AA09: Pilot handling skills under threat, says Airbus (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/09/09/331991/aa09-pilot-handling-skills-under-threat-says-airbus.html)

Hahahaha! Boomerang effect!

Aren't Airbus the ones who designed an airplane around an autopilot in the first place? ;)

Forget about that golden rule that "it flies like any other aircraft." It sure 'flies' (if you want to call it that) nice, but after a few years of Airbus flying the transition to a more conventional/old fashioned type aircraft was definitely not easy for me.

"Pilot handling skills under threat, says Airbus"

What a brilliant deduction. I for one could have told them that years ago!

Tanky, you seem to have missed the point; the article applies to long haul, all types. Unless your company SOPs specifically exclude manual handling there is no excuse for not using manual flying skills, long or short haul; in short haul you execute more departures and approaches per year hence have more opportunity than a pure long haul pilot to retain your manual skills. Aircraft manufacturer is not relevant to this line of thought.

At the risk of turning this into a Boeing/Airbus thread, it is worth mentioning a few salient points. The Airbus has to be considered as a box of tools - there is a tool for just about every occasion in the locker. The problem for many Airbus pilots is that they only use a few of those tools nearly all the time. Such skills as manual flying are often neglected. My personal philosophy is that at least once a week or so, I switch the autopilot, autothrust and flight directors off and do a raw data approach to minimums. It is hard work as raw data instrument flying is a perishable skill which significantly decays through lack of use. If you are not careful you end up losing key abilities that you had in your early years. To be a good Airbus pilot undoubtedly requires a solid grasp of the numerous flight guidance modes, but it also requires the ability to switch the whole lot off should the need arise. I personally encourage low-houred Airbus pilots who have become familiar with the Airbus over say the last year to stretch themselves and periodically switch off the automatics - weather and ATC environment permitting.

This is not just an Airbus problem but a problem related to all new aircraft types (B777, B787, A380 etc, etc). Increasingly we as pilots are becoming systems managers - and it is absolutely vital we have a full grasp of those systems. Nonetheless, it is also imperative the basic handling skill are not allowed to erode. All the 'stick and rudder' men may despise the realities of modern aviation - they alas need to embrace the new skill set required of them. Equally a whole generation of Airbus pilots need to ensure their systems management capabilities, good as they may be, are not maintained at the expense of basic flying skills.

When I worked for a Big Airline some years ago the management became concerned about "incidents" occuring when Airbus crews practiced/used manual thrust on approaches.

If I remember correctly (getting old memory fades etc), they eliminated the problem by banning their crews from practicing the use of manual thrust while line flying.

Needless to say being managers and cynics, they were quite happy to keep the MEL unchanged so if the autothrust bust one was expected drive in and out of LHR and other busy places with manual thrust....

Bigpants

Beardy, I see your point, but even flying a short haul Airbus (which I did) you will lose basic handling skills very quickly due to FBW, autotrim and autothrust. Even if you switch it all (except autotrim of course) off, under Normal Law just point the airplane in the correct direction and let go of the sidestick, FBW will take care of the rest.

I thought that my flying skills on the Airbus were OK, but when transitioning back to a "real" airplane I found out that a lot of basic skills needed some brushing up. Airbus really makes your life a lot easier, but this indeed has it's price.

Well said Tank2Engine, succintly put.

It does seem ironic that airbus would come out with such a statement, after basing their whole FBW philosphy on being flown by an operator rather than a pilot.

It does seem ironic that airbus would come out with such a statement, after basing their whole FBW philosphy on being flown by an operator rather than a pilot.

I don't believe Airbus ever made such a statement or designed aircraft with such an intent in mind. Thats a trite comment usually made by those with little or no understanding of the Airbus philosophy.

Jacques gave an excellent 25 minutes presentation on the Airbus philosophy for A350 training and he stated (for about 30 seconds only) during that presentation that they were looking at the issue of erosion of long haul pilots handling skills as an issue that needs to be addressed.

As usual this issue alone is seized upon by the media.

I'm no test pilot, but I've flown FBW airbus, as well as 'conventional' jet airliners and military FBW so please don't think I don't understand.

My remark was not intending to start a 'slate the airbus' debate, pointless as I know the avid pro airbus pilots will never accept any slur on it. What I would say though, is that those who fly airbus FBW should be aware of its shortcomings and potential pitfalls and I think most pilots who fly it are.

Then there are those, I suspect like yourself Carnage, who seem to think that the sun shines out of its jet pipes. Its never ceased to amaze me how those die-hards will not have a word spoken against it. Very strange.

We have to hope that AI will follow-up and give their doorman (or was it the boss's chauffeur?) a bit more 'handling' experience.:ugh:

I have no axe to grind with Airbus nor Boeing. The article was not about that, nor was it about FBW. It was about Long Haul vs Short Haul and was not type specific. Go on try thinking how much manual handling long haul pilots get per annum. It was published by Airbus that's all.

The Airbus has as many foibles as the Boeing I now fly, but perpetuating the myth that Airbus designed it to be 'operated' and not flown by a pilot adds nothing to the debate. You might as well tell us the hoary old tale of how it wouldn't exit the hold one day.

Quote:

"My personal philosophy is that at least once a week or so, I switch the autopilot, autothrust and flight directors off and do a raw data approach to minimums".
I like your thinking, but as a relief qualified First Officer (although flying more regional these days), this is simply not practcal, as one may only get to fly one, or (if lucky) two approaches per month.

Therein lies the problem. With such lack of currency, our company recommends full use of the automatics, to free up extra capacity and situational awareness. When on the back of the clock and with a little fatigue thrown in for good measure, hand flying a raw data approach is simply unwise.

The dog chases it's tail effectively. Lack of currency = full use of automatics. Full use of automatics = lack of hand flying proficiency.

The days off are good though!

I don't have an axe to grind either. Both Boeing and Airbus have their advantages and disadvantages.

But since we're talking about handling skill in this thread, on the Airbus hand flying definitely isn't on my list of advantages. Therefore I agree with SAXONBLOKE that it's a bit ironic that Airbus is now raising the issue of flying skills after they more or less designed the pilot out of the flight deck. ;)

IMHO, on the Airbus it's difficult (both long haul and short haul) to keep up flying skills if you constantly have computers interfering in the process. Just ask the average Airbus pilot after they've made a hand flown landing during gusty crosswind conditions! :\

Jacques actual statement was “of the 900 hours flown each year only 3 hours are manually flown. Typically these 3 hours consist of minor corrections of < 1 degree below 1000 ft . Airbus are reviewing their training programs to take this into account“.

At no time did he state handling skills were under threat.

Edited to add - What was really surprising was that the Airbus presentation followed a Boeing presentation where Boeing advised that they were REDUCING the conversion time for the 787 (to save cost!!) whereas Airbus took an opposing position and stated that they would not compromise conversion time for safety/quality of training.

Considering Boeing are about to increase everyones training costs by +15% (an announcement sometime within the next few months similar to the BCF saga that will have very significant implications for us all) I am amazed by the lack of reaction to this.

Therein lies the problem. With such lack of currency, our company recommmends full use of the automatics, to free up extra capacity and situational awareness. When on the back of the clock and with a little fatigus thrown in for good measure, hand flying a raw data approach is simply unwise.

The dog chases it's tail effectively. Lack of currency = full use of automatics. Full use of automatics = lack of hand flying proficiency.


It's not an Airbus problem nor even a Boeing problem. It's how we train and learn to merge safely with the machine.

In my experience you can't expect a few words of wisdom from an Airbus VP to do more than identify the problem with the help of pilot boards like this.

My opinion is that once identified the problem needs to be addressed by the regulations and not voluntary individual company SOPs

My opinion is that once identified the problem needs to be addressed by the regulations and not voluntary individual company SOPsInteresting point!

The sad thing is that IMHO the extra safety gained from automation, is happily spent again by most airlines in return for extra productivity. It's a double edged sword, where a loss of skills can have a negative impact on safety, but regularly practicing/keeping up flying skills also has it's price.

Just how realistic is it, in today's busy airspace environment with the level of fatigue, to regularly practice hand flying skills? (and I'm not talking about disconnecting the A/P once established on the ILS!)
Are airlines willing to schedule a yearly extra sim session in order to maintain handling skills?

Definately not a Boeing v Airbus problem.
How about the fact that GA is not the recruiting pool anymore, its whoever can afford to "fund their own training costs" brigade.
The current airline I work for is a prime example( latest gen regional jet), 250hr f/o's who have paid for the privelige of sitting in the RHS and supposedly gaining a career as an airline pilot. Now, don't get me wrong here, the majority of these guys and gals have done an outstanding job of getting a handle on the jet, and when everything is switched on and nothing is taking them outside of the little square, they operate the aircraft just fine.
Recently a couple of us have been purposely taking a select few outside of the little square, with varying degrees of success. Some have actually handled situations very well(no F/D no A/T), but not consistently. Most have no idea what they should be looking at let alone trying to fix deviations, simply because they do not have a basic handling skill background, and have no idea how to hand fly the aircraft. It does appear that we are making some headway in getting these guys and gals thinking that its not just about pushing buttons(and interestingly, the more they handfly, the less button pushing!), but it will take a lot more time for these guys.
As has been already said, maybe the authorities have to start mandating more stringent "ability checks" instead of bowing to airline accountants.

Just how realistic is it, in today's busy airspace environment with the level of fatigue, to regularly practice hand flying skills? (and I'm not talking about disconnecting the A/P once established on the ILS!)
Are airlines willing to schedule a yearly extra sim session in order to maintain handling skills?

From my read of the other posts above, practicing in a busy airspace environment brings on its own level of risk. That's where the regulator needs to be a part of this. Extra sim sessions are a drawback to addressing the suggestion by Airbus but I would be hopeful that a rebalance of training requirements under the regulations could address this.

Lots of stakeholders here, but my thoughts are that the pilots should give a thought if there is any room to repackage their current simulator time to prioritize today's issues versus the old way of training to the regulations.

I'm not saying the old way is bad, but it is worth considering what's more important today. We shouldn't let regulations get in the way. The purpose of the regulations is to permit a safe environment and not as an impediment.

I'm sure the passengers notice the difference with the automatics off, and some regular flyers will start questioning why things aren't as smooth as they normally are.

Pilots could be rostered for an hours manual flying in the sim once a month, but that would cost money..........:uhoh:

If there were a Post of the Year Award, my nomination would be NSF's post (#5)


It melds well with Davis' impassioned plea at the end of his (later editions), for crews to hone their basic flying skills. If I remember correctly, he extends this concept to pilots having training aircraft made available to them, since the cost of modern wide-body aircraft makes throwing them round the circuit a financial impossibility.

Seems to be an airline specific problem.

My company encourages manual flying, conditions permitting. It even says so in the OPS manual. Its widely accepted and I never had a cockpit companion being unhappy about me handflying. Handflying means also manual thrust. As its widely accepted and practised, its no big deal.

While jumpseating on longhaul sectors with my company (myself still working shorthaul), even the old CPT's on longhaul would switch off the automatics before FAF from time to time. I mean, we are pilots, arent we?

Jacques actual statement was “of the 900 hours flown each year only 3 hours are manually flown. Typically these 3 hours consist of minor corrections of < 1 degree below 1000 ft . Airbus are reviewing their training programs to take this into account“.
Isn't this the time when the vast majority of accidents take place?

Captain Drappier assumes these pilots have any real skills to begin with. The batch of pilots I've flown with over the last few years couldn't fly their way out of a wet paper bag. There are a few expections to this rule and I do mean few. Most Airbus FO's would never find the runway unless they get a vector to final. Throw them a curveball and they have no clue what to do.

Hence the worst part of this whole problem. When you try to "teach" them, they would have none of it. Their attitude is that they are an Airbus pilot and they already know everything they need to know. I learned from some really good pilots when I was sitting in the right seat. Heck, I'm still learning.

In a race to get as many "push button" pilots in the cockpit, airlines have forgotten what is most important.

Handflying means also manual thrust.

That is the key. Flightpath control is nice, but airspeed control is nice too. We need to do both.

Whatever happened to pilots learning their craft up the ladder from air taxi to turboprop to junglejet to medium-haul single-aisle and onwards. Oh I forgot its to save airlines money because they can recruit cheap labour into the rhs and forgot about putting someone with a bit of experience in that position. Sure there will be people fully reliant upon all the automatics,even some of us with grey hair, but maybe those in a training position ought to push for the recruitment of pilots up the career ladder with a bit of experience rather than who has the biggest checkbook at the b737/a320 sim door ? Food for thought ?

Monza girls are hot.....

Jenson.

Totally agree with post number 5!

I think that the place to train basic handling skills is in the airplane, conditions permitting (weather, traffic density, fatigue...). One sim a year would not be enough because skills like that have to be practiced, that is: repeated frequently. Frequent sims are out of the question, since that would be too expensive and create rostering difficulties.
I have myself felt rusty or skilled depending on how often I practice. When I am rusty I don't feel as confident as I do when I am skilled. Should some failure occur such that I had to hand fly when I am rusty would mean an added difficulty, and a big stressor, too.
Of course, practicing in the long-haul is difficult because you fly fewer times and in few of those you have plenty of airspace with no ATC stres, and you are fresh and weather is fine and your mate doesn't mind you to disconnect APs, or even FDs... And ATHR (why that fear?).
As someone pointed out, many recent FOs not only need to practice the basic skills, but they have to learn it, first!
In the JAA syllabus there is absolutely nothing regarding flying technique. There are lesson plans for each flight, but there is not a subject on flying technique as such. It was amazing to me. I suffered myself a deficient training in all aspects (in a suposedly good shcool).
Each student knowledge depends on his instructor ability to teach during briefings, if any. His instructor learnt the same way, and so on... It's a good thing I had an old instructor at home and that I love books!

Airbus is urging the aviation industry to confront the issue of how to ensure long-haul airline pilots maintain basic flying skills in the face of ever-increasing aircraft reliability and cockpit automation.

This comment is self-serving at best. Like the milquetoast (feeble) Pitot Tube advisory, it deflects the responsibility from the party where it belongs. Airbus is like "the boy who whispered wolf"!

As we have seen, airlines are NOT going to implement many safety devices unless they are mandated or come pre-installed by the manufacturer.
Feebly calling for 'x' and 'y' does no good. It needs to be built in. How many people, after buying a car, are going to go shopping for seat belts? Or advanced breaking systems...or air bags?

AOA (Angle of Attack) indicators should be STANDARD not optional devices to be wished for when things start to go apeshit, for as superior as the Goodrich probes are, they arent infallible and there are easily conceivable situations where even they would fail, regardless.

what I am calling for is a return to hand flying in an intrinsic sense, not in an ad-hoc "lets try it without the AP for a minute" but a consistent well planned and executed daily endeavor!

Simply,
1) we reverse the role of the computerized systems.
The pilot ALWAYS flies the aircraft and is ALWAYS at the controls. Instead of "Auto -Pilot" we have "Auto-Co Pilot/Monitor" where the computers do what computers do best: monitor boring data streams and offer advice when they detect deviation. The pilot punches in 'auto pilot parameters, course heading etc as before' - BUT THEN PROCEEDS TO FLY THE AIRPLANE with the "Auto-Copilot/Monitor" providing constant aural and tactile feedback along the execution of that flight segment. 'bank deviates a bit from norm?' a slight buzz on the left or right hand side, as appropriate.

This data could be stored and scored to identify the pilots best able to fly the most 'economical flight behavior'

2) More analog devices in the cockpit.
I'm thinking of "drag panels" affixed at slight angles to the airflow directly connected to the pilot and copilot chairs (with appropriate dampers) that allow your to 'feel' the aircraft moving through the air. This analogue data provider would not even need electrical power to function. How would you 'certify it' - I'm not even sure if you would have to! It would simply provide another sensory subjective experience, just like looking out the window does.

3) Perimeter visibility.
I'm thinking of two.
A non powered periscope type system that allows the pilot to visually see the sides of the airplane and a camera based system that can be fed to the LCD that does the same thing.*


* I just want it: leave me alone! lol

Never been happy about using tha A/C to practice for the SIM. Unfortunately I remember when SIMS were invented. Their invention was to allow us to practice for the real thing. Funny old world, if only the public new that the pilot was practicing with them.
Actually IMHO this needs to be sorted or the bodies on the end of ":eek:runways" will be increasing.

The primary reason why I believe that it is imperative to have a diverse background is that a pilot moves up gradually to increasingly complex tasks and increasingly complex systems and becomes gradually more at ease at flight management tasks that all pilots must accomplish on every flight

And why it is especially good to become a flight instructor/GA commercial pilot for at least 1500 hrs before moving to airlines is because the monitoring ability of a flight instructor is extremely high. this helps later with CRM ---monitoring the other pilot while simultaneously managing with traffic lookout, weather, communications etc. and all the while flying with pilots of different abilities and knowledge levels.


Flying simpler airplanes for a while as a GA commercial pilot is also excellent as you learn to deal with passengers and accept responsibility as a PIC then when moving to airline ops perhaps the candidate's basic skills [instrument scan] will be much easier to refresh and their ability to participate in the CRM process is greatly enhanced
further more there might be a greater acceptance to having to revert to basics.

Jets are just another type of nice airplane:)

if you read carefully yes, I am on topic!

My company encourages manual flying, conditions permitting. It even says so in the OPS manual. Its widely accepted and I never had a cockpit companion being unhappy about me handflying.The company I worked for until very recently enforces quite the opposite rule - they insist on the use of the highest level of automation available at all times. (Athough, despite the fact that this wording might lead one to think that includes autolands if an autoland is available, they have not taken the rule quite to that extreme. Most pilots in the company 'go manual' at or immediately before the minima.)

On the odd occasion when circumstances or unserviceabilities of airborne or ground equipment call for a the use of secondary approach aids or (gasp!) even hand flying, pilots of my generation who once used such skills on an everyday basis can usually dredge up something from somewhere to cope with the situation, (but, I'll be the first to admit, nowhere near as smoothly as we once could).

I fear this won't always be the case for younger pilots, the majority of whom, after completing their initial flying training, will never have had exposure to using a VOR or (gasp! again), an ADF, let along flying a full visual circuit with a high crosswind.

