training Archives - Flight Safety Foundation

News, Flight Training, Safety Regulation

FAA Orders Revamped Training for Pilots

U.S. air carriers will be required to provide their pilots with additional training as part of a government-mandated effort to “mitigate incidents of unprofessional pilot behavior and reduce pilot errors that can lead to a catastrophic event,” the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) says.

In a final rule published Monday in the Federal Register, the FAA said that air carriers that conduct domestic, flag and supplemental operations will be required to “enhance the professional development” of their pilots by giving newly hired pilots opportunities to observe flight operations and learn about procedures before they assume pilot duties.

In addition, the rule calls for carriers to revise the curriculum for pilots who are upgrading and to provide all pilots-in-command with training in leadership and command, and in mentoring. Compliance dates are in 2022 and 2023 for all U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations Part 121 air carriers. Some commuter, on-demand and fractional operations conducted under Parts 135 and 91 also will be required to comply.

The FAA initially proposed the changes in October 2016 in the aftermath of a handful of crashes in which pilots did not comply with standard operating procedures (SOPs) such as the sterile flight deck rule, which prohibits “nonessential duties,” including nonessential conversation, during critical phases of flight.

The rule cited reports by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) on two accidents that occurred years earlier and that prompted the U.S. Congress to pass legislation calling on the FAA to change pilot training rules.

The two accidents were the Oct. 14, 2004, crash of a Pinnacle Airlines Bombardier CRJ-200 in Jefferson City, Missouri, and the Feb. 12, 2009, crash of a Colgan Air Bombardier Q-400 near Buffalo, New York.

In the Pinnacle crash, both pilots — the only people in the airplane — were killed. The NTSB said the probable causes of the accident included the pilots’ “unprofessional behavior, deviation from SOP and poor airmanship, which resulted in an in-flight emergency from which the pilots were unable to recover, in part because of their inadequate training.”

In the Colgan crash, which killed all 49 passengers and crew along with one person on the ground, the NTSB cited, among other things, the pilots’ failure to monitor airspeed and their “failure to adhere to sterile flight deck procedures.”

AeroSafety World Editorial Staff. February 26, 2020

News, Safety Oversight, 737 MAX

U.S. Agency to Probe FAA Oversight Practices

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) oversight and certification practices will be the subject of a review by a government watchdog agency, which says it is especially interested in the process used by the FAA to establish pilot training requirements for the Boeing 737 MAX.

The Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) said Monday that the review, which will begin later this month at the request of members of the U.S. House of Representatives, was prompted by concerns associated with the fatal crashes of two 737 MAX airplanes.

The crashes involved Lion Air Flight 610 on Oct. 29, 2018, after departure from Jakarta, Indonesia, and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on March 10, 2019, after departure from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. All passengers and crew in both airplanes ─ a total of 346 people ─ were killed.

The FAA certified the 737 MAX in March 2017.

“These fatal accidents have drawn widespread attention to FAA’s oversight and certification practices, including the agency’s process for establishing pilot training requirements for the aircraft,” the OIG said. “For example, at the time of the October 2018 fatal accident, pilots were reportedly unaware of the new automation system ─ known as the maneuvering characteristics augmentation system (MCAS) ─ that Boeing included on the MAX aircraft to improve aircraft performance.”

The report by the Indonesian accident investigation authority said that a contributing factor to the crash was “the pilots’ response to erroneous activation of MCAS.” The pilots’ actions raised “international concerns about the role of pilot training” in the accident, the OIG said.

In response, leaders of the Aviation Subcommittee of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure asked the OIG to review domestic and international pilot training standards for commercial passenger airplanes, including training on automation.

The OIG said it would conduct that review and also examine requirements by other civil aviation authorities regarding pilot training on the use of flight deck automation.

AeroSafety World Editorial Staff. February 11, 2020

News, Flight Training, Safety Review

U.S. Lawmakers Want Evaluation of Foreign Pilot Training

The U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and its aviation subcommittee want a federal investigation of cockpit automation and international pilot training standards in the wake of the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 8 accidents.

In a March 29 letter to Department of Transportation Inspector General Calvin Scovel, the committee leaders requested a federal investigation of international pilot training standards and training for commercial pilots operating outside the United States, including training for the 737 MAX. The request also asks Scovel’s office to focus on how the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) implemented recent cockpit automation management requirements to ensure that, in light of technology advancements in automation, pilots are capable of flying aircraft when automation fails or is deactivated.

