Raw data manual flight - Airlines

[d105]

Hello everyone!

"These days airlines seem to prefer operators to pilots."

That's a quote from a captain I spoke with today. We had an interesting discussion on the decline of airline pilots' abilities to fly their aircraft manually. Why don't we continue that here?

0) Airline and aircraft
1) The general policy on manual flight
2) Your personal policy and opinion
3) Any remarks

0)
Ryanair + Boeing 737-800 no mixed fleet

1)
departure : FD + AT/AP ON for NADP1 at 3000ft AGL and for NADP2 at 1000ft AGL.

approach ILS : AT/AP OFF before DH
approach NPA : AT/AP OFF when visual

2)
departure : FD + AP OFF & AT ON. No automatics below 10,000ft.
approach: FD + AT/AP OFF below 15,000ft

3)
on departure I leave AT in for accurate N1 selection. Often I find myself having to level off because of track restrictions. Leaving AT in and using the N1 switch (737) allows for easy disconnecting and reconnecting after subsequent climb clearance has been received.

on approach I prefer to have all automatics and FD's off. By default I ask for a visual approach except for certain destinations where I know it will not be possible. In that case it is either raw data ILS or NPA.

This is all with consideration for the weather in mind. But I would say the majority of my personal flying is manual.

What is your perception on manual flight and what are the rules in your company?

Best regards!

[Intruder]

Autopilot and flight director use (744) is required for procedures requiring RNP2 or less (US SIDs and STARs, RNAV approaches). Otherwise it is at the Captain's discretion. All sim training emphasizes the use of autoflight, to the extent that many new FOs cannot easily revert to manual flight when the automatics get into the "What's it doing now?!?" mode. I even saw one crew NOT recommended for a PC on a warmup (requiring another sim session) because the Captain did not use all the magic (including VNAV) for a 2-engine visual approach -- even though he flew a perfectly acceptable manual approach.

Unfortunately, policies and procedures are being dictated by pilots who have little experience in the airplane and/or who don't understand the necessity of building good stick-and-rudder skills beyond the FMS. Then they wonder why so few pilots bid over to the 747 Classic fleet...

[TyroPicard]

approach: FD + AT/AP OFF below 15,000ft
How good is your lookout? Into a busy airport you are not operating as safely as possible.
If your company SOP is AP on for those NADP's can you justify why you choose to disregard the rules?

[misd-agin]

0) DC-9, A310, B-727/737/757/767

1) As required for workload management. F/D + A/T for departure. Approach required below 200/.5.

2) A/P typically on between 5,000-20,000'...or sooner if I've had enough. Sometimes sooner if terrain, weather, or departure procedures create a higher workload (see point #1).

Cruise? No. Or handfly to TOC? No. It's a waste of time in my opinion to hand fly that long. I used to talk about the need to practice hand flying with my hands off the yoke(to demonstrate my point). With the a/c trimmed to 'on speed', while using slight rudder pressure to control roll, you can 'hand fly' for thousands of feet while never touching the yoke.

On arrival A/P typically comes off between 5,000'-10,000' for VFR arrivals. Typically hand fly approaches with weather greater than 300' and 2 miles vis.

A/T's can stay on as long as they behave. If it's bumpy, or gusty, they're off(power up, power back, power up, power back...:ugh:how about bracketing the power required??? Oops, that requires a pilot) :{

[CHfour]

d105,
I bet you're really popular to fly with?

[Dr_Tre]

Sounds like 'Ryanair' aren't working you hard enough!

Flight simmer alert :D

[TimeOnTarget]

I think Intruder and I must fly for the same airline. :ugh:

It always comes back to the money. I wish that the new "1500 law" included a provision to grant 4 hours of sim time every six months to be used solely at the pilot's discretion. All we have now is a bunch of BS talk!

I take every opportunity possible to hand fly, and I am grateful to the Captains that allow it.

[Mungo Man]

In my company FD must always be used unless cleared for a visual approach with no descent restriction.

The EMB145 doesn't have autothrottle so always manual thrust.

On take off normal practice is AP on at 1000ft AGL

Personal preference is to hand fly to TOC when weather nice and clear, smooth and workload fairly low. In reality that is about one in 15 sectors.

I've handflown 2 complete sectors by choice in 4 years.

I never handfly in the sim unless the AP is u/s!

