i wouldnt say that at all. pilot error makes up the majority. thankfully the pilot realises and corrects his mistake before anything bad happens
Printable View
Considering Pilots are not mechanics, there is nothing to stop them remoting in and taking control - they are still dependent on the controls to be functioning.
Do you really think they're awake all the time on those long haul flights?
The computer is flying within a very short time of them taking off, and they rarely take back control until just prior to landing.
No way in this lifetime I'll fly in a pilotless plane..and I fly for a living. State of the art whiz bang do it all stuff, lovely when it works as advertised and is as helpful as a poke in the eye when it decides to quit. Of course our ops are all single Pilot so no one to help if the smoke escapes out of the magic box,
My best friend has been a commercial pilot for 30+ yrs (flying in several countries) and he tells me he has noticed a lot of the common-sense and hands-on training that used to be a given for flying training has been in decline over the last decade or so. With the increasing use of automated systems and decreasing amount of training over the last 10 years due mostly to cost (maximum systems training vs minimal hands-on flying training, even in a simulator) there is a growing awareness industry-wide that things can't continue like this.
He has often flown with other 'experienced' younger pilots and is shocked at what they don't know that should already be ingrained into them. Too much reliance on systems vs understanding exactly what the aircraft is actually doing. He has had to interject several times to avert problems as the 'pilot in command' didn't even know they were about to do something terminally stupid.
He is on the pilot forums on a daily basis and I get a synopsis of the consequences of this stupidity on a regular basis. I don't shock easily but some of the things that go unreported are truly terrifying...
This link should give you some hint at some of what is currently going on.
How miserly airlines created their own pilot shortage - The Business Journals
Firstly lets get terminology correct we are talking airline pilots not commercial pilots. My son has his commercial pilots license but cannot fly a jet plane. For this you need an ATPL(air transport pilots license).
When he passed his commercial he could still only fly a single engine plane.
He is in the slow process of heading towards ATPL. He only recently finished all the exams for this. Now I am not saying that your friend is wrong, but having just witnessed what my son had to do, has given me much more confidence in flying, not that I didn't have before.
Hi Dave Congrats to your son attaining an ATPL. Now the hard work begins.
Actually cripesamightys' comments are on the money.
The terminology as you mention doesn't reflect the way the system works either.
Single engine, multi, or turbine isn't determined by the license type, neither does an ATPL entitle the holder to climb into a jet aircraft at will. CPL holders can fly jets, its the weight of the aircraft that generally determines what license category is required to fly it, many non jet aircraft require an ATPL to operate.
Until September this year an ATPL holder may never have even flown a turbo prop aircraft let alone a Jet. Most new ATPL holders end up as second officer then first officer for up to 10 years or more before getting a look in the Captains spot.
The experience/capability of many big jet pilots to fly outside of the automated systems is very limited, think recent Asiana accident in the US conducting a common ( for many )visual approach. While these guys probably new the systems and programming of the FMS to make the plane do as desired they hadn't the experience or proficiency to operate without the Aircraft automatics. The result was catastrophic as a basic flying skill was never consolidated.
Modern reliable equipment/avionics, reliable engines and adherence to SOPs have prevented many accidents. The complacency as a result of this reliability is the insidious threat.
I know from experience that when those lovely glass screens go dark or just choose to tell you a load of baloney, you need a lot more than a piece of paper to get you back safely.
Log book hrs do not necessarily reflect skill and experience and in too many cases reflect exposure to operations without experience gained.
touche strangy
Yeah, he has all the endorsements to fly a goodly proportion of things with wings - ATPL, tail-dragger, singles, multi, piston, turbine, etc and to keep his skills up holds an aerobatics rating as well. Plus a few thousand flying hours up his sleeve helps too.
He is one of those guys that likes to continually learn while plying his trade, regularly going over the basics, and trying to fly safe. It's not that he doesn't trust a glass cockpit - which he loves as a great tool, but he often tells me you need to understand what the computer fantastic is telling you, and regularly check it is doing exactly what it's supposed to. He has a few quick mental double-checks that he does throughout most of the stages of a flight as it helps keep him ahead of the aircraft. I guess that just comes from experience.
It probably also helps that his initial flying training and a lot of his endorsements were done with an ex-RAAF flying instructor (who has turned into a life-long friend). He got it hammered into him to do things the right way from the very beginning and to never forget the basics, no matter what aircraft he was flying - small or large. He has told me that has kept him alive when things have gone awry several times in the past.