I have a friend who is quite senior with a regulating authority. He recently told me of an incident where an examiner switched off the GPS in a light business jet during a check ride. Everything else on board remained serviceable - twin VORs, ILS, DME etc... However, the crew completely lost situational awareness and were unable to complete an approach because they quickly became completly lost, even though all the information they needed, (indeed, all the information any pilot would have had on any flight fifteen years ago), was available to them.

An extra sim. ride is a move in the right direction, but nowhere near sufficient to maintain skills which one day any one of us may be called upon to use in circumstances similar - or even more dire - than Capt Sullenberger and his FO found themselves so unexpectedly in a few short months ago in New York.

I'll stick my neck out now and at the risk of offending some, perhaps many, say that I believe that, thanks in large part to these 'maximum use of automation' rules, there are quite a few people out there wearing four gold or silver bars on their forearms who wouldn't know where to start should they find themselves in a position where they had to fly the aircraft in the most basic modes, particularly if that involved finding an unfamiliar airport and conducting a full procedural non precision approach in IMC to or near the minima.

In my experience, back in the days when we were allowed to hand fly on occasion, those who did so frequently didn't need to, (I wonder why?), while those who never did really should have done so.

I wonder if the inventor of the escalator warned people about the loss of stair climbing skills?

The airbus is a step towards a pilotless plane. Management would love that. Passengers won't and flight attendants would hate it. Who would buy them dinner, the autopilot?

IF I WERE KING, I would demand that sim sessions be once every 90 days instead of once a year as we have gone to.

The tragic loss of the Air France plane out of brazil is due to the odd situation...computers work great...until they don't work, and pilots who haven't kept up their skills are next to worthless (my view based on what we now know).

Good luck to us all.

I am proud to have flown the last pilot's airliner.

It really is a pity this is turning into an A vs B willy waving contest. If some people are naive enough to believe that a B777 can be manually and normally flown without (AIMS) computers or the B787 can be manually flown without computers – dream on.

If what Jacques says is true, many airline pilots are not doing enough stick time to keep a private pilots license current.

Maybe QANTAS had the right idea in the early days of jets.

They had two HS125's configured instrumentally and avionically like a 707 for training as well as simulators.

Maybe a business opportunity for T7 and 330 equipped VLJ's for honing skills.:ok:

ZFT:

If some people are naive enough to believe that a B777 can be manually and normally flown without (AIMS) computers or the B787 can be manually flown without computers – dream on.

The issue is maintaining a good level of scanning, eye-hand co-ordination, proper anticipation & "feel" of the airplane (responsiveness at differing weights, effect of changing wind components at various altitudes...). You can do this only with the A/P, A/T & F/D OFF.

Even though the 777 is also a FBW airplane, it won't prevent your from "over-banking" if your scanning has deteriorated greatly. Granted that this is a very extreme example, but the point is that what's important is the human-brain-cognizance performance, not the electrical wiring or that "Windows" platform hiding behind the switch on the overhead panel. In this respect, i submit that you definitely do better at keeping yourself up-to-speed on Boeing FBW.

While jumpseating on longhaul sectors with my company (myself still working shorthaul), even the old CPT's on longhaul would switch off the automatics before FAF from time to time. I mean, we are pilots, arent we?

I would sure hope we are still pilots.
In our company, hand flying is the norm, below FL150, old Captains (and yes I am most certainly one of those:}) and young First Officers, as well.

Hand flying skills, use 'em of lose 'em.

Yes, but the problem is:


The company I worked for until very recently enforces quite the opposite rule - they insist on the use of the highest level of automation available at all times.

It really is a pity this is turning into an A vs B willy waving contest. If some people are naive enough to believe that a B777 can be manually and normally flown without (AIMS) computers or the B787 can be manually flown without computers – dream on.

Its more than that, you can cross control the Boeing, (if you want to) you have to actually hold the yoke in a bank to do it. The guy sitting next to you knows exactly what you are doing as well because of the control in front of him is in the same position. The throttles move, its all about the feedback. The Boeing FBW "flies" just like all the other aircraft you have ever flown, obvious exceptions apply.
This has nothing to do with which company builds a better aircraft, it has everything to do with design philosophy.

Example. My company does not do steep turns in training in the Airbus. The reason is, what is the point? The maneuver is so easy, they have decided that it is not worth doing. The Boeing aircraft this basic maneuver is still done.
That directly relates to airmanship and skills, that will deteriorate.
I think that is the point trying to be made.

"
I'm sure the passengers notice the difference with the automatics off, and some regular flyers will start questioning why things aren't as smooth as they normally are.

Pilots could be rostered for an hours manual flying in the sim once a month, but that would cost money..........http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/worry.gif"


Metro,

Sims are great training aids, but in the end, they can't simulate the fine essence of handling the actual jet they simulate when it comes to the true beauty and art of flying. For a crude comparison, although my sauve, debonair self wouldn't know precisely, but I'd guess they rank somewhere like that of using an inflatable doll to simulate time with a lady versus using the real thing. Great for procedures, but somewhat lacking in enjoying the true experience.

As for passengers noticing the automatics off, well, not on my jet. I've always felt that with the smoothness of any passenger turbine aircraft, one should strive to have the passengers unaware of what phase of flight they are in between gear up and gear down. It can be done with proper handling and finesse. Despite what some professional aviators claim on this board, it is possible to fly smoother than the automatics on most jets, and my experience is from flying the F100, B757/767, B777 and the B737NG*(which I know isn't saying much, since a blind, epileptic chimp on Meth could fly smoother than that piece of crap autopilot:E)

It's just my personal opinion, but I feel that any jet airline pilot should have the piloting skills to pull the thrust levers to idle at F390, and properly manage their energy so that the next time they touch the thrust levers is at the final approach fix with the gear extending. I feel that I'm lucky to practice this in the Caribbean, and totally understand the limitations that many of us face with near zero chance to practice on the sectors they fly. A 20 minute hold at Ockham after a night of little sleep puts a little damper on manual flown hijinks, especially with a B777 1000' above and a B747 1000' below ;).

They should never have done away with tail wheels, that's where the skill level began to deteriorate. Most pilots today are dependent on tricycle gear and wouldn't be able to keep a tail dragger on the runway, let alone the centre line.;)

'ere, 'ere,'ere :}

In my day everyone was thrown into the sim or company hack turboprop as part of the recruitment process, raw flying, no autopilot/auto throttle. Huge pressure (your job depends on the next 5 minutes mate!!)

This certainly weeded out the good the bad and the ugly!!

Things will only get worse as the generation Y is recruited. Key thing for recruiters is to find guys and gals who want to learn and improve from day 1 right through to retirement.

Heli-phile:

Things will only get worse as the generation Y is recruited. Key thing for recruiters is to find guys and gals who want to learn and improve from day 1 right through to retirement

Have to agree with you there. Unfortunately there are those championing nonsense like MPL shortcut.... reducing actual flying in airplanes and trying to use simulators to fast-track "Gen Ys" into the right seat.

Lizad was spot on when he said "Sims are great training aids, but in the end, they can't simulate the fine essence of handling the actual jet they simulate when it comes to the true beauty and art of flying. For a crude comparison, although my sauve, debonair self wouldn't know precisely, but I'd guess they rank somewhere like that of using an inflatable doll to simulate time with a lady versus using the real thing. Great for procedures, but somewhat lacking in enjoying the true experience."

As with all things aviation, nothing gets changed except in blood. Only when the first loss of lives happen and are attributed to poor flying skills or lack of proper training in how to fly an airplane during licencing, will anything happen. Almost all aviation regulations are written in blood.

Recently a couple of us have been purposely taking a select few outside of the little square, with varying degrees of success. Some have actually handled situations very well(no F/D no A/T), but not consistently

Presumably being taken outside the little square in the sim as I'm sure the people who pay your wages i.e. the pax on the training flight would prefer it that way. Actually though if someone cannot fly without use of auto-throttle and flight director then the initial and recurrent training of the company is no good and I would be surprised if the training programme is approved by the relevant authority as it falls short of what is required.

They should never have done away with tail wheels,

They didn't! I still fly one... just not at work....

The company I worked for until very recently enforces quite the opposite rule - they insist on the use of the highest level of automation available at all times.

I can't help but think that the modern trend towards finger pointing when the proverbial hits the ceiling fan has accelerated this idea. To put it bluntly, the airlines who steadfastly follow manufacturer's instructions to the letter might alleviate at least some (if not all) of the legal liability brought about by an incident or accident. Try flying by hand, and if anything goes wrong, the pilot/airline has nothing to fall back on.

Basic flying skills are the back bone of a safe operation of any aircraft. Losing an autopilot should never cause any degradation of safety in flight. It increases the workload but the flight is still safe. People who think losing automation in flight causing an emergency are from a new school of pilots. Airlines that do not allow hand flying are setting themselves up for a disaster.

So basically the blokes who invented aircraft that can´t be hand flown ( it´s still in CWS with the A/P out ! ) want people to hand fly aircraft :ugh:

IF it´s not Boeing I´m not Going !!

The airbus FBW is not like the boeing CWS autopilot mode, nor it uses a pitch demand control law.
Hand flying a 737 is more demanding than flying a 320, but you still require the same basic abilities, knowledge and technique.
No matter how much software an airplane has, its performance depends on its attitude and its thrust. From that poing of view, airbus is the same as any airplane. It is the autotrim function which makes it very different than a boeing and making it easier to fly it. But you still have to set a pitch and a thrust to get the desired performance. That is the basic skill that needs to practiced regularly.

I have been fortunate enough to fly both the A320 and the B757. I have to say that my time on the A320 most definitely buggered my scan. I used to fly the bus with the automatics and f/d's out regularly, but the wonderful big pfd's meant that my scan was becoming non existent. The one area I truly realised I was getting lazy was pitch and power. Now that I'm on the B757 I realise that pitch and power are king. I regularly fly f/d off take offs and landings, which are perfectly safe as I maintain the skill regularly (not just for sim's etc).

When I go back onto the bus (inevitable at some point), I still intend to fly with the automatics out and f/d's off, but now I would also fly without the bird, which would help maintain that sense of pitch and power.

Now that I'm on the B757 I realise that pitch and power are king.

For a... is this your idea of a joke? Weren't we all supposed to realize it before being let loose on mighty C-152?

As for topic of the thread; if there's indeed problem with LR pilots losing their manual flight skills, only cost-effective solution is to get them to fly more simulator hours. For practice, not for checking. Mind you: cost-effective doesn't imply it's cheap.

However, as I don't see many LR-pilots-lacking-manual-flying-skills events listed on ASN, I have my suspicions about this diatribe being sales pitch on behalf of simulator producers.

It really is a pity this is turning into an A vs B willy waving contest. If some people are naive enough to believe that a B777 can be manually and normally flown without (AIMS) computers or the B787 can be manually flown without computers – dream on.
fr8tmastr made an excellent reply Its more than that, you can cross control the Boeing, (if you want to) you have to actually hold the yoke in a bank to do it. The guy sitting next to you knows exactly what you are doing as well because of the control in front of him is in the same position. The throttles move, its all about the feedback. The Boeing FBW "flies" just like all the other aircraft you have ever flown, obvious exceptions apply.
This has nothing to do with which company builds a better aircraft, it has everything to do with design philosophy.

On top of it, Boeing was not the one to pretend : "Even the doorman could fly their birds"
It gives an idea how the head of Airbus FBW engineering design was valuing the pilot profession …

They should never have done away with tail wheels, that's where the skill level began to deteriorate. Most pilots today are dependent on tricycle gear and wouldn't be able to keep a tail dragger on the runway, let alone the centre line.

Think of all the tail strike damage that would be avoided!

At Transwest (all DC-3s) we had a few furloughed pilots from the majors apply for jobs who were pretty good in the air, however, they never did not understand the dynamics of the main gear being in front of the CG and that the use of feet was required.

Not many do understand the use of feet:E

Hope you don't mind a comment or two from an outsider.

I'm sure this is not a recent revelation, but the "de-skilling" of crew seems to have been on the drawing boards for a good while now. When my father used to work for BOAC and then British Caledonian, a high percentage of crew were ex-military, and certainly knew what hand-flying was. Over time the military obviously contracted, to the lean machine we have today. So fewer pilots from there. But there was still the airlines themselves, that had good training programs, and brought in youngsters and trained them the conventional way - PPL, etc.

But somewhere along the way the beancounters got in on the act, and started a re-think.

I won't draw this out - now we have the MPL. I presume you are all familiar with this? Personally it seems like a recipe for disaster. If this program is not designed to produce "systems operators" and NOT pilots I don't know what is.

It scares me. Are those folks training to hand-fly? Somehow I think they are training to 'pass' the MPL, and that alone.

- GY

A few reminiscences on JB a few moments ago.

( a DC3. )

Leave at 03:00 for Hamburg or some-such, and the skipper STOPS an engine on me. n tonnes of soggy aluminum and newspapers. Character building stuff.

I think he probably went a bit far in the other direction with my impromptu training, but practice like that was utterly priceless.

FWIW I think there is confusion in some minds. As I read the thread, the issue is not what prior experience a pilot brings to the modern long-range jet.

The issue is that a doubled-up crew flying two 15 hour sectors gives you 1 captain flying a departure; 1 captain flying an arrival: 1 F/O flying a departure; and 1 F/O flying an arrival. And all flying 30 hours.

Do that 30 times and everyone has 900 hours and 15 Departures and 15 arrivals each. Not much opportunity for manual flying, when you need to maintain autoland currency for example. That is what atrophies manual flying skills.

Chase888 in post #36 mentioned the QF HS125. Perhaps the larger airlines which fly the 777/747/A330/A380 ultra longhaul sectors, could afford to provide a programme of manual flying of small jets for their long-haul pilots, and some jet flying exposure for the chaps who "don't need flying skills". But they won't do it voluntarily, and such a proposal wouldn't be viable at all for small carriers.

I don't have an answer, but the question seems valid enough.

My opinion.......... you dont fly the Bus you react to it.......... get yourself in a nice little prop jobby once a month and bash the circuit, good value with a climb, cruise and descent phase plus fly by cable and manual noise..........

I ask what will happen in say ten years time when the bus Cpt came through the Multi Crew Pilot route and he is with an FO from the same route and it all goes dark........... or would that be bright/light as dark is good on the Bus!! :eek:

I think if a pilot has a solid military background will not have any trouble for the remaining of his flying career, with or without the all automations!

Chase888 in post #36 mentioned the QF HS125. Perhaps the larger airlines which fly the 777/747/A330/A380 ultra longhaul sectors, could afford to provide a programme of manual flying of small jets for their long-haul pilots, and some jet flying exposure for the chaps who "don't need flying skills". But they won't do it voluntarily, and such a proposal wouldn't be viable at all for small carriers.

SIA used to have a fleet of Lear 31s for just this purpose. Not sure if they still have them though and, if they don't, would be interested to know why the programme wasn't deemed useful enough to continue. Anyone know?

Yes a military background is a fine basis. However flying takes practise and 20 years after the said militairy career and flying long haul for the last ten, makes you mighty rusty.

The QF HS-125's were only used by QF, primarily for S/O training, between 1965-1972. Since when does anyone have S/O ?

This thread is hilarious. It should be made into a compulsory supplementary document, to be issed to every SLF, with every boarding pass.

I am glad that my Career included much hand flying and using the then state of the art autopilot / Flight Director systems.

To hand fly from take-off to the top of climb, then cruise at 0.8 Mach and FL 450 ( on the autopilot) and the manual descent to land gave a good feeling that you had made the grade. The ride for the passengers was equal to or better than when on the autopilot.

I feel that some of the current group of pilots may be missing some of this enjoyment.

My suggestion is to take every opportunity to practice your hand flying skills and as well use the present day Automatics System to the best of it's ability.

Tmb

When I qualified on the A320, my instructors told me : if you switch off everything, you have a C47 in your hands…Very nice to hear, but I had flown the C47 in the seventies, and I did not agree with them. Even without AP, autothrust, Fds, the airbus remains a very special plane. Autotrimmed all the time, flying a load factor, which means that once you have established it on the ILS with, say, 54% N1, you can fold your arms and watch it appraoch peacefully, muttering « I don’t need you my friend, I don’t need you »…As for the flare, you are still giving electrical impulses to a box which takes into account the radio height, the load factor etc…to enable you to move the stick back while it moves tne elavator down, so that you believe you are flaring it…You never fly that plane, it flies you. Very well, I must say.

I think some are missing the point here. Its not a question of the background you come from.

Every physical and mental skill needs to be trained and practised regularly, otherwise it fades away. The level of competency you had 10 years ago is hardly important in this.

Then as an Airbus pilot I have to tell you that the only difference on the Airbus is the autotrim. You still have to set an attitude, you have to set a power, you have to anticipate your level off, you have to anticipate your engine spool up, you have to scan exactly the same parameters as in every aircraft. This problem is not a problem of the type but rather of the culture in certain airlines.

Theres a very interesting point to note about flying skills: loss of control in flight has become the most deadly single factor in commercial flying. Turkish, XL, Colgan, Adam, Flash, Armavia, etc...

There must be done something about it.

Since none of these crashes had anything to do with underuse of automation, but rather overuse of and over-reliance on a not-properly functioning automation, its about time that fleet departments who discourage manual flying overthink their policy.

I dont know of any single crash which was caused by sensible using of manual flying. Regularly practised manual flying is still one of the most important skills of a pilot and not a risk if applied sensible.

We are pilots, arent we? :ok:

Well, that's a good question.

If...just if, a group of airlines established a fleet of shared aircraft to practice difficult maneuvers in, I have a gut feeling that there are a lot of today's pilots that would be very uncomfortable with some of the demands made on them.

I have so far resisted responding to this thread but I am now goaded into commenting. Those of you who have been on pprune for some years will know that I have always been in favour of all pilots keeping up their hand flying skills. I always managed to do so for 46 years of professional flying (RAF & Commercial) despite the "naysayers" who would have you believe that the poor old PNF will become overloaded in an a busy ATC environment (whatever are they going to do in a real emergency)?

I have only one question to ask all of you out there.

What exactly does your MEL say about you despatching with all of your nice comfort zone automatics deferred?

Go on, really look at your MEL.

If it says, for example, that you may despatch with no auto pilot and no flight directors, would you be able and comfortable to continue with this situation? If not, then why not? If you feel that you cannot operate to this level of redundancy then you are clearly out of proper flying practice. If the reason that you are out of practice is because the management insists on auto flight at all times then refuse to accept the constrictions of the MEL.

