Home





Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Questions, Fundamental Flaws?
tripleseven
post Feb 17 2010, 03:29 PM
Post #1


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 547
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Member No.: 2,550



http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14398562...op_section_news

I have some questions for the EXPERIENCED...please.

1: Are there ANY OTHER METHODS BESIDES pitot tubes to gather airspeed data?

2: How often are commercial pilots required to undergo re-certification.

3: What does the re-certification entail?

And lastly, what are your opinions on the increased automation of todays commercial airliners?

Thank you for your time...icon_smile.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LearCapt
post Feb 18 2010, 02:00 AM
Post #2


Saab 340 Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 54
Joined: 3-February 10
From: (KADS) Dallas, TX, USA
Member No.: 10,649



1. No. Pitot tubes are numerous and therefore provide a great deal of redundancy. On the Lear, there are two (one on each side of the nose). On the 737NG, I believe there are six total.

2. We're a 91 op so I'll leave this one to the 135/121 guys since I know it's much more stringent. I do recurrent once a year in the sim.

3. Again, this is for the corporate side. But mine is a 3-day course. The main points we hit are CRM, performance, systems, emergency procedures, limitations, and flight planning. Ground reviewing everything then sim sessions to put it into practice in mostly emergency situations.

I don't fly a highly automated airplane, much less a commercial airliner, but I find that the automation in today's cockpits helps where it needs to. Of course the first thing everyone thinks of in terms of automation is autopilots, and they have definitely functioned to make aviation safer, providing crews with relief on longer flights and a helping hand while troubleshooting a problem. However, autopilots, as well as any other automation, is not infalliable.

The article makes a point...human error on every level is the leading cause of accidents and incidents. Nothing is going to change that unless you remove the human from the cockpit, ATC, maintenance, construction, etc. What we can do to fight it is use good CRM (more than one brain working is always a good thing), use checklists to ensure procedures are done correctly, and start everyone off right with good training in the fundamentals.

The most important thing that can kill pilots is a loss of situational awareness...if you don't know where you are and what's going on, you're in a ticking time bomb to an accident.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AirRabbit
post Feb 18 2010, 07:18 PM
Post #3


The Rant Master
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 1,225
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Member No.: 1,333



1: Are there ANY OTHER METHODS BESIDES pitot tubes to gather airspeed data? icon_neutral.gif
There probably are some really sophisticated ring-laser comparison mechanisms that cost a bazillion bucks, but nothing that I know of is going to get you the information you need any better, any more consistently, or reliably than a heated/protected pitot/static system.

2: How often are commercial pilots required to undergo re-certification. cool2.gif
It generally depends on what section of the rule you operate under. For example under part 121 (airline operating rules) Captains get a check ride or training every 6 months and first officers get a check ride or training every 12 months. However, there is an area that some airlines train under, called the Advanced Qualification Program, where Captains and First Officers get training and an evaluation once every 12 months.

3: What does the re-certification entail? Cap_PDT_01_32.gif
The training part is just that, training. First is ground training - where you review all the subjects you had when you first came aboard - airplane systems, regulations, weather, ATC procedures, and the like, and then you take an oral exam or a written test. Then, if you fly an airplane that has a simulator, you get a chance to review all the tasks that you are expected to fly (takeoffs, approaches, and landings, etc.) and even some of the more complicated tasks, like recoveries from approaches to stall and recoveries from an inadvertent upset, recoveries from windshear encounters, etc. ... and, the check ride is essentially the same thing, except that the really esoteric bits (upset recoveries and windshear recoveries) are not part of the check, and a check airman watches and grades your performance. If you don't have a simulator, then you get to do the training and/or the check ride in the airplane. Goody Goody some might say ... but doing some of the things in the airplane (like engine failures on takeoff or engine out landings or go-arounds) sometimes get a bit dicey. The ground school normally takes anywhere from a day to 3 days and the simulator is usually a 4-hour period, and like I say, sometimes there are both training and check - that is usually one-a-day and each is about 4 hours long. The airplane might take 45 minutes to 1.5 hours - depending on a lot of things.

