off topic. Pitot tubes

[shorebird]

Re: off topic. Pitot tubes

It seems as if the airlines have done a poor job of teaching the difference between stall recognition and recovery at altitude and recovery near the ground when terrain is a factor.

Back in 1985 the small freight airline I worked for gave us a Jet Basic course and manual (which I still refer to on occasion) when we transitioned from the Lockheed Electra to the DC-8. Climbing up into the thin air with swept wings and jet engines changes everything and pilots need additional training. The airline I worked at for nearly 20 years didn't teach this course, expecting pilots to already posses this knowledge. If a guy came directly from a prop commuter plane he would likely never get this important training. Maybe at the all jet commuters of today this has changed.

I went through the Airbus program at their facility in MIA where we did 2 weeks of ground school, 2 weeks at the Cockpit Procedures Trainer followed by 7 sims and a checkride. I recall spending a great deal of valuable sim time watching our instructor demonstrate the many autoflight modes and flight control law scenarios that the feds require. The truth is, the training is inadequate considering the volume of information you need to absorb. Airlines will only pay for a minimum level of training. I agree, it's the "airline culture" that has to change in the long term.

[Big_Jim]

Re: off topic. Pitot tubes

They flew into a thunderstorm, a big one too. They did not avoid it, they flew into it.

Something needs to be acknowledged that this was the crews first huge mistake - one they did not have the skill to recover from.

That's kind of an unfair statement. Sometimes you CAN'T avoid it. I've been in a handful of situations where the storm/squall lines are hundreds of miles long and the tops are WELL above the service ceiling of the aircraft. In that case you have to use whatever weather radar you can to try to find the 'best' path of least resistance, slow to 'penetration' speed, and just hang on...i.e. autopilot off, try to keep it pointed in the right direction, turn up the instrument lights full bright, have all eyes in the cockpit monitoring the panel, and whatever else you do, don't chase the instruments.

If you're over land, alternates are aplenty. If you're out over the open ocean (which is where all my encounters happened) and the alternate is a thousand miles away, and you're trying to find a little island in a vast sea of storm and darkness....well, you can't exactly turn around and go back where you came from.

One of my most satisfing missions involved just that, and the handshake that my Mission Commander and I shared after setting the plane down on the ground and shutting down was one of the most meaningful handshakes I have ever had.

I guess the bottom line is sometimes avoiding it isn't an option.

[Scotty G]

Re: off topic. Pitot tubes

I agree with Big Jim very much.

As for upset and recovery training, I have two comments on that... At the airline level of the game, if you DON'T have a handle on aerodynamics, stalls, how to recover, and how to avoid them - move on to some other form of generating income. We're supposed to be pilots, let alone aviators by this time.

That Colgan accident in BUF was absolutely unnecessary and horrible. THAT ONE makes me really mad at the captain. I wish the FO hit him and took over.

Anyway...

Here's another hole in the training/upset recovery aspect at the department of training department level at the airlines, at least at USeless Airways... Sorry, US Airways...

How to recover from a stall: Nose down - DO NOT add power.

Absolute, pure Fn BS if you ask me, and nobody did. It seems the engines, underslung on the wing, create a pitch-up moment when power comes up. Well, duh, no kidding it does. But it also helps get air over the wing and create lift to recover.

I know how they taught me, but I know what I'm gonna do if I should ever be dumb enough to let it happen, or if Mother Nature b!tch slaps me at high altitude.

And speaking of which... Mother Nature almost ALWAYS wins. You can fly a "stall proof" Airbus and get tossed out the top of a big white piece of sky popcorn like you were a leaf in a hurricane. Those fancy flight control computers and laws will flap the controls until its little electronic heart is content, but if there is no air going over them, you lose.

So, in other words, a thunderstorm could very well get an Airbus (or Boeing, MD, etc.) all cattywampus and ig-nent.

[goldfinger]

Re: off topic. Pitot tubes

This is a great discussion and interesting to hear the Bus drivers point of view. I think the bottom line, besides generally inadequate training across the board, is also that too many decisions are being made by the airplane, putting programmers in the left seat. The idea is just ludicrous. Check out the well known youtube video of the airbus at an airshow that plowed into the trees because the airplane wouldn't give the pilot power when commanded. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cv2ud1339E. There has to be manual reversion, and so I think we need to reverse the trend of more automation. You gotta be able to fly the airplane, you can't program everything that happens in real life. And then also, you gotta have the skills.