I was once invited to fly a DC-10 from LGW to LAX with no autopilots. We, the crew, looked in the MEL, had a conference, and got on with it. It was not difficult (nowadays it would not be a realistic possibility because of RVSM restrictions).

Not long before I retired, I was confronted with a 5-sector adventure sans autopilot and flight directors etc (which the MEL said was acceptable). I was supposed to be training a brand new F/O and the weather was less than wonderful. I told the despatchers that we could either change the F/O (it would not have done him any good) or else we changed the aeroplane.

An experienced F/O was called out and we got the job done.

LOOK AT YOUR MEL MOST CAREFULLY AND THEN FIGURE OUT IF YOU REALLY WOULD BE HAPPY TO FLY IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF NOT, THEN ASK THE MANAGEMENT FOR FURTHER TRAINING OR ELSE CHANGE THE MEL.

P.S. Believe me, at no time in my career would any of the SLF even have have suspected that I was hand flying. I was always taught to imagine that if I got the slightest bit rough then 350 gin and tonics would end up in the roof and that the girls would never speak to me again. No gin and tonics ever hit the roof and I married one of the girls!

good job JW411! totally agree!

I totally agree with you
:D:D:D

I guess that "do not hand fly" airlines should have no AP as a NO GO if they are consistent with their own policy.

Every time I can, I hand fly (blank FMA). I have even made a few fully hand flown flights in the 320, from lift off to touch down, cruise included (below RVSM of course) and a complete VORDME letdown procedure including a DME arc. Or sometimes ending with a visual. I loved every minute of those flights,:} but it is difficult to convince the other pilot. Many do not mind to make a hand flown approach, but most don't like taking off without FD (it can be tricky, that is the truth).
I heard that some 320 airlines encourage no FD take offs. I'd love mine was one ot those.

Some years ago I dispatched with (dare I say it? 'just') the autothrottle u/s (A300-300). Everything else on the aircraft was working, including the auto pilot. My FO was an ex-cadet and on the first sector, (DXB-AUH, a distance of only 70 nm), it was his sector.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that for me, it quickly became something approaching a pre-solo instructional ride. (I have done many such rides, if in aircraft considerably less complex than an A300.) He was totally overwhelmed - just by having to move the thrust levers himself whenever he did anything else. For instance, on descent, he could not understand that winding back the rate of descent on the V/S knob was not enough to slow the RoD and maintain airspeed. Just couldn't see it. Nor could he understand that pushing the thrust levers forward would reduce the RoD if he commanded a particular airspeed on the autoflight system.

On the second sector, (mine - AUH-LGW), we talked at length about what I was doing to maintain the flight path using the thrust levers in concert with the autoflight system. I had the distinct feeling that all that I said was met with glazed eyes and the attitude that why should he bother? It was never going to happen to him again.

That flight brought home to me very clearly how quickly the whole operation can go off the rails with just the most simple systems malfunction with a crew who have been trained from the start to use full automated flight without a clear understanding of the basics - and how to operate the basics.

The US Navy maintains that carrier landings involve a highly developed skill set that will be lost unless it is constantly practised, to the point where they stop paying pilots the extra pay loading this skill attracts if they don't maintain their recency. Flying a modern airliner is considerably more simple and less demanding than landing a high performance jet onto an aircraft carrier. However, the same rule applies - if you don't practise the skills you may one day require, you'll lose them.

And if, as a younger pilot, your airline policy prevents you from ever developing those skills (apart from a 'dip your toes in the water' moment when you do it in carefully controlled conditions once every six or twelve months (if that frequently!) in the simulator), how can you be expected to deliver the goods if you require those skills in less than ideal conditions? We've had a few examples of this lately - for example, the one that seems to have confronted the Air France A330 crew out of (was it?) Rio and the turboprop at Buffalo.

These days the technology of the automatics is reasonably mature and reliable. The flight engineer is almost extinct. Prehaps the next generation or the one after, of pilots will be automatics only operators and the MEL will reflect this. ie autothrust, FDs, autopilot will be no go items.

The environment we operate in has changed considerably over the years, drawing lines from beacons on a map isn't applicable to RVSM airspace. Yesterday I pointed out to a flight attendent an aircraft crossing our track 1000' below at a reporting point. Because our positions were so accurate, had we been at the same level we would have collided.

A old captain I had the pleasure to fly with many years ago remembered when the VOR was new technology.

Crusty old pilots who can actally FLY an aircraft could become a memory. Worldwide ETOPS is now routine, we think nothing of being three hours from an airport in a twin jet such is the reliability of modern engines, a sixty plus year old technology.

As automatics become increasingly reliable they will be depended on more and more. The newer generations of pilots who trained on automatics will replace the previous generations who remember when automatics were less reliable, didn't trust them totally and actually practised flying without them.

The day will probably come when a pilot recieves an award for heroically landing his aircraft when a 1 in 100 000 000 failure occurs and the automatics are lost.;)

Excellent post by Arthur Norman Fletcher, who put it all in one coherent statement.

Qoute:At the risk of turning this into a Boeing/Airbus thread, it is worth mentioning a few salient points. The Airbus has to be considered as a box of tools - there is a tool for just about every occasion in the locker. The problem for many Airbus pilots is that they only use a few of those tools nearly all the time. Such skills as manual flying are often neglected. My personal philosophy is that at least once a week or so, I switch the autopilot, autothrust and flight directors off and do a raw data approach to minimums. It is hard work as raw data instrument flying is a perishable skill which significantly decays through lack of use. If you are not careful you end up losing key abilities that you had in your early years. To be a good Airbus pilot undoubtedly requires a solid grasp of the numerous flight guidance modes, but it also requires the ability to switch the whole lot off should the need arise. I personally encourage low-houred Airbus pilots who have become familiar with the Airbus over say the last year to stretch themselves and periodically switch off the automatics - weather and ATC environment permitting.

This is not just an Airbus problem but a problem related to all new aircraft types (B777, B787, A380 etc, etc). Increasingly we as pilots are becoming systems managers - and it is absolutely vital we have a full grasp of those systems. Nonetheless, it is also imperative the basic handling skill are not allowed to erode. All the 'stick and rudder' men may despise the realities of modern aviation - they alas need to embrace the new skill set required of them. Equally a whole generation of Airbus pilots need to ensure their systems management capabilities, good as they may be, are not maintained at the expense of basic flying skills.

Metro man

If the MMEL was like that (NO GO for AP, FD or A/THR U/S) that would mean that when they were serviceable It would be extremely unlikely that any of them was lost during any given flight.
But it would also mean that the Pilots would not be considered a redundant element in an airplane's control anymore.
As said in a previous post, if an airline does not trust its pilots it should put NO GO in its MEL for automation U/S, but if the NO GO is in a manufacturer's MMEL, then it is the industry which is not trusting pilots anymore.
This can easily happen if new generation pilots are more and more poorly trained to fly.

If the planes are so smart, it can't be too hard (well, alright, yes it can be hard - but not impossible) to update the software to identify the PF and crew on a flight, and choose a set number of minutes per flight for manual control at set events (course changes, approach, simulated technical issues, etc).

This all gets logged in the crew database and gets added as manual flying credits/sim hours of which there is a union/crew manager-agreed minimum per year.

As with movie nuke crews, the "this is a simulation" alert is played before any of those "issues", which will cancel if something real does happen. So, we don't get confusion over real events and the crews gain live experience which counts to metrics/targets - win/win.

Just my 2€ worth

And if we provide the correct response do we get peanuts dispensed to us :bored: or if we get it wrong do we get an electric shock :uhoh:

Nope, I ( and I suspect most people here, and I suspect the regulatory authorities ) do not want the machine at some arbitrary point in the flight ( when we might be up to our ears resolving non-technical issues), deciding to blank displays or fail the autothrottle or similar so I can do some manual flying...as for course changes, ATC already throw those at us evey time we fly.

Leave that sort of "gaming" for the sim...

Our company accepts that flying with automatics out is required to maintain basic skills but appears unwilling to support the pilots in this. My assumption is that they just seem to be absolutely sh..t scared about any legal ramifications resulting from an incident. I have had to learn which guys I fly with are happy to let me turn the lot off and those of which are not. The look of death I've had from a few at the suggestion of turning things off (good conditions, low traffic, radar control, no noise issues) is somewhat telling. Accountants and lawyers both important to an airline but sometimes the pilot groups most dangerous ally!

My 2p worth.

'Loss of control' is the new killer.

Pilots are relying too much on automation- good as it is- and when it does a 'subtle' failure (Turkish at Schipol for example) they sometimes fail to notice.

Also, when the autos roll over completely, the pilots' skill set is often found wanting due to lack of 'autos off' recency. AF447 MAY be an example or the ADAM air if you like.

I, personally, take a great interest in what is in our OPS manual.

Remember though, that the primary purpose of the OPS manual is to absolve management of the blame if the worst should happen. There is plenty of great stuff in the books but it is never a substitute for basic airmanship. We got loads of guys where I work who are utterly shit-hot at reciting stuff out the OPS manuals. But can they fly the plane? Can they F*ck!

The autos are great for reading the paper or eating your lunch. They are an aid to flight, not a crutch to prop up your shit hand flying. I fly with plenty of guys who would be lost (to put it mildly) without the autos.


Fly your aircraft. You might be glad you did some day.

Back in 1991 I saw a paragraph in the Germania (?) B737 Company Operations manual which sent shivers down my spine at the time.
It stated: "Only under exceptional circumstances will manual flight be performed."
So this discussion about the need to keep your hand in has been going for at least 18 years and nothing has changed except the accent on full use of automation has steadily increased.
An occasional hand flown raw data ILS (auto-throttle use optional!) during cyclic simulator training sessions cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute "keeping one's hand in on hand flying" Neither can an occasional hand flown ILS following the flight director, do anything to maintain one's pure flying skills.

This can easily happen if new generation pilots are more and more poorly trained to fly.

The industry can have what ever standard of training it's prepared to pay for. Once the reliability of automatics is well established the authorities will be under increasing pressure to allow greater reliance on them for licencing purposes.

Of the following options which is likely to be cheaper ?

1. Train pilots for, and keep them recent in, rarely needed manual flying skills.
2. Train systems managers to operate automated aircraft.

Remember the arguments going on 20+ years ago about retaining flight engineers ?

Here's SAA's answer to pilot handling skills!!

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm167/apicella_photos/IMG_2625.jpg

Here's SAA's answer to pilot handling skills!!

I dont get it..Photoshop?

Not Photoshop; SAA do this sort of thing at air displays.

Personally I think that loosing the capability of being able to put your butt safely on the ground (and in all conditions i.e. 1eng, 2eng, no flap, no gear etc..) cannot be really compared with the situation of going inbound a VOR with raw data or with the FMS?
There is a safety gap in between that costs lot of money called: training!

Yeah, it's not a simple photoshop - if you look at the right engine nacelle the lead (front) aircraft clearly has more intake exposed compared the trail aircraft. That's not to say you couldn't do it with PS, but the would be harder.

- GY

Try photoshop this:

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm167/apicella_photos/IMG_2617.jpg

or better still, this:

http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/download/file.php?id=67070

Swartkops Air Show, South Africa 12 September 2009

f*king awesome! I havent been to a proper airshow in years.. I feel all fired up now!

Nice to see the old "Hazards' are still around as well!

And the "Hazards" are likely the real reason behind SAA handling skills! :ok:

Both Captains on these two aircraft are also aerobatic display pilots. Scully Levin, the lead pilot, turns 63 on the 28th of September, and retires from SAA this month. He is the lead pilot in both the Harvard display team and his Pitts display team. Pierre Gouws is the number two pilot and was the one doing the hard work during the B733F display. He is also primarily a solo display pilot in the L39 and Harvards.

SAA included Jet Upset training in the current secondary recurrent training program. I agree with Airbus that handling skills are under threat and at SAA it is only really the B737 pilots whose handling skills are generally up to scratch. Even the B744 pilots start to suffer from handling currency as they generally follow SAA's policy of autopilot in at 500 ft after take off and disconnect on short final. Throw in a visual approach to runway 21R at FAJS and that's when one notices how affected each pilot is.

I am neither an airline pilot nor have I read the whole thread. But with 36 years of flying over 90 aircraft types in harsh conditions, I believe I have valid and original inputs to enrich the discussion. I served among other positions as chief experimental pilot in a world renown organization, and was invited at NASA's initiative to fly the space shuttle initial tests.
In a NASA research report I read 5 years ago, 18 out of 19 B744 pilots of all experience levels failed to recognize important situations such as below glidepath on approach or PFD erroneous annunciations- in a simulator.
I read accident reports in which pilots failed to respond to simple problems, such as captain's airspeed indication error on B757 takeoff, leading to uncontrolled flight into the ocean 2 minutes later (3 additional crews repeated this in the investigation simulation), an A310 losing its tail due to captain's overcontrol following entry to wake turbulence after takeoff. Two MD-11Fs of one airline crashed and burned during manual landings with wind. Many "et cetera"s! Notably a different level of piloting was exhibited on the recent Hudson river landing. Here is my reading of all this:

1. Advanced cockpit automation poses serious challenges to the cockpit crew upon sudden or complicated failures. Pilots learn to rely on and trust automation, thus reducing their guard and proficiency. System redundancy, fail operate etc... offer improved safety and performance, such as CAT IIIb, at the cost of design and operation complication. CRM has added a measure of improved task management, but psychologists have gotten too deep into the cockpit, often complicating pilot life by adding tasks unnecessarily. There are moments when pilots are practically breathless, while aircraft automation can perform 95% of work idependently. Having flown years manually aircraft with poor inherent handling qualities, I can appreciate automation.
2. Due to market demand and growing aviation costs, quite a few pilots get to heavy transports, with private school PPLs, a few hundred flight hours in prop regionals, and a well written resume. Many therefore lack profound knowledge and experience of flight at aircraft envelope boundaries, more than 30 degrees away from the horizon or bank angle, flight near stall let alone spin, like many of us including the Hudson Airbus captain have. Those partially trained have limited ability to respond to unexpected flight emergencies.
3. Private schools tend to accept anyone healthy, capable of making the payments, and with security clearance. How many make personality selection, evaluating psycho-motoric, cognitive, and personality qualities? Vital for quality handling of complicated situations.


All these are key elements for the reduction of flight accidents by an order of magnitude. When incorporated intelligently they will reduce aviation cost, not increase it. Like anything done right.

Seems to me that the conundrum can be summarised as follows:

1. When systems are working 100%, fully automated aircraft are generally safer

2. However, when automation fails, lack of practiced manual flying proficiency by crews can lead to errors

3. Addressing the lack of proficiency requires increased manual flying which, inherently, and for 99% of the time, is less safe than using automatics

In other words, and if the statement in point 1 is accepted, in order to guard against adverse consequences of failures of automated systems, it is necessary to accept a greater amount of manual flying which is inherently less safe than automated flying - Catch 22.

2 excellent posts. I do, however, think that 'opherben's' last para "All these are key elements for the reduction of flight accidents by an order of magnitude. When incorporated intelligently they will reduce aviation cost, not increase it. Like anything done right." has, sadly, some rather large obstacles to overcome within the mindset of current airline managers.

...because size of their bonuses is not linked to long term business viability but to short term fiscal results. Therefore doing the right thing would make them financially worse off. Tempora! Mores!

I'm a 737NG Cpt in my late 20's... Very young some will say but 99 percent of departures and arrivals I fly raw data. I use the FD when the weather is bad (lets say cloudbase less than +- 500ft for an ILS) and the AP for autolands :8. I think as a Professional Pilot, you should be comfortable with any mode of automation of you aircraft, from full raw data, to autoland. Well if you do an autoland every 6 months, you can still do it quite well! If you only fly a raw data once a month: good luck!

I also fly a bit of aerobatics on taildraggers...just for fun and to have a wider view on aviation. Yes I'm still in love with Flying!

When I was FO, most old Cpts I flew with used full automation from takeoff till minimums. I don't deny those people might take better decisions in some situations I haven't been exposed to yet because I'm quite young (I'm still learning every day and I love it!), but their basic flying skills were cr*p! I'm pretty confident I have more stick time in one week than some of those guys have in a year....and I'm talking short haul here.

If 'Managing the operation' is the house, than 'Hand flying skills' is the foundation. How on earth can you build a house if the foundation is not solid? Answers on a paper...

My point: Older pilots or higher houred pilots don't necessarily fly more/better manually. It all depends on you personnal abilities and commitment to acquire and maintain those skills. And it's not because you fly longhaul you can't fly a Piper Cub in your spare time. Some actually do and I'm sure they apply skills learned there when flying widebodies.

And in my eyes there is also a big difference in 'Maximum' and 'Optimum' use of automation. But that's another story!

Enjoy the Flying everybody!

Alpagueur320,
Good on you but I think maybe you have missed the point here, caused by the thread drift no doubt. This was meant to be about long haul flying where a pilot may only get two landings a month and those being at say LHR and HKG during rush hour. Add to this a company requirement to use automatics wherever possible and certainly in busy airspace after an all night, 13 to 14 hour flight. I think it is just not always possible to do a reasonable amount of safe hand flying on those type of ops. What are your thoughts on long haul flying in this regard.

Alpagueur320

Good for you but do you do this in an RNAV / RNP environment as well?

I have a dream - a dream in which each operator is responsible enough to purchase an FNPT kitted out for their long hauls (be they Airbus, Boeing or other),and for their short hauls for that matter. My dream continues with those operators being responsible enough to get all crews into that sim a day or two before the start of their trip and sit them with a training captain and review all possible approaches and the diversions in varying automation levels. That same airline would take this training into account for the total FTL and would also remunerate.

My dream is safe, my dream would (I am sure) get quite a bit of support from crews, my dream would cost money, I think my dream is dead. :{

RIX

Have to agree with you RIX. Five will get you ten that the commuters among our ranks would complain about having to leave home 48 hours earlier to complete an "unnecessary" duty - and the bean counters would probably soon convert any such duty to "home study" on your PC, as they've done with so much else of our licence renewal process already.

To Amc890:

Like I said I know some guys flying long haul who they still fly a taildragger in their free time and I have to confess they are much much better pilots than me. Of course I'm aware not everybody can/wants to fly general aviation in their free time...
The truth is: it's impossible to maintain some skills if you don't practise them enough, and doing a raw data once every six month in a sim will not change that. But still, I'm happy to hear even the Airbus guys realise it's time to go 'back to basics'. Let's see what suggestions they put forward...