On approach company states AP use dictated by conditions and workload imposed on other pilot, ie, busy RT while dodging CBs into LHR not a good time to handfly. AP off by DH.

Generally folks disconnect AP at about 2 to 3 miles, between 500 and 1000ft agl once stabilised. Earlier if gusty, perhaps later if very smooth and AP doing a good job.

I once did a raw data (FD off) visual approach on a line check, and while it went well I'd never do it again, too big a risk of digging yourself a hole compared with AP on ILS. Line trainer said he's never seen anyone do a visual on check before!

[Aviophage]

A340-600, ex-A330-200/300, ex-A320/A319.

My airline encourages autoflight from climb-1 to DH. However, the keyword there is "encourages".

For me, I am a very hands on pilot when handling the takeoff/landing legs. I rarely use autopilot/autothrottle below 10,000' unless I have high workload. I am surprised at a lot of young pilots nowadays who can't climb to an altitude and level off without the aid of FD/Autopilot. One of my first officers levelled off at 8000' manually but couldn't hold the altitude within +/-100ft. Disgraceful.

A lot of people on here said that a majority of commercial pilots would have been able to land on the Hudson back in January 2009. I very much doubt that. They would have engaged the autopilot and flew the entire descent down automatically.

[DFC]

Some quite interesting comments.

No mention of the impact omn the PNF of "flying all the way to cruise level"

No mention of RVSM either.

Where is this happening because if someone finds a nice quiet place and hand flies to 10,000 then that is nice but as someone else said once established in a long climb in a straight line what is the problem (unless you can't trim) - those with autotrim not included!!

For arrival in my experience there are the busy TMA's where maximum crew capacity is best and the very quiet places - with almost zero atc where again maximum crew capacity is best.

So yes great idea to hand-fly the ils when established but one has to ask - in the situations where you can handfly without overloading the pnf/pm, and it is not in a straight line to a much higher level then fill your boots (for those few seconds)

Want to keep current with handflying then find a piper cub and a windy day!!

[Aviophage]

DFC, if you rarely hand fly, then you'll get the shock of your life when your entire AFDS breaks!

[d105]

Thanks for the responses so far. As I expected the opinions vary, which is a good thing! However I'd like to emphasize using automatics does not guarantee more safety. As was recently shown by Turkish Airlines in Amsterdam. I also notice regional differences. Especially the English and German companies tend to be very AFDS/VNAV reliant, wheras my experiences in Belgian and Italian companies are completely to the contrary.

[CHfour]

DFC, if you rarely hand fly, then you'll get the shock of your life when your entire AFDS breaks!

Airlines adapt their recurrent training to cover the most likely scenarios in the limited time available in the sim. The reason we don't do much raw data is probably due to the reliability of modern flight directors and autopilots. I've only ever had to operate 2 sectors on the 737 without the AP and we still had the FD and AT. I'm not suggesting that hand flying skills are no longer important but you're kidding yourself if you think that hand flying enhances safety because the opposite is true. Hand flying seriously degrades flight safety however proficient you are and that is why it's not encouraged. Many years ago I used to fly 6 sector night mails in the Saab 340 and always flew raw data and thoroughly enjoyed it but times are different now.

[0-8]

I rarely use autopilot/autothrottle below 10,000' unless I have high workloadReally? At what stage after take off do you disconnect the autothrust then?

A lot of people on here said that a majority of commercial pilots would have been able to land on the Hudson back in January 2009. I very much doubt that. They would have engaged the autopilot and flew the entire descent down automatically. No they wouldn't, if you had as much Airbus experience as you claim then you would know why...

[Capn Bloggs]

Want to keep current with handflying then find a piper cub and a windy day!!
That attitude is killing RPT jet pax in increasing numbers. :=

[411A]

What is your perception on manual flight and what are the rules in your company?


Quite simple.
Manual flying with/without the flight director/autothrust is completely at the descretion of the flying pilot, regardless of weather and destination, with the exception of CAT II/III.

IE: if pilots can't fly the airplane, they don't get hired.
Period.

Hand flying seriously degrades flight safety however proficient you are and that is why it's not encouraged.
Absolute nonsense.:rolleyes:

[Loose rivets]

Hand flying seriously degrades flight safety however proficient you are and that is why it's not encouraged.

Well, if this were true, it would be the definitive argument for the removal of humans from the flight deck.

