Just finished a very well written account of the two recent Boeing 737 Max crashes that resulted in the grounding of the entire fleet.  Here it is:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-crashes.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

 

The author's main point is that among other errors in operation, the lack of aviation skills was as much responsible as anything else for the crashes.  The article is long but I think worth while for anyone who flies or is interested in aviation.

Jim Driskell

It is a good article and points to a basic problem with "pilot" training in much of the world.

I read that earlier today. It's a good article. It doesn't let Boeing off the hook for some really stupid design decisions for the Max, but it's good at pointing out how scary the pilot training situation is in the current rush to make air travel affordable and available outside the original first-world markets. 

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the final conclusion in the article that given the current situation worldwide, Boeing might have to alter their "pilot is the last resort when things screw up" design philosophy towards something more like what Airbus is doing with "the plane AI will always protect you." With the eventual result that eventually we'll all be boarding planes as pax with no human pilots in the pointy end at all.

2 hours ago, Paraffin said:

Boeing might have to alter their "pilot is the last resort when things screw up" design philosophy towards something more like what Airbus is doing with "the plane AI will always protect you." 

It's a myth that the Airbus AI will always protect you. When I switched from Boeing to Airbus I was very surprised when the instructor suddenly said during a session; I'll know show you how the A320 will kill you.

In the few decades of flying I've never heard this (or a similar) sentence from a flight instructor before.

E.g. on the new A320 neo, there exists the danger of a too high AoA scenario, which means that some airlines have to leave the last row of seats empty to move the CG forward.

The interesting point is that this problem apparently came to light after the 737 MAX certification has come under verification.

Edited September 19, 20196 yr by FDEdev

At the end of the day, the pilots are up front for a reason. That's to fly the plane. Being messed up with the design philosophy for sure. However, we as pilots have got to have better training for situations like this.

 

I know here in the states, the FAA is mandating that all airlines start training EET (extended envelope training). Apparently, there is a dead line for this but I don't have the specifics. 

I hope training can improve all over the world....it needs to be done.

It's been a long time since I was in flight training but the rule was always in an emergency the first thing you do is fly the airplane.

Noel

Edited September 19, 20196 yr by birdguy

I have noticed when watching pilots doing proficiency training that they tend to view it as simply a refresher of what buttons to push to make the instructor happy.  And while I'm exaggerating that a bit... in truth, too often training sessions are not approached with enough seriousness.

I've watched a pilot fly an aircraft into the ground because they never once took the time to look at their engine gauges.

I've watched a pilot crash their aircraft in weather conditions they should never have flow into, yet when the decision moment came, they felt they had to finish the training mission.  As if the mere concept of not taking off, or even returning to their departure airport was unthinkable.

Training needs to be far more diverse than simply covering the engine out, the fail at v1, the fail at v2, etc. Loss of static ports at altitude... loss of pitot at altitude... those aren't even training items to my knowledge... though they most definitely should be.  

Now, I can't speak for Level-D training as I don't work for FlightSafety... but in GA... the training needs to go more in depth.

1 hour ago, WarpD said:

Loss of static ports at altitude... loss of pitot at altitude... those aren't even training items to my knowledge...

.....not to mention how to monitor the FMS operation and what to do when VNAV goes wonky on you........I've been practicing that a lot lately........

6 hours ago, WarpD said:

I have noticed when watching pilots doing proficiency training that they tend to view it as simply a refresher of what buttons to push to make the instructor happy.  And while I'm exaggerating that a bit... in truth, too often training sessions are not approached with enough seriousness.

I've watched a pilot fly an aircraft into the ground because they never once took the time to look at their engine gauges.

I've watched a pilot crash their aircraft in weather conditions they should never have flow into, yet when the decision moment came, they felt they had to finish the training mission.  As if the mere concept of not taking off, or even returning to their departure airport was unthinkable.

Training needs to be far more diverse than simply covering the engine out, the fail at v1, the fail at v2, etc. Loss of static ports at altitude... loss of pitot at altitude... those aren't even training items to my knowledge... though they most definitely should be.  

Now, I can't speak for Level-D training as I don't work for FlightSafety... but in GA... the training needs to go more in depth.

I agree....aeronautical decision making has seemed to take a back seat. 

I do believe that the FAA did a complete revamp of the testing certification and got rid of PTS. I know the new way of testing puts a huge emphasis on ADM.

 

5 hours ago, ahsmatt7 said:

I agree....aeronautical decision making has seemed to take a back seat. 

Maybe in GA which seems to include only very basic training according to WarpD, but certainly not in the airline business.

When I compare my sim session (and almost more import the sim briefing and preparation) from 30 years until now, training has been improved a lot, at least in most countries.

I completely agree. Even my sim session from 5 years ago are much different than today.

 

However it all starts in the  beginning....which is GA. There has been a very big decline in ADM importance

That's one of the reasons many airlines prefer people with zero flight hours.

When using an acronym, it is best to define it for those who might not have ever been introduced to it.  Just a suggestion.  While most will know what GA is, PTS and ADM are not very "mainstream", per se.

For those who don't know, I believe PTS is Practical Test Standards and ADM is Aeronautical Decision Making.  At least, those are the ones I know of.

Edited September 22, 20196 yr by WarpD

Thanks for the definitions.