To Iceman

Regarding RNAV ops, I'm aware autopilot is recommended because it's 'more precise'. They already assume you are not capable to fly properly anymore. What a bulls**t. For example look at the SID's in Faro: straight ahead till a certain point, than a right turn to another point and that's it! You have everything you need: Navigation Display, Track Line... So on those departures I will not fly in Rose VOR mode, but in Map Mode :). I've been handflying those departures since 5 years, and I never got any 'track deviation' reports. Same with the SID's in Madrid: at one point the FMC coded SID's were not usable because of errors. A lot of guys in the company got letters because of track deviation, but I didn't....

I think some people forgot how basic the autopilot really is. I give you an example: Take off with a 180 degree right turn after departure, with a good crosswind from the left. Max speed for a turning departure is 265 kts, but we program the FMC with a 220kts restriction for the initial turn.
With autopilot: the aircraft starts turning with 15-20 degrees of bank initially (I already know it's not gonna work). Because the groundspeed increases, it has to tighten the turn and finishes with 30 degrees bank. But it's too little to late, cause we already overshot the radial... But the flight directors are nicely in the middle: nice and warm feeling!
I would start my turn with 30 degrees of bank (and had I been using FD, they would tell me to decrease my bank...) but roll out bang on my radial. Now who is more precise!

Happy flying guys!

Like I said I know some guys flying long haul who they still fly a taildragger in their free time and I have to confess they are much much better pilots than me.

But on what yardstick are you measuring this enhanced ability? I find it difficult to believe that just because you fly a taildragger makes you better at the problems encountered in flying a 747 in challenging conditions. What I can see is that if you regularly practice manual flying or with reduced automation on your current type you will be better placed for the time it all goes away when you wouldn't want it to. Having just experienced my first winch launch I can accept that glider pilots are probably better at recovery from unusual attitudes!:)

an A310 losing its tail due to captain's overcontrol following entry to wake turbulence

It was actually an A 300 and the First Officer handling but that doesn't change the fact that many in the industry were ignorant of the fact that control reversals could overstress the flight control and that rudder limiters did not protect against this. Not sure if regular hand flying would have helped but rather knowledge of the problem and incorporating into the training programme. Also mentioned was the contrast between the 757 loss, the MD-11's crashing in windy conditions and the A 320 ditching. Rather controversial maybe but surely the latter was an exemplary demonstration of decision making and teamwork rather than pure handling skills. This is not to take anything away from Capt Sullenbergs skill as I rather imagine his ability is of an order above most of us but rather to contrast the different scenarios mentioned.

Alpagueur320

Wow you really have big ones, so much better than all those "old" captains you used to fly with. I wonder what your FO's think of all your hand flying as they try to monitor you, do the radio and tune your aids, or do you do that as well being such an "ACE"!:ugh:
If you want to do all that "hero" stuff do it in on your own and without the paying public behind you. Manual flight 99% of the time is that because you do not understand or know how to use your systems?

Haha Iceman you are very funny... are you a manager?

Like I said I know my systems very well thank you.... an autoland every six months keeps the doctor away like they say :)

And the great majority of the First Officers I fly with tell me they want to fly with me more often. They want to handfly as well to improve their flying skills, but most Captains do not allow for that and that is very sad!

And if an FO can not do the radio and turn a heading bug at the same time, maybe he shouldn't be there in the first place! Like I said nobody complained so far, on the contrary most guys tell me they like to fly with me becaus I'm relaxed and they found back a bit of the enthusiasm they sadly lost long time ago when they started 'pushing buttons'.

And about the fare paying public: I think most passangers actually still think a pilot should be capable of hand flying an aircraft (unfortunatly not always the case today). How would people react if they knew the guys up front are unable to fly without a f*cking autopilot? Don't forget in a lot of non-normal situations the autopilot will not be available, so if you never handflew before, you won't be able to effectively monitor the other guy (wrong checklist? incorrect actions?) because you will be so busy trying to keep control of the aircraft... Regular handflying gives you extra capacity in the long term.

It's the modern managers with their batteries of lawyers that impose automation for liability reasons. So if you crash with the autopilot engaged, the company will sue the manufacturer.

Granted, maybe one day I could overshoot a localiser big deal! (well this could even happen with autopilot engaged!), but I don't think I will stall because the autothrottle tripped off or because of a faulty radio altimeter.
Automation might reduce the amount of 'small incidents' in the short term ('it's safer blablabla....') but it leads to big accidents in the long term like the one in Amsterdam for example (The Thomson had a lucky escape!)

Keep it fun and safe guys!

Alpagueur - I'm with you my friend. Good Posts

Alpagueur320

You seem to be missing the point ACE. Those accidents were contributed to by a lack of MONITORING what the aircraft and other "ACE" was doing. Your FO should not just be turning the heading bug and clicking the radio switch he should be monitoring you, then perhaps you might not one day fly through the localiser. Personally I would not want you to do that on the ILS25R in HKG.

There are old pilots and bold pilots there are NO old and bold pilots! Take care as I think your ego has a hard time fitting in the cockpit.

And why were they not monitoring Iceman ? - could it be that they were so reliant on the A/T doing what it was supposed to do that it and the speed didn't even feature in their scan. Is that not what we call 'over-reliance of automatics' ?

Guys, just wait for a few more years, when FANS B will be implemented...
Then, actually I think we b OBSERVERS only!!!
:mad:
My father was navigator until FMCs replaced him.
My best friend was F/E, until EICAS/ECAM replaced him.
I was a pilot, until another box replaced me.
:mad:
By the way - the technology is there (Global Hawk). What we are still missing is general acceptance by the SLF... But it's coming!
:mad:
Any ideas for a different job? With this useless skills?
14500 total, 7000 wide-body command
:mad:

Thanks Regulation and Bullet...

Monitoring is a big word nowadays! If I handfly or not, the pilot monitoring is monitoring anyway so what's the point?

Iceman I didn't overshoot the Localiser so far thank you :p. I never flew the ILS in HKG, could you elaborate why this ILS would be more difficult than any other I've flown? Steeper and offset maybe? I recently flew the ILS in Marseille (France) at 4° in raw data and as long as you have the awareness it's a no brainer really :rolleyes:.
And by the way the 737 cockpit is not the biggest, but my ego has no difficulty to fit really! I'm still learning every day and I think I'm learning more than sombody complacantly pushing some buttons and think they 'know what they are doing'. I'm realistic enough to admit I'm still on a learning curve, and that curve did not became flat the day I first strapped into a jet.

Keep it safe and have fun up there!

Bullet

Training flight? Not flying a stabilsed approach? Third pilot not monitoring?

It's not called over reliance on the automatics its poor technique / scan / training. You do not have to hand fly everything to have a proper scan and actually monitor the aircraft and if it is not doing the correct thing you take over, you do not sit and say what is it doing now.

Alpagueur320

Yes Monitoring is a big word these days and you obviously do not understand it. I'm glad you are still learning, as we all are and should every day. Do you fly like this when on your annual route check?

Any ideas for a different job? With this useless skills?
14500 total, 7000 wide-body commandWell they might need some skilled remote control operators to sit in some building in Las Vegas to fly the flights, a bit boring, but when they remove the cockpit window, who will want to sit in the airplane anylonger? :}

I see your point Iceman, but I disagree...

In reality, pilots always using automation will have less ability or even fail to see when the automation goes wrong. I think the Turkish Airlines in Amsterdam and the Thomson in Bournemouth are good examples...

And of course when I say I fly 99 percent raw data, that's an image. I do not keep statistics about it... It just means most of the time:ok:. But when I do fly an automatic approach, I am convinced I will have a better awareness and spot an aircraft deviation much quicker than a pure button pusher... and I stick to it!

Happy landings!

Jbayfan:
When we bought our first Pitts, we had the opportunity to learn with Scully and Lawry Kay (what happened to him? Has he retired yet?).
They were our mentors in the early 90's, for our project of forming AEROBATICA (http://www.aerobatica.pt) and we have learned a lot with them, (and later on with Nigel Lamb) before taking the "adventure" of flying aerobatics for a sponsor in our country. It happened many years ago, but I never lost that respectful notion that South Africans are great aviation lovers (and that is reflected in the way you are able to mix commercial, with military and private aviation in your country's air shows).

Fly Safe (but always Fly For Fun)
Victor

Alpagueur320, good attitude, good posts.

Alpagueur320

We can agree to disagree.

Safe flying.

Iceman.

How can you disparage someone (like alpaguer 320) for being good at something?

If it was the case that he was cack at using the autos and could only get by by hand-flying then I could understand your criticism (use of sarcastic terms like 'ACE' for example).

Lets face it, any twit can get by with max use of the automatics.

Whats wrong with someone who can hand fly to a good standard- and use the autos too?

:confused:

OPHERBEN and ALPAGUEUR320:

:D:D:D:D:D

Someone pointed out that if airplanes are believed to be safer when flown with automation... Why disconnect the AP and be less safe?

This is a treacherous one, isn't it? I see the point, but...

How safer could a 320 or a 737 be with a fourth electric generator?
Are people at risk flying in them with "just" three?
How safe is safe enough? How many degrees of safety are there between safe and unsafe? Who decides at which degree the "safe enough region" begins?

In the safe/unsafe line an AP flown airliner lies to the left of the hand flown one, they say, but an airliner flown with rusty pilots lies well to the right of an airliner flown by skilled ones, I say.

Can nowadays airliners be safely handflown?
If the answer is NO, then do not grant them airworthiness certificates because they are not airworthy!

Indeed lawyers and psychologists have got too deep in our cockpits, dammit.

Alpagueur320

I prefer captiains like you. I can´t remember when I flew an AP approach last time, I´m even unsure if it was this year (I fly the 737 in Europe).

Iceman50

It´s a myth that manual flying increases the workload so very much for the monitoring pilot. How long does it take to tune the VHF radio? Most of the time you have it preselected already otherwise you set it while you read it back to the controller, i.e. it takes a few short seconds and then you go back to monitoring the PF instead of monitoring the autopilot and you also scan outside the cockpit for other aircraft.

Ask yourselves, do you really scan that much more for other traffic when the PF is flying with AP engaged?

When the PF flyes manually, he´s really in the loop and knows what is happening with the aircraft because he has to monitor it to be able to fly it.

If the ceiling is low but the visibility is okay, fly the approach manually with the FD on, it´s a piece of cake!

Crash stirs debate on drone safety - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2006-08-06-drone-safety_x.htm)

The pilot told investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that his control panel froze up. When he switched to a second control station, he didn't notice that it was set to shut off the plane's fuel. The switch cut off the Predator's engine. (from: Alan Levin, USA TODAY's article mentioned on the above mentioned link)

It seems Human factors are also present in this case.
Wouldn't SLF prefer to have the pilots flying with them, on commercial aircraft?
When we pilots, buckle our safety belts, we join our lives and ultimately our destiny to the ones of our passengers. Our mistakes are paid with the ultimate price. A "pilot" seated in a room, "managing" a commercial aircraft would never be involved as we are in the cockpit of our aircraft.
I don't think passengers will accept unmanned cockpits in the near future. Its a too complex environment to be left to computers, and "ground pilots", cause computers also fail. Computers don't gain experience, don't have common sense, and are unable to improvise or overcome their-selves (Sully comes to mind) to resolve uncommon situations.
So lets fight for our profession. Lets fight for the honorability of our jobs. Lets impose the "pilots point of view", to the manufacturers, to the management and to the intransigent.

And when the MPL does get worldwide approval, wouldn't guys on the MPL program get less raw hand-flying experience as well?

Ladusvala

This argument could go on forever. It is not a myth and if you think the PM just flicks a radio switch and looks outside for other A/C the mind boggles. Configuration changes, aids tuned, FCU settings if the FD's are used the list goes on.

Just wonder how the lawyers would look at any incident and say "can you explain to me Captain why you were flying raw data without the AP in a perfectly servicable A/C?" They would just love the reply of "well I was just practising"and I am sure the regulators would look at that when they reviewed the Captains licence.

BarbiesBoyfriend

Re-read his first post!

There are old pilots and bold pilots there are NO old and bold pilots! Take care as I think your ego has a hard time fitting in the cockpit.

Well, bugger me with a pitchfork!!!

Hand flying an aircraft is considered by some as reckless behavior?

Burt Rutan's latest, White Knight II, doesn't have an autopilot at all!! Clearly, that aircraft would be way too dangerous for some here to fly or fly in.

What the hell are you people thinking? Can someone direct me to where the PILOTS hang out?

Pilot handling skills under threat,says Airbus

Thats rich...

The world is full of pilots like Iceman(inappropiate pseudonym if ever there was) and not enough of Alpagueur's ilk.Yes,use the automation but never hide behind it/rely on it.

Rananim

No one is hiding behind automation nor suggesting that, you really should read all the posts thoroughly.

...still single

No one is suggesting hand flying is dangerous or should not be done. Could'nt do anything but for twenty years - no FD nor AP in my military jet! I suppose "pilots" are real men where you come from.

Just wonder how the lawyers would look at any incident and say "can you explain to me Captain why you were flying raw data without the AP in a perfectly servicable A/C?" They would just love the reply of "well I was just practising"and I am sure the regulators would look at that when they reviewed the Captains licence.


And any captain worth his salt, would be able to explain to him - in no uncertain terms - why it was absolutely necessary to regularly fly the aircraft with minimal computerization.

And any captain worth his salt, would be able to explain to him - in no uncertain terms - why it was absolutely necessary to regularly fly the aircraft with minimal computerization.

Comes back to my earlier post#93. Perhaps worldwide certification authorities should take the bull by the horns and mandate a minimum amount of hand-flying within a defined number of total hours either during scheduled operations (accepting that a theoretical reduction in overall safety is more than compensated for by an improved ability to handle emergency non-automatic flying) or through additional dedicated training flights on type (or, given the cost, in the sim I suppose). Then the salty captain above could argue that he was strictly obeying regulations.

Yes.

Which brings again the question.

What is safe and what is unsafe? And Who decides that?

Safety is rarely an absolute magnitude. My opinion is

- Both automated flight and manual flight are safe enough provided the pilots know both techniques and practice both kinds of flight regularly.
- Automated flight is better understood and is safer if used by a crew skilled in hand flying

And:
- over reliance on automation decreases safety
- losing hand flying skills leads necesarily to automation over reliance

But of course:
- if conditions are such that you have a high workload and you need more percentage of your brain to maintain your situational awareness and to make decisions, don´t be a fool, use the AP!

There are situations when AP is highly advisable. In the rest, hand fly regularly to keep in shape and be safer should an automation malfunction occur the day you are tired and sleepy, in IMC and busy airspace.
That is safer.

If you are a long haul pilot, don't miss an oportunity to hand fly.
If you are a short haul pilot try to hand fly a few times every month, at least. But if you do a lot of hand flying... Don't let that make you forget automation!

Let's not fall in the lawyers trap! Safety is really important for us, isn't it?

Iceman50

You can fly with the AP engaged till you get vectors for approach. Then everyting is set up for the approach and PM has to select flaps and gear down, something he does when the AP is engaged also. In addition to that he will have to switch radio frequency, set the heading and maybe push a button or two. My god, that really is a lot of time consuming work isn´t it? My answer is -No, it isn´t, manual flying i perfectly safe, most of the time. With your background, you should know.

I don´t care what the lawyers might think. My only concern is the safety of my passengers. As long as I do the right thing, manually or on AP, I don´t have to deal with the lawyers.

No one is suggesting hand flying is dangerous or should not be done.

iceman,
my mistake, but when you said....

I wonder what your FO's think of all your hand flying as they try to monitor you, do the radio and tune your aids, or do you do that as well being such an "ACE"!
If you want to do all that "hero" stuff do it in on your own and without the paying public behind you.

.... it really sounds like you are suggesting hand flying is dangerous and should not be done.

iceman50: I wonder what your FO's think of all your hand flying as they try to monitor you, do the radio and tune your aids, or do you do that as well being such an "ACE"!

What difference does it make to the monitoring pilot whether the automatics are in or out? The altitude assignments, course tracking and speed/configuration requirements are the same are they not, or are you suggesting that there is a lower level of monitoring required with the automatics in? and might such an assumption be key to the problem under discussion here?

I really do find this claptrap about "overloaded F/Os" quite amazing. In all of the companies that I flew for in my last 30 years of aviation the "gimme rule" was the SOP.

For those that don't understand the "gimme rule" it simply states that when you are flying the aircraft with the automatics engaged, then you made your own selections on the FMS etc and the PNF monitored your actions.

When you were hand-flying the aircraft, then the "gimme rule" prevailed. You asked the PNF to push the buttons as requested and you monitored that he had indeed selected what you asked for.

For any F/O to admit that he feels overloaded and unable to monitor what is going on is either talking boll*cks or needs to go away and review the career that they have chosen.

Where I came from, flight directors and auto pilots were either non-existent or were very primitive.

Mind you, what do I know about high pressure situations. After three years based at JFK on the DC-10, LHR and LGW were an absolute breeze.

Some of you out there really need to sit down and seriously ask yourselves if you are up to dealing with the unthinkable when it happens.

As I have discovered, one day it surely will.

It's really and truly another level of redundancy:

- Two sets of controls, w/ (hopefully) two qualified pilots
- two sets of flight instruments
- two or more propulsion units
- two of each nav device
- etc.
- two operational modes (auto vs hand flying) with some grey area (autothrottles, etc.) in between

But redundancy does you no good unless you verify both sides of the equation are fully functional.

Hi,

http://www.alpa.tv/DesktopModules/UltraVideoGallery/UltraVideoGallery.swf?vId=247&portalId=14

JW411 MU3001A ...still single Ladusvala Loose rivets Rananim

Perhaps you all should re-read Alpagueur320's first post. He was claiming that he hand flew raw data departures and arrivals 99% of the time. THAT was the comment, chest beating or willy waving that got me to start the whole argument.

So for just for the record there is nothing wrong with hand flying. When and where are the important decisions. This was also the reason I introduced the monitoring by the PM. As by saying 99% of the time one can only assume in fair weather and foul! Was this good AIRMANSHIP / CRM and did he infringe the other pilots comfort zone.

