Opinion on Loss of Control
By Ed Downs in Response to Quest Richlife
As the primary editorial contributor to In Flight USA, an active CFI, former Exec with a major airline and seminar instructor who works with more than 300 students per year, I applaud the thoughts offered up by Quest Richlife. The fact is, this writer agrees with virtually everything Quest said, with one exception that will be address, but fears the opinions offered are tilting at the wrong windmill. I believe many in the real world of pilot training agree with the “command” concept, but the FAA does not… and the FAA is a pretty big windmill.
Flight Instructor Refresher Clinics (FIRCs) are required to present FAA-approved courses, with content carefully supervised by the FAA. Failure to use FAA safety terminology as taught in the official FAA thinking process called “Aeronautical Decision Making” (ADM) can result in de-certification of a training course. Virtually all FAA published training manuals now carry large chapters on ADM. As new technology, fully auto integrated, aircraft came into common use almost 15 years ago, the FAA concluded that basic flying skills would no longer be needed, but a process of thinking and behavior would be stressed to manage these new aircraft. And here is where Quest and this writer are forced to part way, if only by a little.
Regrettably, the concept of “aircraft in command” is not a fantasy; it is reality. We now have at least two generations of young pilots who learned to fly at the big “be an airline pilot” flight schools. They trained in fully integrated, advanced technology trainers, such as the Cirrus and modern Cessna 172. These pilots were heading for the airlines (or at least the Regional Carriers) but have been diverted into GA training, as they need to build more flight time, a relatively new requirement implemented by Congress. These young pilots (and many newcomers with the bucks to buy a $700K+ single) are specifically taught to fly as their future employers, the airlines, want them to fly.
Airplanes are to be managed, not flown. Flying is primarily a mental process, not a manipulative skill. In fact, in the airline world, hand flying is discouraged, as modern integrated flight systems can fly using less fuel and shoot approaches into Cat IIIC conditions, having virtually no visibility, auto rollout, and braking. Airline crews are required to maintain proficiently with the integrated systems, to the specific exclusion of hand flying the planes. After all, arrival rates are the name of the game. We “command” people up against automation, and we have an FAA that wants us to train for automation. Look at the official FAA definition of Loss of Control:
A loss of control (LOC) accident involves and unintended departure from controlled flight. LOC is divided into two categories:
- Loss of control on the ground (LOC-G)
- Loss of control in flight (LOC-I)
Not much to work with, eh? To be fair, they do expand on this, bringing into play basic skills, training, and experience. However, those who have been training in planes that are “managed,” only know of advanced stick and rudder skills through hearsay; they have never performed them. The old Practical Test Standard (PTS) dropped many of them. I am afraid the black humor applied to Airbus planes is now being applied to modern light aircraft. Remember the rhetorical question of “what are the last words spoken by an Airbus pilot prior to an unhappy ending?” “What is this thing doing to me now!”
So, why not just teach as we good old boys know we should, and junk all this new fangled FAA psychology stuff? That is because the FAA Knowledge Test and Practical Test absolutely require new pilots to use the new terminology and be able to explain it. It is in all the written exams and now in the new Airman Certification Standard (ACS), the replacement of the PTS. Failure to use the FAA way of thinking means failure of a test.
Quest, I think we have done pretty a good job of “admiring” the problem, but we find we are up against a big windmill. The trick is going to be in how we CFIs can integrate the concept of being in “command” of the plane and then translate that into FAA talk. Who knows, if we all pull together, maybe our new President can be convinced to buy a small fleet of PT-17s to be used by FAA flight standards for in-house training. Each individual tasked with creating or assessing pilot standards will have to take a six-month check ride, ala 1942, in a real plane that requires real pilot skills, in order to continue in the department. They will learn to appreciate stick and rudder skills, and many will probably have a great time. And, they are a lot cheaper than Air Force One!