On the tech side, GPS can resolve speed questions in some cases. Was on a B-17 as FE when the pitot heat failed crossing the Cascadia IFR. As the airspeed apparently bled off, The left seater, a very senior jet guy, dropped the nose and quick as a wink we were over VNE and below the peaks. GPS showed the speed (as if the shaking and noise weren't enough!) but even with two of us yelling at the left seater, it took quite a while to convince him we weren't stalling! You just gotta train for this stuff

just a lowly acro pilot.

[Ron101502]

Re: off topic. Pitot tubes

The "lowly acro pilot" I am sure can recognize and recover from a stall, high AOA maneuvering is his stock in trade as is that of a fighter pilot, just like an ILS approach is the stock in trade of us airline pilots. But I have to agree with Scotty and Big Jim. To elaborate a little on oceanic flying (no, I 've never been south of the equator or flown through the tropical divergance zone but I've done the NATS and PACOTS for years), unfortunately sometimes dispatch does not have very good info on weather along a track, and remember like today I just flew NRT-JFK so the weather dispatch had available for a 12+33 flight will be old when we arrive , and remember they start planning the flight so as to have our "papers" available 2 hours before push so weather info is obsolete by the time we get a few hours out. Plus our dispatch gets a bonus for saving fuel so we have found a few instances where another routing may have been better from a ride point of view but costs more fuel, they never put you in the really bad stuff IF metro knows where it is but many times they don't.

Also remember outside of radar contact weather deviations and available altitude changes are limited, especially over the North Atlantic (the NATS), sometimes one just has to declare a "weather emergency" and hope the procedures for that and TCAS keep you from a mid air. As Big Jim says sometimes that ain't enough. Add to this the fact that these new-fangled low power color radars are designed more to scare you than help (for some reason airliners do not have stormscopes) although over water they are OK (over mountainous terrain I prefer the old 50,000 watt Bendix RDR-1, it lies but tells you when it's lying, put down the tilt and avoid the shadows, with practice the texture tells the differance from ground return vs wx) the crew may not have the best available weather info (we don't have NEXRAD uplinks either but it won't work over the ocean anyway).

I did not mean to imply that military trained pilots are "better" than civilain trained, I soloed a J-3 cub from Earl Matter's farm strip and had my commercial instrument (got that at MDW in 1968) and CFI before I went in the USAF, my instructor was a senior UAL captain hired before WW2, they never even showed me where the airspeed indicator was and the mag compass always read E for some reason, only important things were altitude, oil pressure and fuel quantity from the float thing that stuck up out of the tank in front of the windshield. I learned a hell of a lot and I think it's no accident that most of our check airmen are civilian trained, but they spent many hours doing stalls and airwork and also are professional instructors so as I said I never meant to imply military pilots are "better", but they do have an advantage of stick and rudder and all attitude experience in real airplanes that many of today's "school book" pilots don't have. Also the USAF did NOT teach partial panel in 1971-72 when I went through trough UPT but I understand the Navy still did. My last partial panel experince was in May 1968 in a 172 on my instrument check ride at MDW. When I had my Mooney (had to sell it due to pay cuts) I had a electric standby vacuum to run the flight director and an electric standby attitude indiactor that could run off a Ram Air Turbine if the generator quit as I knew I no longer had partial panel skills.

And that sort of training will never be capable of working in a simulator in my opinion.

Ron

[Scotty G]

Re: off topic. Pitot tubes

"What's the difference between an Airbus and a weed-whacker? A thousand trees per minute!"

Goldfinger wrote:

Check out the well known youtube video of the airbus at an airshow that plowed into the trees because the airplane wouldn't give the pilot power when commanded. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cv2ud1339E.

Those aren't fair statements about any Airbus. NoBODY commanded any power... The airplane doesn't know any better in that scenario... The captain flying that aircraft during the display did NOT know the autoflight system and how it functioned. He flew a perfectly operating aircraft into the terrain because he thought merely pulling back on the stick would make the airplane climb.

Wrong. You have to add power to climb, or trade airspeed. Push the friggin thrust levers forward!

ANY "lowly" acro/private pilot would do that. (I don't think anybody is "lowly," that's why I use the quotes.)

