Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: earl1937 on January 01, 2014, 06:03:28 AM
-
:airplane: I know we don't have any ILS system in this game, it might of benefit to some to talk about the ILS while making a instrument approach to a airport! A few simple ones.
#1- The indicator in the aircraft has some "dots" on the face of the instrument, and a "doughnut". If when making a approach to an airport ILS system and you get a full up deflection of the glide slope indicator and a full right deflection, where are you in relation to the center of the ILS system?
#2- If, making a back course, localizer approach and you have a full right deflection on the localizer indicator, to correct back to center line of localizer, you should do what?
#3- On your glide slope indicator, you have a 1 dot deviation up indication, where are you in relation to the glide slope?
#4- On your localizer indicator, you are 1 dot deviation left of center of the localizer and you cross the outer marker, where are you in relation to the center line, in feet?
#5- If you have a 1 dot deflection in glideslope indicator above the "doughnut" how many feet low are you at the outer marker and the same question about the middle marker?
#6- Do you think the Korean pilot who was flying the Boeing 777, which struck the end of the runway embankment at SFO, would have done so, if he knew the answers to these questions?
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/ils_on_hi_zpse02776cb.jpg) What a localizer/glideslope indicator looks like in many general aviation aircraft. The glideslope dots are hidden by the localizer needle.
-
#6- Do you think the Korean pilot who was flying the Boeing 777, which struck the end of the runway embankment at SFO, would have done so, if he knew the answers to these questions?
I'll be he can quote the textbook verbatim but it didn't keep him from crashing the airplane.
-
I'll be he can quote the textbook verbatim but it didn't keep him from crashing the airplane.
^^^ this
He didn't have a ground based glide slope anyway. He did I believe have a VNAV path so almost just as good.
At 500' he had descended to a point where he would ordinarily been on course, path and speed. However with the thrust levers held back at idle he kept right on getting lower, slower and nearly deader.
500' spooled and stable for a reason in a jet.
-
I'll be he can quote the textbook verbatim but it didn't keep him from crashing the airplane.
:noid I don't agree, I think anyone who goes to the trouble of knowing what the answers are to these types of questions, is someone who is totally immersed in flying an aircraft in a safe and efficient manner!
-
^^^ this
He didn't have a ground based glide slope anyway. He did I believe have a VNAV path so almost just as good.
At 500' he had descended to a point where he would ordinarily been on course, path and speed. However with the thrust levers held back at idle he kept right on getting lower, slower and nearly deader.
500' spooled and stable for a reason in a jet.
:rolleyes: There is no question that you are correct that he didn't have a ILS system operating, where he could punch in a few numbers and let land itself. My point is that had he know his aircraft forward and backward as he should have, the aircraft would never have arrived short of the runway. You get that kind of knowledge through training!
-
:noid I don't agree, I think anyone who goes to the trouble of knowing what the answers are to these types of questions, is someone who is totally immersed in flying an aircraft in a safe and efficient manner!
Reciting rote textbook answers verbatim doesn't mean you're any good at flying.
-
Reciting rote textbook answers verbatim doesn't mean you're any good at flying.
:airplane: Again, you are correct, but like learning to swim, if you don't work at it, you'll never learn. My whole point about him landing short was that if he knew the aircraft as well as he should, he would have never gotten in that position to begin with. It cost a lot of money to train pilots for the airlines, and I think most all cut corners one way or the other to save cost! The Buffalo crash is good example of what I am talking about, he had already flunked some smi-annual check rides and had to retake them, what in the world was he doing in the left seat, without more experience as a first officer?
-
ET, I don't need any knowledge of a 777 to know that being low and slow is wrong. It's wrong in a J-3, 777 or the Space Shuttle. That crew screwed the pooch. A crew of people who have passed numerous written tests, check rides, phase checks, recurrent training, blah blah blah and still managed to land the airplane short of the pavement in CAVU conditions.
-
ET, I don't need any knowledge of a 777 to know that being low and slow is wrong. It's wrong in a J-3, 777 or the Space Shuttle. That crew screwed the pooch. A crew of people who have passed numerous written tests, check rides, phase checks, recurrent training, blah blah blah and still managed to land the airplane short of the pavement in CAVU conditions.
:airplane: I AM AGREEING WITH YOU GUYS! My point is that if they were trained in the real aircraft, not a sim, that accident most likely never have happened!
-
Reciting rote textbook answers verbatim doesn't mean you're any good at flying.
Rote memorization is a form of shallow processing. Knowing how and why the system works is deep processing. Something is not truly learned until is actually effects one's behavior. So the Korean Air pilots had not truly learned the landing system because their behaviors did not change when the situation warranted it.
-
Rote memorization is a form of shallow processing. Knowing how and why the system works is deep processing. Something is not truly learned until is actually effects one's behavior. So the Korean Air pilots had not truly learned the landing system because their behaviors did not change when the situation warranted it.