And lastly, what are your opinions on the increased automation of todays commercial airliners? eusa_think.gif
Automation is a wonderful thing. And it is getting better and better - as are the airplanes themselves. In fact, the automation is so good that some airlines require the crew to engage the autopilot just after takeoff and they don't disconnect the autopilot until on relatively short final - unless they're in a condition that may require an automatic landing. The automatic systems work pretty well ... when they work. But they are computers. Computers ARE getting better. The computer you use now is probably a lot better than the first computer you used. But, does your computer ever make mistakes? Well, automation on the flight deck isn't as prone to errors as MSWord, and airplanes have an unbelievable backup routine - and backups for the backups. But ... there is a growing concern that some pilots may be losing some of their skilll sets to manually fly the airplane. Recall the "miracle on the Hudson?" That was a manually flown airplane. The computers took a hike when the electricity stopped (well, it didn't stop completely, so there was still some computer inputs - but in this particular case it was probably more detrimental than helpful - but that is a whole other story). Suffice it to say that flight deck automation is a good thing - but it should be used by the pilot to control the airplane, with the pilot directly and integreally involved in what the computer is doing to the airplane. All of us are guilty to some degree in turning on "George," and then get involved in something else. BUT, that is a bad practice and should be avoided if at all possible. Again, it's only my opinion, but it IS my opinion, that the pilot should be flying the airplane at all times - and he/she can use the manual controls or the automatic controls - and should be equally conversant with each and able to use both equally well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tripleseven
post Feb 22 2010, 02:20 PM
Post #4


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 547
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Member No.: 2,550



icon_thumright.gif


Awesome gentlemen, thank you for the response. I have been noticing a substantial amount of "human error" accidents the past few years, one that comes to mind is ADAM Air. With this in mind I would like to give my personal opinion(uh-oh) on what I think may happen more often than we think. I think with the era of these new low cost "budget" carriers, alot of training and CRM is forgone in the name of revenue. Even the beloved SWA has a somewhat questionable past in the area of maintenance and inspection.

Be that as it may, what do you guys (and gals) think about these low cost carriers and what can be done to keep them more in conformity?

................... plane.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ChillSpiller
post Feb 23 2010, 08:53 AM
Post #5


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: FL350 CREW
Posts: 681
Joined: 29-April 05
From: Germany (EDDF)
Member No.: 1,443



Some airlines might want to cut the costs of training programs and such but they keep within the legal barriers, so it might need a change in regulations? On the other hand the given regulations are clear enough. Never the less it is honorable to see some airlines putting up special training programs or shorter intervals which should/could be a standard.
The point of human error is partially somewhere else to find though. I'd say its not only the training time but the linkage between human and machine. As the article has also stated that modern planes are far more automated and computerized, the flight training has remained the same. Each model has different equiptment and gauges and thats the point to focus on. Teaching the usage of these newly implemented systems and interpreting errors the right way. Just as an example: Why teach NDB navigation when GPS is gaining ground in aviation? Of course NDBs are still active but I'd assume that they'll be abandoned in the long run.

Concerning the LCC, I wouldn't think that they try to save money when it gets to maintenance. Some of them are clients of larger maintenance companies such as Lufthansa Technik. By putting maintenance out of their hands (which would be too costy anyhow) I doubt that problems are simply overlooked. Besides I hope and think that none western airline saves on maintenance. LCC make money by the customer paying extra for his luggage, for meals, less space, tax and so on. In the end they come up with about the same amount of money a regular airline has.
On my part I wouldn't like to travel long distance with LCC due to the lack of comfort. Short trips for the weekend or so are fine though.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

 
 
Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th June 2013 - 02:34 PM

Home | Webmail | Forum | Random Video Generator | Link to us | Aircraft Fact Sheets | Help
Upload videos | Become a videographer | Terms of Use | Privacy | Contact us | About Flightlevel350.com | Ad Choices

© 2004 - 2009 Flightlevel350.com
Aviation Videos - Airplane Videos - Loudest place on the web!