Co-pilots May Sim instead of Fly to Train

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Initially, I found this from a /. post, but reading what the
Washington Post says, this definitely earns it the controversy it's
generating. And, let it be known that this is *NOT* MSFS, but actual
real motion sims (possibly with X-Plane).

http://tinyurl.com/y8w4da

Flying Without Wings
Rule on Simulators Could Change How Pilots Are Trained

By Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 13, 2006; D01

Before stepping into the cockpit of a commercial jetliner for the first
time, pilots have racked up hundreds of hours in the air, usually at
the controls of small planes.

In coming years, they may get most of their flight experience without
ever leaving the ground.

The international organization that sets the world's aviation
regulations has adopted a new standard that could alter the nature of
pilot training. In essence, prospective co-pilots will be able to earn
most of their experience in ground-based simulators.

The move is designed to allow foreign airlines, especially those in
Asia and the Middle East that face shortages of pilots, to more quickly
train and hire flight crews. The United States isn't expected to adopt
the new rules anytime soon, but international pilots trained under the
new standards will be allowed to fly into and out of the country.

The change is generating some controversy. Safety experts and pilot
groups question whether simulators -- which have long been hailed as an
important training tool -- are good enough to replace critical early
flight experience.

"In a simulator, you have pride at stake," said Dennis Dolan, president
of the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations, which
has raised questions about the new standard. "In a real airplane, you
have your life at stake."

Officials at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO),
which is setting the new standards for pilot licensing, said the role
of simulators has grown substantially in most airline training
programs. Airlines often train co-pilots for new aircraft only in
simulators, without flying; such a co-pilot's first flight on the new
plane is with paying passengers on board.

The new rules apply only to co-pilots of commercial planes. Captains,
who are in charge of those aircraft, must have hundreds more hours of
flight experience. The new standards will allow people to become a
co-pilot on a jetliner with about 70 hours of flight time and 170 hours
in simulators. Other licenses require about 200 hours of flight
experience. Co-pilots perform many of the same duties as captains.

In the United States, a co-pilot of a commercial plane must have at
least 250 hours of experience, some of which can be earned in
simulators, federal regulators said.

Each country sets its own licensing requirements, which can be tougher
than the ICAO standards. The Federal Aviation Administration is not
expected to adopt the new license in this country. But experts say that
if the number of people learning to fly in the United States continues
to drop, the FAA could be forced to adopt the rules.

The new standards allow airlines to more properly train and supervise
young pilots before they develop bad habits at flight school or flying
alone, industry officials said, adding that the devices better prepare
pilots for today's sophisticated cockpits.

"Those hours flying solo in a single-engine piston airplane, they do us
no good at the airlines, and we can't monitor the pilots," said
Christian Schroeder, an official with the International Air Transport
Association, a trade group that represents airlines. "We are training a
better-qualified and safer pilot this way."

However, safety experts and pilots groups said pilots gain invaluable
"white knuckle" experience during hundreds of hours of flight time in
real planes. Flight crews also learn the intricacies and pressures of
dealing with air-traffic controllers in congested air space --
conditions that are hard to replicate in simulators, the experts and
pilots said.

In addition, no one has studied whether simulators can safely replace
early flight experience, said Cass Howell, chairman of the department
of aeronautical science at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in
Florida.

"There is no objective proof that this will be just as safe a method of
training," Howell said. "At this point, nobody knows if this is an
effective training method."

Still, Howell and others say simulators have helped make aviation far
safer than it was just a few decades ago. Full-motion simulators with
advanced computer graphics are exact replicas of airplane cockpits,
down to the switches and circuit breakers.

The graphics displayed on cockpit windows have become so advanced that
pilots can watch baggage carts rumble across taxiways and see wisps of
clouds rush past their windows and even snow drift across tarmacs.
Full-motion simulators -- giant boxes atop moving legs -- can toss
crews around in bad turbulence and even duplicate the
thud-thud-thudding of a jet streaking down a runway for takeoff.

Pilots use the devices to practice difficult approaches to airports,
recovery from engine failure and what to do when they encounter extreme
weather -- all scenarios that are too dangerous to attempt in an
aircraft. The simulators also have become instrumental in teaching
pilots about managing the increasingly complex and computerized
cockpits of modern jets.

In the United States, simulators help pilots adjust to new aircraft and
keep them up to date on safety measures. They also are used to teach
pilots how to manage modern cockpit systems, how to work together and
how to troubleshoot problems before they get out of hand.

"They allow us to teach our crews that there is more to flying an
airplane than just the stick and rudder skills," said John T. Winter,
director of United Airlines' training center in Denver.