:airplane: Excellent post sir! :salute
-
My point is that if they were trained in the real aircraft, not a sim, that accident most likely never have happened!
Horseshit. Literally tens of thousands, if not far more, airline pilots have qualified in Level D simulators and gone directly to flying the line. Simulators offer the most effective AND cost effective training. Your mistakes don't kill you and you can train to proficiency, repeating maneuvers as many times as is necessary.
How many other Level D simulator trained airline pilots crashed at SFO on a visual approach? I don't know of any others, do you? I'm thinking the answer is none.
Asiana 214 was cleared for a simple visual approach. If you can't land on an 11,000 foot long runway in VFR conditions, you shouldn't pretend to be a pilot.
-
There were four qualified, experience pilots in the cockpit of Asiana 214. The approach into SFO, whether it be IFR or VFR is an energy challenging approach and should have been no surprise to any of the four pilots that day. Someone screwed the pooch and no one else in the front office took decisive action to correct the situation. It appears no one had the "brass" to say "you ain't killing me today" and do the right thing. Before someone brings up the "cultural" issue, yeah it's there, been there, seen it. Pilots are pilots. You just don't let the other guy get low and slow, and when he doesn't correct it after some CRM prodding, just sit there on your thumbs. But, yeah, these guys did. :rolleyes:
-
IIRC, the relief Captain was seated in business class at the time of the crash. Nonetheless, your point stands.
-
In the 90 seconds before they crashed their perfectly working airplane the airspeed and sink rate deviations were verbalized ten times by the non flying pilot AND acknowledged several by the other non flying pilot who happened to be holding controls.
-
I have not heard of this accident, was it a serious CFIT?
-
I have not heard of this accident, was it a serious CFIT?
Google it. There are videos, etc to show the event. Serious? Yeah, pretty much.
-
Google it. There are videos, etc to show the event. Serious? Yeah, pretty much.
Ah, I have seen it, I recognise Captain Sum Ting Wong from that TV hoax... Sorry don't mind me.
-
Yeah, he's the guy. :D
-
Horseshit. Literally tens of thousands, if not far more, airline pilots have qualified in Level D simulators and gone directly to flying the line. Simulators offer the most effective AND cost effective training. Your mistakes don't kill you and you can train to proficiency, repeating maneuvers as many times as is necessary.
How many other Level D simulator trained airline pilots crashed at SFO on a visual approach? I don't know of any others, do you? I'm thinking the answer is none.
Asiana 214 was cleared for a simple visual approach. If you can't land on an 11,000 foot long runway in VFR conditions, you shouldn't pretend to be a pilot.
:airplane: No doubt the flight sim's have saved the airlines millions of dollars in pilot training but in my view the flight sim should be used for annual checks working on emergency procedures and for generally impressing the chief pilot or his designate that the trainee knows what he is supposed to do in certain situations. BUT that is not and will never be a flight sim which reinforces your decision making like training in the real thing!
-
:airplane: No doubt the flight sim's have saved the airlines millions of dollars in pilot training but in my view the flight sim should be used for annual checks working on emergency procedures and for generally impressing the chief pilot or his designate that the trainee knows what he is supposed to do in certain situations. BUT that is not and will never be a flight sim which reinforces your decision making like training in the real thing!
They were training in the real thing. He was still on IOE.
-
They were training in the real thing. He was still on IOE.
:airplane: Sorry Charlie FAR 121 prohibits pilot training with fare paying customers on board! They are allowed to line check as I think it is called during a normal trip but no flight training!
Training is a student and instructor, at what ever level you wish to examine is pushing and poking the aircraft in all area's of the aircraft's flight envelope with the instructor certifying the trainee's competence in all area's of flight. An designated examiner sitting in the right seat observing what the PIC is doing is not flight training.
Call me "old fashion" but a pilot should know everything about his aircraft before allowing him to haul passengers for hire. He should be able during an oral exam explain every system in the a/c which can be controlled by him or other crew members. Example, today's airline pilots sit in front of a "glass" cockpit screen which if something goes wrong, is supposed to tell him what is wrong and suggest corrective action.
How about the DC9 captain who wouldn't go to full power taking off from Washington National, (Now Ronald Reagan), who's inlet temp gauges had froze up due to lack of turning them on and he struck a bridge and killed a bunch of people. He had several clues to alert him that things were going down hill fast and all he had to do was shove both thrust levers all the way forward and that accident would not have happened. But, because he was able to answer all the text book answers, he was certified to fly the 9 in cold weather operations. That goes right back to the point I have been making, had an instructor somewhere in his training, pulled the breaker for one or both ITP's, he would have that experience to fall back on and probably would have recognized what was happening and took corrective actions.
though, hands on training, in the real thing cannot and will not ever be replaced by sim's as the best method to train pilots sir! :cheers:
-
Golfer, we probably better just drop it. The hip boots are about to be topped here. Some things you can't fix and I believe this is one of them.