The request was signed by Rep. Peter DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon and chairman of the committee; Rep. Sam Graves of Missouri, ranking Republican on the committee; and Rep. Rick Larsen, a Democrat from Washington, who chairs the subcommittee.

Specifically, the committee leadership wants the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to:

Review and evaluate training provided to pilots operating U.S. certificated commercial passenger aircraft in the United States compared to the training provided to pilots operating U.S. certificated commercial passenger aircraft outside the United States, including training on the Boeing 737 MAX (training provided both before and after the Lion Air accident in October 2018);
Review the requirements of the FAA, European Union Aviation Safety Agency and other civil aviation authorities’ regulations and the International Civil Aviation Organization’s standards regarding training for transport category pilots on cockpit automation, including training on the Boeing 737MAX (both before and after the Lion Air accident in October 2018); and,
Outline any recommendations developed or information discovered in the course of the review to improve international pilot training standards and training for pilots operating U.S.-certificated commercial passenger aircraft outside the United States, particularly in light of greater automation in the cockpit.

In addition, the OIG is to evaluate how FAA has implemented portions of the FAA Extension, Safety and Security Act of 2016 pertaining to cockpit automation management. The language in the act requires FAA to develop a process to verify that air carrier training programs incorporate measures to train pilots on monitoring automation systems; control the aircraft flightpath without auto pilot or autoflight systems; develop metrics or measurable tasks that carriers can use to evaluate pilot monitoring proficiency; issue guidance to safety inspectors responsible for oversight of the operations of air carriers on tracking and assessing pilots’ proficiency in manual flight; and issue guidance to air carriers and inspectors regarding standards for compliance with previously implemented requirements for enhanced pilot training.

FSF Editorial Staff. April 1, 2019

News, Flight Training

Qantas Incident Prompts New Stall Warning Recovery Training

In the aftermath of the in-flight upset of a Qantas Boeing 747 en route from Melbourne, Australia, to Beijing, the airline has incorporated additional complex stall warning recovery events into recurrent training for its 747 pilots, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) says.

The ATSB said Wednesday that, after the April 7, 2017, incident, Qantas retrained all 747 flight crews in stall warning recovery scenarios, changed ground school lesson plans to “ensure flight crews were adequately prepared to recover from stall warning activations at high altitudes or with engine power above idle,” and modified flight crew training manuals.

The measures also were applied to Qantas 737s and 787s, the ATSB said.

The 2017 incident occurred about 110 km (59 nm) southeast of Hong Kong during descent, after air traffic control told the flight crew to hold at a waypoint.

“When entering the holding pattern, the aircraft’s aerodynamic stall warning stick shaker activated a number of times and the aircraft experienced multiple oscillations of pitch angle and vertical acceleration,” the ATSB said.
Several passengers and flight attendants received minor injuries when they struck the ceiling or cabin furnishings during the upset, the ATSB said.

“The ATSB found that while planning for the descent, the flight crew overwrote the flight management computer-provided hold speed,” the agency said. “After receiving a higher-than-expected hold level, the flight crew did not identify the need to reevaluate the hold speed. This was likely because they were not aware of a need to do so, nor were they aware that there was a higher hold speed requirement above Flight Level 200 [approximately 20,000 ft.]”
The report said that, before the 747 entered the hold, the speed was below both the selected airspeed and the minimum maneuvering speed, but “the crew did not identify the low speed as their focus was on other operational matters.”

The investigation also determined that the pilot flying, in an attempt to keep the airplane in the holding pattern, had attempted to halt the rate of descent before completing approach to stall actions; the pilot monitoring did not call out these actions.

“This led to further stall warning stick shaker activations and pilot-induced oscillations,” the ATSB said.
The investigation concluded that the flight crew had “limited training and guidance for stall warning recovery techniques at high altitude or with engine power above idle. Inconsistencies were also found in flight crew training of the awareness of the need to reevaluate holding speed when there are changes in altitude, especially above Flight Level 200.”

FSF Editorial Staff. March 28, 2019

Infrastructure

Demand for Pilots at Historic High, Boeing Says

Worldwide demand for pilots is expected to reach an unprecedented high over the next 20 years, Boeing predicted in its annual Pilot & Technician Outlook, which says the need will be driven by the anticipated doubling of the commercial airplane fleet, record-high demand for air travel and a tighter labor supply.