I am also NOT advocating just sitting back and casually monitoring the automatics either - you have to be "flying" the aircraft as well and be ready to take control. The number of times I have to remind my FO's to place their hands on the thrust levers whilst configuring and on approach is concerning - A/THR is engaged is sometimes the reply. Tell that to the Turkish crew and they had "moving" thrust levers!

Iceman, you will find that sometimes folk answer, or comment upon, a post that precedes theirs - or one that is small number of post ahead. Not necessarily going back to one you're focused on. Or, perhaps, they may be prompted by a "Quote." There should be a way to tell easily which side of the fence they're on...but often this becomes clouded.


.. it really sounds like you are suggesting hand flying is dangerous and should not be done.

I concur. I really don't know what your saying, and indeed whatever it is you're thinking that brings us round to 'Willy Waving'.

Was this good AIRMANSHIP / CRM and did he infringe the other pilots comfort zone.


If by flying manually you infringe on your colleagues comfort zone,then you know for sure his/her comfort zone is too limiting.Thats all the more reason to keep doing it.Not aggressively.Gently at first eg,non-radar environ VFR.Then radar environ at non-busy airport..etc until finally he/she is proficient as genuine PM in busy TMA with marginal wx.Works for PF as well.The ability to maneuver your aircraft without AP/FD/AT from say 5000' to roll-out should be mastered first in an undemanding environment.Then move on until finally you have the ability to fly it in a busy radar environment with 1/2 mile vis.There are exceptions;critical terrain airports,stacks in non-radar environment,exceptionally busy TMA's,RVSM of course.Moderation in everything..we're not super heroes but we must be able to fly proficiently in most scenarios.

With your background,Iceman,Im surprised you dont shout this from the rooftops.

Hi jcjeant (http://www.pprune.org/members/308405-jcjeant),

Thank you for this link. I share the IFALPA president's opinion and I realise were EADS got their opinion on proficiency.

Good Flying!

John

Lets face it, any twit can get by with max use of the automatics.

Never a truer word. In another similar thread someone made a very sensible observation and it is worth reproducing his statement here:

He said: "I am not a convinced Airbus believer and not a convinced automation user. I can understand it, can use it and recover from screw-ups, but two things mitigate full enthusiasm: Automation robs situational awareness through absence of physical/sensory cues of flying the machine and as a result atrophies flying and thinking skills, and when automation degrades, it can overwhelm even a highly competent, well trained crew. Other than that, automation, used as intended, (not an airplane baby-sitter, but tool for accuracy, predictably and timeliness of action), I am enthusiastic because it is a flight safety enhancement". Unquote

There is no doubt from many surveys of pilot attitude to automation, that loss of confidence of the ability to retain pure flying skills, is a major concern to the average thinking pilot. Passengers are entitled to think that the pilots on the flight deck are equally safe and competent at hand flying raw data (basic skills) as at watching the automatics at work. Few pilots would disagree with that sentiment. If they do disagree, methinks they are living in a fool's paradise.

jcjeant: thanks for that link to the Alpa presentation and speech *Captain Rory Kay: Executive Air Safety Chairman*
Twas a very enjoyable 20 minutes and bit of a change to watch a movie on a pc with my hands occupied.... taking notes :E
Some incidents referred to during his speech
26 MAY 2009 AAIB: final report on Boeing 737-300 stall during a go-around (http://aviation-safety.net/news/newsitem.php?id=2155)
British Airways 747-400 in serious take-off incident at Johannesburg (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/05/20/326778/british-airways-747-400-in-serious-take-off-incident-at.html)


I've watched in some dismay as some of you have attacked Iceman50, misrepresented what he's said and attacked as if he's gone after not only your use of the Auto Pilot but after the very essence of your 'manhood' as well.

The "Willy Waving" is an essential component to consider.
it really sounds like you are suggesting hand flying is dangerous and should not be done.
I didnt get that from his comments at all, I sensed he was decrying the attitudes of a poster who seemed to have a wee bit more chest thumping than required


1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash
The accident investigation concluded that the chain of events leading to the crash was primarily attributable to Holland's personality and behavior, USAF leaders' reactions (or lack thereof) to it, and the sequence of events during the mishap flight of the aircraft. Today, the crash is used in military and civilian aviation environments as a case study in teaching crew resource management. Also, the crash is often used by the US armed forces during aviation safety training as an example of the importance of compliance with safety regulations and correcting the behavior of anyone who violates safety procedures.

Now, Bud Holland is at a total extreme - but is your pendulum swinging in his direction?

Rananim's post to me was the most measured and appropriate of the handflying camp, encouraging careful CRM and being cognizant of the effects your actions may have on your 'somewhat less manly' colleague and his comfort level.

Basic Autopilot is so simple and safe, Airlines tend to demand it as SOP. No less an authority than the Delta Airlines safety audit for Korean Airlines said
23. A monitored/coupled approach procedure should be implemented. Suggested autopilot usage - When flying manually, PF calls for all changes and settings required. Once autopilot engaged PF may make own MCP selections until on intercept headings for a monitored approach or cat 11 approach. AP must be used as soon as possible after take off and until final approach for risk management. AP's usage requires anticipation and skill. Pilots with poor anticipation battle with AP usage. Testing pilot flying skills is done in the simulator and not in the aircraft.*

The argument isnt (or shouldnt be ) is this Safe vs Unsafe, but rather 'Very Very Very Safe' vs 'Very Very Safe' you add to your safety balance anywhere and everywhere you can, to prevent the swiss cheese holes lining up.



*edit: It was pointed out in another thread that this 'Delta report' quoted were not the actual 'findings' see here http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/389297-af-asks-dl-assess-safety-issues.html#post5200379

I agree with you regarding thje "attacks" against Iceman.
He mainly reacted to Alpagueur320's 99% (of course exaggerated).
And he advocated for automation, which is not a crime, right?

But this report you quote... Does not seem very proffesional. What a manner of despising hand flying!
Those who want to keep their hand flying skills are just idiots who believe themselves "the right stuff" test pilots.
And... Flying with the AP is so, so difficult! You have to be alert like a hawk, because if you relax for a second..... boooooooom!

Come on!

I can smell lawyers...:yuk:

lol

Those who want to keep their hand flying skills are just idiots who believe themselves "the right stuff" test pilots.

Oh no. I am sure that most (perhaps that oft mentioned '99%') are cautious and concerned and conscientious - Use it or lose it. It took every one of Capt. Sully's 60+ years of professional expertise (and private experience flying unpowered aircraft) to not only know what he could do but what he could not do

But flying commercial airliners is a team effort. Whenever one starts to freelance, no matter how well intentioned, that is a precursor to disaster (It can perhaps be countered by some that getting up and brushing one's teeth is similarly dangerous as we all know the French practice good dental hygiene...and look what happened!)

I dont think it's fair to the pilot to have to 'wiggle in' a hand job here or there, solely to keep himself sharp for when the inevitable happens (and it usually does, one of the Airbus' set of Alternate laws is Murphy's Law.. j/k ok..and Boeing too) only to be career ended when the investigation notes that He/She deviated from SOP to 'hand fly' mentioned off paragraph in the report, as damning as a line that said he went off to read Playboy in the loo.

Frankly, its not just 'automatics' and being dependent on them - it's the whole programming logic behind automation, some of it quite bullocks:
Take Johannesburg. The system *thought there was a thrust reversal, and retracted the flaps, an almost fatal move for take off. If that flight was like the Concorde, with a bit of a tailwind and a bit overweight, they would be not a bit, but 100% dead!

It's obvious that that part of the system didnt plan for failure. The pilots did, and the pax were saved..this time. Of course, if 'pilot action' saved the day, then it would be 'pilot error' if Johannesburg had gone belly up.

Eight years flying the Airbus and never left normal law.

Real people on board = leave the automatics in and maximise situational awareness. Manual flight immediately raises flight deck workload.

If you passed the IR/last sim then you clearly have at least basic instrument skills.

Practise your instrument flying skills in the sim every 6 months - without real people on board!

In short, life's too short for manual flight in the commercial arena. As a pax, knowing what you know, with your wife and kids on board, would you prefer the automatics/flight director to be on or off?

Knowing that your wife and kids are on board.. AND.. the aircraft has had a technical problem leaving the aircraft in Alternate Law.

Would you rather have a pilot that practices with the automation out a few times a week, or one that only does it for 20 minutes every 6 months?

Is despatch even allowed if in alternate law?? I'm truly not sure on this one, and anyway, this has never been an issue in my experience.
Misuse of the automatics has caused many an incident / accident (not to mention an occurance). Perhaps if they had practised their autopilot management skills a bit more.....
We ALL imagine the day when we'll be on battery only and treating our Airbus like it was a Cessna and we train for that in the sim.
I really don't want to sound complacent but let's face it: the thing we should really practise is the use use of the autopilot. G/S capture from above for instance. I've ended up in THR CLB OP CLB once. And once only I would like to think as I learnt from the experience (but I wouldn't put it past me!).

Interesting discussion.

I must say that I have never felt in any way insecure being SLF, until this thread appeared. I always thought that all pilots were begging for hand flying time, to feel again what it was that drew their heart to aviation in the first place. What I find now is that there are a large portion of pilots who might be praying something does NOT go belly up forcing them to hand fly.

Sorry gentlemen (and ladies), but I prefer a pilot whose stress level does not go through the roof when a tool is lost. A well-rounded pilot is one who can approach -any- eventuality while airborne with the utmost confidence. This thread seems to be exposing a lack of confidence in the area of manual flight control. That can be quite a bit disconcerting for the folks sitting behind you. :sad:

Centaurus.

Nice post.

Going into NIC yesterday, in our RJ100. all the autos went off.
AP/ AT FD etc.

The FO, for it was his sector, had to slide his seat up and start to work.

My cockles were fairly warmed as I watched him get on with it as I tried to get the autos UP.

He did well.:ok:

I tend to think that military background might be a very good asset when it comes to hand flying and flying skills in general

just a thought

What I find now is that there are a large portion of pilots who might be praying something does NOT go belly up forcing them to hand fly.

I'm not sure you would find that 'large proportion' of pilots in this thread. However your idea of what constitutes a 'large proportion' may differ from mine (as did my wife, apparently :) )

I think the large proportion of pilots are praying that "something does NOT go belly up" not out of concern for themselves and the skills they may or may not have, but the crew and pax in their care.

WHYEYEMAN:
In short, life's too short for manual flight in the commercial arena. As a pax, knowing what you know, with your wife and kids on board, would you prefer the automatics/flight director to be on or off?

I'd rather have a crew who would think automatics OFF to be no more than a minor annoyance. :rolleyes:

ladusvala

"How long does it take to tune the VHF radio? Most of the time you have it preselected already otherwise you set it while you read it back to the controller, i.e. it takes a few short seconds and then you go back to monitoring"

I take it you take the time to write down the new given frequency? If you are not noting down, you should be.

Eight years flying the Airbus and never left normal law.

Real people on board = leave the automatics in and maximise situational awareness. Manual flight immediately raises flight deck workload.

If you passed the IR/last sim then you clearly have at least basic instrument skills.

Practise your instrument flying skills in the sim every 6 months - without real people on board!

In short, life's too short for manual flight in the commercial arena. As a pax, knowing what you know, with your wife and kids on board, would you prefer the automatics/flight director to be on or off?


Sorry, this is the type of attitude that results in a split-S into the ocean at night after a major instrument failure. Zero hand flying skills, zero decison making without the A/P involved, zero chance of functioning in a tough situation like flying and emergency descent with smoke in the cockpit with a standby "peanut" gyro. I'd want the pilots skilled in all A/P modes as well as all abnormal flight modes including hand flying. A pilot with your standard of autopilot all the time and hand flying only in the Sim twice a year is worthless as a well rounded airman. Where is your idea of a "Auto Pilot" Captain going to be if a large goose shatters the radome, and takes out the AOA vanes and most of the pitot tubes? Good luck.

Those who want to keep their hand flying skills are just idiots who believe themselves "the right stuff" test pilots.

Real people on board = leave the automatics in and maximise situational awareness. Manual flight immediately raises flight deck workload.

In short, life's too short for manual flight in the commercial arena. As a pax, knowing what you know, with your wife and kids on board, would you prefer the automatics/flight director to be on or off?


I recall an occasion several years ago when, just after rotation (on a latest generation Fly-By-Wire airplane) at ~ 50 ft RA and long before we had a "positive climb" indication the Flight Director suddenly commanded an immediate hard right turn. Needless to say there was no incident because I WAS FLYING. With the likes of those pro-automatics people uttering comments such as those quoted above, were this a pilotless airplane such a non-event would in no uncertain terms have resulted in a crash (and likely major loss of life of SLF & crew).

You can automate actions, but it'll be a very long time before you can automate REAL TIME, IN-FLIGHT DECISION MAKING with an infinite permutation of differing situations. The two are very different issues. Good luck to you fellas

I hope no-one is suggesting that if the A/P broke, I or anyone else would be unable to cope. We've all been in fairly extreme situations in the sim (certainly a lot worse than just the A/P and A/THR being off) and dealt with it fine.

josmison - i'm not bashing military pilots but as you mentioned it: It was an ex-tornado pilot who nearly wrote off a MYT A321 with a tailstrike, risking his and about 200 other lives, whilst practising his hand flying skills!! This illustrates my point exactly. Whether or not you admit it to yourself, by "taking it all out", you are increasing the chances of level bust, tailstrike (see above) and other undesirable events. Flying for me is about minimising this type of thing.

Whatsalizad - So you would advocate switching all the ADRs off too to simulate the birdstrike situation you describe?

Gengis - 50' is a bit low to have the A/P in. Even for me!! It's 100' minimum on the Bus anyway.

No, Whyeyeman, of course the A/P was not in. It was the F/D that commanded this, but I was using that as an example of what can happen with automatics.... and especially to all those "pilotless airplane" "automatics" yea-sayers. A non-event can so very easily turn into catastrophic loss of life (without us there).

More insight into the pilot handeling skills? Link below; Maybe already on this posting?

http://www.alpa.tv/DesktopModules/UltraVideoGallery/UltraVideoGallery.swf?vId=247&portalId=14

Whyeman

Is it your opinion that hand flying an airliner in a VMC day, non-busy airspace, not being fatigued, etc... Poses any risk?
If so, visual approaches should be banned, let alone circling approaches!

I have hand flown like that... With my wife and my brother seating in the pax cabin. I feel no remorse, really.

However I see your point.

I would not handfly in IMC, busy environment, etc... Because when you can't see, you never know if you have missed something and may be not readily apparent you did until it is too late. I would not hand fly in many circumstances with or without my family on board.

When a pilot is too passive tends to become sleepy, well back in the performance curve. Switching off AP/FD wakes you up and moves you to the optimum in the curve. In that case you are safer than auto flying. It might be the difference between detecting or not an A/THR subtle disconnection, for instance.
Furthermore, in the event of a failure involving handflying, non skilled pilots will have a lot of extra workload and stress, putting them too far to the right of the curve. Not so with pilots skilled in hand flying.

I think Automation is great, that we must master automated flight... and keep skilled in handflying so that safety is at a maximum.

I'm firmly in the use it or lose it camp. Flying the boeing it wasn't such a problem, but flying the Airboos I take every chance I get to turn everything off and actually fly the thing (or as close as you can get to "flying" in normal law).

I'm a co-pilot, so I rely on the boss to positively encourage turning off the automation, when appropriate. It is pleasing that at least 50% of captains I fly with are always prompting their F/Os' to take the opportunity to handfly. The other 50% are either completely against it or look incredibly worried when it is brought up in the brief that it is a good day for a visual approach.

I wouldn't criticise the latter 50%, it's not my place to do so and they sign the tech log so the automatics stay in, end of story. I think they are missing something however, and it is no coincidence that in my experience, it is the chaps who point blank refuse a visual or the use of manual thrust who generally react in something approaching mild panic when something goes wrong, particularly with the automation. Just disconnecting everything and putting the aircraft where you want it doesn't seem to enter their heads.

In short, relying entirely on the automatics apart from a six monthly jaunt in a hydraulic box isn't going to make you a "safer" pilot. Each to their own.

Whenever one starts to freelance, no matter how well intentioned, that is a precursor to disaster

What a fascinating observation. Perhaps we should go back in history when aircraft like the Canberra bomber was designed and flown as single pilot (navigator down the back) and these pilots flew above 40,000 ft in IMC single handed because there was no autopilot. Yes it's nice to have a copilot to pull the gear up and talk on the radio but just because one is "freelance" (whatever that is supposed to mean) doesn't mean aircraft are falling out of the sky everyday. There is another world outside of being an airline pilot.

If you passed the IR/last sim then you clearly have at least basic instrument skills.


Not necessarily so. Most instrument rating tests are conducted with automatics firmly engaged and the fore-finger of the PNF jabbing away on your behalf at the CDU. All the PF has to do is keep the FD needles in the centre and the automatics do that on your behalf, too. One raw data instrument approach does not make constitude keeping up basic skills.

whatever that is supposed to mean
indeed!

What a fascinating observation. Perhaps we should go back in history when aircraft like the Canberra bomber was designed and flown as single pilot (navigator down the back) and these pilots flew above 40,000 ft in IMC single handed because there was no autopilot. Yes it's nice to have a copilot to pull the gear up and talk on the radio but just because one is "freelance" (whatever that is supposed to mean)

I guess 'freelancing' means (and I meant) going off on your own, doing a little bit 'extra on the side' off the books.

It's like filing a flight plan, and then taking an un-announced detour. It's like doing foot patrols in Iraq and, keeping the directive to get closer with the locals, chatting with them, getting chummy as one can get separated by 2,000 miles of ocean and 200 years of culture, exceed that directive (and regs) to take food and drink and stop one day when an encouraged stray dog (also against regs to encourage strays) refuse to eat some of the offering and luckily only one of the men get sick and you later find that the shopkeepers family is found with holes in the back of the head the next day <shrug>

I am for hand flying - big time. I am for pilots maintaining basic skills. That endeavor has to be I feel, within the structure of the full company SOP and with each experience subject to review (an environment best suited for the sim, sure)

Again, this is not an argument against safe vs unsafe, rather "Safe x10" vs "Safe x 9"

..surprised that regular hand flying (in appropriate circumstances) isn't actually mandated/insisted upon. Must be a good reason why pilots are called, erm , 'pilots'

Dont be surprised, its arguably cheaper, saves a few cents per mile, immediate returns vs long term safety and skill maintenance.

