Back to basics

I ponder these accidents not to judge the respective crews as they were there and I wasn’t, but I consider them in a broader sense. In one instance the aircraft was stalled after conflicting information was presented to the crew, while in the other the aircraft became ‘low and slow’ on a visual approach. However, in both cases the old adage of “Power + Attitude = Performance” seems to have been overlooked. But why? These were qualified airline crews and yet they lost their aircraft for wont of adjusting their thrust or attitude. They are not alone as other airliners have met a similar fate over the last 20 years – Turkish Airlines on approach to Schipol and Aeroperu’s 757 that was lost off Miami, to name a couple. The circumstances were again different and the crews were faced with varying degrees of difficulty. Still, a general appreciation of body angle and thrust setting was lost in the face of erroneous airspeed indications.

From an early stage, pilots are taught to fly visually and to look out the front and see one-third land and two-thirds sky with a certain power setting.

The flight instruments are of secondary concern and it is only when the pilot graduates to instrument flying that the dials take precedence. Even so, the scan of the instruments calls upon a suitable attitude and power setting to deliver the required performance. This skill is further reinforced when that student pilot graduates to the airlines, although the language now encompasses ‘body angle’ or N1s and EPRs.

As technology has advanced it has undoubtedly brought an increasing level of safety. Human performance limitations have been recognised and automation has allowed the crew to manage rather than manipulate in an ever-increasing number of scenarios. Approaches can thread the needle through ever-lower cloud bases and suitably equipped aircraft can even autoland in levels of fog that would have once necessitated a diversion. It is a brave new world and a far cry from flying a ‘back beam’ approach or homing on the DME.

All of these systems have been designed to support the crew and it is a job that technology does well. Yet ever so subtly, the amount that a pilot is called upon to hand-fly the aircraft is reducing day by day. It is even more the case when the weather conditions are at their worst as this is when the automation has the potential to really shine. Unfortunately, that deep

Those basic skills need to be solidly underpinned by a pilot’s ability to both manually fly the aeroplane and knowing when to do so.

appreciation and recognition of power and attitude by the pilot does not receive the same ‘workout’ as when those first instrument flight training exercises took place all those years before.

Every few months crews may be called upon to hand-fly an ILS in the simulator, but how many are actually hand-flown in line operations these days? The pilot’s intimate tactile interaction with thrust lever and control column seems to be a fading relationship. Yet it is this very relationship that is needed in quantity when the technology fails to deliver.

In the first instance, the basic benchmarks of power, attitude and performance need to be ingrained to diagnose the errant airspeed readings. This core understanding combined with some old ‘stick and rudder’ is then needed to put the aircraft where it needs to be and not wait for binary code to intervene and save the day. As such, there is a need to consider not only the skill-set, but the mind-set.

We have all stood in queues as the shop attendant struggles with arithmetic in the face of an errant calculator. We all lament the need for the ‘times table’ and the ability to gross error-check the final amount as the queue grows in length. Perhaps this fundamental issue of getting back to basics is equally applicable to aviation in this modern day? Modern simulators are tremendous tools, but there is a need for genuine, routine training rather than periodic licence renewal requirements.

Everything from visual approaches to stalls at altitude can be programmed into the session, and they are from time to time. However, as crews become more reliant upon managing automation and monitoring, the need of refreshing manipulative skills increases too. Of course there is a cost involved, both in time and resources. But let’s not forget that this new technology has also brought with it ever-increasing schedule integrity and operational cost savings. Perhaps some of these savings should be funnelled back into ensuring that hard-earned skill-sets and experience are not permitted to erode. It’s relatively cheap insurance against an avoidable hull loss.

Ironically, in some quarters automation and technology are seen as the answer to simplifying the pilot’s role and potentially reducing the training required. Program a computer, select LNAV and VNAV, engage autopilot – how hard can it be? In a nutshell, yes it can be that easy seemingly. However, those basic skills need to be solidly underpinned by a pilot’s ability to both manually fly the aeroplane and knowing when to do so. As concepts such as the Multi-Crew Pilot Licence (MPL) seek to establish a footing, addressing these fundamental skills in an ongoing manner takes on an even greater significance.

Technology and automation will continue to advance and I welcome that. It has been proven to enhance the efficiency and safety of aviation over recent decades, but change will always introduce new variables. Safety should never be ‘good enough’ and we should always strive for better within the confines of aviation’s risk management structure. When the silicon chips are down and technology is not there in support, all crews must be able to fall back upon their fundamental flight skills. Simply put, it may be a case of getting back to basics.