[mrdeux]

.... if you rarely hand fly, then you'll get the shock of your life when your entire AFDS breaks!I wonder. I rarely do much hand flying, occasionally going until it's clean after take off (and then only in daylight and VMC). At night I can't recall the last time I disconnected before 1000'. That didn't seem to affect things when we recently had the aircraft drop back to alternate law, without any AP or FD. Although we were bit sick of it after 5 hours. And it never seems to be an issue in the sim.

Curiously, the pilots I've flown with who are most keen to do things manually, have the least awareness of what is happening around them, often pretty poor ability to fly the a/c via the automatics, and most curiously of all, the worst manual flying skills.

As for the reliability of the aids. I've seen a couple of autopilots fail on Boeings, but in every case, another was able to be engaged. Autothrottles die every now and then. I've never seen the F/D fail in 16,000 hours of flying Boeing, but it only took about 300 to see it happen on an Airbus.

[john_tullamarine]

Airlines adapt their recurrent training to cover the most likely scenarios in the limited time available in the sim.

Granted, but some of us don't necessarily concur with the assessments as done. Having said that, the statistics ought to cover the bulk of the work (and the Regulator has a significant say) with the caveat that some time should be available for crews to extend themselves and maintain/develop skills

I've only ever had to operate 2 sectors on the 737 without the AP and we still had the FD and AT.

If that's an acceptable argument, then why do we similarly "waste" time with training for engine failures, given that modern engines are very reliable as well ?

you're kidding yourself if you think that hand flying enhances safety because the opposite is true.

Perhaps you might cite some objective evidence to support such a wide-sweeping statement. Certainly, in some circumstances we would all acknowledge that it makes more sense to drive with the automatics on. However that doesn't cover all bases ....

[Denti]

One of the bigger german airlines, boeing fleet, the manual states

Continuous use of automatic systems leads to loss of basic knowledge of power settings/pitch attitudes and reduces the ability to fly accurately with a low workload. Pilots should therefore regularly fly the aircraft manually, with emphasis on manual departures/ approaches with and without the flight director.

Of course it has to be briefed and weather and traffic situation should be taken into consideration. However hand flying with or without flight director is pretty common, mostly during approaches and for some time after departure, a few elect to do it until cruising altitude. Of course learning and using all available AFDS modes is important as well, especially in a fleet with quite a few equipment differences (IAN, GLS, Fail Operational).

SIM training puts some emphasis on it as well with either visual circuits or raw data OEI in gusty conditions and wind at the crosswind limit as well as some raw data airwork.

[TyroPicard]

Aviophage, you say I rarely use autopilot/autothrottle below 10,000' and your experience is all Airbus FBW. Do you mean that after T/O you disengage A/THR and fly the departures using manual thrust? That sounds really interesting and I wonder what the advantages are from your perspective. More info please!

[latetonite]

It is probably easier to come up with a whole bunch of reasons why NOT to handfly, than to learn how to do it.

[cortilla]

Not sure if this is true or not, but no reason to doubt it.

I was told that SABENA used to have a policy that 1 in 4 sectors (on average) was to be completely hand flown. No autopilot, no authrottle, no flight directors. From take off to landing. Obviously didn't apply on long haul as that really isn't feasible.

Have to say the one ex sabenien that i had the pleasure of flying with was an excellent pilot both in manual and auto flight.

[despegue]

Well, at Sabena (and other Belgian airlines ), it was GOP (Good Operator Practice) to regulary handfly the complete climb/descend without the damn FD. It was done by everyone, from the first line-training sector.
The training filosophy was to first show/train to fly the aircraft raw-data in a smooth way up to SN standard, and then focus on the various tools that the aircraft has regarding autoflight/management. It proved very safe as there were no accidents since 1961, and still Belgian pilots are regarded as very proficient in general.:ok:
The Flight director is for me only a tool to see what the aircraft autopilot system wants to do, and if I do not agree, it is NOT followed. The flight-crew is still the boss, NOT THE COMPUTER.

Any airline that discourages manual flight is in my opinion a hazard to fly on. Any pilot not wanting to fly manually has no business in the cockpit. Mind you, this has to be compensated with adequate training. Flying manually is not just trying to keep altitude, speed and heading. It need to be done in a smooth way, and without losing your sit. awareness. All too often do I see collegues yanking the yoke like their life depends on it where a little pressure is sufficient...:rolleyes:

[Speedwinner]

Everybody can fly a raw data departure without FD and AP. Some guys just follow the magenta line. For me that´s laughable. So put the automatics on if you follow the magenta line. Raw data means to me: track the QDMs and radials. Fly as published and do not follow the box. Many collegues dont fly raw data on departure. Why? As preceeding replies say: the FD never failed in 16 years. Be professional.