Like most major carriers, United Airlines has a big training center,
and instructors rely heavily on simulators to train pilots. On a recent
afternoon, pilots Ron Davis and Jeff DePaolis took an Airbus A320
simulator through situations they could never attempt in a real plane
because they are too dangerous.

In one simulator scenario, they were approaching Denver International
Airport in poor visibility. Suddenly, about 600 feet above the ground,
DePaolis noticed that the wind was rapidly shifting. He alerted Davis
to the hazard. Then a computerized voice blared: "Wind shear! Wind
shear!"

The cockpit jolted and felt as if it were falling. Davis pulled back on
the control stick and shoved the throttles to full power. The plane
throbbed and seemed to hover. Then, slowly, it inched safely back into
the sky.


BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFhyhLyBkZmuMZ8L8RAtX6AKDh6N+7B+0iEiOmdc+zFV QKr7u8mwCgkt2d
dLRugNQR6mo3v2TO9pESltM=
=anNX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Those hours flying solo in a single-engine piston airplane, they do us
no good at the airlines, and we can't monitor the pilots," said
Christian Schroeder, an official with the International Air Transport
Association, a trade group that represents airlines. "We are training a
better-qualified and safer pilot this way."

My gut feeling is that piloting time in a small aircraft is invaluable
experience, and serves to connect the driving of those giant aluminum
tubes full of self-loading cargo with the flying of real airplanes
through the air. Of course, I fly small planes, have never flown an
airliner (or a full motion sim) and we all know what the human gut is
full of.

In addition, no one has studied whether simulators can safely replace
early flight experience, said Cass Howell, chairman of the department
of aeronautical science at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in
Florida.

"There is no objective proof that this will be just as safe a method of
training," Howell said. "At this point, nobody knows if this is an
effective training method."

I don't know how one could conduct such a study without trying it. The
proposal seems to be a fair enough way to try it. There will always be
an experienced captain in the cockpit.

We'll see.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose writes:

My gut feeling is that piloting time in a small aircraft is invaluable
experience ...

Gut feelings are unreliable in aircraft.

... and serves to connect the driving of those giant aluminum
tubes full of self-loading cargo with the flying of real airplanes
through the air.

Those giant tubes are just as real as tiny tin cans. Furthermore,
they are so different that I question how much value there is to
learning first in tin cans.

I don't know how one could conduct such a study without trying it. The
proposal seems to be a fair enough way to try it. There will always be
an experienced captain in the cockpit.

Simulation put men on the moon. It must work pretty well.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jose wrote:
"There is no objective proof that this will be just as safe a method of
training," Howell said. "At this point, nobody knows if this is an
effective training method."

I don't know how one could conduct such a study without trying it. The
proposal seems to be a fair enough way to try it. There will always be
an experienced captain in the cockpit.


We conduct just such a study by letting the furriners try it first. Personally,
I'm wondering why I wasted all these years nursing when I could have been flying
as captain on a major before I had enough time to fly cancelled checks in this
counrty single pilot IFR.

Is it too late to sign up?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

"Those hours flying solo in a single-engine piston airplane, they do us
no good at the airlines, and we can't monitor the pilots," said
Christian Schroeder, an official with the International Air Transport
Association, a trade group that represents airlines. "We are training a
better-qualified and safer pilot this way."

Uh-oh. He forgot to consult the experts on this group! Now he's in
trouble!

However, safety experts and pilots groups said pilots gain invaluable
"white knuckle" experience during hundreds of hours of flight time in
real planes. Flight crews also learn the intricacies and pressures of
dealing with air-traffic controllers in congested air space --
conditions that are hard to replicate in simulators, the experts and
pilots said.

Just connect the sim to VATSIM; then you can train pilots and
controllers at the same time.

In addition, no one has studied whether simulators can safely replace
early flight experience, said Cass Howell, chairman of the department
of aeronautical science at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in
Florida.

"There is no objective proof that this will be just as safe a method of
training," Howell said. "At this point, nobody knows if this is an
effective training method."

There's no proof that it won't be just as effective.

"They allow us to teach our crews that there is more to flying an
airplane than just the stick and rudder skills," said John T. Winter,
director of United Airlines' training center in Denver.

Those are fighting words in this newsgroup.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Well, as much as we grunt and groan about how everyone needs to do it
the way we did (six miles uphill both ways in snow), it's the way of
the future.

Heck, I still think young people should train on manual drive cars, but
I'm out of date :-)

The Army trains soldiers in tank simulators. The merchant marine uses
ship bridge sims to train pilots of huge super freighters. The Navy
uses submarine sims. And so forth.