Our MEL allows for dispatch with zero autopilots working ergo the company are happy for us to fly without them ergo they expect us to be able to fly the aircraft without them.

I agree. So I hand-fly when it's appropriate, to keep current and because I enjoy it. As an aside, the more hand flying I've done, the more content I feel when I check out at the end of the day. I'm a PILOT after all. I want to be equally adept at using all the tools in the box - that's basic professional pride!

Use it or lose it - amen.

:ok:

screwballburling

I don´t write down frequencys, speeds or headings. However I write down altitudes, runway, clearance limits, QNH etc.

By the way, I always felt it easier to disengage the autopilot when it doesn´t do what I expected it to do, and then reengage it when I got the aircraft and AP where I want it.

Take it the dyed in the wool hand-jobbers on this thread would be against a pilot new on type using the automatics as much as possible for their first 6 months on-type. If it's their first large airline type, the chances are they'll have done plenty of hand flying thus far but not a lot of using the automatics to best effect - and it's important that they do consolidate in that area.

This whole thing is a matter of balance. The airline I work for says that all pilots should keep themselves in practice to operate the airplane at any level of automation ie, no automatics to full autoland. The rider on that is that you use a level of automation to suit the anticipated or actual workload - it being assumed that your workload will probably (but not necessarily) go down when using the automatics.

Personally, I like to hand fly. I like it when the skipper hand flys (practice those PM/PNF skills so they don't atrophy either). And if the automatics aren't doing what is required, disconnect everything and put it where you want it. It's not rocket science.

As to how the perceived loss of skill is managed in a long haul operation where there are so few sectors to go round is a tricky one. The accountants will almost certainly have the loudest voice and will win in the short term...... Better get the autopilot in then. :}

Spanner

Great but scary thread. Probably says as much as the black boxes of AF447 could have...
Hope all regulators read it.

A company in Middle East apply to their SOP that pilot have to be stabilized by 1000 ft AGL in VMC & IMC, reason is for the safety, while we all knew that the issue of stabilized approach by Flight Safety Foundation was 500 ft AGL in VMC and 1000 ft in IMC this was also use by Boeing & Airbus FCTM, I do believe that the Flight Safety Foundation made this issue without reason ,maybe this is the optimum safety that they found after being study on this issue, so I would like to know that other airlines using standard stabilized approach at 500 ft AGL and 1000 ft AGL are less safe?? :confused:and stabilized at 1000 ft AGL is more professional consider traffic during final approach in VMC? :ugh:

if this really safe than Flight Safety Foundation has made a wrong issue:D

Back in 2007 Cranfield University began their FORCE investigation into Aircraft Automation and Manual Flying:

"Captain Simon Wood, FORCE Director, spoke on concerns that pilots may be placing too much reliance on automation and the work that was taking place to develop a new syllabus for pilots moving to new aircraft types. An experimental syllabus is under consideration for CAA approval and, if approved, will be trialled by a UK airline"

See: http://www.eaap.net/fileadmin/Eaap/downloads/Potsdam_Presentations/3-Pilot_Performance/1_-_Ebbatson_-_Loss_of_Manual_Flight_Skills_-_Evaluating_Objective_Measures.pdf

My A320 type rating was done under this "FORCE" course.

The first few sims were simply about hand flying, in fact they were done before any major ground school/CBT just the basics about control laws etc. to get you going.

At the time I enjoyed it, but had just come off the end of a 40 hour MCC / Jet Handling Course on the Airbus so I was probably about as current on hand flying as I will be at any point in my career.

At the time, I thought it was a good idea, however those type rating hours seem like an absolute age ago now and like many others would love the opportunity to hand fly more on the line.

A company in Middle East apply to their SOP that pilot have to be stabilized by 1000 ft AGL in VMC & IMC

Not only in the Middle East.


Also in the middle of Europe......

At A certain bankrupt Belgian National Airline, the line-training went as follows:
First flights: NO flight-director and only basic useage of automatics allowed during the flight. Autopilot and F/D only during cruise.
Only after the new pilot showed enough proficiency to fly safely and smoothly without the automatics, knowing the aircrafts behaviour did the training progress to the next step: the correct use of the autoflight modes.
Was it easy? NO Was it ultimately safer, YES
It made sure that EVERYBODY was proficient in hand-flying the aircraft should things go wrong, and EVERYBODY was comfortable in operating and flying the aircraft in all modes. Stick-and-Rudder proficiency was an evident result.
Mind you, this obviously also requires a very good basic schooling during initial ATPL training, and with that I don't mean creating SOP slaves.

This is how it should be done also today.

A company in Middle East apply to their SOP that pilot have to be stabilized by 1000 ft AGL in VMC & IMC

In another lifetime we used flare height (known then as "round-out") as the mandatory stabilisation height in Tiger Moths. Worked a treat and saved money caused by unnecessary go-arounds....
I can understand the rather excessive minimum stabilisation height in the Middle East due to heat shimmy and updraughts from sand-dunes:ok:

Many people talk about keeping their skills tuned by hand flying. Often what they mean is follow the F.D. on departure and climb with a constant power setting. Likewise on descent in VNAV/LNAV at idle power just follow the F.D. I question whether this is keeping hand-flying skills well oiled.
I hate the "good old days' expression. but they were. In a B732, with only 1 DME, and often that was not on the field; if you spooled up before 1500' you'd messed it up. This was from TOD of 35000' with little wind info. It was a self planned DME v ALT descent. Into the Greek islands it was Mark 1 eyeball visuals, varying from No.1 in traffic at 5000' and severe clear 20nm out, to overhead at FL100 and cleared to land; expedite to allow departures.
I've flown for various airlines since then, and on much bigger a/c. Visuals were still necessary in many island destinations, both Europe & Caribbean. Since then, with more & more radar's and ILS's the requirement has been reduced, even if there is only thin traffic. Indeed, many airlines seem to discourage visuals. In recent years, I've flown during the rapid expansion of short-haul airlines, where most of the F/O's are low hour cadets and the promotion to captain is mind bogglingly rapid. When conditions were suitable, and traffic allowed, and to expedite our arrival, I asked if they wished to fly a visual pattern. Sometimes the eager response was hestiant, but YES please. There then ensued an holy mess and much coaching. Once we'd managed to get it somewhere near the correct glidepath at 1000' it all went well. They were now in familiar territory. Afterwards they admitted they had so little practice. Yet. in 3 years they could be comig up for command. Some airlines even have no night landings without PAPI's, VASIS or G/S. Years ago the CAA required night base training, a nd no VASIS approaches. Now, it seems even night circuits is no longer a base training requirement. The first time a cadet lands a night is on the line. Amazing. Whatever is going on is not good. If pilots are not considered capable of night landing on a fully lit Rwy without G/P indicators I wonder if they should on board. If a pilot in severe clear and field in sight at 40nm can not make a low drag approach to the slot at 1000' I wonder if they really are a capable of being a captain. One day all the fancy bits of kit will not be available and hand eye coordination will be needed. Is it trained and practiced enough? I doubt it, but when it is needed the final insurance policy (pilots) might not be as comprehensive as everyone thought. More 3rd party than all risk.

CENTAURUS;
hand flying in IMC above 40,000? The only IMC above 40,000 is the top of a CB and can't see anyone doing that really.

The only IMC above 40,000 is the top of a CB and can't see anyone doing that really.

Black night, no horizon, over 8/8ths cloud and no moon at 40,000 plus is IMC in anyone's language.

RAT 5

I think you put your finger on that one.

For example: I know that I'm one of the most 'Autos off' pilots on our fleet. But I usually keep the FD on. This is because, if we get a GA the FD will not come on if you have already switched it off. So you're looking at a raw data GA with four stages of flap to get in!

I had a situation about a year ago when (due a genny fail) we had no FD or autos (climbing out of Frankfurt).

Even though I'm a very hand flying type, I found the lack of FD , coupled with our troubles, to be quite a lot to deal with.

Although I am keenly aware of what the thread is about, piloting skills are relative.

Let me expand on what is meant by this.

A good friend was describing an approach in the south Pacific where the "strip" was carved out of a hillside - 11m wide, 400m long with an 18% grade. If one didn't add power after touchdown, one didn't get to the end and wasn't able to do the next takeoff downhill. All that is seen in the flare is blue sky. Charts (where available) for these airports have "over-run instructions" on which way to turn in case of the overrun so as not to hit the school, the hospital or go over the cliff.

While my own skills were atuned to the 320/330/340 types in both hand-flying and autoflight, I'd be dead in a week on the coast of BC in the winter or in some south Pacific islands as described above without easing into it and practising. Same goes for most of us I suspect.

Suffice it to say that in large transport flying, if one can change control regimes from fully automated flight to fully manual flight (raw data, no f/d's, autothrust off) and back again at any time, under any circumstances without the passengers once noticing, one probably has sufficient skills to cover off almost all situations.

We are not expected to have test pilot skills nor are we expected to out-guess the designers of the aircraft be they Boeing or Airbus. Beyond the QRH we are not expected to troubleshoot an abnormality. We are expected to operate by the book and where the book is silent or the safety of flight is threatened, to use airmanship and the authority of the pilot-in-command to make the best decision(s) possible.

Though we are solely responsible for our flight, we are no longer "on our own" in the cockpit and thus may expect the broad support of scheduling, dispatch, maintenance, ATC, weather forecasters and the regulators, and that they will do their jobs just as we do. The current fatal accident rate mirrors the success of this approach but as we know, "nothing fails like success" and a level of vigilance mixed with a bit of crankiness is always needed when commercial priorities begin to creep beyond safety priorities.

RAT 5,
Many people talk about keeping their skills tuned by hand flying. Often what they mean is follow the F.D.
My experience with the 737 Classic is that even with the FDs on, one shouldn't just follow them blindly. The FDs are sometimes slow adjusting to speed fluctuations and wot not so even with the FDs one must see past such guidance to the actual situation on the primary instruments. Just following FDs, if the 737 is anything to go by, will mean dipping below VREF+x moving off GS/LLZ guidance (how ever slightly) from time to time as well as making adjustments too severe, which would could not be regarded as the best thing to do just to keep the FDs centred.

Maybe the Airbus is pretty good in that regard?

Maybe the Airbus is pretty good in that regard?
Airbus FDs are no different.

Your advice is good. The FD's do lag and sometimes order contrary directions to what you are trying to do in the next 15 to 30 seconds. I think "looking behind" or "looking through" the FD symbols while seeing them "peripherally" on the PFD/Horizon display abut keeping a close eye on the raw data, (speed/speed trend, VSI, pitch/roll) to be sure you're achieving what you set out to do, is best. Blindly following FD's is not good airmanship in my view. They're only driven by a computer and require intelligent interpretation just like any computer output.

Try flying a DC-8 for a while,not much in the way of automation there!

The FDs are sometimes slow adjusting to speed fluctuations

And almost totally useless in a windshear go-around situation especially where the pilot will invariably overcontrol in pitch.

Very good thread. It can clearly be seen that there is great feeling on this.

Another life working for a far eastern airline B747:
Company SOP at that time, autopilot must always be engaged above ten thousand feet.
Captains always used autoland because a "Red Flag" (little bit too high or low on final approach or a little bit too much or too little power on same occasion) on the FOQA would mean a "day off " spent in chief pilot office making a self criticism and promise to "never do it again".
Volunteer for manual and flight director off approach on simulator check? You must be joking!

To all correspondants about F.D.'s I concur whole-heartedly. I've always tried to teach to 'look through' the F.D's and maintain a raw data scan. Only then can you see what the F.D. is telling you and understand why. Sadly, there were other insructors who hammered the students to "follow the F.D". So they did, solely. Unfortunately I think that philosophy has prevailed. Trying to explain to students, and other instructors that the F.D can drop you in some very deep holes showed that they did not understand fully how it worked. If wrongly used (B737) V/S can fly you into the ground; on the classics it can stall you, as can ALT HLD. The F.D will be perfectly centred. I even see SFI's teaching cadets about the FPV on the NG. That too can stall you without a basic scan. It will only be the performance istruments in the basic scan that wil alert you to the impending problem. On B757/B767 generation a/c it was a command requirement to fly a tiny SBY instrument approach. Is that still the case, and would most be able to do so? On the new NG a/c., even with total A.C., failure there will be a no F.D. PFD. Nice big fat and juicy TV screen. There is still a tiny SBY ADI/ASI. Could most pilots fly that? If not, why's it there? However, we don't all fly that technology. On NG LNAV GPS a/c I find students do not look at 'the needles'. They assume the magenta line will always be correct. Such was the case when I converted a senior training pilot from B738 - B733. On an NDB approach he hadn't a clue where the inbound CRS was. He didn't realise there was map shift on a non-GPS a/c. He flew the magenta line in HDG SEL (SOP for the classic), but was not on the inbound track by 0.6 nm. No scan of the basics.
There was even a case years ago of a crew on a very short UK flight, B733, who could not engage LNAV or VNAV or A/T on departure. They returned. It didn't occur to them to inform ATC and fly raw data VOR's. There have been a few well documented crashes on contollable flying a/c where the instruments were giving spurious readings. They did not show what was expected from the control inputs. However, with some careful analysis and 'back to basics' airmanship the situation was survivable. Is that not what our pax expect from us; to be able to manange such a scenario?
I remember, perhaps Jackie Stewart, who won a Grandprix without a clutch for half the race. He managed the revs and what gears to use. Basics. (bring back manula gearboxes). I remember stories of mariners who lost nav systems and reverted to sextants and D.R. Should we allow the old magic black arts to disppear in our profession? There are many places in the world still without radar coverage. If the nav boxes shoutdown you are on your own, and ofen on minimum fuel these days. If the EADI freezes in a erronious attitude should we not be able to detect something is wrong and survive it? Or do we go down the route of 'the chances of it happening are so one in so many millions that it will just be a 'bad-hair' day'. Lets put on more backup systems, and have SOP's that keep us so far away from the boundaries that we don't even know where they are.
I've flown B767 into Calvi with a visual downwind amongst the mountains onto the northly Rwy. The same applied to Corfu at night onto the southerly; likewise Salzburg onto the northerly. It was a big a/c. Nothing macho, cowboy or special about it. It was the norm and expected from our crews. The a/c had the capabilities, so too did the crews. I wonder nowadays?
Are we old farts becoming like the 'Space Cowboys' (Clint, Tommy Lee & James G) hand flying the Space Shuttle with all systems off, or are we out of touch with the future and the real requirements? I'm sure the debate will run & run and go round in circles and disappear where the sun don't shine, but it's fun the shoot the breeze about it. Sadly, most of the F/O's I fly with want to be able to do the things we talk about; they just don't get the chance or the training. One day they might have to, and then...................

Just wondering...is there iny info out there about the comparison between incidents such as deep/short/hard landings, stick-shakes, over-speeds, over-banking, bank angle on landing both with or without the use of automation.

When was the last deep-landing incident from an autoland? for example; just wondering.

RC

Roger Coppid;
is there iny info out there about the comparison between incidents such as deep/short/hard landings, stick-shakes, over-speeds, over-banking, bank angle on landing both with or without the use of automation.
Yes, all these events and more would be in an airline's FOQA/FDA/FDM (as the term might be) Program.

These are serious events which, if seen in trends, are precursors to an accident. The intent of a flight data monitoring program is to learn about these events and take preventative measures before an accident occurs.

But FOQA data must be used intelligently and with great integrity and comprehension to deliver on its promise of enhanced flight safety.

I have learned that senior management of a large airline has stated to its flight data people that the long landings being reported on the B777 are the result of its "big wing". Such a view is, in my opinion, an enabling one, excusing long landings, for whatever conceivable reason.

One supposes that the corollary to that view is, (because the wing is what it is), there is therefore nothing to be done and landings over 3000 to 4000ft down the runway are somehow acceptable (normalizing the deviance). The other excuse offered is, the runways that B777's typically use are "long".

Such a response (or denial) to the flight data places the organization at undue risk and subsequent liabilities because the "accident was in the data" before it occurred. The QANTAS overrun at Bangkok years ago is one example. The organization changed as a result of the accident and has championed flight data analysis as a primary preventative safety tool; in my opinion, QANTAS is a fine example of a learning organization which has been able to balance economics with safety.

Flight data monitoring programs will tell the airline if there are stick-shaker events which go unreported, hard landings, over-banking, (> 35deg), overspeeds and how the automation performs in comparison with manual flight.

Critically, the data derived from the QARs must be believed, (that is not always the case), kept confidential but never used to police or punish pilots. Ninety-nine percent of flight safety is about "what", not "who".

A "distributed archive" program was begun in the US some time ago, where de-identified flight data was made available to various airlines under a desire to share data to enhance safety. The idea was to see if carriers were experiencing the same issues. I don't know the present status of the program but such an approach, (very difficult to implement - those involve did a huge amount of work over a long time) goes directly to your question about industry experience.

FOQA programs are expensive to start and maintain, and the argument from the beancounters is always, "what does it produce that justifies the cost?" I have actually been told that the flight safety department was a "profit center" under some corporate business models. Such an approach reveals a high degree of ignorance first about aviation and second about how flight safety work is done. Some think that wearing reflective vests on the ramp is "doing flight safety" while others that I know have a full comprehension of the safety tools available to them, know their worth and are willing to invest the time and resources.

As always, the CEO leads and his or her "knights", (managers) will ride out and do and say exactly what the CEO wants. So if the CEO is ignorant about how to do aviation safety, the organization will likely be ignorant. All safety people have had experience pushing rope at one time or another. Some organizations learn by honest assessment of their strengths and weaknesses, others take their long-term success for granted, ostensibly waiting until an accident to teach them.

Eons ago, myself and another candidate were undertaking day two of "Command simulator". It was NOT required by the authorities but rather a Company "ism", which I believe exists to this day.

Upon my initial takeoff my partner,acting as F/O, died at the "gear-up" call. Thereafter I performed a no radar ADF to minimums,engine fail in the GA, tight vectors for the single engine ILS in the opposite direction on the parallel runway to landing in a 20 kt. crosswind.

Other than that the flight was routine. Hands ,feet and cerebral cortex working in unison. I was never sharper again than the day they let me strap a DC-9 to my ass. A completely wonderful aircraft. :cool:

Sorry to read your post about the death of your sim partner.
Only a real Cool Dude could continue the sim mission after that.

...............its probably what he would have wanted.

