VMCA, the lowest speed in which directional control is still possible. Or perhaps the autofeather system which will decrease the drag required on the "dead" engine in order to assist with directional control didn't operate properly. Wont know for sure until the report comes out.

I have done a demonstration of of VMCA at altitude in an asymmetric condition, the yaw and subsequent roll is instantaneous and severe. At that low altitude it would be unrecoverable. Lost two friends of mine in a training accident in Darwin a few years back because of that.

 

[Captain Halliday]

I'll bow out of this discussion now by saying I appreciate the time and effort you have put in on this forum jb, over the last 3 and a half years.

Don't bow out. It's been an interesting discussion. And you have knowledge of the regional side of aviation, about which I know nothing.

Yeah stick around. I just made popcorn and opened a pinot.*

*Please don't apply a negative connotation to the popcorn comment. It's been genuinely interesting. Oh and I like Pinot.

 

[jb747]

If you look at the height/speed trace for the aircraft (on the accident thread), it reaches a max height of about 1,200 feet. The speed decays, but not dramatically. As the height is lost, the speed stays approximately stable (but slow). The loss of height goes on for about 80 seconds....a long time in aviation.

The ATC recording has a call re engine failure. That, in itself, should not be a huge event. But, if the propellor has not feathered properly, it will still be turning, and producing a lot of drag. That will erode the performance, presumably to the point that it's negative.

 

[Dmac6345]

Hi jb.
A350 or 787 for the next QF purchase? What would be your preference?
I must say, I don't like the thought of either for long haul (trans pacific) flights. I dont really like the thought of sitting in one for 15 odd hours heading home
from the U.S.
The 787 looks the same size as the 767. No good!!!

 

[jb747]

Hi jb.
A350 or 787 for the next QF purchase? What would be your preference?

My record at guessing whatever they will buy is pretty bad.

The 787 does seem small...and from what little I know of the 350 it looks to be around the size of the 777-200, but without the issues that aircraft had. I think I'd personally like the 350, so I guess that means they'll buy Lears.

 

[Milboo]

(Not meaning to interrupt the other discussion going on)

Just wanted to express my thanks again for all the time taken in this thread to explain some of the mysteries of flying. Ive just completed a 6 flight trip to North America and having in mind things I've read about in here, probably was the most relaxed about flying I've ever been.

 

[por930]

Matt Hicks is now a captain on the 737, so you might see him on a domestic sector.

jb, when a pilot has been promoted from being a FO on international legs in the A380, to a domestic captain in a 737, a real workhorse of the skys, where next for this guy if he stays with QF? Is it usual to retain Captain status as you progress through the fleet? Would this pilot's next career move be into the international arena..maybe captain of a 330 should he want international sectors again? And I suppose the ultimate...A380 captain

 

[straitman]

Just touching back to airlines and cadets for a moment.

Prior to my military flying I first learnt to fly at Moorabbin where we had two Qantas Cadets as instructors. One was a really good pilot and instructor and the other should have been driving trucks, digging trenches, become a doctor or something else. i.e. as a pilot he was in the wrong profession. I have no idea where they ended up but it illustrates how there are good and bad examples in what we are talking about. I have no doubt that the less competent (from a flying perspective) one of them certainly would not have passed a military pilot's course where only about one of three who start then qualify.

 

[RooFlyer]

Thanks for the discussion Rabs97 and jb747​. Very interesting.

+1 to that.

 

[Awesom Andy]

the other should have been driving trucks, digging trenches, become a doctor or something else. i.e. as a pilot he was in the wrong profession.

There are always a few of those around, no matter the profession. I've done some hours in a flying school, and realised that I would be in that category myself (almost killed myself on my first solo, to add to the "excitement"). There are some comments on the attributes of being a good pilot earlier in this thread, and while I don't quite fit into it, I'm sure there would be others in the same boat. In a way, it's just like every other occupation - some are cut out for it, and some should seriously reconsider their career paths.

 

[cambriamarsh]

Well there's no growth in General Aviation (in most of the world it's barely existant), none or a drawback in the military (I believe) but a very large increase forecast over the next few decades in the demand for jet airliners and the pilots needed to fly them. What that will mean is that "cadets" and cadet programs used to train them will be filling up a larger portion of flight decks around the world. It's something that airlines are going to have to get used to. Over the last twenty years as the proportion of cadets in flight decks has increased, it isn't correlating with an increase in accidents. In fact despite several high profile accidents 2014 was the safest year on record.


I'll bow out of this discussion now by saying I appreciate the time and effort you have put in on this forum jb, over the last 3 and a half years.

I really like JB's comments and the wisdom of his years of experience. However Rabs, your comments and experience are those of someone at the other end of the career spectrum and are also very interesting to this piece of SLF. From debate comes wisdom and you'll no doubt learn something from JB's comments and he may well learn something from yours if he is ever involved in developing flight training programs in the future.

Heaven knows, maybe even CASA and other regulatory authorities might benefit and use something from this debate in their programs.

I'll look forward to your ongoing involvement. Some might not value it but I do, because it adds to the sum of my knowledge.

Cheers

 

[tgh]

Just wondering If JB would care to expand the concept of upset recovery training as it is currently practiced.
There is a short but very interesting post on ppr today about a new training schedule.

Is it the case that the workload -v- the time frame available makes extreme attitude recovery extremely challenging?

If the auto systems are not capable of assisting reliable extreme attitude recovery , can they be (reliably) made so ?

Is there a need for more stringent and thorough pilot training in upset recovery ?

(I recall that spinning a training glider in bright sunshine was a quite different animal to spinning out of cloud base .. Oh .. that's where the ground is.. way down there … whew)

 

[Boris spatsky]

Upset recovery training is now mandated by CASA as an event in recurrent cyclic simulator sessions. The last ones i did included nose high, nose low with varying airspeeds and varying angle of bank. Extreme attitudes are included (140 degrees angle of bank which is almost inverted) etc.

No automation is used to recover from unusual attitudes - in fact a lot of the time if you found yourself in one then it would most likely be inattention to what the autopilot was doing (or what you thought it was doing) that got you there in the first place.

Sometimes simply applying full control deflection won't recover the situation; further, under some situations (nose low/high speed) being aggressive with your control inputs can cause greater issues (inducing stick shaker or damaging the aircraft if applying rolling G). In some severe instances a combination of control inputs, trim and power changes are required to recover. For example, nose high but very slow may require you to roll on angle of bank to bring the nose down as full forward stick and forward trim may not respond fast enough to prevent stalling.

These events are very dynamic. I don't personally believe that an autmoated system could be designed to reliably recover 100% of the time without inducing greater issues.

I think the training concept is good but it has taken a long time to be mandated by CASA - thankfully we did a lot of it in the military and were tested on it frequently from day one.