On the one hand, you could argue that with say, the Airbus computer
overrides, even a non-pilot passenger could handle the sidestick and
throttles and never stall in the air.

On the other hand, I'm always reminded of that story in one of the
pilot mags a few years back, about the fully loaded 747 taking off from
SFO. It lost an engine right away, and the young co-pilot tried to use
the yoke instead of the rudder to straighten out. This popped up a
spoiler on one side (kills lift so the plane banks) and the plane
stopped climbing. The pilot and a jump-seater nearly had a heart
attack, and yelled at the co-pilot to get off the yoke and use rudder.
They missed a mountain by mere feet. Moral of the story? I dunno

Cheers, Kev

Kev writes:

On the one hand, you could argue that with say, the Airbus computer
overrides, even a non-pilot passenger could handle the sidestick and
throttles and never stall in the air.

The flip side is that, with Airbus, even an experienced pilot can
crash. These are the unavoidable and interlocked advantages and
disadvantages of fly-by-wire systems that have no full overrides.

On the other hand, I'm always reminded of that story in one of the
pilot mags a few years back, about the fully loaded 747 taking off from
SFO. It lost an engine right away, and the young co-pilot tried to use
the yoke instead of the rudder to straighten out. This popped up a
spoiler on one side (kills lift so the plane banks) and the plane
stopped climbing. The pilot and a jump-seater nearly had a heart
attack, and yelled at the co-pilot to get off the yoke and use rudder.
They missed a mountain by mere feet. Moral of the story? I dunno

How had the co-pilot been trained? A simulator would have behaved
just like the real thing, so that could not be the source of his
error.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Kev writes:
On the one hand, you could argue that with say, the Airbus computer
overrides, even a non-pilot passenger could handle the sidestick and
throttles and never stall in the air.

The flip side is that, with Airbus, even an experienced pilot can
crash. These are the unavoidable and interlocked advantages and
disadvantages of fly-by-wire systems that have no full overrides.

An experienced pilot can crash any aircraft, so that's no argument.
The upside of the Airbus system is that the plane can automatically
avoid the most common death traps, like stalls on go-around or
microbursts.

On the other hand, I'm always reminded of that story in one of the
pilot mags a few years back, about the fully loaded 747 taking off from
SFO. It lost an engine right away, and the young co-pilot tried to use
the yoke instead of the rudder to straighten out. [..]
They missed a mountain by mere feet. Moral of the story? I dunno

How had the co-pilot been trained? A simulator would have behaved
just like the real thing, so that could not be the source of his error.

That's why I said I don't know the moral of the story At first, I
wanted to argue that more real-life training before moving to airliners
would've helped. But his reaction was par for a twin engine piston
with a dead engine, where banking into the good engine is not uncommon.
So you could argue that if he'd only ever been trained on a 747 sim,
he might've not had that tendency to use the yoke.

Kev

Kev writes:

An experienced pilot can crash any aircraft, so that's no argument.
The upside of the Airbus system is that the plane can automatically
avoid the most common death traps, like stalls on go-around or
microbursts.

So can experienced pilots.

Essentially Airbus tries to substitute wired-in logic decided upon by
designers and engineers for pilot competence. What Airbus doesn't
seem to understand is that you cannot simultaneously keep the pilot
out of the loop in dangerous situations _and_ allow the pilot to
handle dangerous situations. Unless, perhaps, Airbus is trying to
eliminate the need for a pilot altogether, which I think is unwise and
very premature at this point in time.

That's why I said I don't know the moral of the story At first, I
wanted to argue that more real-life training before moving to airliners
would've helped. But his reaction was par for a twin engine piston
with a dead engine, where banking into the good engine is not uncommon.
So you could argue that if he'd only ever been trained on a 747 sim,
he might've not had that tendency to use the yoke.

Indeed. I think the most logical conclusion is that it's best to
train with whatever you plan to fly (or with a simulator that
simulates whatever you plan to fly).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I'm not really sure where the contradictions are in this story, other
than the writer forgot (or doesn't know) that no one, NO ONE goes
from flying spam cans to a major carrier without

1) substantial flying multi-engine/multi-jet time
2) substantion full-motion simulator time

Living in Colorado I've been to the United training facility many
times (and flown the 737 sim), and know instructors there. The pilots
are required to spend a fair amount of time every year in the sims.

I don't understand what would be different with this "new approach"
to pilot training. I don't know any military that sends new pilots
out without substantial hands-on, in-the-air training.