Ask The Pilot

[mjt57]

Hopefully they never got much further for everyone’s sake.

Or they're now flying for a low cost carrier and give "expert" evidence at inquests...

 

[straitman]

And I'm amazed at the lack of structure for the training syllabus. The ones I'm familiar with, the RAAF and Qantas, were very well defined, with very specific objectives for each and every flight. There was no 'winging it' by the instructors.

A good check is turning the GPS off at some point and seeing how they react.

A couple of years ago, I got involved in an internet discussion with a couple of trainee pilots, who were complaining about the amount of navigation they had to do to progress their licences (and they wanted CPLs). One commented that having done ONE navigation trip he felt that he'd adequately demonstrated his ability to navigate, and that should be all that was needed, before being allowed to just use GPS. For comparison, the RAAF nav course was about 160 hours, whilst the pilots' course did 4 trips and about 10 hours in the CT4, and then another 20 trips (about 30 hours) in the Macchi. And then there was more on the A-4 course (or whatever you were posted to). Whilst the aircraft and use of sims has changed things, I'll bet that they still do a very substantial amount.

When I get back I will make some inquiries at ESL re the current RAAF/RAN training requirements.
(If I don’t get back in a couple of weeks someone prompt me)

 

[Saab34]

Or they're now flying for a low cost carrier and give "expert" evidence at inquests...

They would have been better off getting senior ‘experts’ inside the GA industry rather than getting advice from senior QF Pilot and VA (now Bonza) Pilot who haven’t really been in GA for 30 years. Sure you don’t need to be Einstein to give a common sense approach, but tap the head of the RFDS or a large charter outfit.

 

[kookaburra75]

A good check is turning the GPS off at some point and seeing how they react.

When I get back I will make some inquiries at ESL re the current RAAF/RAN training requirements.
(If I don’t get back in a couple of weeks someone prompt me)

At our gliding club, all pilots had to undergo a check flight every three months with an instructor, to make sure no bad habits had crept in, plus provide a refresher on new developments. One thing we did from time to time, was carry pieces of cardboard that I got the pilot well before joining circuit to put over their instruments. That was always interesting - most would be a touch fast and underestimate their heights (a good thing), a few would start to panic - which wasn't a good thing.

The discussion on standards got me thinking, as it's been 10+ years since I sat in a glider for more than just a 'joy' flight. Where I started in the 70's at Gliding Club of Victoria at Benalla, being so large with a lot of pilots, it had good documentation and frameworks in place for training. Today, all standards are maintained and managed by Gliding Federation of Australia, which has a comprehensive set of standards and competencies that must be met (Glider Pilot Certificate - Gliding Australia). Each module has a Threat & Error Management assessment. I like in the Advanced Soaring Instruments and Flight Computers module, where it states: "Flights computers, otherwise known as “advanced distraction devices” introduce significant threats that must be carefully managed." I've had a trawl through the RAAus website, but haven't found the equivalent yet.

As I'm planning to get back into gliding this year, I've been looking through the summaries of incidents that are published each year. It shows that the same type of incidents is cropping up, when people are tired, rushed, distracted, or overwhelmed with gadgets, which interrupts their planned actions. I'm planning a relaxed re-entry through the Southern Tablelands Gliding Club, which has all the essentials for an old fellow - winch, small field, relaxed atmosphere, and a 'classic' fleet. One, a Blanik L-13 (VH-GPS) I first flew in 1974, it will be nice to get reacquainted.

 

[jb747]

At what point would one move from the dangerous/inexperienced bucket, to having half an idea? 1000 hrs and few seasons?

I'm not sure that you can quantify it like that. One pilot may be inherently more cautious that another. I suspect that it's the acceptance of risk that becomes the biggest factor in whether a pilot is 'safe' or not, assuming equal actual skill. Of course if he's a lousy pilot, then I doubt that any level of experience would make him safe.

Apart from the fact that very low hour pilots simply haven't had enough practice to actually become good at any of the processes, I'd say the the biggest issue with them is that they can't assess the level of risk involved. If you've never thought about what you'd do with an engine failure in the mountains, then it probably doesn't seem dangerous to you.

I was talking to a charter operator recently, he said 200hrs isn’t that much, let alone a few dozen hours.