-
Golfer, we probably better just drop it. The hip boots are about to be topped here. Some things you can't fix and I believe this is one of them.
There's no question in my mind that you approach things differently in a simulator - or if you have an instructor sitting beside you - than if you're by yourself in the real thing. The first two instances permit you to relax, because you know that nothing serious will happen (sim) or someone else is there to take over, if things go wrong. This isn't to disparage simulator training, it's necessary and useful, but it also doesn't impart the same lessons as does real-world training.
- oldman
-
They were training in the real thing. He was still on IOE.
IOE (Initial Operating Experience), a bit of a stretch calling it training. All of a new pilot's training is complete by the time IOE is conducted. As most pilots will hopefully admit, every flight is a learning experience (or training for future events) and if something new isn't learned every time, they most likely missed the one thing that could have bit them in the backside.
-
It's not a stretch at all. There's a reason at the companies I've worked for the post flight reports during IOE go in your training folder.
-
Air Florida 90 was the 737 you are talking about and he used unsound judgment at a number of points including using reverse thrust at the Gate to get the plane moving backwards when it was otherwise frozen in place with the tug. Reverse thrust sending ice and snow into the engine. Also if memory serves they were out beyond their deice time.
-
Air Florida 90 was the 737 you are talking about and he used unsound judgment at a number of points including using reverse thrust at the Gate to get the plane moving backwards when it was otherwise frozen in place with the tug. Reverse thrust sending ice and snow into the engine. Also if memory serves they were out beyond their deice time.
:airplane: You are correct and it points out what I have been saying about training! Flight sim's certainly have their place in pilot training, I just happen to one of many who think we put to much trust in a machine to train a person to fly correctly. I agree that we have to reach a balance between actually flying the aircraft and a flight sim, but I think money gets in the way and so sometimes money causes corner cutting and sometimes results in terrible crashes. While you are correct about the blow back from engine reverse, the main problem is expressed in the following:Air Florida Flight 90 was a U.S. domestic passenger flight that originated at Washington National Airport in Arlington County, Virginia, and was scheduled to terminate at Fort Lauderdale – Hollywood International Airport in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, with a stopover at Tampa International Airport in Tampa, Florida. On January 13, 1982, the Boeing 737-200 registered as N62AF, previously registered with United Airlines as N9050U, crashed into the 14th Street Bridge over the Potomac River.
The aircraft struck the 14th Street Bridge, which carries Interstate 395 between Washington, D.C. and Arlington County. It crushed seven occupied vehicles on the bridge and destroyed 97 feet (30 m) of guard rail before it plunged through the ice into the Potomac River. The crash occurred less than two miles (3 km) from the White House and within view of both the Jefferson Memorial and The Pentagon. The aircraft was carrying 74 passengers and five crewmembers. Four passengers and one flight attendant survived the crash. Four motorists from the bridge were killed. The survivors were rescued from the icy river by civilians and professionals.
President Ronald Reagan commended these acts during his State of the Union speech a few days later. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the cause of the accident was pilot error. The pilots failed to switch on the engines' internal ice protection systems, used reverse thrust in a snowstorm prior to takeoff, and failed to abort the takeoff even after detecting a power problem while
-
I'd be interested in reading your opinion on how training in the aircraft versus the simulator could have avoided the palm 90 accident You have read the cvr transcript I assume
-
I'd be interested in reading your opinion on how training in the aircraft versus the simulator could have avoided the palm 90 accident You have read the cvr transcript I assume
:airplane: Yes and a simple answer to your question: READ the DAMN check list! The first officer did, but for what ever reason, the a/c didn't turn on the on board engine deice function. Was it an over sight, or did he think it wasn't necessary. Either way, he took about 27% of engine power available to him away! I don't really know why he didn't. I had discussed this accident many times in the past because of my natural curiosity of what went wrong, in hopes that someday I didn't make the same mistaken. The consensus of most experienced line pilots all said the same thing: the OAT dictated where or not to turn on the engine anti ice systems, when on the ground to 35F. If you read the accident report, did you notice the difference in #1 and #2 EPR? That should have given him a clue that something wasn't right and he should have aborted right then!
But, thanks for your comment, that is one accident which could have been prevented in my view, just by paying attention to details!
-
Well what I asked was how training in the aircraft versus training in the simulator would have made a difference in the Palm 90 accident. Or are you saying that people can't be trained to utilize the checklist in the sim as well as they can be trained to use it in the aircraft?
-
Well what I asked was how training in the aircraft versus training in the simulator would have made a difference in the Palm 90 accident. Or are you saying that people can't be trained to utilize the checklist in the sim as well as they can be trained to use it in the aircraft?