Flying approaches is another thing. In scandinavia we have many airports which are calm and we can fly every approach we want. Last month i think i fly 2 FD approaches manual. All the other were rawdata out of 7000ft. I feel very good with my aircraft and i finally think its a personal thing. i have seen guys flying every approach with AP and FD down to 200ft at cavok. Every approach. that means in 4 days at least 9 sectors. and they feel good. i couldnt and wouldnt do it like that.

sometimes i have times where the landings get harder. dont know why. i have now more than 3000hours on the 737 and that really sucks;-) any experience on that?

[Monarch Man]

Everybody can fly a raw data departure without FD and AP. Some guys just follow the magenta line. For me that´s laughable. So put the automatics on if you follow the magenta line. Raw data means to me: track the QDMs and radials. Fly as published and do not follow the box.
May be so...but it has to be done at an appropriate stage. I'm sure you aren't advocating doing this launching into the London TMA?
Another thing to consider..whilst in the UK many SID's are promulgated on BRNAV (RNP5), increasingly, SID's and STAR's elsewhere are being redesigned to be flown as PRNAV departure and arrival's...hardly appropriate to flick the FD off and track a QDR me thinks.
The biggest problem in my view is the single lack of common sense when it comes to being able to fly visual arrivals or departures...IMHO a far more relevant use of basic flying skills, than say flying pitch and power based on a weight. I was certainly the most on the ball I ever was when I was charter flying down to the med with the bucket and spade operator, where we did a lot of visual approaches and departures.

[CHfour]

I've only ever had to operate 2 sectors on the 737 without the AP and we still had the FD and AT.

If that's an acceptable argument, then why do we similarly "waste" time with training for engine failures, given that modern engines are very reliable as well
Because its done in the sim not on the line with passengers in the back.


you're kidding yourself if you think that hand flying enhances safety because the opposite is true.

Perhaps you might cite some objective evidence to support such a wide-sweeping statement. Certainly, in some circumstances we would all acknowledge that it makes more sense to drive with the automatics on. However that doesn't cover all bases ....
From a CRM or threat and error management standpoint I find it hard to justify throwing away around half a pilot's worth of resources ( only an estimate IMHO) to better prepare oneself for an AP or FD failure. I did not imply that hand flying was unsafe and it might even be worth accepting a slight degradation of situational awareness by the crew to maintain handling skills. My view is that I can operate to the highest level of safety by making full use of the automatics and that is what the passengers have a right to expect.

[FatFlyer]

I would like to be better at manual flying and probably don't do enough, but departing london TMA with it's many level offs, heading and frequency changes on raw data might be bad "threat error management"
Those of us who are bus drivers, are really just setting an attitude which the computer holds anyway.
If you look at the failures on a bus that would lead to loss of A/P and F/D and require raw data flying (eg dual SFCC) most would not leave you in normal law,
so maybe we need to practice direct law flying as well.
If I am ever (un)fortunate enough to fly with A340 chap who never uses automatics below 10,000 and never touches speedbrakes due to perfect descent planning, I will offer to turn a couple of flight control computers off for him as well and prepare to be amazed at his skills.

[cosmo kramer]

0)
737 CL+NG

1)
Operator policy is max use of auto flight. However, allowing any level of automation for practice "during initial departure and approach" when consideration is given to workload and environmental conditions.

2)
I agree completely with my company manual, although my definition of when initial departure ends and when approach begins maybe a bit more stretched than intended. Also the manual doesn't say how often practice is necessary.

3)
Departure:
Normally I will fly with FD/AT on, AP off till clean, and if turning departure till first turn completed - ranging from 4000 - FL100 feet typically. If I am tired or in a busy place (and/or the other guy is tired or not up to par) I will turn the AP on in 1000 feet.

I happily fly raw data departures (A/T off as well) WHEN situation permitting. For me this means home base or non-busy environments + good wx till acceleration altitude, incase of engine failure. I often also choose depending if I find the departure interesting to hand fly (no point or fun in hand flying a straight RNAV departure). I continue to TOC or till I have had enough. I do this 3 or 4 times on average pr. month.