The captain was not supposed to make the pass that low, and because of that, the aircraft was configured for, and went into, its landing mode. He was also too slow. The flight control laws change; the side stick directly controls AOA then. The power will only come up enough to maintain max AOA and minimum airspeed. You have to physically move the thrust levers to CLB or TOGA to get out of that. I think the crew actually went to jail for that one...

You are not a programmer in an Airbus any more than one is in a Boeing. Your control inputs go through multiple paths to multiple flight control computers (redundancy/good) to operate the aircraft well within it's parameters. You can not forcefully stall an Airbus unless you turn off the FACs, or have multiple failures. I can fly the 'Bus alllll day long without any automation. No Autothrust, no AP. Heck, I can even turn off the flight director and "bring up the bird" (path vector donut, just like the fighter guys have). It's an airplane.

That's a decent idea to me. And 99.999% of the time, it's perfectly safe. Nothing is ever perfectly safe. How many Boeings have been UFIT (Uncontrolled Flight Into Terrain) versus the Airbus? Look that one up... If you keep your wits about you, you can ALWAYS hit the ground in an Airbus at minimum controllable airspeed at the highest AOA. Wings-level and hitting the softest, least expensive thing is still up to the driver.

Maybe I could make an argument that you do the same thing within a Boeing: you move the yoke, and the yoke tells the hydraulic actuators to move this direction and this much. You voted, and the mechanics of the system have their limits, too.

Anyway, the 'Bus gets a lot of flak from the media and those that don't know the airplane. It's a really good airplane, if not as robust as a Boeing.

There has to be manual reversion, and so I think we need to reverse the trend of more automation.

Why? What do you base your opinion on, and how would you provide a manual power reversion to the flight controls and engines in the Airbus? How many flight control system failures are you aware of in Airbus aircraft? Base in fact, please. (I like the conversation...) By this, you're also saying saving weight by removing all that heavy stuff needs to change back to 1955, and that airplanes like the F-16, F-22, and some others, aren't designed right?

[Randy Haskin]

Re: off topic. Pitot tubes

As for upset and recovery training, I have two comments on that... At the airline level of the game, if you DON'T have a handle on aerodynamics, stalls, how to recover, and how to avoid them - move on to some other form of generating income. We're supposed to be pilots, let alone aviators by this time.

There are A LOT of "airline pilots" (at many levels) who have NEVER been upside down in an airplane, much less be comfortable with basic unusual attitude recoveries (or better yet, acro).

In the FSI initial type rating course I recently went through, the "unusual attitudes" were 30 degrees nose high max and 45 degrees of bank max. When the instructor introduced that in the instructional brief before the sortie, I couldn't help but actually snort out loud,

"what's so unusual about that??"

I think acro should be a prerequisite for AT LEAST the ATP, if not for any 121 job carrying pax.

In my current job, I fly with a lot of military-trained "heavy" pilots who are completely reluctant to kick off the autopilot and just FLY THE AIRPLANE. I had a situation recently where one of my enlisted crew members needed us to maneuver the airplane to make one of the sensors work, and my copilot (a 10-year, 3,000 hour KC-10 pilot) was all confused in trying to figure out how to make the airplane do that...dialing and twisting and punching autopilot modes and commands. I suggested, "how about you grab that funny Y-shaped thing between your knees, push the red button to disconnect the autopilot, and FLY the airplane to where you want it."

They looked at me like I was some kind of imbecile for suggesting that. "This is what REAL pilots have to be proficient at", they retorted...as if the autopilot was the primary method of maneuvering the airplane and the throttles and yoke were under some "in case of emergency, break glass."

Yet another area where "airmanship" has been bred out of the aviator...making him into a simple 'pilot' or 'systems manager'.

That's fine for 99% of operations in an airliner...but we aren't on board that aircraft for when things go CORRECTLY. Too many "pilots" forget that, and aren't in a position to be able to aviate their way out of a crisis when things go WRONG.

[gp70442]

Re: off topic. Pitot tubes

Scotty,

Silly question:
I don't know much about stalls in a swept wing aircraft. What is the deep stall recovery procedure in a A330?

I thought there was a time on some swept wing aircraft that a deep stall was terminal. I am blown away to hear that the actions (or inactions) of the AF crew.