Overall, 790,000 new pilots will be needed over the next 20 years — about double the current workforce, according to the report, released earlier this week. The report characterized the demand as the most significant in the nine-year history of the Outlook.

“Despite strong global air traffic growth, the aviation industry continues to face a pilot labor supply challenge, raising concern about the existence of a global pilot shortage in the near term,” said Keith Cooper, vice president of training and professional services for Boeing Global Services. “An emphasis on developing the next generation of pilots is key to help mitigate this.”

The report projected that the industry will need 622,000 new maintenance technicians over the next 20 years, down from the 648,000 forecast last year, largely because newer airplane have longer maintenance intervals than their predecessors.

Boeing’s projections also said that business aviation and civil helicopters would require a combined total of 155,000 new pilots and 132,000 new technicians in the next 20 years. The forecast called for 858,000 new cabin crewmembers for commercial airplanes and 32,000 new cabin crewmembers for business aviation.

FSF Editorial Staff. July 27, 2018

News, Flight Training

DOT Secretary Chao Calls for Discussion of 1,500-Hour Rule

U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao says “a robust discussion” is needed about the future of the so-called 1,500-hour rule, which requires first officers, with some exceptions, to have accumulated at least 1,500 flight hours and an airline transport pilot certificate before being hired.

Chao made the remarks Thursday in an interview with The Washington Post that was part of a webcast discussion of issues facing the U.S. aviation industry, including what Chao called the “tremendous shortage” of pilots.
“There needs to be a robust discussion,” primarily in Congress, about the 1,500-hour rule, which Chao said “has certainly made it so much harder” for many pilots — “pilots who can very safely fly in our skies” — to advance into airline flight jobs.

The rule took effect in 2013 as a result of legislation passed in response to concerns voiced by families of some of the 50 people killed in the Feb. 12, 2009, crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407, a Bombardier Q400 on approach to Buffalo Niagara (New York) International Airport.

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board concluded that the captain’s handling of the controls caused the airplane to stall and said that his actions were a result of “startle and confusion,” not a product of his training. Both the captain and the co-pilot had in excess of 1,500 flight hours.

FSF Editorial Staff. June 7, 2018

2018 FSF Press Releases

FSF Calls for Renewed Focus on Quality for Pilot Training and Proficiency

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia — Flight Safety Foundation is urging the global commercial aviation industry to embrace a data-driven approach to pilot training, and says that national civil aviation authorities need to have the flexibility to adopt competency- or evidence-based training methods.

In a position paper issued today, the Foundation says, “It cannot be assumed that critical skills and knowledge will be obtained only through hours in the air.” In releasing the paper, Jon Beatty, president and CEO of the Foundation, said, “A data-driven approach to pilot training is an essential element in continuing to improve the industry’s safety performance. Training must target real-world risk and ensure a progressive and satisfactory performance standard.”

The Foundation acknowledged 2017 was the safest year in the history of commercial aviation, with no reported fatalities in commercial passenger jet operations worldwide. But with recent crashes occurring in Russia and Iran, the Foundation warned against the dangers of complacency.

The Foundation attributed the outstanding safety record of commercial aviation to “a wide variety of factors and the diligent efforts of thousands of aviation professionals around the world who design increasingly reliable aircraft, engines, and parts; maintain, repair and overhaul aircraft; regulate and enforce performance-based safety rules; investigate accidents and incidents; manage air traffic; develop sophisticated avionics and navigational aids; operate airports; and fly sophisticated aircraft in increasingly complex environments.” The Foundation noted: “It is not the result of any one factor, including any particular change in the hours requirement for pilot experience.”

The Foundation also cited the collection and analysis of a growing pool of safety data and information, enabling the industry to more effectively identify and mitigate risks before they lead to accidents.

Pilot experience, which also is an important safety factor, historically has been associated with the number of flight hours accumulated over a pilot’s career. What often is overlooked, however, is the quality of flight time and how it is accumulated. Was it in single- or multi-engine aircraft? In visual or instrument conditions? In a structured, professional environment, or in an often less intense, general aviation environment?

“The type of experience and the flight environment must be considered to provide meaning to the [flight hours] number,” the paper says.

In the position paper, the Foundation says the industry has reached a crossroads in determining how pilots need to be selected, hired, trained and mentored for career growth, and that changes need to be made if the industry is to continue its stellar safety performance in an era of expected rapid growth in many regions of the world.

“Flight Safety Foundation believes the pilot career path we have today will not take us where we need to go tomorrow,” the paper says. “It is time to take a data-driven, pragmatic approach.”