About raw data level off:
Yes, everyone need practice! That is if you want to do them nicely.
Nicely for me means: On speed, at 1500 before, start reduce to exactly 1000fpm, so that you hit 1000fpm at 1000 feet before exactly. Keep exactly 1000fpm till level off. Level off at exact altitude on exact speed.
Most that claim they can do this, but never practice will be all over the place with speed and v/s, and climb with 200fpm the last 500 feet because they are afraid they will overshoot.

This is a good coordination exercise and will help you "keep in touch" with the aircraft in my opinion.


Approach:
The same criteria as above. I happily fly raw data from TOD but most often passing FL200 - FL150. This happens 2 times pr. week on average. Raw data also means selecting VOR/ILS full rose, so there is no descend path to look after.

Rest of the approaches are with full auto till G/S capture normally. And some to 800-500 feet if I am tired or lazy.

All assuming fair weather of course, with cloudbase lower than 800-1000 feet (or higher if high terrain) I don't fly raw data.

Visual approaches and the occasional circling is done with as much help as possible, like programming nice tracks in the FMC and so on and flying with the autopilot until a stressless takeover can be made. Why make unnecessary stress, when you can really enjoy the odd visual approach with nice orientation from e.g. the path indicator (combined with the eyes of course). If you can't do without the toys, it's another matter thought.


Why raw data:
First, I don't want to become a button pusher that can't remember how to fly! Second, I enjoy it.

[Tee Emm]

while using slight rudder pressure to control roll,

Non-standard technique and even slight rudder pedal movements will cause uncomfortable skidding feeling to passengers at the rear and this may cause air-sickness.

[spin_doctor]

Well, if this were true, it would be the definitive argument for the removal of humans from the flight deck.

Autopilot does a pretty good job of flying the aircraft, but in my experience has proven to be pretty useless as deciding whether or not to divert, or where the best diversion airfield is. Also pretty crap at dealing with passengers, crew, ATC and dispatchers. Humans bring quite a lot to the role that computers are way, way off being able to handle. We'll be here for a while yet, even if the nature of the job changes.

I'm like to practice manual flying to keep my skills current, but I think there is a time and a place for it, and 'every departture/arrival below 10000' is a little too sweeping for me.

[misd-agin]

Tee emm - Oh, the world's about to come to an end.

Seriously, how much rudder pressure does a trimmed a/c need to maintain level flight? Fractions of a pound of pressure? :eek: Like the passengers are going to feel that. :ugh:

Hand flying at altitude? Yeah, I can feel that. Rudder needed to maintain wings level? Imperceptible.

[Aviophage]

Misd-agin, in the UK, we use metric. Stop living in the past with imperial measurements.

[Wazzoo]

Here in the UK we climb in feet, we fly nautical miles, we pressurise our hydraulics in PSI and we don't pick anal holes in peoples posts..grow up Aviophage, try and stick to the topic and quit trolling.

[Pugilistic Animus]

YouTube - BAC-111 Cockpit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVJNTO-Jrlc) :rolleyes:

although they painted that centerline wrong at the end:}:ouch:

just maintain trim for steady coordinated flight and make small correction to maintain flight path:)

[DFC]

departing london TMA with it's many level offs, heading and frequency changes on raw data might be bad "threat error management"



Indeed.

Seems that the post I made previously went over everyone's head.

What are the requirements for RVSM???????????

So it is impossible to hand fly from start to finish on most flights.

My point was that handing flying is great when the conditions are appropriate but all this talk of "I always hand-fly a complete sector every......" is happening when there is quiet traffic, relatively simple procedures and non RVSM etc which leaves most of the operators out.

There is a time and a place for hand-flying. However, the person responsible must do an informed assessment of the situation first.

[RAT 5]

Departures in manual flight at constant thrust are no big deal. If you're changing frequencies and chasing needles that's different, as it's lateral and the need to think ahead. In EFIS a/c, as someone said, following a magenta line is not really thinking ahead. However, visual approaches from anything upto 50nm out is a piloting pleasure, requires thinking ahead and not just following the VNAV diamond; even better turn it off. A manual visual low drag descending circuit with 180 direction change, or even 270 over the OM or the Rwy itself was SOP in needles & dials a/c in most of the charter destinations in the 80's & 90's. Somehow now, with more super-duper accurate TV presented MAP info some carriers discourage visual approaches and especially manual ones because crews mess them up and cause G/A's. What a statement about the qualities of todays pilots. Very sad. The most basic of avaiation manouevres is frowned upon. All that base training was for naught because they don't want you to do it with pax on board. It's too dangerous. The industry has progressed backwards. If you couldn't fly a competant visual approach at night on line in a B732 you didn't get command. Simple.

