Another "smart pilot's trick"

[Evan]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

I also mentioned that not following the UAS airspeed procedure is not enough to explain the bizarre reaction of the AF pilot that was way contrary to basic airmanship by so much.

No, but the erratic nature of the flight director, combined with the ambiguous ECAM overspeed warning message does give some explanation. It's a classic case of following the technology without knowing how the aircraft works. That is what I'm getting at: so many crashes have occurred in recent years for this very reason. Pilots are not being trained in systems at the level that even I, a non-pilot, am well aware of, and that is a frightening reality. Universal skills are invaluable, but specific aircraft knowledge has become just as valuable. Things like knowing instinctively that artificial static stability no longer exists in alternate law, or that the autothrust may be locked well below the thrust lever position, or that a go-around on autopilot is not available without a glideslope signal, or that the autothrust cannot be used with a MEL'd radalt, or that you must pull the knob to engage a selected heading or it will revert to the current one... I might need to start a new thread on the subject when I can find the time...

Solid basic airmanship combined with a lack of of technical understanding of modern aircraft can make for a very short career.

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by Evan

Solid basic airmanship combined with a lack of of technical understanding of modern aircraft can make for a very short career.

We all agree: it's not one thing OR the other. It's one thing AND the other.

Still, it doesn't look to me that all this has anything to do with this incident. IMHO, it was simply a smart-ass trick.

[TeeVee]

Originally Posted by Evan

No, but the erratic nature of the flight director, combined with the ambiguous ECAM overspeed warning message does give some explanation. It's a classic case of following the technology without knowing how the aircraft works. That is what I'm getting at: so many crashes have occurred in recent years for this very reason. Pilots are not being trained in systems at the level that even I, a non-pilot, am well aware of, and that is a frightening reality. Universal skills are invaluable, but specific aircraft knowledge has become just as valuable. Things like knowing instinctively that artificial static stability no longer exists in alternate law, or that the autothrust may be locked well below the thrust lever position, or that a go-around on autopilot is not available without a glideslope signal, or that the autothrust cannot be used with a MEL'd radalt, or that you must pull the knob to engage a selected heading or it will revert to the current one... I might need to start a new thread on the subject when I can find the time...

Solid basic airmanship combined with a lack of of technical understanding of modern aircraft can make for a very short career.

sure, from the comfort and calm, non-emergent position behind your desk, you think you know everything there is to know about aircraft systems. stick your bookworm behind in a cockpit, throw a couple of funky failures at ya, and let's see how perfect you really are...

[brianw999]

This is ringing bells for me in my chosen career of paramedic. I spent three years learning the basic fundamentals and then putting them together with the clever stuff and 32 years putting it all into practise.
The newbie direct entry university paramedics these days get all the clever stuff thrown at them but they don't get the basic fundamentals experience.
Most of them recognise that fact and do something about it but we have some who can tell you in immense detail why you are dying.....

......but can do very little to stop it happening !!

Frightening really.

[3WE]

Originally Posted by TeeVee

sure, from the comfort and calm, non-emergent position behind your desk, you think you know everything there is to know about aircraft systems. stick your bookworm behind in a cockpit, throw a couple of funky failures at ya, and let's see how perfect you really are...

Driving a car is pretty simple.

But I'm thinking that I'm not the only one- that roughly once every 10 years has a moment in my car that is "Oh crap, I screwed up", and/or "what the hell is going on" and/or "oh shit, I almost (or did) crash"

Stats show us that our two pilots, procedures, checklists and automation acheive incredible safety!

...then, on extremely rare conditions, two pilots make a takeoff run on the wrong runway.

...and as TeeVee says, on other rare conditions- in an extremely foreign, confusing "oh shit" moment- THE PERFECT procedure is not all that clear.

[UncleFire]

Originally Posted by TeeVee

sure, from the comfort and calm, non-emergent position behind your desk, you think you know everything there is to know about aircraft systems. stick your bookworm behind in a cockpit, throw a couple of funky failures at ya, and let's see how perfect you really are...

Fair enough. But in the context of this thread (and other things we've seen in other threads) don't you think that as complex as things are that pilots should NOT doing things outside the reasonable/SOP so as NOT to create a "funky failure".

In this case, I'm sure there are reasons for the stops for flight idle. While engines MIGHT work below that, there are clearly "tolerances" which can cause engine shut-down below that setting.

In the other post w.r.t. driving a car. Of course it is simplier than flying an a/c. There are things like rev limiters, Anti-lock brakes, traction control etc. One can drive their car at its limits (or beyond), but you do so at your own peril.