LOL.....I said it was my partner. I didn't say I liked him! Anyway thanks for your condolences. I am sure any one of you Master Aviators could have done the same.:cool:

and how the automation performs in comparison with manual flight.


I wonder how the comparison is judged? Surely automation wins hands down everytime which is why most major airlines mandate full use of automation. Of course manual skills inevitably deteriorate but apart from talk talk, this fact is ignored. An occasional hull loss is perceived as acceptable in the scheme of things.

It seems to me that a lot of this manual flying versus automatics has to do with the philosophy being taught at the time.

When I did my DC-10 course, we were expected to hand-fly an ILS, with flight director to 100 feet and raw data to 200 feet otherwise you didn't have a job. The thinking at the time was that if you could hack an approach down to 100 feet then you would not have any problem flying down to 200 feet should the sh*t hit the fan in anger.

It was often said to me that "we know the automatics can fly the aeroplane but we want to know if YOU can fly the aeroplane".

Nowadays it is the case that very little hand-flying is actually required during the course of an LPC/OPC.

Just watch this space; it is all about to change again for such organisations as the UK CAA are becoming rather alarmed at the lack of manual skills being displayed by some of our brethern.

Tee Emm, do you mean that the autopilot can land the aircraft in gusty x-wind up to 35 kt? It can´t in the 737´s that I fly and that´s one of the reasons I fly manual departures and approaches, practically all the time.

Having flown "iron dial" and current fly-by-wire aircraft, imho pilots should be free to use "appropriate automation". Bad vis, long day, etc are good reasons to use the automatics. Otherwise it should be manual/manual below 3000'.
How else can you know your aircraft, and fully ready for the critical max x-wind landing?

Flying with full automation all the time if required by your airline but having to handfly a landing if xwinds and gusts are above autoland maxes doesn't sound safe. A good feel for your aircraft is a must in those conditions and the only way you can get a good feel is to frequently hand fly the approach and landing. Disconnecting AP at 50 ft gives you little time to feel the aircraft.

I agree with P51 the Aircraft I fly has a A/P limit of 25kts and a manual limit of 35kts dry. Thus the need to hand fly to stay in touch. Automatics are for when the weather or traffic conditions are bad. On a nice quiet sunny day its being lazy not having a manual play.

When was the last deep-landing incident from an autoland? for example; just wondering.

RC

Turkish Airlines in Amsterdam, comes to mind...:hmm:

Just watch this space; it is all about to change again for such organisations as the UK CAA are becoming rather alarmed at the lack of manual skills being displayed by some of our brethern.

Seems that way. Flight International 6-12 October has an article by David Learmont which states that Thomson Airways (previously Thomsonfly) has carried out eye-tracking tests on crews. The tests have discovered that a few pilots' instrument scans are seriously deficient, even when their performance would have been judged, by an examiner on the flight deck, to have been good. The article goes on to say the implication is that some airline crews, possibly at all airlines, are surviving because nothing goes wrong on their watch.

That is nothing new. No doubt most airlines have their fair share of pilots who scrape through proficiency and instrument rating tests simply because most of the tests are on automatic pilot. With probably at least 95 percent of all jet airline ops flown with full use of automatics, and very few significant aircraft technical defects requiring superior flying skill, the dodgy pilots get away with it.

The Thomson Airways "eye-tracking" only proves something that most simulator instructors have known for years. And that is there are a few seriously incompetent captains and first officers flying the airways quietly protected by first class, reliable, and almost fool-proof automatic pilots.

An examiner I have a lot of respect for made sure we called it a Flight Suggester. Consider what it is telling you, but verify that it is what you want to do.

Since I don't follow the FD blindly does this make me a "Cowboy"? I don't think so, but I have seen enough of the new entrants in the business that would fly the aircraft into the ground if the FD told them to. They scare the crap out of me.

Interesting thread.

Some great posts here. There are less and less aviators in the business. We have taken in a lot of people onto the flightdeck that actually don't enjoy flying, do not take care to maintain their skills and may actually find it stressful to fly.

I truely enjoy flying, and as a longhaul 744 skipper I take every opportunity I get to practise my handling skills and scan. Flying manually most departures, arrivals and approaches either with or without F/D. The jumbo is a absolute pleasure to handle and a great joy to fly.

Enjoy your flying, pitch and power ain't king, it is religon, please practise it.

CI 4x9

Couldn't agree more, but there is a blockage. We've read many comments on here where pilots disagree and say that if you're slow add power and vice versa. To me that is following the a/c and not leading it. You can tell by the power setting that you are going to become slow or fast BEFORE it happens. And that includes the PM, who should be aware of this as much as PF. Or, if there is a unexpected power setting you can consider why; tailwind, headwind, thermals etc. You are controlling the a/c. There may be a dog in the cockpit, but I like to wag the tail.
From that CAA Review a rather damning observation:Over 10 years or more
"75% of a/c fatal accidents have had a human causal factor."
[LIST]
omission of action/inappropriate action 38%
flight handling 29%
lack of situational awareness 27%
poor professional judgement/airmanship

Relating to another thread about pilot FTL's and tiredness. The same CAA medical department has said that deprived of regular quality sleep a pilot can be worse off than a couple of drinks. The causal factors above will all be effected, markedly, by lack of sharpness and calm relaxed attitude. Yet this same CAA, and others, allows the degredation of FTL's. Getting out of bed at 04.00 5 mornings consecutively and then working 13 hours is not a recipe to reduce the incident/accident rate; including on the roads afterwards. Remember, these statistics are only the fatal crashes. What about the near incidents that never go reported. The list would be longer than Warren Beaty's girl friends.

CTC make the comment, very correctly, that training just to the minimum standard is not good enough. I've flown for many airlines who reduced their training to this level and increased FTL's to maximum. In all cases their excuse was "it's legal". I spoke to the JAA FCL and their argument was they established a minimum level, but expected the airlines to adopt a level necessary for their operation and in-house philospohy. That also included having a sensible buffer to FTL's and schedules. We all know what happened: cheapest legal requirement. It was a hopeless thought. 30 years ago my C.P said "I want my pilots to be excellent handlers on the line". Indeed, amongst the Greek islands on dark stormy nights, it was abolsutely necessary. The captains were generally excellent and demonstrated/ encouraged F/O's to follow suit. Command was after 5000hrs. Now 3000hrs seems to be acceptable and some airlines positively discourage visual approaches because there have been so many screw ups that time & money has been wasted. That is a very strange solution to the problem. Instead of improving training they encourage staying away from the problem. In some cases that is a valid response, but not in something as basic as a visual approach. There will be captains who are not proficient at this most basic of manoeuvre.
When I've seen pilots program a visual approach in the FMC and then fly F.D & LNAV, allbeit manually, I cringe at their thinking.
LPC's should be about a/c handling proficiencies. OPC's & LIne Checks can be about procedures and SOP's. Thus 2 different ypes of check. No where in the checking syllabus is there real handling checking. The 3 year un-usual attitude recovery recovery is pathetic. A couple of simulator induced upsets, training only, then move on with the rest of the program to more automation. A V1 cut & SE G/A should be child's play. That's all there is. Circling is not an LPC item, and even that is flown on A/P.
In new a/c there is a massive amount of information to make handling the a/c more accurate than needles & dials, but sadly the skills have been diluted. This has to be laid at the door of training departments. the LPC's haven't changed, so the CAA's have not changed their hoops to jump through. It has to have been driven by training departments, answerable to the financial dept's. It will have to be reversed by the same. I don't believe the CAA's can devise a program suitable for all operations and operators, but 2 different types of check might be a start. However, whatever change is introduced it has be long term and not a transient modification.
I see that some airlines have reduced the 2 day sim training/checking to 1 day combined. Legally!! That means even less time in the sim to practice 'what if' scenarios; including simple non-normal handling. During training sessions, if there had been a recent survivable crash, but it failed due to wrong analysis, mis-management, mis-handling, I tried to include the elements into the session. If one crew had got it wrong, why should we not learn from how they did that and learn what would have been better. It may not happen again, but finding out what would have been more successful will always have spin offs into other scenarios.
Is it really true that new fully integrated airline pilots' course are now conducted with much less handling skills and much more in simulators? I can understand the cost reduction incentive, but has this been the start point of training a systems opertaor and not a pilot. Has this sowed the seed in the cadet's mind that big jets can't be handled like spam cans? There is an argument to train for what you are going to do. A Super-tanker skipper doesn't need to be able to sail a dinghy, but he still needs a healthy respect of the elements and be able to manage when the sutomatics have gone AWOL. Has the 'airline pilots' training course been diluted too much solely to reduce cost. Why else? The focus of MPA/MCC could be introduced as a separate module at a later stage once the basic solid foundations of piloting have been established. CTC had an airline indoctrination course as a stand alone module before type rating. It's similar to medical students; they have a strong basic foundation of medical training and then some years to specialise. Why not us the same? Perhaps the career path has caused some of this; 150hrs straight into a jet. The ladder, via G/A, commuters, military, taught some of these basic skills and they could be carried forward to airlines.
I do think we've progressed backwards with pilot training.
Sadly, like the FTL's question I expect this one to revolve at ever increasing speed and disappear down some black hole until there is a smoking one. Only then will the bean counters stare the problem in the face, but it won't be an overnight fix. It has to be a culture within the airline, and that comes from the top.

Thus 2 different ypes of check. No where in the checking syllabus is there real handling checking

First of all, unless there is a series of horrendous crashes involving automation complacency then nothing is going to change. The occasional crash like Turkish Airlines at Amsterdam will stir the ants nest a little but already that is old news; so blind reliance on automation driven by manufacturers and airline ops departments is here to stay.

One solution is for the regulatory authority to legislate the proficiency and instrument rating test/renewals must consist of equal simulator time spent between automatics operation and raw data manual flying without the aid of MAP and FMC. Normally the combined proficiency/instrument rating renewal covers two hours for the PF. Of this at present, roughly 80 percent is full or partial automatics. The pure flying is thus relegated to maybe one hand flown approach but FD allowed. Quite useless in terms of pure flying currency.

Instead the two hour session should be shared equally between each discipline with (for example), the first hour allocated to automatics competency. In basic terms, the candidate's button pushing skills. The second hour should be similar flight path and navigation manoeuvres modified where necessary, but hand flown raw data no automatics, no FMC , no MAP. This tests the candidates pure flying skills.

Since "practice" hand flying is frowned upon in a growing number of airlines because of a perceived danger to flight safety and passenger comfort, then it is logical to ensure pure flying skills are maintained in the only thing left - the simulator. No coffee spilt, no passenger complaints and no extra cost. A compromise betwen commercial issues and flight safety.

I retired from commercial flying some three years ago. Not long before I hung my boots up, I was discussing with our Training Manager the lack of manual flying required in order to complete an LPC as per JARs compared with the old days.

He made the statement that it was perfectly possible under JARs for a captain to pass an LPC without ever touching the controls!

Since LPCs are nowadays supposed to be conducted in a quasi-LOFT scenario, then it is perfectly reasonable for a captain, just for example, to get the F/O to fly the 3-engine ILS and G/A since that is what the company SOPs demand (RVR less than 1500 metres = a monitored approach).

However, when I asked my Training Manager if he would actually sign a captain's licence who had never touched the controls he admitted that he would not. As a TRI/TRE, I sure as hell would not!

So it is that we have to "cheat" by failing autopilots and F/O's instruments etc just to ensure that we can see whether a cptain can still fly or not.

Under the Old Queen, we had a four hour LOFT slot (which was invaluable). Then we had a Base Check/IR which was an intensive handling exercise full of unrelated failures and was therefore, a pretty unreal exercise but was great for assessing ability to deal with problems.

Now we have the same four hour LOFT exercise (the contents of which are published three years in advance) and then we have an LPC which is supposed to be LOFT-related, but because of the problems as related above, ends up by being pretty well about as realistic as its predecessor.

I cannot wait to see what EASA comes up with.

When I started in the latter part of 80's, we still had a lot of guys who had flown with the real pioneers - both with military aces and line flying pioneers who had started in open cockpits when accidents could be fatal even if no-one had made a mistake.
There was a tradition with the pilots to try to make their flying as efficient and quick as possible. This meant idle descent and short visual whenever possible. Operating in a country with very little traffic at the regional airports, this was easy to accomplish. They were gently pushing the envelope with skills learned from their preceding generation. They passed on this skill to us.

Sometimes we got to show off at big airports, as we had a reputation among the ATC that we will be flexible. There is a true story of AMS ATC asking our plane if they can make 3 mile final. The COP (now Fleet Chief B757) responded: 'MY captain can make any final' and the ATC replied: 'OK, cleared for 2 mile final'. Which they did, with margins to spare.
I got to do a low 360 over the field in MAN, when ATC had cleared a departing BA in front of us. As we landed she commented: 'that was impressive, you don't see that every day!'

And I think this is the core of the problem. We don't get to do this and further more we don't get to pass it on to the next generation. If we always fly ILS and make a 7 mile final, they'll never get to learn how agressive flying can be made safely. I don't mean reckless but close to the limits of the envelope. The young are limited by SOP and aircraft design to flying in the middle of the road.
After serious malfunctions and pulling some breakers on a A320 simulator, we managed to get the plane behave like a Diesel 9 on a normal day. That seems to upset the youth very much - not because they couldn't handle it but because such a big deal was made about the 'loss of protections'.

I know it is a thin line between reckless and safe when you go away from the inherent safety of the SOPs, but there is something to be said about seeing and doing real flying. Our airline has a reputation for safety and I think it was partly based on the airmanship of our pilots, not on superior SOP or strickt following of the FOM.

I know it is a thin line between reckless and safe when you go away from the inherent safety of the SOPs, but there is something to be said about seeing and doing real flying

I'm not sure if you meant it that way but testing out the thinness of the line with pax onboard doesn't sound like a good idea.

This thread looks in danger of degenerating into a fond look back at the "good old days" of flying when SOP's were down to the individual and CRM was the Captain telling the "boy" what to do. Exageration for effect here before you all jump down my throat!

Times move on and you reasonably would not expect to be doing a "low 360 over MAN" although you might do an orbit on final at a less busy place and quite rightly you should be able to do it without trying to remember how to actually fly. The accident records surely show that it is the decision making process which is at the heart of most accidents rather than raw flying skill.

Hand flying skills and decision making ability are both mental skills.
We should have mental resources to do both simultaneously, shouldn't we?

Imagine that your hand flying skill is degraded due to lack of training and practice.
If the time comes that you have to hand fly and make a decision, your brain resources for decision making will be greatly reduced because you have to fly the damned airplane.
Or, God forbid it! you will be making a decision proccess with the D.E.C.I.D.E. or any other nice achronym while the airplane flies you. And doing all checklists and call outs until the CVR stops recording.

A skilled hand flyer has a better situational awareness than a non skilled hand flyer, all other characteristics being equal. So he is safer.

A TRE I know says that he often sees crews crashing with only an Auto Thrust inop. Sometimes with only one channel inop!
I have seen people in sims cancelling the master caution every five seconds and wondering in anger why the f*ck it keeps being triggered... (only 320 pilots can understand, maybe?). I have even seen some to reluctantly hold the thrust levers as if God himself had abandoned them.
If this is happening, then something is wrong in the system.

Interesting comments, and memories of AMS ATC. I flew in/out of there for many years. Sometimes it was like LHR; a convoy with ATC flying the a/c, sometimes it was, "we've a heavy at 12nm. Will you accept 3nm to be No.1? Wx 3km's & 500'." Hell, we had a triple autopilot, so why not. Any one of them would do. "turn right, base leg , descend 1200'." I know many airlines who's SOP's would say NO. Why? Equally, on a clear day/night a visual circuit power off was always approved. One of the smallest big airports I knew. (I know it has changed now.) That's something that's gone AWOL, a descending low drag visual circuit. I offered it to an F/O and his comment was, "how do I know how long to time pass the threshold?" First it was visual, 2nd there was a DME on the ILS. What more do you need. Back to lack of traning and line practice. There was no 'profile' for it.
The other comment about 'the envelope'. I flew for an airline that said, 'max UP speed at 15nm', 'gear down at G/S alive.' Going into USA B767, ATC "give me 250kts on the glide at 25nm". They were 'pushing tin' and needed speed control to establish separation between variety of types. 210kts at 12nm and he lets us slow down at 10nm. The F/O's eyes were on stalks, but it worked. The gear is a wonderful piece of drag when needed. The F/O had never put the gear down until mid-range flaps, and certainly never before the flaps. He didn't think it was allowed. That's what the SOP said, so that's the only way to do it; as you quietly make a glide landing.
I still say any captain should be able, when given the a/c at 4000agl, 5nm from the airfield, 90 degrees to the Rwy, clean speed, to make a visual circuit low drag onto either Rwy with no G/P indicators, daytme. It's possible to use level D sims for this and would be a simple element of a CAA annual handling check, but at the very least a command check. Sure we should all be capable of the most basic of aviation's manoeuvres, the visual circuit. If so, should it not be tested? You learn a great deal about a pilot's abilities watching someone fly a visual descending circuit.

RAT 5

"I still say any captain should be able, when given the a/c at 4000agl, 5nm from the airfield, 90 degrees to the Rwy, clean speed, to make a visual circuit low drag onto either Rwy with no G/P indicators, daytme. It's possible to use level D sims for this and would be a simple element of a CAA annual handling check, but at the very least a command check. Sure we should all be capable of the most basic of aviation's manoeuvres, the visual circuit. If so, should it not be tested? You learn a great deal about a pilot's abilities watching someone fly a visual descending circuit."

I could not agree more but change your should to could and your sadly in a whole new ball game.

Sadly the modern generation are not pilots but system managers - there was a thread on here a while ago - probably still here hiding somewhere - where a simmer who used the 767PIC program asked if anyone thought he could land a real 767. From reading what he wrote (some pretty technical on the ball stuff) i was fairly convinced that he 'probably' could - using all the systems - which actually was his question - however i am 100% sure that he could not hand fly that plane in anything other than SLF.

I wanted to fly.............now it seems that people want to be airline pilots for many other reasons that have little to do with - "flying is what i love doing". One of my friends wanted to be a pilot but for many reasons could not be - so he lived his life through his very clever son who at a speed faster than Concorde (how i hate BA/AF/BAE for what was the biggest piece of aeronautical vandalism since the TSR2) is now a 777 Captain. i really wonder how many hours he has when he was actually hand flying the plane on his way to becoming a 777 Captain. How many miles out were they on the 777 (BA038) that scraped over the fence at LHR when they dumped the automatics - and when does your typical C/FO take over and complete the landing in normal everyday landings?