[Taltop]

Rat5 relaxe, today we are sitting on a A380 with the coffee infront on that small table 80% less workload, 100% more salary, cool:ok::ok::ok::ok:

[Centaurus]

I'm like to practice manual flying to keep my skills current, but I think there is a time and a place for it,

The 737 series all have a CWS autopilot mode. If people are a bit apprehensive of manual flying due rusty skills then simply leave the AP in CWS and hand fly through the autopilot. That way, you can whip into full automation mode quick as a flash, if you feel you can't hack it in CWS:ok:

[Centaurus]

Hand flying at altitude? Yeah, I can feel that
Is that with you flying - 0r the other bloke:D

[Rick777]

Interesting range of opinions here. I flew the A320 for 4 years and rarely hand flew. Maybe one approach a month because it was so easy. Also I flew mostly into crowded airports and hand flying puts a lot more work on the PM. I found it more of a challenge to use the automation until 200 feet or so for the landing. I then transitioned to the B727. Interesting but no problem with mostly hand flying and no auto throttles. I then went back the AB. Ah relief! Guess I am just lazy.

[Centaurus]

and hand flying puts a lot more work on the PM

Surely you jest. If you are on autopilot all he has to do is to look outside if a fine day or look at a few instruments if IMC. And I forgot - he usually talks on the radio when needed.

Copilots have done this for decades. And if you as captain choose to hand-fly the copilot's job doesn't change from above.

[Todders]

Very modern pilot there....

How's this for you what about when the Co-Pilot/FO is flying????
:rolleyes:

[Airbus Girl]

Why not have a balance? Automatics in, frees up capacity in busy airspace. If one pilot flying, one doing everything else, then who is monitoring? When its quiet and nice weather, great, brief the other pilot, disconnect everything and fly the thing manually all the way in. If it's quiet and the weather not so nice, the same can apply, provided, if it starts getting too busy/ not so comfortable you are happy to put the automatics back in.

That way, manual flight is practiced in the safest environment, so skills are not lost, yet when its busy you have both pilots monitoring by using the automatics as a 3rd pilot.

Best of both worlds, and surely we are paid for our decision making as much as our flying skills?

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi Airbus Girl,

I agree. I've noticed some pilots won't admit when the work load exceeds their spare capacity and treat re-engagement of the autopilot as a sign of defeat.

It's possibly a hang over from the old days when in the sim, it was a requirement to do everything (except the briefing) with the AP disengaged.

The B.M. accident at Kegworth highlighted the disadvantage of hand flying with a high work load which resulted in the wrong diagnosis of their problem.

[d105]

It's also interesting to see that skills which were once considered basics are now deemed as putting pressure on the PM. The argument that handflying causes the other pilot to be overloaded only stands when the pilots in question were trained with automatics only. Claiming that there's nobody left to "monitor" sounds odd to me. That shouldn't even be an issue, it should be considered as basic skill.

[DFC]

The argument that handflying causes the other pilot to be overloaded only stands when the pilots in question were trained with automatics only


I would not agree with that.

If you look at the average (good) multicrew SOPs and you will generally find that during manual flight the PF has hands on the controls and the PM;

tunes the radios, sets the mode selects, arms modes, does everything with the FMS, crosschecks the navigation, fills in the PLOG and handles the communication.

Hand flying is as easy as flying on autopilot especially in a long straight climb. In fact it is easier because the other guy is doing everything at that stage and one is simply making minor adjustments to a trimmed aircraft.

So it should be easy to see that when there are frequent frequency changes, route changes in the FMS, navaids to tune cleared levels to set, headings to set, speeds to set and so forth, the single pilot doing all that can get a bit overworked while his friend sits there leaning on the controls.

Anyone not think that in such a situation a more equal workload such as when the autopilot is engaged would be safer?

Finally, I again ask - does anyone remember the requirements for flying in RVSM airspace - I am directing this specifically at those that claim to regularly hand-fly the whole flight.