The Foundation issued several recommendations, including:
• An improved screening process and training for basic non-technical competencies that are usually obtained through experience, such as communication, analysis, problem solving, leadership and decision making;
• A renewed focus on the competency and quality of training providers to ensure training programs are developed and delivered to meet the safety standards of the industry, and so they can produce qualified, competent pilots;
• Training programs that are competency- or evidence-based and not solely hours-based;
• Data-driven training programs that are continually updated, based on pilot task–level performance;
• Ab initio programs with operator sponsorship/support;
• Development and sponsorship of worldwide quality/performance criteria that are universally recognized;
• A partnership with the International Civil Aviation Organization and industry to define rules, recommendations, guidelines and the expected quality and performance required of flight academies; and,
• Programs that place a high value on the knowledge and experience of instructors.

“The industry needs to be courageous and bold to make these changes and not simply rely on the ways of the past,” said Beatty. “Through these changes, the industry can continue to serve the needs of the airlines while enhancing safety standards on behalf of the traveling public.”

The position paper is available for download here.

###

About Flight Safety Foundation
Flight Safety Foundation is an independent, nonprofit, international organization engaged in research, education, advocacy and publishing to improve aviation safety. The Foundation’s mission is to connect, influence and lead global aviation safety.

Media Contact
Frank Jackman
jackman@flightsafety.org
+1 703.739.6700, ext. 116

FSF Communications Staff. March 1, 2018

News, Flight Training

Training ARC Recommends Alternate Path for ATP Candidates

An aviation industry committee has recommended that the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) allow an alternative path for pilots seeking an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate.

The proposal by the Air Carrier Training Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ACT ARC) calls for the FAA to authorize creation of an enhanced qualification program (EQP) that would lead to issuance of a restricted-privileges ATP (R-ATP) certificate.

For years, ATP candidates have been required to accumulate a minimum of 1,500 flight hours. Regulatory changes now provide credit toward that flight hours requirement for current and former military pilots and graduates of certain aviation degree programs, enabling them to be granted R-ATP certificates and to serve as second-in-command in air carrier operations. The ATC ARC was asked to identify alternative ways for pilots to qualify for an R-ATP.

The ARC said Thursday that its proposal “includes substantial prerequisites, a rigorous candidate assessment process and intensive, integrated academic and flight training designed to accelerate acquisition and development of knowledge and skills necessary to effective performance in an air carrier line operations environment.”

Under the recommendation, air carriers could develop EQP programs that would admit pilots who are either graduates of U.S. military pilot training schools or of colleges and universities with aviation programs authorized under U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations Part 61.160. The pilots would be required to have commercial pilot certificates and ratings for instrument and multi-engine airplanes.

“An air carrier EQP builds on the knowledge base and skills acquired by an individual who previously completed one of those [Part] 61.160 training programs,” the ARC recommendation said. “The structured, intensive, as well as integrated academic and flight training of an EQP is designed to further accelerate acquisition and development of knowledge and skills necessary for effective performance at an air carrier. In our view, reducing the total number of flight hours is justified because a pilot successfully completing an EQP, followed by the air carrier’s indoctrination and initial new hire (INH) flight training, can be expected to perform at levels equal to or exceeding those of pilots obtaining an R-ATP certificate in accordance with existing [Part 61.160] pathways alone.”

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), which represents 58,000 pilots at 33 U.S. and Canadian airlines, criticized release of the recommendations as premature, adding that they are only part of a larger package of recommendations being prepared by the ARC.

“ALPA is supportive of the existing pathways that help prepare individuals for careers as professional airline pilots,” the organization said. “However, we do not support programs that shortcut or undermine the valuable training and experience that are necessary to develop the judgment required to be a safe and qualified professional pilot.”

FSF Editorial Staff. October 30, 2017

Qualified vs. Competent pilots

FlightGlobal recently posted a very interesting analysis on pilot training by David Learmount. It is definitely worth reading. You can find it here.

FSF Editorial Staff. November 10, 2016

Blog, Human Factors

How Can Pilots Manage Surprise in Highly Automated Airliners?

Knowing how pilots will respond to surprising and confusing events may someday make the difference in the industry’s training programs. Using operational experience data to drive airlines safety programs is common, but sometimes a research project may be needed to examine unique hazards more closely. A European research project investigated in detail how pilots respond to the unexpected.

Mark Millam. August 9, 2016

Podcasts