:airplane: One thing is for sure, he was not in the habit of doing everything verbatim. There are "sayings" in aviation which have a lot of truth to them: there are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old,bold pilots. You can add another one to that: there are dumb pilots and smart pilots, but there are no old, dumb pilots!
-
Well, what I'm trying to find out for SURE is whether you think training that crew in the airplane versus training that crew in the simulator would have made a difference in the outcome of the Palm 90 accident?
Do you? If so, why?
-
Well, what I'm trying to find out for SURE is whether you think training that crew in the airplane versus training that crew in the simulator would have made a difference in the outcome of the Palm 90 accident?
Do you? If so, why?
:airplane: The sim cannot alert the pilot if an optional item is missed, either on purpose or by accident, but if there is an instructor sitting next to him and knows when the de-ice equipment is supposed to be turned on, "don't you think that instructor would call his attention to that missed item on the check list"?
-
Earl, in every sim I have ever been in, there has been an instructor sitting behind me who knows when the de-ice equipment is supposed to be turned on and would call my attention to that missed item on the checklist. Of course the sim does not alert you…the instructor DOES.
How is that different in any way from training in the airplane with an instructor?
-
Earl I think you may be underestimating the capabilities of today's simulator technology and what they are and are not capable of and how the training process works at both the training vendors such as FlightSafety provide as well as in house training centers run by individual airlines.
-
Earl I think you may be underestimating the capabilities of today's simulator technology and what they are and are not capable of and how the training process works at both the training vendors such as FlightSafety provide as well as in house training centers run by individual airlines.
:airplane: I think everyone is misunderstanding my attitude towards training sims. Yes, they are necessary because of procedure practice, route familiarizations, ATC procedures in foreign countries and last but not least, emergencies procedures for in flight emergencies. All I am saying, byw, been through flight safety school several times to meet on going insurance requirements and etc, truly one of the great training facilities in the U.S. I just don't think you can replace that experienced instructor sitting in that right seat, who can give you insights into different situations, which the sim cannot always do.
A good example of what I am talking about is the old 3 holer, Boeing 727! When those things first hit the lines and started flying different routes and landing at different airports, pretty soon they had a couple of over run accidents, one in particular, Salt Lake city in early 70's, demonstrated the problem they were having with air "daming" up under those huge fowler flaps. What with ground effect on a hot day and those big flaps, those thing would float forever, seems like. So the captains at Eastern air lines did some experiments of their own and found that if the first officer, at about 10 feet above the runway, begin to "milk" flaps up 10 to 15 degrees and the thing landed as good as a DC-6B, which btw was the best landing multi-engine hvy which I ever had the pleasure to fly.
See, a flight sim is not going to point those little things out, but to be fair, I think they did include that procedure in future sim flights.
-
Really? Every time I've been in a Level D simulator, I have had a highly experienced instructor sitting right behind me conducting the simulator session. So again, what is the difference?
You're not thinking of the UAL 227 accident at SLC in '65 are you? What overrun accident are you referring to?
-
Really? Every time I've been in a Level D simulator, I have had a highly experienced instructor sitting right behind me conducting the simulator session. So again, what is the difference?
You're not thinking of the UAL 227 accident at SLC in '65 are you? What overrun accident are you referring to?
:airplane: I have been researching for the past hour, made 2 long distance phone calls to former Airline Captains, one of whom, Larry Abernathy of Eastern, said that they did in fact have some problems on short runways, which was the case at Salt Lake in 65 and they, on their own, came up with the flap milking on touch down because it was real bad about floating in ground effect during hot summer days, but he couldn't remember an accident which I mentioned in prior post. Guess I mistaken. Time clutters the old brain after 60 years I guess. Anyway, good discussion guys, maybe someone will benefit from the thread.
In researching this, most of the 3 holer accidents were crashes caused by to rapid decent on approach and because the engines were slow to spool up, it took much longer to check their decent for landing. The amazing thing is the one you speak of in 1965, and they were still having same type of accident in 1989.
I never flew the most successful 3 engine jet of its day, but rode in one a couple of times. All pilots I ever talked to about really praised its flying qualities.
-
I repeat: Every time I've been in a Level D simulator, I have had a highly experienced instructor sitting right behind me conducting the simulator session. So again, what is the difference? I really would like to read your explanation.
As to the B-727, I will pay a month of AH for you if you can get Captain Abernathy to supply Eastern documentation that milking the flaps up in the flare was an approved procedure, either in their Airplane Flight Manual or in their Ops Specs. I'll wager it was not taught in their simulators as it not likely that the FAA would approve that technique.
I'll pay another month of AH for you if you can find an NTSB B-727 accident report that identifies flap setting of either 30 or 40 on a hot day as a causal factor. I think you'll find that folks that floated the B-727 simply carried way too much speed into the flare.