[Wazzoo]

So it should be easy to see that when there are frequent frequency changes, route changes in the FMS, navaids to tune cleared levels to set, headings to set, speeds to set and so forth, the single pilot doing all that can get a bit overworked while his friend sits there leaning on the controls.

Indeed, and it can be frustrating when they other guy decides to 'hand fly' a departure out of a busy TMA without so much of a 'by the way I'll be..' or 'just to let you know I'll be..' while you're left wondering when he plans to stick the autos in and you're left doing all the above as he lazily follows the magenta cross with the odd flick of the trim switch and the A/T in thinking that he's hand flying it.

I'm all up for keeping up manual flights skills, raw data descents and approaches and thoroughly enjoy taking the automatics out and having to exercise some grey matter but I'd have to agree with Airbus Girl on the balance of things.

[cosmo kramer]

DFC:
If you look at the average (good) multicrew SOPs and you will generally find that during manual flight the PF has hands on the controls and the PM;

tunes the radios, sets the mode selects, arms modes, does everything with the FMS, crosschecks the navigation, fills in the PLOG and handles the communication.
With the exception of underlined above, you will generally find that (good) multicrew SOPs require exactly the same of the PM when below FL100.

So if the PM (be it captain or F/O) is not able to turn a few knobs (probably only the altitude, since the PF is just following a magenta LNAV path as you say), I really would not like to be in the cockpit with him or her in an emergency!

[Pugilistic Animus]

Finally, I again ask - does anyone remember the requirements for flying in RVSM airspace

No handflying, no FD following...keep your brain in your butt at all times...:)

[Denti]

Finally, I again ask - does anyone remember the requirements for flying in RVSM airspace - I am directing this specifically at those that claim to regularly hand-fly the whole flight.

Since that seems to be a sore point for you, why don't you simply quote the relevant text of the regulatory authority for lets say europe.

[cribble]

Denti,
I very nearly couldn't be arsed, but.....

"...(e) An automatic altitude-control system should be operative and engaged during level cruise, except when circumstances such as the need to re-trim the aircraft or turbulence require disengagement.....'

from:
EUROCONTROL Navigation Domain - Pilots (http://www.ecacnav.com/content.asp?PageID=77)

Its pretty much the same in Pacific RVSM airspace too.

[DFC]

With the exception of underlined above, you will generally find that (good) multicrew SOPs require exactly the same of the PM when below FL100.




Cosmo,

Most places where I have worked reqire that the pilot monitoring is not distracted by unnecessary paperwork below FL100 aka plog and when the autopilot is engaged the PF does the short term fms inputs eg "direct to".

That uisually leaves communications and naviad crosseheck to the pilot monitoring. Quite a big difference in busy airspace.


However, the point I was making is that the PM does not simply sit there looking out the window as was previously claimed.

---------

cribble,

Thank you.

So who were all those people who hand fly from start to finish? :D

[Denti]

@cribble, "should" is only a recommendation, there is no requirement as long as you can keep your level within accepted deviations. The only cited accepted deviation is max 150 feet, CPL level flying is 50 ft and therefore well within limits.

[cosmo kramer]

DFC
...and when the autopilot is engaged the PF does the short term fms inputs eg "direct to".

Average (good) multicrew SOP does not advocate both pilots to be heads down below FL100. In Average (good) multicrew SOP FMC input are prohibited by the PF below FL100.

Most places where I have worked reqire that the pilot monitoring is not distracted by unnecessary paperwork below FL100
My point exactly. And if the PF chooses to hand fly to TOC why the rush to start making paperwork immediately passing FL100??
So that's one more point to cross of your list. Crosschecking navigation, is also always the PM responsibility, no matter if AP is engaged or not.

In effect the only thing PM has to do extra when PF is hand flying, is to is to put in directs in the FMC (always his job below FL100 anyway) and set the MCP.

And to be honest it's not that big a deal for the PF to e.g. turn the heading bug while PM set a radio freq. Keyword is cockpit communication - "I have set heading 250 for you", "ohh thanks, 250 is checked".
Oh shock and horror, I know I am not allowed. Or I'll even e.g. turn to the assigned heading even if the heading bug has not yet been set, and then wait for the PM to turn the bug.