We are moving into a gereration where kids can be super heroes on things like Gran Turismo on the XBox PS2 Playstation etc but what are we finding is that put them in a real car on real roads and they are killing not only themselves and others including their mates as well. But are we addressing that in any sensible way - by real life training - nope. I know the analogy is not directly compatible to flying BUT it feels like it is getting a bit too close to that (a computer game) for my liking. Sadly i dont see how that this is fixable - in this - lets fix it with a sticking plaster - modern world we live in. With the frequency and level of serious aircraft accidents we are having nowadays i am sure statisticians airlines and airline manufacturers will be able to prove we are 1000% safer with the NG of planes and pilots - (non existent) problem solved.

Sadly the modern generation are not pilots but system managers - there was a thread on here a while ago - probably still here hiding somewhere - where a simmer who used the 767PIC program asked if anyone thought he could land a real 767. From reading what he wrote (some pretty technical on the ball stuff) i was fairly convinced that he 'probably' could - using all the systems - which actually was his question - however i am 100% sure that he could not hand fly that plane in anything other than SLF.

I've been reading this thread, and I keep thinking about a strange parallel between the topic under discussion and the world of desktop flight simulation.

In flight simulation, the objective is to be as realistic as possible in virtually every aspect of flying, and that objective is approached much more closely than I suspect most people here realize. (Unless you are a serious simmer, you probably think that flight simulation at home stops with Flight Simulator or some overpriced, special-purpose desktop sim.) There are, however, some curious differences between simmers and real pilots (even when the simmers also happen to be pilots in real life, which is common enough).

One interesting difference is that simmers usually start their sim aviation careers in airliners, and then "work their way down" to small aircraft. Why? Well, flying an airliner is generally perceived as more glamorous, of course. But another very important reason for this is that airliners are easier to fly, because almost everything is automated.

The newbie simmer chooses a 747-400 as his first airplane in part because he need never touch the flight controls (almost) in order to fly it. All he has to do is pull the yoke back a bit at take-off, and then push a few buttons to let the FMS do the rest. And he can autoland (in the sim universe, autolanding is safe at any airport with a functional ILS), so he need not touch the controls at all after take-off.

Now, the hard reality is that anyone can push buttons and turn knobs, and anyone can learn how to do this from a book. No real-world practice is required, because these actions don't require any special motor skills, coordination, or motor memory. Most people have pushed buttons and turned knobs all their lives, and once they learn which ones to push and turn (which they can do by self-study), they can operate anything that requires only buttons and knobs … and that includes flying a modern airliner.

So the newbie pilot steps into his simulated 747 or A380, loads a flight plan into the FMS, and he's ready to go. He can press buttons and turn knobs and fantasize that he's an airline pilot.

As the serious simmer "graduates" from one level of skill to another, he moves down rather than up. Smaller aircraft don't have a FMS, so he has to learn how to use the autopilot. And he has to learn how to navigate, since an autopilot won't follow his flight profile for him. Lazy simmers rely on a GPS for navigation, though, and thus delay their progression.

As the simmer moves to still smaller aircraft, he loses the GPS, and has to start looking at charts. Then he loses the autopilot, and things get really tough, as now he must finally grab the flight controls and fly the aircraft by hand. Just as in real life, flying by hand takes a lot of practice, and so it may well be the last thing that a simmer learns—the crowning achievement in his sim career.

The net result is that the 747 captains on virtual flight networks are mostly 14-year-old newbies, and the Cessna 152 pilots are mostly 40-year-old veterans of simulation.

All of this reflects the fact that large commercial transport aircraft are increasingly flown by computers, with pilots only as attendants. Not only is it possible to avoid flying by hand, but it's expected, and it's by design. The ultimate goal is to eliminate the pilot, but in the meantime, he can be reduced to an observer on normal flights. It makes good sense for airlines, but it does not bode well for pilots.

The reality is that the only thing that requires practice in a real aircraft (or a full-motion sim) is hand-flying. Like riding a bicycle, it's something that you have to do in order to learn, because of the motor skills and undefinable "feel" that you need to succeed. But all the other aspects of flying do not require this, and they can be learned by rote without going near a real aircraft, and they can be carried out by someone with very little training.

I don't know of any way to reverse the current trend. Airliners are designed for airlines, not pilots. As long as all the systems on board work (and they get more reliable all the time), hand-flying is not required. Right now hand-flying skills are subject to atrophy; eventually, they won't even be required for pilots to begin with, once the systems are considered sufficiently reliable. In the meantime, it's important to have those skills if something goes wrong, but since things hardly ever go wrong, airline accountants don't understand the utility of paying for pilots to maintain those skills beyond whatever air regulations legally require. And pilot unions are often afraid of anything that might challenge a pilot's ability and rock the boat of the status quo.

Which reminds me: Is it harder to hand-fly a 747 than it is to hand-fly a Cessna 182? Or is it just different? Although I guess these days the question might be: Does anyone remember hand-flying a 747?

To answear your question, many of us do handfly the 747 as much as practical, I'm certainly one of those. The aircraft is very nice to handle, and as long as you stay ahead of her there is no danger there.

I also fly SEP IFR without autopilot, and can confirm that it is much easier to handfly the B747 IFR, but in either case the safe outcome is down to maintaining a solid scan and staying ahead of the aircraft at all times.

In terms of PC simming and simulators, these are powerful tools to practise instrument scan, and the latter to practise normal and non-normal procedures and CRM, but these are "computer games" and will never be exactly like the real thing, just for that matter.

Automation on Airliners is a very good thing, one must understand how it works and stay on the ball and stay ahead of the aircraft regardless. Autolands are great, but have their limits, and guess who can operate to higher wind limits, autopilot or a human pilot?

Enjoy your flying

CI 4x9

The post of VODE is very recommendable:ok:

I may have had the sheer luck of having a flightinstructor during initial (military) flight training who made me go to the limit every single time. The guy showed me every single sortie where the (safe) limit could be. It teached me the limit of operating an aircraft would be different every single day, be it weather, fatigue, aircraft limits, weakest crew member or hand flying skills etc...

The message where to draw the line is still there. In order to operate an aircraft "in the middle of the road" it is still important to know where the edge of the road is. Disconnnecting all sorts of automatics and doing a manual job is an important aspect in discovering how wide the road actually is and where on the road we are operating. As a personal observation, the road definately became smaller in the last 10 years concerning manual skills.

Its an endless circular argument but fascinating nonetheless.
It comes down to an equation of risk vs reward:
Is the risk of operating with reduced automation more than offset by the benefit of maintaining a high standard of instrument flying skills?
I like poling these things around as much as anyone but I have come to the conclusion that no, with the new generation of aircraft its not justified.
My experience is that a basic level of manual flying ability is retained and available in the highly unlikely freak occurrence of loss of all autopilots, after all, every take-off and most landings are still flown manually.
With manual flying and visual apps I think you either have do it alot, as I did doing domestic flying or military, or you pretty much avoid it as on long haul you are never going to retain the level of proficiency to make it as safe as using the automation.

I think the problem is that we don't even recognise the benefits of traditional flying skills anymore. It is not optional to SOP, we need both.

Sometimes you need to think outside the box, but you'll neeg good judgement to do so. Passing on the tradiotional skills to supplement the SOPs is what I mean. We don't do it anymore. We just check that the boy obeys. And he us.

Flying has almost become a procedure that comes out of a committee. Or at least the people in the committees tend to think so.

When something goes wrong the committees will reconvene and come up with more SOP. Unless the guys in the cockpit had enough skill to survive, they'll not be heard in this process.

Hudson case is to the point here. Captain Sullenberger and F/O Skiles were both experienced pilots from a traditional 'school of piloting', and therefore able to make their own quick assesment of the situation. Sioux City DC10 was much of the same, experience and skill replacing what the booklets couldn't tell you. We all benefit from the outcome in the form of SOPs and better design. But also inspiration, I guess.

Then the new SOP will replace the old one - the one that was seen as the only possible version just a while ago. Until a new committee finds reason to change it. In the meantime it is up to the individual crew to win the day, every day - as a routine.

I'll admit that it is nice to know what the guy sitting next to you is doing and that you all speak the same language (I don't mean ICAO 6), but communication was always the key to a happy crew. It was definitely part of that passing-it-on.

Good points all, but I still ask the question; are we not the final insurance policy when things go wrong? It may not be autopilots that fail, but rather a subsidury system that does not allow their use. Is it not the case that the pax should expect us to be able to cope with situations where flying skills are required. When the manure hits the air conditioning should we not be able to cope? Smoke filled cockpit etc, or jammed controls. Is that not what they pay for in some part of their ticket?
Should we not be able to land an a/c with 2 engines where the only problem was a blocked static vent? It was a flying a/c with all flying controls functional and all engines. Indeed, after that B757 accident, how many of us were allowed to try it in the sim and learn for someone elses misfortune? Was there not a case recently where there was a pitot problem giving rise to spurious indictaions. I can't remember if they got airborne or aborted; but things can go wrong aloft in any case. We don't all fly brand new shiny NG a/c.

I find the trend of 'If you've got passengers behind you on a revenue flight then always use the automatics' in this thread mildly disturbing.

Automatics are very, very good and very useful they are not, in any way, shape or form 100% reliable. As the old computer adage used to go '$hit in $hit out', the reliance on use of full automatics will force the mistakes to go to other places. Wrong runways loaded for take off/landing, wrong STARS, wrong SIDS, incorrect setting of the cleared level etc. The level of FMC/FMA management will be the scene of the new 'handling' errors.

I have always found that when the weather is against me the automatics take a small part of the workload off of me at important times when I need to concentrate on more pressing matters such as diversion fuels, landing limits or system malfunctions. However, the maintainence of SA MUST be paramount at all times thus the aircraft must be monitored, in my opinion, as if the automatics are about to fail. RVSM makes it more interesting as specific losses will require vacating of RVSM airspace which adds to the complications.

The Airline I fly for allows the pilots to conduct manual, full visual approaches when they deem the weather fit. That allows the dropping of the autopilot and the switching off of the flight directors and flying a full manual approach. A 'glitch' in the training system doesn't allow for the disconnecting of auto thrust but the auto thrust may be disconnected if the Captain feels that it is not responding correctly to the aircraft flight path. That seems to happen a lot!

Do I feel by doing manual handling approaches that I am doing my passengers a 'dis-service'? Absolutely not. My primary purpose as a commercial airline pilot is the safe conduct of a revenue flight. I am there as the insurance policy in case things go horribly wrong. How can I be realistically expected to bring an aircraft safely down with multiple systems failures if I haven't kept my manual flying skills 'un-dusted'? The time you really need these skills is not going to be the time when you have weather and systems on your side.

Training is veering away from manual flying and going to use of automatics because it is faster, cheaper and can be done in the sim. If we are to maintain a core, base level of skill then these new pilots need to be advised to do manual approaches at every opportunity under the supervision of experienced Captains. In large companies these guys/girls will be the Captains when you are on your retired staff travel trips! Treat them well!

With money, not experience, being the new driver, the death of the 'Self Improver', the slow down of the influx of experienced military pilots into the Airline world, the explosion of 'Zero to Hero' Nil to ATPL training courses and the increasing automation making the job look easier we are making a rod for our own backs.

The automatics are there for a purpose, to offload the pilot and make the cockpit a decent working environment for doing 4-6 sectors a day on SH or 1 LH sector. They are not perfect, as the Airbus that rolled to 60 degrees AOB on approach to Berlin and disconnected the AP itself, showed me.

Lose your manual flying skills at your peril.

A few lines to recent posts, I'm neither airline nor active, but had gained diverse quality and quantity experience over decades in the cockpit and the committees.
a. The committees writing SOPs should be controlled by active duty captains, not retired or beauroctatic, so their inputs stay in touch with the real world.
b. PF should be able following preflight briefing (and captain consent) to make any portion of flight he deems necessary, flown manually. On revenue flights, practice of faults and system emergencies should have clear guidelines, to maintain risk at safe levels.
c. I had long arguments and ongoing battles on such issues with upper management,who often due to history didn't comprehend the subject matter. I never gave up till I won, and the rersult reflecting accident free record for decades with 100,000s flights by numerous pilots of all skill levels. No stardust magic, just risk management.
d. I view the current situation as depicted by accident investigation results to be caused by:
1. Insufficient aircrew personell selection for cognitive, psycho-motoric and leadership qualities.
2. Insufficient training in 3-dimensional fluid flight, in flight in relation to other proximate aircraft, near envelope boundaries, and of non-routine complex emergencies, as in my military past. It provides a higher degree of situational awareness and ability to cope with the unexpected. Textbook is enemy when you recite every 6 months the same exact few standard phrases as qualification criteria.
3. Cockpit automation while nowadays reliable and convenient, is hiding many pitfalls to the unaware pilot, a result of information saturation, due to display integration and built-in system compexity. My only explanation to how qualified people can CFIT B757s when one airspeeed gauge fails.

I just finished reading/scanning all 217 previous posts, and it has been an interesting and enjoyable Sunday morning read. What stood out to me was the vast range of philosophy that exists regarding the use of automation. A passenger could get either of the two extremes; one commander never turning off the automation including using the autoland feature at the destination (VFR). The next commander hand flying the Whale up into the upper atmosphere and back down to the runway to Cat 1 minimums; it’s a big world “Viva la differance”.

As a 50 year old current 737 NG captain sitting in the back I know who I would prefer to be flying the jet. I will take the man/woman who chooses to hand fly, every day of the week.

I learned to fly back in the late 70s. I am glad my instructors taught me to hold on ADF bearings in a cross wind, and determine distance by calculating the degrees change to station and time. I’m grateful I cut my teeth flying passengers into and out of remote airstrips in marginal weather with lots of cross winds. My skills were never as sharp as they were when I was flying single pilot multi engine IFR without an autopilot day in day out. I have done flight instructing, bush flying, commuter, cargo, corporate experience building over decades, and I think I am a better pilot for having climbed the ladder.

Military pilots are fine; most of them have done things with jets I will never do. That is wonderful I’m duly impressed. However, if I have my choice, I would rather fly with a civilian who has gone through the stages: flight instructor, cargo, commuter airline. Give me a first officer who has served as a Captain (2 or more years) on a commuter turboprop flying 8 sectors a day in and out of weather and making all the related decisions, and I will just about guarantee you a delightful day of flying with an individual possessing enviable flying skills. {Buffalo-Captain was recent upgrade, FO was quite new-sure there are exceptions.}

And that brings me back to the origin of this thread:


Pilot handling skills under threat, says Airbus


I have yet to ever need to question my partner’s “handling skills”. With a mature aviation background {no one year wonders at our outfit} the individual has a wealth of knowledge and experience to fall back on. As for myself, I need to turn the “magic” off once in a while to refresh the scan and motor skills. Thankfully my company encourages this.

Now somebody else takes a low time pilot and places them in the pointy end of a complicated jet, then takes the automation that pilot has trained on away and is "concerned' when they observe some deficiencies. Go figure! What did you expect?

There is some confusion, I feel, creeping into airline philosophies. I can understand that FLT Ops want to maximise saftey, and they believe the autos can do a very safe job if SOP's are followed. The reliability speaks for it self. SOP's also help the pilot who is nervous about making his own decisions about whether to go visual, self position etc. or not. The criterea are written down and if you screw it up you are on your own; so stay inside the SOP nest. What I find odd is an airline that advocates keeping the flying skills active by flying SID's & Climb outs. This is at constant power, few config changes and just following the FD. This is not honing flying skills. Some suggest that a visual approach can be useful in time/fuel saving, but use the automatics to fly it. How does the last 500' hand flying hone your skills? A hand flown visual approach with all the config changes, and MK.1 eyeball descent path until intecepting whatever aids are provided, will do far more to keep skills honed than the departure profiles ever will. Yet this is discouraged. We have progressed backwards in the last 15 years in the search of saftey. It will work until something goes wrong and the crews can not handle it. Then there will be a re-think. Will it be too late then? There are destinations, e.g. Samos, Calvi (circle north Rwy) SZB(circle north Rwy), CFU(south Rwy) where basic low level piloting skills are required, and sometimes at night or minimum weather. Was it not the case that all Cathay captains had to fly the approach into Kai Tak. Some did not pass this filter of hand flying. What would it be like today, I wonder.
But again, it will take a mishandled accident to awaken everyone and cause a re-think. Simulator time is being reduced (costs), keep approaches simple via SOP's on the line, (safety & costs), Airports more busy so ATC is flying the a/c, (congestion). The opportunity to reverse the process is not always there, nor the will from upstairs. Their question is always "Why?". Our reply is the "what if.......". Theirs is "it is unlikely to happen". And so the discussion keeps going round in circles. It needs C.P's. piloting skills attitude to inject the culture into an airline. To change it across the industry is nigh impossible.

bean counters also love everything done automatically.

RAT5 wrote:
"it will take a mishandled accident to awaken everyone and cause a re-think."

This has been taking place for decades now, look at NTSB reports. Still not enough for awakening unfortunately.

A hand flown visual approach with all the config changes, and MK.1 eyeball descent path until intecepting whatever aids are provided, will do far more to keep skills honed than the departure profiles ever will. Yet this is discouraged

With automation rammed down pilots throats is it any wonder that many are too frightened to chance their arm at hand flying.
Example and this happened:
F/O announces with deep breath he will hand fly a visual approach down the ILS. At that point, aircraft is 20 miles from touch down in CAVOK and approaching the localiser on radar vectors. Captain says go ahead my boy - fill your boots and good to see some initiative (or words to that effect). Aircraft still steadily tracking towards centreline when captain says when are you going to hand fly like you said you wanted to?

Steady on sez the PF - I ain't gonna hand fly until the autopilot has locked on to the localiser just in case I fly through the centreline...
AP locks on the localiser and a tremulous PF announces he is going to disengaged the AP and (shudder) hand fly the approach. . Click-click goes the autopilot disconnect and captain says aren't you going to switch off the flight director for your hand flown approach?
You must be kidding says the second in command - I might go unstable - anyway I'm leaving the FD on all the way down in case there is a go around....
That is what blind automation does for your confidence.

And had you mentioned switching off ATHR... He would have thought you were obviusly incapacitated!

How sad...