200 hours isn't much, but then there's also different levels of quality in that 200 hours. That amount of time in the RAAF, under strong supervision, in demanding aircraft, is a very different animal to 200 hours in the circuit at Benalla. It's actually a trivial amount of time in an airliner, as you're mostly practicing procedures, and not the actual mechanics of flying. Surviving 200 hours in PNG is possibly a good effort.

I've never been able to check the details myself, but I recall being told that the most dangerous person on pilots' course is the dux.

 

[jb747]

They would have been better off getting senior ‘experts’ inside the GA industry rather than getting advice from senior QF Pilot and VA (now Bonza) Pilot who haven’t really been in GA for 30 years. Sure you don’t need to be Einstein to give a common sense approach, but tap the head of the RFDS or a large charter outfit.

I think Matt Gray is a PhD level expert on training in general, and probably has a business looking at training across multiple industries. He just happened to be in charge of the QF system a few years ago (and was probably using it to hone the thesis). He's from the RAAF originally. But you don't need to be specifically from GA, or airlines, to be able to pick a dud system. In many ways, flying is flying, and the basics are the same no matter what aircraft you're in.

 

[RooFlyer]

Video of an A320 veering off a runway in slippery conditions. Pilots, would you give them points for the recovery? Incident from 42 seconds in.

Mixture of Norse (I think) and English by the tower & pilot while taxiing seems odd.

 

[jb747]

Possibly a combination of the crosswind, and aqua planing. I think I’d have at least stopped and had a visual inspection of the gear before taxiing to the gate. Ten points for drift control though. It’s a great example of how quickly things can go astray.

 

[Hvr]

Ten points for drift control though

Re the skid marks on the grass; are they filled in?

I'm assuming the plane would have to be inspected (and cleaned) before being allowing to fly again?
Does the flight crew have lots of paperwork to fill out?

As for the skid marks incurred by the crew and pax, I'm guessing the local equivalent of Brown Gouge got a bit of work.

 

[jb747]

Re the skid marks on the grass; are they filled in?

Eventually perhaps, but I doubt that it would be a priority. Of more concern would be any lighting that was overrun.

I'm assuming the plane would have to be inspected (and cleaned) before being allowing to fly again?

That would be a start. I think it would need a comprehensive inspection, gear and engines especially.

Does the flight crew have lots of paperwork to fill out?

An incident report from the Captain. Depending upon how their regulator, and chief pilot, view things, that might be all. The way that aircraft has swung as it hits the water, I don’t see it as crew fault.

As for the skid marks incurred by the crew and pax, I'm guessing the local equivalent of Brown Gouge got a bit of work.

Heavily stained.

 

[jb747]

Well, I flew with my old employer yesterday, and must say that Alan obviously achieved his goals completely. This was copied from what I wrote elsewhere.

I flew on Alan Joyce's Qantas yesterday, and I can't say that it was a wonderful experience. The day started to go awry when we were driving south, and our selected seats went from a pair in the middle of the aircraft to pretty well the worst seats in the second last row. Entering the airport through the QF baggage collection area, and it's a grotty area, and it starts a trend by being completely devoid of staff. Check in is all do it yourself, which is all well and good if there's a least a few wandering staff to help out. But, again saw nobody. That's a trend for the entire airport, where we actually saw more cabin crew walking to their aircraft than ground staff.

The old TAA wing is as uninviting as it always was. The newer wing is much better, but sadly where it used to be lined by 767s and 330s, now it's nothing but 717s.

The flight itself went more or less on time, and passengers haven't changed, with people carrying far too much, and then totally ignoring cabin crew instructions about being seated (with the signs on). An evacuation with yesterdays's lot would be nothing but a disaster.

Thankfully the aircraft didn't have a video system, so they couldn't inflict the new safety brief on us.

 

[747sp]

JB when VH OJA was retired to Wollongong I understand that the plane had minimum fuel levels. I was wondering when doing short flights like this or flights like Melbourne to Avalon do the normal fuel rules apply for diversion airports ?

 

[Quickstatus]

Aviators, what are your hypoxia indicators? please thanks

 

[Quickstatus]

And on a completely different note. Five years ago....

How does it feel today compared with then?

Mr McKeown added it would have been "very important that he only operated in conditions and on tasks commensurate with his ability".