It's even possible to do the raw data flying, communicate, set the heading bug and radio at the same time, while doing the navigation and paperwork all alone. I guess this is what every pilot started out doing. :ok:
Erosion of basic skills??

So the question remains WHAT is the big deal?

I agree that it is BS to hand fly in cruise. This is what the AP was invented for in the first place. So that both pilots could drink coffee and chat with the purser, go to the toilet etc.

And I also agree that there is a time and place for everything. But I already wrote that in my first post in this thread.

[DFC]

It's even possible to do the raw data flying, communicate, set the heading bug and radio at the same time, while doing the navigation and paperwork all alone. I guess this is what every pilot started out doing


Isn't that what trainers - sim and line spend far to much time knocking out of the new pilots straight out of flight school?


And to be honest it's not that big a deal for the PF to e.g. turn the heading bug while PM set a radio freq. Keyword is cockpit communication - "I have set heading 250 for you", "ohh thanks, 250 is checked".
Oh shock and horror, I know I am not allowed. Or I'll even e.g. turn to the assigned heading even if the heading bug has not yet been set, and then wait for the PM to turn the bug.



I am sure that lots of people (probably the majority) are able to do this. However, it flies in the face of so many reasons for having SOPs - cross checks, closed loops etc.

Or I'll even e.g. turn to the assigned heading even if the heading bug has not yet been set, and then wait for the PM to turn the bug.


Would you climb to the cleared level and wait for the asel to be set also? :}

Waiting for the PF turns to heading 230 and sits there and after doing some other task the PM sets FL230 in the asel window and direct ABC in the FMS. :eek:

What you are describing is no different from the PF who because the PM is busy with a frequency change reaches over and retracts the flap. The SOP crosschecks are there for a reason.

[shortfuel]

Studi, I couldn't say it better, +1 :ok:

In a highly automated aircraft, regular raw data flying should not be an option.
Unfortunately, some pilots think that manual flying is all about chasing FD bars with AP off :ugh:

It's very usual to be able to remember all flight/eng parameters and trends after a raw data approach, can we say the same after a fully automated approach with late AP disconnection?

It's not in my company culture to let pilots fly manually although there's still two lines in our OM-A that permit it...after a whole paragraph emphasizing the full use of automation.

As for time consuming PNF actions, there are none: I only ask three things over a 14 min period: to set RWY track as soon as I take over with the bird, manage my speed and later set G/A altitude.

What keeps amazing me is when cleared for approach in raw data, PNF tries to arm the approach (Airbus)...it says a lot :O


SF, raw data advocate.

[Airbus_a321]

@Rick777
I like your comment.
The airbus is build for us, for us old, lazy pilots and not for the young hotblooded youngsters, although I understand very well that the youngsters want to do something and so like handflying very much. - But those youngsters shouldn't fly on this "lazy pilots" aircraft, but on an DC9 maybe ;);).

I remember very well e.g. all the hands flying around in the cockpit to start and DC9 for example. And here MASTER SWITCH ON - that's it. I Love it.:ok:
You agree ?

[cosmo kramer]

DFC:
Would you climb to the cleared level and wait for the asel to be set also?
Off course not. I would set the altitude myself or wait those 10 seconds with the climb. I'm sure you are just asking this as a provocation and you would well know the answer to that question.

Waiting for the PF turns to heading 230 and sits there and after doing some other task the PM sets FL230 in the asel window and direct ABC in the FMS.
Or maybe the PF with AP engaged sets 180 in the speed window when told to turn south (done it myself a few times too, say on already on heading 220 with a speed of 220). Point being that false MCP selections can always be made, and thats why we are 2 to crosscheck it - with or without the AP engaged.

What you are describing is no different from the PF who because the PM is busy with a frequency change reaches over and retracts the flap. The SOP crosschecks are there for a reason.
Absolutely not. By communicating what I set, I give the PM the chance to correct me if I am wrong. And by starting a turn I also give him the chance to say, "hey it was 080 in a left turn not a right turn" or whatever (an error that could also be made if the PF was manipulating the HDG bug with AP engaged).
Changing a configuration with out communicating and agreement (aka the call for, and check/action by the PM) does not provide a chance for the other pilot to disagree.

It's all a matter of common sense.

[tom_ace]

The aircraft I fly day to day is by no means an airliner, but the autopilot usually is in by 1000' agl on departure and out at 1000' agl on final. How else can I read the paper?