GP

[tow-3]

Re: off topic. Pitot tubes

randy you hit the nail right on the head. I am amazed at the number of FO's that I fly with that can fly a perfect rectangle pattern with the autopilot on a clear and a million day. but you put them on a 10k downwind and they get "cleared for the visual and keep it tight" and they freak out because they can't make the auto pilot do that. To me cleared for the visual means hit the red button if its even still on.

one airline, who shall remain nameless, prohibits flying a SID without the autopilot because they have had to many deviations, I cant believe that there skill set has gotten so bad that they cannot follow the FD hand flying.

[440_Magnum]

Re: off topic. Pitot tubes

I suggested, "how about you grab that funny Y-shaped thing between your knees, push the red button to disconnect the autopilot, and FLY the airplane to where you want it."

They looked at me like I was some kind of imbecile for suggesting that. "This is what REAL pilots have to be proficient at", they retorted...as if the autopilot was the primary method of maneuvering the airplane and the throttles and yoke were under some "in case of emergency, break glass."

OK, I'm officially appalled. And here I thought the reason I've taken to driving 12 hours to avoid flying was because of how miserable the in-cabin experience, ticket counter and gate experience, and baggage process has become (not to mention the added layer of TSA grief). I at least thought things in the cockpit were still sane.

[Scotty G]

Re: off topic. Pitot tubes

I mostly agree with Hacker, but Superman training isn't necessary for flying jets. 98% of the people I fly with are really, really good. Some of us seek out different aviation experiences because we simply love it. Those experiences get tucked into the bag for later on.

Then you get two paired up like the Colgan accident. A captain that doesn't know how to AVOID a stall, then PULLS the airplane into one! Then the FO wasn't assertive enough to save everybody's butt. It's a shame.

As for stall in a swept wing jet, they're not nice, pleasant, or fun. But generally speaking, there is more yaw due to the swept wings, and recovery can be more difficult.

But the basics are the same: rudder is super important for recovery, and you have to decrease the angle of attack. You have to get the wing flying again - back to Private Pilot 101.

Today's jets are very stable, even with the flight control laws with FBW. Now, talk about a DC-8 or 707 with THOSE wings... That's a different combo altogether.

[stuntflyr]

Re: off topic. Pitot tubes

randy you hit the nail right on the head. I am amazed at the number of FO's that I fly with that can fly a perfect rectangle pattern with the autopilot on a clear and a million day. but you put them on a 10k downwind and they get "cleared for the visual and keep it tight" and they freak out because they can't make the auto pilot do that. To me cleared for the visual means hit the red button if its even still on.

one airline, who shall remain nameless, prohibits flying a SID without the autopilot because they have had to many deviations, I cant believe that there skill set has gotten so bad that they cannot follow the FD hand flying.

Hi Tow-3,

Oh, come on. They're not nameless!

It's "recommended" on autopilot now. They had a bunch of incidents where on breezy days they'd let it blow way downwind on autopilot and were getting busts that way so the airline said that the pilots needed to actually fly it if the autopilot wasn't maintaining course, too! AMAZING!!!! If you're really brave you can use your hands at your discretion, now.

It's an attitude, a philosophy, a desire to do it "by the book" rather than well. I can't figure it out because the causes are all over the board.

At least there is a new Chief Pilot, he'll never be Ron Reynolds but...at least he's a pilot, honorable and fair. It's a start.



Randy,
I have to fly with those types every day. They're usually ex-military. It's a real pain in the butt, but you'll get used to it. You'll develop skill sets on hinting, and suggesting in ways that will make your friends marvel at your diplomacy.

Chris...

[Big_Jim]

Re: off topic. Pitot tubes

You'll develop skill sets on hinting, and suggesting in ways that will make your friends marvel at your diplomacy.

You realize who you're talking about, right? BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Randy? Diplomacy? Heck...even with me he's about as subtle as a sledge hammer. Deadpan sarcasm at it's absolute best. In fact, I think that was cited in his promotion to Lt. Col.

[stuntflyr]

Re: off topic. Pitot tubes

You caught my humor, heh?
Chris...

[tjyak50]

Re: off topic. Pitot tubes

Somebody ask about frozen pitot tubes?


Always good to watch for ammeter flick when you turn on Pitot heat.
The rest of the airplane was WORSE!