How would an inexperienced pilot know what is commensurate with his ability, when he didn't have the insight to know what his ability actually was?. Im surprised at that pilot's comment because it is only with training, further experience and personal insight (such as the wife's) that anyone can discern what their true ability is. Even then, sometimes someone else is required to tell them what their ability is when their own personal insight is lacking. Like one of the trainees for one of the specialist colleges who failed their advanced training entrance exams 7 times trying to get into advanced training. #8 didn't eventuate because they declined the application. Someone said that's it no more.

RAAF nav course was about 160 hours

Was some of that about honing skills at maybe "dead reckoning" or reading a map and reconciling it with surrounding landmarks?
Even today and in a 2 dimensional transport vehicle, having a sense of where you are and how long it will take to get from A to B is important as a supplementary to the GPS.

 

[straitman]

Changing the topic a little. We are currently on Grand Princess heading from Fiji to Melbourne. Yesterday evening at about 2200 the Captain came on the PA and stated we were now heading toward Noumea at maximum speed as there was a very ill crew member who would be picked up by helicopter between 0600 - 0700.
The deck areas near the main pool was cleared and people on the two decks immediately below were evacuated from their cabins for its arrival.
At about 0445 we were woken by the arrival of a Puma helicopter from the New Caledonia coast guard. (We were still 120NM or more from Noumea at this stage)
It was good to see a truely professional operation being performed as I have to say I have seen some very poor and in my opinion quite unsafe pickups from other cruise ships.
By 0530 it was gone and back to bed for us. Unfortunately no feedback on how the crew member is as yet.

 

[Quickstatus]

The deck areas

Adequate lighting?

 

[straitman]

Adequate lighting?

It was well lit for what they were doing

 

[jb747]

How does it feel today compared with then?

Well timed.

How would an inexperienced pilot know what is commensurate with his ability, when he didn't have the insight to know what his ability actually was?.

Starting with the assumption that you're hopeless at everything would be a good idea. You can mark yourself up with experience. Not the other way around.

Im surprised at that pilot's comment because it is only with training, further experience and personal insight (such as the wife's) that anyone can discern what their true ability is.

I have my doubts about this particular pilot's ability to be self assessing at all. He was an adventurer, and almost by definition they consider themselves great at everything. Apparently something like 50% of people think they could land an airliner, so I can imagine others who'd reckon they'd be fine for astronauts after about an hour of training.

Even then, sometimes someone else is required to tell them what their ability is when their own personal insight is lacking.

That sounds like a pilots' course debrief. You were told what you were doing wrong. If it wasn't mentioned, then it was probably ok. The writeups were called hate sheets.

Was some of that about honing skills at maybe "dead reckoning" or reading a map and reconciling it with surrounding landmarks?

There was a bit of that, though most of the visual map reading was the pilots' domain. Lots of DR, plotting, and just getting an understanding of how it all worked.

 

[Quickstatus]

Starting with the assumption that you're hopeless at everything would be a good idea

Interestingly that is what my professor told a group of us who managed to pass the entrance exam for advanced training - (the pass rate was 30%. Wrong answers were actually given negative marks so guessing was bad). He said we are all hopeless and the sooner we realised we were hopeless the easier it gets. . It's a good yardstick because it stops most of us from doing things we shouldn't.You don't want a Dr who always thinks he can because invariably he takes risks.

 

[jb747]

JB when VH OJA was retired to Wollongong I understand that the plane had minimum fuel levels. I was wondering when doing short flights like this or flights like Melbourne to Avalon do the normal fuel rules apply for diversion airports ?

The normal rules apply. So, at the end of the landing roll, you must have a legal minimum of about 5,000 kg (which is 30 minutes at the holding burn rate, to dry tanks).

It would normally be calculated as taxi fuel, plus fuel for the sector, plus 10% of that sector fuel (to a max of about 5 tonnes), plus 1,500 kg for the approach, plus the legal minimum 5 tonnes. But, overriding all of the normal calculations is the minimum fuel load, which was about 25,000 kgs, and which existed to ensure that the pumps remained submerged during the acceleration of takeoff. I guess they may have been allowed a reduction in that figure, for the Wollongong flight, but I did plenty of the Avalon trips, and it was always 25 tonnes for them.

Notice there is no mention of diversion fuel. You don’t have to carry any sort of diversion unless the weather forces you to.

Aviators, what are your hypoxia indicators? please thanks

When I did the chamber run, I recall becoming quite muddled. Couldn’t add two simple numbers.